As of late I have read quite a bit of modern theology (relatively speaking), and something that I find lacking, in general, is an fresh appeal to biblical categories. As an ‘Reformed Evangelical’ I am typically used to reading theology that is at least attempting to engage scripture as its source of content. Mind you, much of the contemporary/modern theology and theologians I have read are dealing with the implications and inner logic of themes and motifs taken directly from scripture (i.e. theology proper, christology, anthropology, hamartiology, pneumatology, ecclesiology, etc.); but, for me, this really is disatisfying. I wonder why it is that so many “systematic theologians” fail to engage the scriptures, when they supposedly are trying to articulate the “inner logic” of the scriptural categories. Maybe there is a sense amongst theologians, in general, that they need to reconstruct the background and presuppositions of the various texts of scripture. In other words, maybe they are assuming that there is a latent theology behind the writings of Paul, for example, and it is this framework that they are endeavoring to recover. But still, when I hear these theologians speaking of the trinity, or Christ’s hypostasis, I just wish they would feel the need to engage the scriptures more directly; in other words do a little exegesis . . . ahh, maybe that’s part of the problem, most systematicians aren’t exegetes (at least biblically). This is why, so often, I find what systematicians say to be quite interesting; but not always compelling. Maybe this is why I enjoy reading historical theology more than I do, modern; it seems like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others were saturated in the scriptures. Oh well, I guess I’ll just have to remain interested, but maybe not compelled by so much of modern theology (please understand this whole reflection is a huge generalization, I can think of some “moderns” who do appeal to the scriptures more than others).

Advertisements