OCTOBER 31, 1517

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the
following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the
presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of
Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place.
Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and
debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite,
willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e.,
confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward
repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the
flesh.

4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self
continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until
our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties
other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by
that of the Canons.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has
been remitted by God and by assenting to God’s remission; though, to be
sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his
right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would
remain entirely unforgiven.

7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time,
humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the
priest. 8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and,
according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his
decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of
necessity.

10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the
case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory
is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops
slept.

12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but
before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already
dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.

14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love,
of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller
the love, the greater is the fear.

15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing
of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is
very near to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair,
almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.

17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow
less and love increase.

18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are
outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.

19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them,
are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite
certain of it.

20. Therefore by “full remission of all penalties” the pope means not
actually “of all,” but only of those imposed by himself.

21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that
by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;

22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according
to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life. 23. If it is
at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties
whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to
the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.

24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people
are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release
from penalty.

25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is
just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way,
within his own diocese or parish.

26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in
purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess),
but by way of intercession.

27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the
money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain
and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the
Church is in the power of God alone.

29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out
of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.

30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that
he has attained full remission.

31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man
who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.

32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who
believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of
pardon.

33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s
pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to
Him;

34. For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of
sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.

35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not
necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy
confessionalia.

36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of
penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the
blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God,
even without letters of pardon.

38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of
the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised,
for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.

39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one
and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and
[the need of] true contrition.

40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only
relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an
occasion [for hating them].

41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people
may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the
buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends
to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by
pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and
passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the
indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they
need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own
families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter
of free will, and not of commandment.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons,
needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the
money they bring.

49. Christians are to be taught that the pope’s pardons are useful, if
they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through
them they lose their fear of God.

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of
the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should
go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and
bones of his sheep.

51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope’s wish, as it
is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom
certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St.
Peter might have to be sold.

52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even
though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake
his soul upon it.

53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God
be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be
preached in others.

54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal
or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.

55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a
very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions
and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing,
should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a
hundred ceremonies.

56. The “treasures of the Church,” out of which the pope grants
indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of
Christ.

57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many
of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only
gather them.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without
the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross,
death, and hell for the outward man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the
Church’s poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his
own time.

60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by
Christ’s merit, are that treasure;

61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved
cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.

62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the
glory and the grace of God.

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first
to be last.

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most
acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they
formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.

66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish
for the riches of men.

67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the “greatest graces”
are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.

68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the
grace of God and the piety of the Cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of
apostolic pardons, with all reverence.

70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend
with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of
the commission of the pope.

71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be
anathema and accursed!

72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the
pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!

73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive
the injury of the traffic in pardons.

74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the
pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.

75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man
even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of
God–this is madness.

76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to
remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.

77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not
bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against
the pope.

78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope
at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers,
gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.

79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set
up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross
of Christ, is blasphemy.

80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be
spread among the people, will have an account to render. 81. This
unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for
learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or
even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.

82. To wit:–”Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of
holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he
redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money
with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just;
the latter is most trivial.”

83. Again:–”Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead
continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the
endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the
redeemed?”

84. Again:–”What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money
they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory
the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that
pious and beloved soul’s own need, free it for pure love’s sake?”

85. Again:–”Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact
and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of
indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?”

86. Again:–”Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than
the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with
his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?”

87. Again:–”What is it that the pope remits, and what participation
does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full
remission and participation?”

88. Again:–”What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the
pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow
on every believer these remissions and participations?”

89. “Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls
rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons
granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?”

90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force
alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the
Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make
Christians unhappy.

91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and
mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they
would not exist.

92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of
Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace!

93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ,
“Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!

94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following
Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many
tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

The Architecture of Theology

Theology is a vast and rigorous discipline. The historicity and complexity of Christian theology as a discipline is captured by J. I. Packer’s succinct statement:

For eighteen centuries Christian thinkers have pursued a discipline – variously called first principles (so Origen), wisdom (so Augustine), theology (so Thomas Aquinas), Christian philosophy and doctrine (so Calvin), dogmatics (so Reformational and Catholic teachers since the seventeenth century), and systematic theology (so American protestant teachers since the nineteenth century) – that seeks a full and integrated account of all Christian truth. Books developing this discipline have borne a variety of titles – enchiridion (handbook), ekdosis (exposition), sententiae (opinions), summa (full statements), commentarius (survey), loci communes (topics of shared concerns), institutio (basic instruction), medulla (marrow, as in bones), syntagma (arrangement), and synopsis (overview), among others – and have been put together in many different ways.1

To simplify such complexity, Alister McGrath pictures an “architecture of theology”, a basic taxonomy that gives a theological synopsis and structure to this demanding discipline. It encompasses a number of related fields, notably that of biblical theology, systematic theology, historical theology, pastoral theology and philosophical theology.2

Defining the Theological Task

The chief task of theology, Millard J. Erickson contends, is the exercise which “strives to give a coherent statement based on the doctrines of the Christian faith…based primarily upon the Scriptures, on the culture and rooted in the issues of life.”3 Important as this task is, we must bear in mind that it is not a restricted one. Everyone has a theology, whether they know it or not, and whether they can articulate it or not. We all have a particular view of God. In this broad sense, everyone is a theologian with a privileged responsibility of thinking deliberately about God.

Theology belongs to the people. It is therefore not to be confined to the distinguished halls of intellectual institutions, sprouting long incomprehensible theological jargons from dusty large books with incredibly small print. There is obviously a significant place for theological institutions in the life of the church but a wider engagement of theological reflection, outside the hallowed halls of academia, must be encouraged to take place.

At the heart of true theology is the essential and intimate knowledge of the Almighty God. “Theology” therefore is the devout contemplation of God, by the people of God, resulting in a growing understanding of God’s essential nature and will, through the revealed Word; so that lives are transformed through the practice and teaching of that which is learnt. Such theology, with a high view of God that is informed by the Scriptures, is not dry but dynamic!

In the light of this grand theological task for the people of God, I want to briefly examine how theology should be done. There are at least six fundamental necessities for doing theology well. This paper briefly examines these six basic building-blocks; namely, (1) the necessity of theological vision, (2) the necessity of theological foundation, (3) the necessity of theological contemplation, (4) the necessity of theological pedagogy, (5) the necessity of theological holism and (6) the necessity of theological humility.

The Necessity of Theological Vision

The church faces a serious theological crisis. The ideological virus of postmodern humanism has been so entrenched in our ‘Christian’ mindsets that our ability to think deeply about the things of God has been entirely compromised, often without our realizing it. Herein lays the severity of the problem. We are unaware of the compromised extent to which our thinking has been shaped by a secular mindset. We accept as a norm the profound lack of willingness, or ability, to think deeply and consistently about truth. We are lulled into a passive mode of thinking which militates against vital theological reflection. Instead of countering the fallacy of secular philosophy with rich biblical and theological truths, and a deep life congruent with those truths, we live in a generation where a sound theological foundation is ignored; or worse, even snubbed upon.

Unexamined assumptions thus shape the intellectual contours of a lazy generation, tainting the moral and spiritual landscape of the soul. As such, one of the distinct weaknesses of the modern church is that of having zeal without knowledge. We end up with a superficial faith without a deep theological foundation. Indeed, as it has been popularly said, thinking without roots will result in flower but no fruit. In the contemporary revolution of ideas, what engages the Christian mind is no longer “what’s true” but rather “what works”. Truth has often been sacrificed upon the altar of pragmatism. Of course, pragmatism has its value. But when “what works” supersedes “what’s true”, we engage life with a severe short-sightedness that will sabotage both a deep soul and a lasting spiritual legacy. For at the root of this critical problem is the  emergent crisis of theological rootlessness in both our way of thinking and our basic orientation to life.

What the church needs today is theological vision. We must once again return to the cultivation of a right and high view of God. It is the ability to intelligently and meaningfully examine the condition of life and its presuppositions of thought in the light of who God is as revealed in the Scriptures. In Lints’ definition,

To frame a theological vision is simply to attempt to capture in a careful and deliberate manner this ‘way of thinking’ about God, the world, and ourselves. A theological vision seeks to capture the entire counsel of God as revealed in the Scriptures and to communicate it in a conceptuality that is native to the theologian’s own age.4

The church needs to think aright about God. This necessity is a critical one. A. W. Tozer, on reflecting on the attributes of God, most rightly concluded:

What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us . . . The history of mankind will probably show that no people has ever risen above its religion, and man’s spiritual history will positively demonstrate that no religion has ever been greater than its idea of God.5

Life without God is surely a contradiction of terms. Indeed, we need to think aright about God. As the book of Ecclesiastes reminds us, life without God is spiritually barren, philosophically sterile, existentially meaningless and thus ultimately futile. Right theology is certainly positive and life-giving. It affirms humanity’s destiny, addressing at its most fundamental level the theological agenda of who we are, and how we ought to live, in the light of who God is. The church needs such a theocentricity that is largely missing in our contemporary culture.

The Necessity of Theological Foundation

The very idea of the thinkability of God is both a grand and profound one. How can one possibly conceive God? How can that which is finitely finite understand the One who is infinitely infinite? The divine God is totally and eternally beyond human comprehension. To comprehend God would be exceedingly more confounding than for a toddler to understand a post-graduate philosophical discussion of Nietzsche’s impact upon the critical theories of deconstructionism and post-structuralism. It is like trying to describe three-dimensional realities to someone else if both were to have lived all their lives in a two-dimensional world.

Divine revelation is therefore the key to theology. It is centered upon the very idea of the self-disclosure of God. Thus, neither reason nor tradition nor experience is an adequate foundation for thinking aright about God; for unless God reveals himself, our human faculties fail us most miserably. The canonical Scriptures, the agent of divine revelation, are the true and God-appointed foundation for faith and theological reflection. Indeed, the most important world we live in is the unseen world, and the most precious commodity in the unseen world is truth; and this truth is founded upon the Word of God.

Yet, although sola scriptura was one of the great resounding battle-cries of the Reformation, some theologians today have misguidedly questioned the high place assigned to revelation.6 It is thus fundamental to affirm that revelation is “the primary source of theology, and is also a basic category in theological thinking.”7 The importance of biblical authority lies in the evangelical premise that “the doctrine of the Bible controls all other doctrines of the Christian faith.”8 It is most important that we get our theology right and that our theology be informed by the Scriptures, the Word of God.

Submission to the Scriptures is foundational to doing theology well. In reflecting on the epistemological issues which underlie biblical hermeneutics, Pratt reviews both subjectivism, expressed in much liberation and feminist hermeneutics (“bringing the text to our level”), and objectivism, expressed in much of most evangelical hermeneutics (“raising our understanding to the level of the Scriptures itself”); and calls for an authority-dialogue model which “keeps the Bible supreme and the reader a servant of the text.”9 Because theology is essentially centered upon God’s self-disclosure, it is obvious that the basis for doing theology should be the Scriptures.

Even so, important as the Scriptures are to doing theology well, it is not given by God to be an end in itself but for the basic purpose of revealing Jesus Christ (John 5:39; cf. Psa 40:7). One of the most remarkable tenets of Christianity is the fact that we can meaningfully think about God, not just because he has revealed his truth to us, but because he has revealed Himself to us in Christ. As far as God is concerned, ultimate truth is not merely Proposition-bound but Person-bound. Christ is the absolute anchor to doing theology well.

Hence, a strong theological foundation, both in the written Word (the Bible) and the living Word (Jesus Christ, the logos of God in John’s Prologue) must fundamentally inform and inspire our theologizing.

The Necessity of Theological Contemplation

Our generation of Christians however is largely tutored in theological content, if they are tutored at all, rather than in the art of theological contemplation. The aim of theological contemplation is not merely to help us think more deeply about God, or to think more intelligently about God, or to think more clearly about God. Rather, the aim of theological contemplation is to help us think more godly about God. That which informs the mind must also inspire the heart.

We can neither overlook nor dismiss the fact that in our milieu the theological pedagogy continues in much the same old fashion. We are still tutored by the lectio, the quaestio, and the disputatio in dogmatic theology. The doctrine of the historic Christian faith is first set forth, then defended on the basis of Scripture and the tradition of Christian thought, and then we move into theological speculations and inquiries.10

Theological content aims at imparting information about God, telling us what we should believe about him. Important as theological information might be, it is grossly inadequate to establish a vital spirituality. For at the heart of theology is thinking godly about God. To many, God is regarded as irrelevant except for emergencies only. People approach God as a “quick fix” to their problems. Many in the church have drifted from sound theological moorings, searching frantically for a quick fix to their problems. The contemporary malaise of irreverence towards God stems from the worldview that God is irrelevant to practical living. Theology thus becomes the Cinderella of the church, unwooed and unsought. At the heart of such shallowness in theological thinking is the fallacy of the truncated Gospel and the domestication of God in postmodern culture. We must return to strong theological roots for practical Christian discipleship. We have a God who is immensely relevant to every facet of life. Let us engage life theologically.

There are at least three fundamental questions to guide us in such contemplation: (1) what is the essential nature of God and his kingdom? (2) what is the fundamental purpose of God in the light of his essential nature? And (3) what are the unchanging principles by which God deals with humankind, in view of his essential Being and his essential purpose? Such theological contemplation probes the emerging realities of life in view of the sovereignty of God, which must be once again declared over human affairs and destinies.

The Necessity of Theological Pedagogy

Theology must be pedagogical. There is a vital element of teaching the truth, not just of acquiring it. To do so, we must rise above theological ambiguities. Granted that every discipline has its distinctively technical terms, there are ways of communicating the same ideas that would either unfold its meaning or confound it. I have read theological writings that are lucid and compelling (even though technical theological jargon is employed). However, I have also read some that are utterly confounding, not because the ideas are difficult to understand but precisely because the pedagogy of theology is ignored; and the author is in fact a rather poor communicator, untutored in pedagogical principles, who has confused the incoherent profusion of words for the intellectual profundity of ideas. In the twenty-first century, even homiletics has progressed to help preachers move from archaic expressions of words to connect with the contemporary audience. Why would not more theologians pay attention to the application and communication of truth rather than merely the acquisition of it (cf. Ezra 7:10)?

A worthy consideration in contemporary theological pedagogy is the narrative as a fresh conduit of truth. The story, along with the principles gleaned from the plot, becomes the central motif for theological reflection. In discussing narrative as a forum and motif of doing theology, Lints reminds us that the Bible is not “given at one time, nor in the form of a theological dictionary. . .It is a book full of dramatic interest and comes complete with major and minor plots.” (1993:274). Indeed, the Scriptures weave a narrative of God’s unfailing faithfulness and tutor our faith in him.

Consider the narrative as an essential part of theological pedagogy. The way the Jewish culture teaches about God, as opposed to the Western propositional approach, is instructive. Within the conservative Jewish culture, at least two things deserve our immediate attention. First, God was not just taught in theological schools but more significantly, in the homes. Fathers are to be the theological educators in the family! When Christian fathers abdicate this God-given responsibility, we find a generation that is biblically illiterate and theologically impoverished. The church (and theological institutions) ought to complement the home (and equip the fathers!) but the foundation of theological education rests in the home (Deut 4:9-10; cf. 32:7).

The second thing that calls for immediate attention is that within the home, theology was not taught in the Jewish family by way of propositional truth. The father did not say, “Son, let me tell you, God is good. And son, remember, God is great…” No, he tells a story! The father would narrate the accounts of Noah and the ark, Abraham and his exploits of faith, Moses and the mighty deliverance from Egypt etc. Through these great biblical narratives, their concept of God is shaped. And the wise, godly father would speak with such holy awe that it wasn’t merely the narrative plot that gripped the imagination of the child, it was the sense of the father’s reverence for God that is communicated to his children as a profound theological legacy.

Such “narrative” theology must nonetheless be applied to life and not remain merely a good story irrelevant to life. Goldberg highlights that there are three critical issues that any narrative theology must face: (1) the question of Truth – the relationship between story and experience; (2) the question of Meaning – the hermeneutic involved for understanding stories aright; and (3) the question of Rationality – the charge of moral relativism.11 Might I add a fourth: the question of Application; for it is in the application of the narrative that the greatest hermeneutical challenge lies. It is in the application that the elements of truth, meaning and rationality are caused to bear upon the circumstance or condition of life.

The Necessity of Theological Holism

Theological holism is integrating truth with life. Adapting the thought from Cole’s article on holistic spirituality in the Reformed Theological Review,12 it may be proposed that there are four basic building blocks to holistic theological integration: (1) Orthodoxy. There is a need for right doctrines of truth; (2) Orthopraxy. There is a need for right practice as a responsibility towards truth; (3) Orthokardia There is a need for right response of the heart in truth; and (4) Orthokoinonia There is a need for the right community for truth.

Obviously, theology is more than just orthodoxy, it also involves right practice (orthopraxis). In the Scriptures, right practice is both the desired outcome as well as the imperative for right doctrine (e.g. Romans 1-11 doctrine, 12-16 practice; or Ephesians 1-3 doctrine, 4-6 practice). Moreover, the aim of orthopraxis is more than just applying the truth; rather it is applying for a redemptive and transformational purpose. As Lamb puts it, orthopraxis

. . . aims at transforming human history, redeeming it through a knowledge born of subject empowering, life-giving love, which heals the biases needlessly victimizing millions of our brothers and sisters. Vox victimarum vox Dei. The cries of the victims are the voice of God. To the extent that those cries are not heard above the din of our political, cultural, economic, social, and ecclesial celebrations or bickerings, we have already begun a descent into hell. (1982:22f.)

In doing theology, the importance of community must not be overlooked. A right community (orthokoinonia) is needed for a dynamic transformational orthopraxis. For truth, and the application of it, is best done in the context of interpersonal relationships. In any theological discussion of truth, for example, due consideration might be given to earlier reflections, such as the Pennabergian, Barthian and Hegelian worldview pertinent to the rhetoric of truth, and of Niebuhr’s postulation of truth and culture. Nonetheless, I would like to contribute to this discussion a most simple observation: Truth is best communicated in the realm of interpersonal relationships.

It comes as no surprise therefore that “some of the most effective learning in systematic theology courses in colleges and seminaries often occurs outside the classroom in informal conversations among students who are attempting to understand Bible doctrines for themselves.”13 A faith community of collaborative theological learners is formed. In such a community, there is a vital non-formal aspect to theological education. There is thus a need to engage theology not just by way of individual contemplations of truth but more importantly, in a faith community of collaborative theological learning. This is how theology is best done!

The Necessity of Theological Humility

Knowledge puffs up (1 Cor 8:1) but theology that is done well humbles. For at the heart of theological education is not to exchange an empty mind for a full one, but rather to exchange an empty mind for an open yet discerning mind. And a mind that is discerningly open and openly discerning understands and appreciates the richness and depth of theological contemplation, such that it is genuinely humbled by the finiteness of the human mind to grasp and comprehend an infinite God.

The aim of theology, as Wells alluded to, is not to “master” the subject of God by the formulation of theological knowledge but rather to come to both the realization and appreciation of its utter inexhaustibility. For God, unlike the periodical table, cannot be quantified and analyzed.14 Such true and inexhaustible theology humbles us. A discerning perception of theology is the understanding that it is always an unfinished task. As Barr points out, “Cross-cultural theological discussion exposes the limits of every theological view and reminds those engaged in such discussion that theology is never, at least in this life, finished.”15

Another aspect of the humbling is that we need each other. No man is an island in the construction of informed theological thought and convictions. D.A. Carson, commenting on the integratedness of theological paradigms, compared the systematic theologian with a juggler, keeping many intellectual balls up in the air:

Unlike balls whirling through the air by the juggler’s skill, the various ingredients that constitute systematic theology are not independent. Drop a ball and the other balls are unaffected; drop, say historical theology and not only does the entire discipline of systematic theology change its shape, but the other ingredients are adversely affected. Without historical theology for instance, exegesis is likely to degenerate into arcane, atomistic debates far too tightly tethered to the twentieth century.16

As such, there is a place for humility to learn from the past as we theologize in the present for the future. The one who misguidedly spurns a theological tradition, rather than taps from it, misses doing theology well. As Cole puts it, “Theological thinking is also historical thinking. The theologian has behind him or her the great stream of Christian thought. To ignore the past would be an immense folly.”17 This thought is likewise affirmed by Spykman who declared that “tradition is the very lifeblood of theology… No healthy theology ever arises de novo. By honoring sound tradition, theological continuity with the past is assured.”18 The link with our theological roots and the ability to hear one another is a mark of theological humility.

Conclusion

To become a Christian is not to engage in intellectual suicide. On the contrary, it calls for clear thinking that stems from loving God with all that we are, including a love that is sustained and nourished by right thinking. As Wolfhart Pannenberg has aptly commented: “Argumentation and the operation of the Holy Spirit are not in competition with each other. In trusting in the Holy Spirit Paul in no way spared himself thinking or arguing.”19 There is no place for anti-intellectualism in Christianity. The greatest need of this generation is the intentional development of biblically grounded, theologically sound and spiritually vital disciples of Christ.

As such, theological leadership is vital to the health of the contemporary church. We must do what we can to strengthen the cord. Our purpose and priorities must be clear. The pulpits of local churches must make a radical shift from exhortation or worse, mere entertainment, to sound exegesis and biblical exposition. The rise of biblical illiteracy must be addressed. Sound theological thinking must be returned to the people of God. And such theology should be done contritely, conscientiously and corporately. We are grateful that we have the God-given faculty to think about God meaningfully because the Almighty has chosen to reveal himself to us and to call us into a living relationship with him. Thus, we must go beyond a mere attempt to do theology as merely an intellectual exercise; but rather to integrate it into the whole of life and faith.

We increasingly realize our inadequacy in such a profound intellectual, spiritual and communal exercise. Yet the wonderful privilege and the critical responsibility of doing theology today invite us to such a glorious undertaking. For theology done well is both the act and foundation for the true worship of God, who alone is the adored and inexhaustible subject of all our finest but finite attempts at theologizing. And in the final analysis, this is how theology should essentially be done. For the true worship of the Almighty God, who has revealed himself through the Scriptures and in Christ, is the distinguishing mark of doing theology well.

1 Packer, J. I. Is Systematic Theology a Mirage? An Introductory Discussion, p. 17.

2 McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction, p. 119-123.

3 Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 1986, p.21.

4 Lints, Richard. 1993. The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology, p. 8-9.

5 Tozer, A. W. 1965. The Knowledge of the Holy, p. 9.

6 Cf. F. Gerald Downing’s Has Christianity a Revelation?

7 Macquarrie, John. Principles of Christian Theology, p.6

8 Henry, Carl F. H. 1964. Frontiers in Modern Theology, p.138.

9 Pratt, Richard J. He Gave Us Stories, p. 33.

10 Vidales, Raul. Methodical Issues in Liberation Theology, p.35.

11 Goldberg, Michael. 1982. Theology and Narrative. Nashville: Abingdon, p. 192.

12 Cole, Graham A. At the Heart of a Christian Spirituality, p. 49-61.

13 Grudem, Wayne. 1994. Systematic Theology, p. 35.

14 Wells, David. The Theologian’s Craft, p. 171.

15 Barr, William R. Re-forming Theology in the Global Conversation, p.8.

16 Carson, D. A. The Role of Exegesis in Systematic Theology, p. 39.

17 Cole, Graham A. Thinking Theologically, p.52.

18 Spykman, Gordon J., Reformational Theology: Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics, p.5.

19 Pannenberg, Wolfhart. 1971. Basic Questions in Theology, Vol. II, p. 35.

Bibliography

Barr, William R. 1997. “Re-forming Theology in the Global Conversation” In

Constructive Christian Theology in the Worldwide Church. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans.

Carson, D. A. 1994. “The Role of Exegesis in Systematic Theology” In Doing Theology

in Today’s World, John D. Woodbridge and Thomas Edward McComiskey.

Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Cole, Graham. 1989. “Thinking Theologically.” The Reformed Theological Review. Vol.

48, No. 2

_________ 1993. “At the Heart of a Christian Spirituality.” The Reformed Theological

Review. Vol. 52, No. 2

Erickson, Millard J. 1986. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Goldberg, Michael. 1982. Theology and Narrative. Nashville: Abingdon.

Grudem, Wayne. 1994. Systematic Theology. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.

Henry, Carl F. H. 1964. Frontiers in Modern Theology. Chicago, IL: Moody Press.

Lamb, Matthew L. 1982. Solidarity with Victims: Toward a Theology of Social

Transformation. New York: Crossroad.

Lints, Richard. 1993. The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology.

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Macquarrie, John. 1966. Principles of Christian Theology. New York: Charles Scribner’s

Sons.

McGrath, Alister E. 1994. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Publishers.

Packer, J. I. 1994. “Is Systematic Theology a Mirage?: An Introductory Discussion.” In

Doing Theology in Today’s World, John D. Woodbridge and Thomas Edward

McComiskey. Grand rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. 1971. Basic Questions in Theology, Vol. II. London: SCM Press.

Pratt, Richard J. 1990. He Gave Us Stories: The Bible Student’s Guide To Interpreting

Old Testament Narratives. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing.

Spykman, Gordon J., 1992. Reformational Theology: Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics.

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Tozer, A. W. 1965. The Knowledge of the Holy. London: James Clarke.

Vidales, Raul. 1979. “Methodological Issues in Liberation Theology” In Frontiers of

Theology in Latin America. Rosino Gibellini, ed. Maryknoll: Orbis.

Wells, David. 1991. “The Theologian’s Craft” In Doing Theology in Today’s World, John

D. Woodbridge and Thomas Edward McComiskey. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan.

This article can be found in the Common Ground Journal.

© Copyright 2006. Common Ground Journal. All rights reserved.
ISSN: 1547-9129. www.commongroundjournal.org

http://www.faith.edu/seminary/faithpulpit.php?article=./faithpulpit/2001_03

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2009/julaug/platformagnostic.html