Your Systematic Theology is Showing

photo credit: hillary the mammal via photopin cc

Math is a remarkable gift from God. Prior to adulthood I thought of it as some combination of befuddling, boring, and cumbersome ? at best a necessary evil. I?ve come to recognize its significance, though, as a set of organizing principles for the entire universe. Math helps the limited human mind make sense of the created expanse, or at least some of it. It divides and combines and sorts the world while allowing for logic and predictive abilities.

In spite of all that, only a certain kind of mind really sees beauty in math. It is necessary, imminently useful, and occasionally almost interesting. But not beautiful to most.

Mammals have skeletons to give us strength and shape. Without them we would be immobile, gelatinous lumps of flexing, twitching, grunting goo. Skeletons are crucial to the human body, the human existence. But when we look at another person we don?t think ?Whoa, nice bone structure! She must drink her milk.? It is the rest of the human figure that attracts us ? the symmetrical features and curves and smiles and hair color. We find beauty in the sense of humor, the personality, and the wit. We would recognize none of this without a skeleton to hold it all up, but it isn?t the skeleton we find lovely.

Systematic Theology is math, a skeleton. It is a system of organizing thoughts so that finite minds can begin to understand an infinite God (in a distinctly western way, mind you). Systematic theology is a support system for the reality of relationship with God. Too often, though, it is put forth as the face of faith instead of being the framework of it. All the ?ologies? (soteriology, eschatology, pneumatology, Christology, etc.) you know are not your relationship with God. They are not the true story of God. They support those things for you. They need muscles and veins and organs and skin to make them alive, to adorn them in beauty.

For many people, yea most people, systematic theology is not any more beautiful than algebra. It is intimidating or cumbersome or boring or argumentative. It can even be a deterrent from connecting with God when misused. ?Misused? in this instance means thrust in people?s faces, worn as a badge of honor, broadcast as the defining characteristic of faith. People don?t need a systematic, organized understanding of God to be saved. They don?t need to have their beliefs divided and subdivided. They need a relationship, a deep, personal, intimate relationship.

Systematic theology can be present and right in a person?s life without ever being noticed or labeled as such. People can have it and use it and not know it just like they do with numerous math principles every day; just like they depend on their bone structure. And that?s ok. They don?t need the theological labels and all their associated camps any more than we need to begin dividing up people based on the length of their femurs or ability to determine the area of an equilateral triangle.

None of this is to undermine the value of accurate and rigorous theology. It is to put said theology in its proper place: foundation and underpinning, organization and understanding. It would be better if our systematic theology served its purpose and showed up less.

photo credit:?hillary the mammal?via?photopin?cc?

Comments

  1. David C says

    Would you say it’s accurate to believe that systematic theology cannot be done properly on its own, but is rather the outcome of proper historical and biblical theology? What we learned in our text books in college and seminary concerning systematic theology seem to be merely the authors’ conclusions based off of what they’ve gleaned from doing their biblical and historical theology. I like systematic theology, but I do believe it has it’s limitations. I may be one of those people who put it in the camp of “argumentative theology” but really only because I’ve been around too many people who are sloppy with their systematics because they’ve never really done much biblical or historical theology. They just fight for whatever their sources have said. To me, if you do systematic theology without doing biblical or historical theology, you are a lazy theologian. To me, systematic theology is the PRODUCT of what you’ve gained through the other types of studies. Kind of like writing a topical sermon – they are great and really provide a lot of practical edification, but can only be done well if you’ve properly/contextually studied and reaped insight from the various passages you’ve referenced to make sure those passages are actually addressing your topic the way you say they are. I find that people can prove ANYTHING using systematic theology if they just ignore the literary context, the broader story of Scripture and the referenced passage’s place in it, and the historical context. Thus, systematic theology for many can be just a lazy way of sounding educated. Rather, it is more a product of all the other studies one has done. What do you think?

  2. Brian Roden says

    The area of a triangle is 1/2 base X height — isosceles, equilateral, right, or any other kind. And the sum of the angles is 180 degrees. (Yes, I minored in math in undergrad. Now pursuing an MA in theology. Does help me be precise in my writing.)

Trackbacks

  1. […] Barnabas Piper. Your Systematic Theology is Showing. (Blazing Center) Piper compares Systematic Theology to math and supplies observations on why we should embrace Systematic Theology, while in a discreet manner. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>