M. Erickson on Christian Theology

Millard J Erickson. Christian Theology, 2^nd ed. Michigan: Baker Books, 1998. pp. 17-174.

Synopsis

What is Theology?

Initially, theology is the study or science of an active personal God who relates to mankind. Erickson’s definition of theology is: “that discipline which strives to give coherent statement of the doctrines of the Christian faith, based primarily on the Scriptures, placed in the context of culture in general, worded in a contemporary idiom, and related to issues of life”(23). Theology for him must be biblical, systematic, and contemporary, and must relate to the issues of general learning and culture. Systematic theology, as a study falls on doctrinal category, dealing basically on the concept of God. In relation to biblical theology, the raw materials are utilized by systematic theology. As to historical theology, it helps to “systematicians” to be more self-conscious and self-critical of their own presuppositions and learn how to do theology by studying their predecessors so as not repeat their mistakes. Likewise, systematic theology uses philosophical theology. Philosophy may supply content for theology, defend theology, and scrutinize theological concepts and arguments. Nonetheless, the primacy of the Bible over philosophy is still fundamental.

Erickson cited the need for theology to provide correct doctrinal beliefs that are essential to the relationship of God and believer, especially that truth and experience are related. Not only is that, the manifold and confusing alternatives that present times presented, right theology a must enterprise. He suggested that theology must start both from the Bible and the concept of God. It is because Christianity as a christo-centric movement follows Jesus who is basically revealed in the Gospels which happens to be the reliable source for historical information about his life and teaching; of which he also regards the Old Testament as an authentic source of revelation. Nonetheless, Erickson does not close other non-biblical resources such as nature and history.

Theology and Philosophy

Erickson cites types of relationships between theology and philosophy, namely: no relationship at all (Tertullian, Martin Luther), theology elucidated by philosophy (Augustine), theology as established by philosophy (Aquinas), theology judged by philosophy (Deism), and philosophy supplies content to theology (Hegel). As of the present, various philosophies existed like Pragmatism, Existentialism (with its four basic tenets: irrationalism, individuality, freedom and subjectivity), Analytical, Process, and Deconstruction Philosophy. To this, Erickson provides guidelines to theology’s use of philosophy: (1) revelation rather than philosophy will supply the content of theology; (2) philosophy should be thought of as an activity, philosophizing, rather than as a truth-body. Philosophy is not useless, however. It sharpens understanding of concepts; it digs out presuppositions behind a thought-system or idea; it traces out implications of ideas; and it requires test to truth-claims.

The Method of Theology

Within a given context, Erickson argues, doing theology takes place. In reality, the scene today shows the brief life-span of theologies. There is also a demise of great theologies due to clusterings of adherence to individual theologians. Today, there do not seem to be theological giants like in the first half of the 20^th century. Meanwhile, the increasing influence of behavioral science is also creeping in theology as manifested in liberation theologies. Ultimately, globalization is inevitable. With the rise of third world theologies, European and western theologies are not in control anymore. It does pave the way of an independent process of doing theology.

Erickson suggested several steps in the process of doing theology. Doing theology requires: first, is the collection of biblical materials, including the exegetical materials that are helpful in the process. The methodology in doing theology is also a part of this collection before inquiring broadly the concept to be discussed. Second is the unification of the biblical materials under the assumption that the material is not fragmentary as if Paul, Luke, and John have different doctrines. The material should be treated as a whole. Third is the analysis of the real meaning of biblical teachings. Fourth is the examination of historical treatments. This is where analysis of past methodology proves to be helpful of not or whether it requires modifications or a new one. Fifth is the consultation of other cultural perspective to avoid cultural prejudice and misunderstanding. Sixth is the identification of the permanent essence of the doctrine. Seventh is the illumination from extra biblical sources like nature, history, humanity or other disciplines. Eight is give contemporary expression of the doctrine similar to Tillich’s correlation between two poles: the authority (source: Bible) and situation (expression of the mindset of a given society). In this dialogical approach, the question influences only the form of the answer, not the content. There should be an effort to locate a model that makes the doctrine understandable in the existing context, in a sense, “decontextualizing” the 1^st century message into 20^th century context (“recontextualizing”). Ninth is the development of a central interpretive motif in approaching theology as a whole to provide unity to the system but with careful consideration of not forcing meaning (eisegesis) in the passage used. Hermeneutical (exegesis) accuracy is still a basic necessity so as not to distort the theology. Tenth is the stratification or outline of the topics and subtopics (major and minor). Of course, the degree of the weight of biblical statements or implications must be classified clearly. Direct statements are heavier than speculations.

Theology and Critical Study of the Bible

Modern age has brought humanity many questions on doctrines and religious institutions through critical studies. The Bible was not spared. The process of questioning began with the historical and textual criticism of the authors of the Bible. Through the 19^th to 20^th centuries higher criticism begun to develop. Erickson cited the three most influential types of criticism: form criticism, redaction criticism, and reader-response criticism. Form criticism and redaction criticism deals with the origin of the Bible and oral traditions. It is also focused on how oral traditions developed into the written and fixed form. Meanwhile, reader-response criticism is focused on the reader of the Bible and the response of the reader to the passage rather than on the meaning of the text. Each of these exegetical approaches has their own strength and weaknesses. They have contributed to the interest and scholarly treatment to the Bible. Nonetheless, these types of criticism, according to Erickson, are often grounded on natural presuppositions instead of supernatural ones. They can lead to a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the biblical message.

Thus, he provided some guidelines for evaluating critical criticisms: (1) be on guard against anti-supernatural assumptions. (2) Be careful of circular reasoning. Ex. Treatment of Sitz im Leben in relation to the origin of the stories of the Bible. (3) Be careful for unwarranted inferences. Similarity of thought does not necessarily mean same origin. (4) Be watchful of arbitrariness and subjectivity. (5) Be alert to the presence of assumptions concerning antithetical relationship between faith and reason. (6) Always remember that in all these matters, theologians-exegetes are dealing with probability rather than certainty. The cumulative conclusions founded on probabilities increases.

Contemporizing the Christian Message

The goal of contemporizing the gospel is to retain the content of the message and biblical doctrines while making the message understandable to the present time. This is so because there is a challenge of obsolescence of which Bultmann dealt much in demythologizing the Scripture from cosmological “primitive” views. Erickson cited on the locus of permanence in Christianity of which many theologians vary in their answers as to which is the abiding element of Christianity. Five permanent elements were suggested: (1) an institution, (2) acts of God as in the Christ-event, (3) experiences, (4) doctrines, and (5) way of life. Some of the criteria Erickson proposed in permanent doctrinal essence to be extracted are: (1) constancy across the cultures, (2) universal setting, (3) a recognized permanent factor as foundation, (4) a binding link with an experience essentially regarded, and (5) final position within progressive revelation.

Erickson highlighted two approaches to contemporizing theology. First are the transformers. Adherents of this approach usually call themselves as liberals, preferably modernists, seeing their roles as updaters of the old-time beliefs. They are not necessarily concern in maintaining the old beliefs held by the early church but that the truth is relative, of which man is the ultimate judge what is right or wrong. Prime examples are Death of God theology, J.A.T. Robinson, T.J.J. Altizer, W. Hamilton and P. Van Buren. The second approach is that of translators. One of their goals is to retain the essence of the message and put them into the language of the hearer. Translators attempt to speak what the Bible would say if it were written today. This is manifested in contemporary translations of the Scripture. Translators maintain that humanity is not the ultimate judge between right and wrong or the measure of truth. They distinguish the message from interpretations and traditions.

Theology and its Language

Theology has been accused of meaninglessness since most of its language transcends sensory and empirical language. It is unverifiable by cognitive observations. Some of the answers offered by other theologians argued on the personal aspect of theological language. Some attempt to use eschatological verifications. But Erickson maintains to reject narrow criterion of meaningfulness proposed by logical positivism. Knowledge can not be attained only by sense experience for there is such thing as special revelation of God. Meaning can be found in symbols as well as anything that goes beyond the symbols represents. He argues that while it is true that theological languages are empirically unverifiable, religious language can be cognitively meaningful through a wide synthetic system. It serves like a scientific hypothesis to evoke understanding and commitment.

Postmodernity and Theology

Modernism, the belief in the universe’ rationality, is the 20^th century’s hallmark. Somehow, there was a growing dissatisfaction with the modern view. As a result, postmodernism movement was born, affecting every aspect of intellectual literary, philosophical, and historical enterprise—even in theology. Theologically, the challenge of postmodernism is inevitable. Some of the tenets of postmodernism are compatible with and supportive of biblical theology while other parts are antichristian. Christian theology therefore is needs to utilize the former while rejecting the later.

Postmodern, however, is diversified. In theology, several types of postmodernism are classified. (1) Deconstructionist or eliminative postmodernism is focused on deconstructing the traditional concepts like God. (2) Constructionist or revisionary postmodernism. They believed that traditional worldview cannot be held but it must be constructed on different grounds and with revised concepts. (3) Liberationist postmodern theology upholds the transformation of the structures of the society rather than epistemological questions. (4) Conservative or restorative postmodern theology tends to reject modernism elements such as relativism, subjectivism, and reductionism. It accepts realism, correspondence of truth, referential understanding of language and other premodern values as well as modern discoveries. Since this form is not permanent, like others before, Erickson suggests that doing theology must not be too tied up with postmodernism but postmodern needs are to be responded considerably knowing that there are some positive contributions it brings. If deconstructionism is to e consistent, then it must be deconstructed also. Nonetheless, a clear distinction between truth and knowledge of truth must be clarified. Knowledge of truth may be relative, but truth is not. Therefore, humility and interaction with the community is important. Postmodernism is, after all, right. Lone scholars can never formulate truth in an independent fashion and monologue approach. Conveying the truth requires dialogue.

Question

What should be the proper attitude of theologians towards postmodernism? Why?