Systematic Theology is quicksand that the church has unknowingly fallen into, and it is slowing sucking it down, down, until one day it will suffocate and die. Too drastic of a statement, you say? Here’s my logic:

Let’s start with Romans 2:6-10.

“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.”

Okay, so we’re going over this passage in Romans class, and I’m reading it, and I’m thinking, “Wow, that sounds like going to heaven or hell based on what you do, rather than on faith, that’s a bit of a contradiction.” So I’m curious, at the beginning, to know what Dr. Parker thinks of this. I mean, how do we handle it? So we’re going along and he, without even batting an eye or saying that this passage is difficult or needs some thought, he right up and says that Paul means for the the former group (good) to be saved people, and the latter group (evil) to be unsaved. Well I’m reading this passage, and I don’t see that in the text. I mean, I really don’t. Read it! Do you see “saved”, “unsaved”, or even “believers” or “unbelievers” in there anywhere? No. It seems pretty straightforward: good=eternal life, evil=wrath. So Calvin and I decide to ask about this. I mean, there are some problems with his interpretation right off the bat, aside from it not being in the text itself. What about Christians who act unrighteously? What about non-Christians who act righteously? Where do they fit into this equation? So after some discussion, most of which doesn’t actually answer our questions anyways, but seems to hedge around them, we get more direct. Calvin asks, “How can you say that when it’s not in the text?” Dr. Parker’s response is that you have to look at the whole Bible, and then you realize that this must be what the passage is saying, because of the passages that talk about faith based salvation. So I raise my hand and ask, “So how come we don’t interpret those passages in light of this one?” And his response was telling. “Because then you end up with a works-based salvation.” Interpretation: That doesn’t agree with my theology, so it must be the other way around.

So now, instead of reading the Bible for what it says, we get theology from the verses that we like (faith-based) and interpret those that seem to say opposite through them. ‘Cause if we went the other way around, it would mess with our theology. Now don’t get me wrong: I don’t believe in a works-based salvation. I think the Bible is pretty clear on that. But, then, how do we handle this apparent contradiction? The answer CANNOT be to interpret this passage in light of the other one, nor can it be the other way around. That, you see, is systematic theology. Why does it have to be either/or? Why does it have to mean saved/unsaved or works-based salvation? What I mean to say is, is there a third option? Well, of course there’s a third option, and if I looked hard enough, I’d find a fourth, and if I wanted to get really “liberal”, a fifth. But do you think that if I asked about another option (which I did) I got one? Of course not. With systematic theology, it seems to be either/or most of the time, very rarely either/or/or, or either/or/or/or, and certainly not both/and!

This is dangerous. This is perilous. Why? Because it fits God neatly into a box that He cannot escape. And this isn’t the only example of it. Systematic Theology, in it’s purest form, I suppose, could be somewhat reasonable. The problem is, Systematic Theology has become so convoluted with this theology and that theology that it is impossible to have pure theology, based strictly on the text, anymore. Because if one reads something, it automatically gets put into “Christology” or “Soteriology” or, God forbid, “Angelology”. It gets neatly interpreted, not through the Bible, but through the rest of theology. So you end up with this:

The Bible generates
|
|
\ /
Theology generates
|
|
\ /
Systematic Theology generates
|
|
\ /
Systematic Theology etc.

And the vicious cycle goes on, until everything you read gets neatly interpreted through the lens of “your theology”, which has already been neatly interpreted through the lens of theology. Theology does not, or should not, generate more theology.

The Bible, studied first for what it says, generates theology.

Final.

Period.

If something doesn’t make sense, look at it again, study it, whatever, but please, PLEASE, do NOT try to look at it through the lens of the rest of your theology and fit it into a category, and in so doing, make stuff up that’s not in the text! Do you even realize how much theology we Christians hold so dear isn’t even in the Bible? It’s based on “principle” or “assumption” or “because of this theology…”. And how much other theology is so wacked because it’s based on what we think to be true already, but we really haven’t studied it? Sometimes I wonder if Christians are sentient human beings, or mindless drones who absorb everything they hear and believe it unquestioningly.

So I know what they’d say. How do we deal with problem passages without systematic theology? It gets difficult. Systematic theology solves problems for us. Answers all the questions. Puts our minds at ease.

I understand. I really do. I struggle as well. Passages like the one’s above give me headaches. Paul in general gives me a headache. But I refuse to be conquered. I’m sorry, but if my God isn’t big enough to handle the hard questions of the Bible, and I mean QUESTIONS, not just things like should we have drums in church (rolls eyes), but questions on the very tenants that make Christians Christians, than why do I even bother? If my faith is so shallow that I can’t ask it hard questions, why do I even have it? I know, it’s so easy to resort to allowing systematic theology to answer the questions for us, to work everything out so that it fits into a nice little neat Christian package. But, I cannot, will not, will never be conquered by that temptation. It’s too easy, too perfect, too dispassionate.

If that means questions must be left unanswered, then so be it. I’d rather not have an answer than make up one that isn’t right, or one that makes things up that aren’t in the text, or one that makes me feel good because it fits nicely in with everything else.

Faith wouldn’t be faith without doubt. Faith wouldn’t be faith if all the loose ends were tied. Faith would be fact. And fact doesn’t save me, faith does.

And really, if we’re honest with ourselves, I think we’ll find that most of our questions about the Bible can be answered if we allow ourselves to see outside what we already believe, to open our minds to other possibilities, even if they might be considered “liberal” by other Christians. The problem is, when you do this, as I have done, you come up with some crazy stuff that is so outside the realm of current conservative Christian thought that it scares even me when I think of it! And then you come up with stuff that isn’t necessarily crazy, but isn’t exactly in the realm of the theology of the circles that I travel right now, aka, Baptistic.

And that’s just what I mean really. When we read the Bible for what it says, we come up with some theologically “dangerous” stuff - at least, dangerous to the circles I travel in. We have the Bible all categorized and separated into nice prooftexts for all of life issues. If only it were so easy. If people would read some stuff outside their own Christian bubbles they’d realize there are a whole lot more valid opinions out there that are still good interpretation based on the text besides those in their experience and denomination. Even some “liberal” Christians have some good ideas. Heh. Even some non-Christians have some good ideas.

And this is the real issue. People are afraid. People are afraid that if they question the answers they’ve been given all their life, the theology, the “pillars”, they’ll be left without their faith. They’re afraid they’ll discover something they didn’t want to know, and they’ll be left drowning in the sea of despair and hopelessness that this world is, with nothing to cling to. They’re happier being ignorant and content.

Once again, I understand. I really do. Sometimes I’m afraid of that too. Where else would I go, after all? My whole life is wrapped up in this faith, my whole being, and that’s the only way I would have it if I am going to have a faith. But if I’m going to believe something, if I’m going to devote my entire life to worshiping and serving this God, Yahweh, and Jesus Christ His Son - I’d better have enough faith to be able to stake everything on it, to take that risk. I want to know what I believe. I don’t want to be an ignorant Christian.

I think my God is big enough to take that risk with me. I have chosen Him as my God, as He chose me, and it is enough to say that if I can’t trust Him, who can I trust? I am compelled both to love my God and yet question the doctrine I believe, both important and not, because only in questioning it can I truly learn, and become more deeply enthralled in the God I have chosen.

Wow, was this ever much longer than I intended, and went much further.

If you’re curious at all about the Romans thing, my husband and I have talked about it, looked up some other opinions, and I think we have a valid option number three. It’s a bit risky (read: outside of what my Baptist friends would believe), but, where’s the fun if it’s always safe?

I just have to say:

People who spam blog comments or specifically create programs to spam blog comments so that I have to waste five minutes of my life to delete them should be banned from breathing.