Help, Mom! There Are Calvinists under My Bed! Some Ideas for a New Book

Have you seen the new book published by Cross Books (apparently a division of LifeWay) entitled Help, Mom! There Are Arminians under My Bed!? I haven’t read it; I’ve just seen the “cover.” (I put cover in scare quotes because it is apparently only available in e-form. Can you really call a digital image a “cover?”)

So here are some of my suggestions of what a book entitled Help, Mom! There are Calvinists under My Bed! might include:

Mom (if she’s also a Calvinist) to frightened son: “Don’t worry honey, they can’t hurt you. Whatever they do to you is for the glory of God and therefore for your own good. Take it like a man, uh, I mean, like a true believer.”

Or,

Mom to frightened son: “Honey, just get down Against Calvinism and read it for a while; that will frighten them away. If it doesn’t, just throw it under the bed at them and they’ll disappear.”

Or,

Mom to frightened son: “Son, just quote John 3:16 repeatedly. At first they’ll mutter something about ‘world’ meaning ‘the elect,’ but eventually they’ll fade away.”

Or,

Mom to frightened son: “Sweetheart, whatever you do, don’t argue with them. Using reason on them just makes them more mysterious.”

Or,

Mom to frightened son: “Dear, here’s John Piper’s latest book. It was just published and I don’t think they have copies yet. Throw it out the window and they’ll leave your room and jump after it. Then close your window.”

Or,

Mom to frightened son: “Don’t be afraid son, they’re not monsters. They’re just confused souls who’ve lost their way. Just pray for them.”

Or,

Mom to frightened son: “I know, honey. Here are some tulips for your room. They like the smell of these and they’ll think you’re one of them if you keep these in your room. Then they’ll go bother someone else.”

Or,

Mom (if she’s a Southerner) to frightened son: “Sweetie pie, bless their little ol’ hearts, they mean well. Just lie there and listen to them. Maybe you’ll learn something from them. But be sure to test everything they say by Bible.”

Or,

Mom to frightened son: “Here, I’ll sit beside your bed and we’ll sing this song and hopefully it will either calm their troubled breasts or drive them away. Let’s sing ‘The Love of God’.”

 Games (Some) Theologians Play

            If you’ve been following my blog recently, you know that I defend the value and autonomy of theology as a definite discipline for the churches. In a nutshell, when theology (as I described it in my recent series What Is Theology and Who Does It?) is abandoned or neglected, the church gets sick (and by “church” here I mean to include both the church universal and the individual congregation). When it is doing its job rightly and when the church is listening appropriately, theology is the conscience of the faith community especially in matters of belief. It steers the church toward right belief and away from wrong belief. And without that contribution, the church tends to become overly accommodated to culture, losing its cutting edge, or separatistic and sectarian, losing its contemporary relevance.

            Having expounded and defended theology, however, I need to add that, unfortunately, many theologians have given theology a bad reputation. One way in which they have done that is by playing games with a serious subject. With these games they trivialize theology and suck its usefulness for Christians and the churches out of it.

            I’m fond of reminding you that I’ve been involved in theological pursuits for over thirty-one years. That’s not to boost my ego but to explain why I think I have a right to speak about such issues. I’ve been teaching theology full time in three Christian universities for thirty-one years and during that time I’ve edited a well-known Christian scholarly journal (supported by approximately fifty Christian universities), written sixteen books of theology, contributed chapters to numerous edited volumes of theology and written too many theological articles to remember. I’ve served as consulting and then contributing editor to Christianity Today for many years and the magazine has published many of my articles and book reviews. I’ve been in the middle of several theological debates and controversies in which careers were at stake. I’ve served as consultant to several Christian organizations and spoken and numerous Christian churches, colleges, universities and seminaries. Much of that activity has been within the evangelical “world,” but some of it has been in the so-called “mainstream” Protestant “world” as well. I’ve participated in several series of ecumenical dialogues both in Europe and the U.S. I’ve been interviewed on many Christian radio stations and podcasts. I’ve been featured in several Christian magazines—including one in the Netherlands. I’ve been mentioned in the New York Times Books Review magazine and in Stern—the German equivalent of Time. I’ve hobnobbed in various capacities with leading “world class” theologians including Hans Küng, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and Jürgen Moltmann. I served as president of the American Theological Society (Midwest Divison) and as co-chair of the Evangelical Theology Group of the American Academy of Religion.

            All that is simply to say I have a lot of experience in the theological “world.” Whether I’ve made my mark there is for others to say; all I’m saying is that I’m no novice in it.

            Unfortunately, I’ve witnessed a great deal of nonsense alongside a great deal of meaningful progress in theology.

            Theologians are human beings and therefore finite and fallen; they are not automatically saints or even ethical people. Often they play the same games other scholars and academics play and make the same mistakes others make. Too seldom does anyone call them on them.

            For all my love of theology, I must admit that some of its bad reputation is deserved insofar as theologians’ behavior is theology. I prefer to make a clear distinction between theology itself and the actual ways in which it is done by theologians. But I don’t expect everyone to recognize or acknowledge that distinction. Many people look at what theologians do and blame theology for that.

            So what are some of these “games theologians play” that bring disrepute on it?

            First, some theologians, like other scholars and academics, have enormous egos which show in one or both of two ways. Either they attempt to go “one up” over other theologians, considered their rivals, or they sniff around in other theologians’ writings until they find a flaw and then pounce on it and attempt to discredit them with them. All this is, either way, supposed to make them heroes. Fame and reputation are the goals. Theologians are no more gifted with intellectual humility than other scholars, unfortunately.

            Christian theology ought not to be done this way. It may be standard, expected behavior in the academic world, among other scholars, but it is a disservice to the kingdom of God and the churches. Theologians ought to collaborate, congratulate and congregate, not compete.

            Second, some theologians attempt to make names for themselves by being extreme in some way. It’s well known that books sell and followers flock when a theologian writes and speaks in strange “tongues”—proposing radical ideas previously unknown or at least undared (by Christians) and/or using shocking language. An obvious example, of course, is the 1960s “death of God” theology (so-called “Christian atheism”), but there are many other examples—both conservative and liberal. Especially since the 1960s theologians have competed with each other to shock audiences. A current example is the rise of “queer theology.” All one has to do is peruse the program book of the American Academy of Religion to see theologians and religion scholars attempting to outdo one another with shocking paper titles proposing theological ideas that would make the church fathers and reformers (to say nothing of the apostles!) spin in their graves.

            Third, especially among conservative theologians, some take on the mantle of “self-appointed Grand Inquisitor” and become heresy-hunters in order to get pats on the back and upwardly mobile careers. This is especially effective for them in certain neo-fundamentalist circles and institutions. One conservative evangelical theologian invented quotes and attributed them to rivals and theologians whose reputations and careers he wanted to damage. (I know this because I was one of his targets and he attributed a damaging quote to me in a press release when I never said that or anything like it. His intention clearly was to damage me and the institution where I taught and to boost his image among fellow neo-fundamentalists.) Another conservative theologian writes books and articles mainly about alleged heresies hidden in plain sight (according to him) in fellow conservative theologians’ books and articles. He has gained a reputation as especially “discerning” among constituents, raking in much support for his “ministries.”

            I have been in professional society meetings where theologians stood up during the Q & A time and attempted to humiliate presenters of papers or panel members by pointing out their alleged ignorance or lack of intellectual acumen. I have known theologians who set out to ruin rivals’ reputations with insults and innuendoes. One world renowned Protestant theologian told me to not write my dissertation on another theologian because “he stole his ideas” from him. I thought the evidence could just as easily point in the opposite direction! At one professional society meeting, during the reception following the presidential address, a well known Protestant theologian interrupted my conversation with a well known Catholic theologian and, to me, in front of him, berated him, using vulgar language. But more subtly, some theologians set out to undermine their imagined rivals in order to boost their own reputations. It’s well known that they often use their graduate students to wage theological war on their rivals.

            All that is to say that, in spite of its value to the churches, theology can be twisted and distorted by being practiced in harmful ways. Unfortunately, there’s no universal oversight agency to call theologians out on such behavior. (I mean “unfortunately” in a relative sense; in an absolute sense I wouldn’t want such a universal agency to exist. However, I think it would be good for the evangelical community to have something like an oversight panel made up of all kinds of evangelicals to call out theologians who behave badly.)

            In my three part series on “What Is Theology and Who Does It?” I described theology (as I mean it) as a “servant discipline.” There should be no room in Christian theology for massive egos that specialize in mastery over others. Many years ago, in some Christian circles, theologians published only with their initials—for this very reason. I am not advocating that, but it illustrates a sensitivity to the true purpose of theology—not personal reputation but servanthood.

            Theologians who are mainly concerned with making a name for themselves, iconoclasm, or heresy-hunting should be called out. I have done that in some cases, where I thought I could have some influence, by approaching them directly—via letters or e-mail messages. I’m advocating public shaming. Here I am suggesting that you, my readers, discern when a theologian is “playing games” such as I have described and avoid them. And suggest others avoid them. One way I have of doing that is by omitting their names from lists of recommended theologians—even if they are brilliant and  influential.

I’m a pretty “PC” (“politically correct”) guy most of the time. And I don’t mean that ironically–I really do think most of what is “PC” is right. But there are areas where I think our contemporary American perception of what is PC is off a bit. As anyone who has visited here often for a long time knows I happen to think the women’s movement has achieved great things for women and girls but that the time has come for society to pay more attention to boys and young men (and older men’s health). The pendulum has swung in some areas related to sex, gender and social change. In education and health especially girls and women have forged ahead so strongly in such a brief time that most Americans (especially in the media and in education and the health industries) have not caught up and show very little signs of caring for boys and men being left behind.

When was the last time you heard of a major “push” by educators or government officials to help boys and young men in education? And yet the drop out rate among males is much higher than among females. When was the last time you heard or saw a “walk” or “run” for an issue related to men’s health and well-being? When was the last time you saw a public service announcement (TV, billboard, print ad, whatever) about an issue related to boys or men (health, education, whatever)? When was the last time a law was passed named after a boy or man? Sure, I know these are symbolic, but they are symbolic of a general lack of interest in and concern for the well being of boys and young men and studies show that they are falling seriously behind girls and young women in social status, standard of living, progress in education, health and well-being, etc.

Just the other day I was driving in a major American city and saw a huge non-profit facility called “Girl Start.” I have nothing against that. But where is “Boy Start?”

Whenever I talk like this someone accuses me of “backlash” (against the women’s movement). Nonsense. I absolutely deny it. I am NOT arguing for LESS attention to girls and women; I am arguing for MORE attention to issues related to boys and young men–employment, education, health, mentoring, etc.

Recently a friend sent me this essay by a pastor–about these concerns but angled especially toward what churches can and should be doing for boys. I agree with the author:  http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-976165.

I teach a course about “liberation theologies” and my students will testify that I am sympathetic to most liberation theologies–at least to their goals and aspirations and critiques of dominant culture and society. I have a wife and two daughters and a granddaughter and I have always only encouraged them to live self-determining lives and to not allow themselves to be hindered by social attitudes that are pro-male or anti-female but to forge ahead and fulfill their potential even in areas where women are normally not encouraged to go. My family and I have joined two churches pastored by women (in succession) and I have always promoted women’s full equality in church and society.

However, I am sensitive to shifts and changes in social attitudes and these days they happen rapidly. Many people do not catch up. In my opinion, the media in general have lagged far behind in bringing to public attention the plights of boys in our society. The same is true of governments and non-profit organizations. It is still much easier to get grant money to study girls and women than boys and men–and that has been the case for at least thirty years now.

Sure, there are areas of our social order that need major fixing with regard to opportunity for girls and women and help for those who are abused, oppressed and excluded. And lots of attention goes toward those areas. Of course, little can be done about men who are simply recalcitrant to women’s progress and self-determination except create laws that limit their ability to enforce their backward attitudes. Laws can’t change people’s inward attitudes. They can only change their freedom to act on them. So there will probably always be some men (and women) who have sexist attitudes.

However, public service announcements can inform people about problems facing special populations and that has been going on and keeps happening–with regard to women’s health, girls’ opportunities going into certain professions, missing and abused girls and women, etc. Very little public attention is given to boys or young men and yet they are now the ones facing major hurdles and obstacles in many areas–especially education (very few male teachers especially in the lower grades), health (very little attention given to preventing heart disease in men), employment (unemployment among young men is high and increasing), etc.

So what can be done to help boys and young men? The writer of the above linked essay appeals to churches to focus more attention on them. I think churches need to develop some kind of acknowledgment of boys’ transition from childhood into the adult world. Boys slip from childhood into adolescence and then into manhood almost unnoticed and with very little advice or help. Most spiritual formation is aimed at females or has a feminine “feel” to it. Much, if not most, religious training aimed at sex education and encouragement toward responsible sexuality is aimed at helping girls say “no” and making boys feel guilty for having sexual fantasies and wanting sex. That’s SO out of touch with teenage reality these days.

And, as I’ve advocated here before, churches and schools need to develop programs aimed specifically at boys and young men about violence and aggression. We’ve done that for a long time with girls and young women–aimed programs at them to help them deal with social images and messages about their bodies to help them avoid anorexia, etc. But there are very few programs available to help boys and young men deal with social messages about masculinity and especially aggression and violence which are often equated with masculinity. But it needs to be MEN who do this. Women can help develop the programs, but boys and young men need to be helped by MEN to cope with social media and messages that surround them about sex, aggression and violence. Very little of that happens in churches or Christian educational institutions. In fact, I don’t know of any such programs especially for young males. And then we wonder…why?

In my opinion, our society is riddled with double standards related to gender. Those are bound to filter into our churches and Christian organizations and institutions.

But I must end by acknowledging that there are vast areas of social reality where girls and women still are behind in terms of achieving full self-determination and freedom to become all that they can be. I’m not advocating LESS attention to those areas where girls and women still need to have full equal opportunity with boys and men. I’m advocating MORE attention to those areas where boys and men need to have full equality of opportunity with girls and women–especially education and health.

What Is Theology and Who Does It? Part 3 (Final)

This third installment of the series won’t make much sense without the first two, so please read Parts 1 and 2 before this. This part presupposes those.

Throughout my career as a theologian, I have frequently encountered people who claim, directly or indirectly, that they “do theology” as well, if not better, than professional theologians. But, of course, rarely do they mean theology as I have described it in Parts 1 and 2 of this series. Some of those who claim to do theology better than professional theologians are of the anti-intellectual variety and they usually mean they “simply read the Bible and take it at face value.” Often, what they mean by “theology” is what I mean by folk religion.

Others who claim to do theology better than professional theologians are scholars who use their own discipline’s tools and skills to investigate truth about God (and matters related to God). I gave the example of a former colleague who believed he did theology as an anthropologist—better than those of us who practice theology as professional theologians.

Far be it from me to deny that some non-theologians do theology better than I do it. I humbly admit that philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff, for example, does theology very well. But he has spent many years acquiring the knowledge and skills of a theologian. He is one of those people who successfully crosses the boundary between philosophy and theology and goes back and forth between them and, to the extent possible, combines them. His recent book Justice: Rights and Wrongs (Princeton University Press) is an excellent example of that.

However, theology (as I have described it in Parts 1 and 2) is not something just anyone can do well. It is a discipline into which one is trained. Of course, a person trained in it may very well do it poorly. There are numerous examples of that! The same could be said of any discipline. Who would claim, for example, that all persons trained in and possessing the skills necessary for philosophy “philosophizes” well? But a few (even many) bad apples do not undermine the discipline as a whole.

As I argued in Part 2, theology, as I described it there, is a church-related discipline; it is not a “free floating” discipline disconnected from any particular commitment or community. The church needs theologians and theologians need the church. And yet, to a certain extent, a theologian’s job is to question the church—not as a chronic skeptic or gadfly but as a faithful prophet. He or she is a servant of the church and at the same time one who challenges the church to examine its beliefs and practices.

So part of the answer to who does theology is—one who has acquired the knowledge and skills to practice theology and practices it in the service of the church.

What are the knowledge and skills needed to do theology professionally well—beyond commitment to the faith of the people of God?

First, a theologian must be conversant with revelation—whatever revelation his or her faith community acknowledges as divine. For the Christian theologian that usually means first and foremost Jesus Christ and scripture. Skill in biblical exegesis and hermeneutics is a prerequisite for doing theology well professionally.

Second, a theologian must be conversant with the tradition(s) of his or her faith community. For the Christian theologian that means the Great Tradition of Christian thought (church fathers, creeds, medieval theology, confessional statements, Reformation traditions, etc.) and the traditions of his or her own faith community.

Third, a theologian must be skilled in the rules of thought and communication—especially logic.

Finally, a theologian must be sensitive to human spiritual experience and the religious experiences of his or her own faith community. He or she must have a sense for the divine as interpreted by his or her own faith tradition. Also, he or she must be conversant with culture and skilled at bringing religious beliefs into creative correlation with culture.

Few scholars without a Ph.D. (or equivalent training) in religious studies and/or theology has that knowledge and those skills. Many with Ph.D.s in religious studies and/or theology still lack them, but that depth and breadth of training is minimally necessary for doing theology professionally and doing it well.

Of course, some of the greatest theological minds did not have doctoral degrees—e.g., Karl Barth and Reinhold Niebuhr. Nevertheless, they acquired the knowledge and skills described above on their own and in deep conversation with fellow scholars.

I am not arguing that nobody can be a theologian except people with Ph.D.s in religion or theology; I am arguing that theology is a discipline—an orderly way of thinking that works skillfully with sources, norms and tools. It isn’t something just anyone decides to do on their own and then does it—without usually utterly failing.

Many years ago I was visiting some friends of my family. The husband’s grandfather was a spiritual mentor of many members of my own family. When he found out about my interest in theology as a scholarly pursuit and discipline he scoffed and pointed me to some books (booklets, really) written by his grandfather—a patriarch of our faith community. I had heard his grandfather’s name all my life—from my parents and relatives. So I sat down and began reading the books. The first one I opened argued that all the divisions of Christianity came about as a result of the Constantinian takeover of Christianity. Before Constantine, the author argued, Christians were united around the gospel and there were no major or serious divisions. They were all in one accord and of one mind and faith. Well, after reading just a few pages I knew the man had no knowledge of the history of Christianity and was not qualified to do theology. I silently put the books back on my new friend’s shelf and said nothing to him about it. I knew he would not be able to handle the truth about his grandfather.

Unfortunately, there are many people in Christian churches and organizations who think they or someone they know does theology well and even better than professional theologians. Usually when I investigate them I find huge gaps in their knowledge and flaws in their skills. They have led many people astray by peddling their notions about God and Christianity.

So, perhaps you want to know who I think are some people who do theology well as professional theologians—people the churches should turn to for help in examining beliefs and constructing relevant doctrines for today. Here are some names. I’m limiting my list to those recently deceased or still living and who are prolific authors. Placing a name in the list does not mean I agree with everything the person believes or advocates; it simply means I consider him or her a knowledgeable and skilled theologian. Also, many of those I link to a particular faith community and tradition write things valuable for others. By no means do I imply that a person’s theological thoughts are of value only to those in his or her faith tradition and community.

For Baptists—Stanley J. Grenz, Bernard Ramm, Millard Erickson, Dale Moody, James McClendon, James Leo Garrett, Paul Fiddes, Daniel Williams, Molly Marshall

For Lutherans—Robert Jenson, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Ted Peters, Lois Malcolm

For Pentecostals—Amos Yong, Velli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Frank Macchia, Steven Land, Cheryl Bridges Johns

For Methodists (United and other)—Thomas Oden, William Abraham, Kenneth Collins, Henry Knight, Susie Stanley

For Reformed and Congregationalists—Donald Bloesch, Donald McKim, Jürgen Moltmann, Alan P. F. Sell, Michael Horton, Leeann Van Dyk

For Anglicans/Episcopals—Paul Zahl, N. T. Wright, Rowan Williams, Michael Green, Christopher Hall, Edith Humphreys, Sarah Coakley

For Anabaptists—Thomas Finger, John Howard Yoder, J. Denny Weaver

For Roman Catholics—Walter Kasper, Franz Josef van Beeck, Catherine Mowry LaCugna

For Eastern Orthodox—John Zizioulas, David Bentley Hart, Bradley Nassif, Kallistos Ware

For Generic Evangelicals—John Stackhouse, Kevin Vanhoozer, Greg Boyd, Ruth Tucker, John Sanders, Scot McKnight

What Is Theology and Who Does It? Part 2

            In Part 1 I described two broad types of antipathy toward scholarly, academic theology among American Christians (especially evangelicals). The first is anti-intellectualism (especially toward scholarly study of religion in general and Christianity in particular. The second is scholarly, academic belief that theology is a pseudo-science except as it is done by non-theologians (philosophers, sociologists, artists, etc.). Before proceeding to read this second part of the series, please go back and read Part 1. Without that this Part 2 may not make much sense. I am assuming Part 1 here.

            So, everything I have said so far begs an answer to the question “What is ‘theology’—as I mean it here?”

            Because of the antipathies to theology I described in Part 1, Stan Grenz and I wrote Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (IVP 1994). It has sold very well and is still being used as an introduction to theology in many Christian academic settings. What I say here will overlap some with that.

            My experience has been that when I have the opportunity to explain what I mean by “theology” some opponents of scholarly, academic theology as a distinct discipline acknowledge it—if it is done rightly. Others, however, go deeper into their opposition.

            First, let me clarify “scholarly, academic” as qualifiers of “theology.” Most broadly defined “theology” is simply the study of God, thinking about God, the “science of God.” By “scholarly, academic” I do not mean “ivory tower,” “speculative,” “impractical,” or “disconnected from life”—including the life of the church. I mean the study of God, thinking about God that goes beyond folk religion—the very informal, cliché-determined, feeling-oriented thinking about God that many lay people (and some pastors) revel in (e.g., “God helps those who help themselves”).

            When I talk about theology as my discipline I am talking about thinking about God (and matters related to God) informed and shaped by research into and reflection on sources and norms. What sources and norms? Revelation (especially Scripture), tradition (in Christian theology that would be the Great Tradition of Christian thought and a denomination’s traditions), reason, and experience. Theology as I mean it is the study of God (and matters related to God such as salvation) shaped by research into and reflection on revelation, tradition, reason and experience.

            Who is theology’s audience? For whom is theology done? Well, of course, for a Christian such as myself, the primary audience is God; theology is done for the glory and enjoyment of God—and our enjoyment of him. But the secondary audience is the church—one’s own denomination and the church universal. The tertiary audience is inquirers—whether churched or not.

            Sidebar: There are, of course, all kind of disciplines that include “theology” in their name. There is, of course, “philosophical theology.” That’s not what I mean when I claim theology as my discipline. Philosophical theology is thinking about God philosophically—not using revelation or tradition as sources or norms but using only reason and universal human experience. This is akin to “philosophy of religion.” I recognize it as a legitimate and distinct discipline that can be helpful to theology as I mean it, but it is not my discipline and, in my opinion, cannot replace theology as I mean it here and whenever I say I “do theology.”

            There is, of course, also “historical theology” and that is a discipline I also practice—through research and reflection. It is adjunct to theology as thinking about God (and matters related to God)—especially within a specific religious context such as a Christian school or church. Historical theology is the study of Christian beliefs (and worship and ethics, etc.).

            In my opinion, neither philosophical theology nor historical theology require commitment to the truth of any revelation or to any church (universal or particular). Theology as I mean it here and as I claim to practice it as a scholar does require commitment to the truth of a revelation, Jesus Christ and scripture, for example, and to the mission of God in and through the church of Jesus Christ.

            Better than any simple definition of theology, as I mean it and claim to practice it (however imperfectly), is a thick description of it through explanation of its tasks. Theology as I mean it, claim to practice it, and hope to defend it, has four tasks—grouped under two general headings. The two general headings, theology’s two major tasks, are critical and constructive.

            Theology critically examines truth claims about God (and matters related to God) in light of revelation, tradition, reason and experience to determine, as much as possible, their truth status (or falsity) using those four criteria. It does this for the churches—to protect and preserve them in the truth of God. The second step under “critical task” is to determine, as far as possible, the importance of true beliefs. Are they essential to Christianity (for example), not to Christianity but to a denomination or Christian tradition, or interesting but not essential to anything?

            As for the constructive tasks of theology: Theology attempts to develop cognitive models (doctrines) of God and matters related to God out of revelation, tradition, reason and experience and (second step) reconstruct them to be culturally relevant.

            These are extremely simplistic accounts of theology’s tasks, and they do not explore or explain the various possibilities for carrying them out, but I argue they define “theology” and are all necessary to its being “done” adequately. Theology as I mean it does these tasks in that way—using revelation, tradition, reason and experience.

            One question that inevitably arises is about “biblical theology.” What is “biblical theology” in relation to what I am calling simply “theology?” As I understand it “biblical theology” has two distinct meanings. First is simply hermeneutics. Second is “theology done faithfully to the Bible.” I affirm both. The first is useful, even necessary, for theology as I mean it, but theology as I mean it here (and in Part 1) goes beyond hermeneutics. Theology as I attempt to do it, evangelical Christian theology, also attempts to be biblically faithful.

            Now, let me make some possibly startling claims about theology (and related matters).

            Where doctrine does not matter, theology will inevitably be undervalued if not rejected entirely. Or it will be transformed into something else while still being called “theology.” This is a major cause, I believe, for the under valuing of theology in contemporary American Christianity. To a very large extent, non-fundamentalist Christians have given up on truth that transcends the individual and his or her spirituality.

            Theology has many pathologies, but none of them, nor all taken together, negates theology’s importance. Theology’s pathologies are no excuse for discarding or neglecting it.

            Theology is a distinct and scholarly discipline within the Christian academic context; it cannot be replaced by any other discipline without major loss.

            The church of Jesus Christ is shaped, in part, by beliefs and its beliefs should be reasonable in the broadest sense in light of revelation, tradition, reason and experience. They should be intelligible to thinking people who embrace Christianity’s sources and norms (as they should). Therefore, churches should rely on their theologians for help in shaping worship, mission, proclamation, etc.

            Throughout my thirty-one years as a theologian I have found very few churches that valued theology or theologians. Once I volunteered to serve as “theologian in residence” at a church where I was a member. I asked for no remuneration and made clear my only desire was to serve as a consultant whenever the church dealt with matters pertaining to doctrine. I am confident the church declined not for any personal reasons; I was “in good standing.” They simply did not care about theology.

            Occasionally I have approached pastors and worship leaders with a comment about something theological and have usually been rebuffed. Here’s an example from many years ago. The guest preacher’s sermon was about the “imminent return of Jesus Christ” and resonated well with the eschatology believed by most members and pastors of the denomination which was clearly premillennial. Immediately after the sermon the worship leader had the congregation stand and sing “We’ve a Story to Tell to the Nations” which is blatantly postmillennial. (I knew the worship leader was not postmillennial and doubted that any church member or attender was, either.) I approached the worship leader after the worship service and asked him if he noticed the dissonance between the sermon and the song. He didn’t. I had to explain it to him. He said “Only you would notice that.”

            To me, that’s a sad admission. A worship leader, like every staff member and leader of a church ought to at least be inclined to listen to and take seriously what his or her own denomination’s trained theologians have to say. Unfortunately, my experience is that that is rare. The result is often a lack of intelligibility, coherence, in preaching, worship and mission.

            A good Calvinist friend of mine says “If we are to get the message [of the gospel] out, we must first get it right.” I agree. I’m not at all convinced the majority of American Christian lay people or pastors (or church leaders in general) agree or care—in any way that would be corrective or transformative.

            In Part 3 I will deal with who is a theologian—that is, who does theology (as I mean it here).