Suck It Yankees, & The Auburn Avenue Controversy

"I guess I'm starting to think that maybe, just maybe we aren't called to systematize, but in fact just accept the particular truths present by the Gospel and run with those till glory. If they sometimes seem inconsistent or incomplete, well, submit."

Bingo.

Good stuff. I was talking last night with one of our elders at the C-Stone, and he was saying that instead of looking for the next new theological/relational discovery, maybe we should just engage in what we've got, even if it seems unsatisfying. We were talking about the personal need for systems, but maybe it applies to broader theological systems as well.

I've come to think that there isn't any such thing as objective truth. There's only the subjective. The reason this can work is that God's perspective is pretty damned authoritative, and though you can disagree with him if you want, you can't get away with it. And as I've said before, the ad baculum fallacy is only a fallacy if you're kidding. Basically, truth is what God says it is, and our job is to find out to the best of the ability He grants us what he says is true. At some point the question becomes: "Are you going to take God at his word or not?"

If that weren't upshot enough, there's also the added benefit that you really can make something true if you can get enough people to believe it.

No, I will not submit, at least not in the way that you seem to be advocating. Inconsistency among one's particular beliefs is a sure sign that one or more of those beliefs is in error. Whether or not we are called to systematize is not immediately at issue. The fact is that we do. It's part of who we are. Any given particular truth cannot be understood, or, for that matter, even known to be a truth, unless it is part of some system. Here is where the noetic effects of the fall come in. Our individual systems are liable to be corrupt. However, the problem is with us as individuals outside of the teaching of the church. It is not found in systems themselves. I cannot agree that "any thinking consistently taken far enough is going to generate false & sinful conclusions." If such conclusions turn out to be the case, either the original thinking was false and sinful to begin with, or there was no consistency involved. Since, on our own, we are so liable to come to these false and sinful conclusions, the solution is not to despise systems. It is, rather, to recognize and submit to systematic theology as an essential aspect of the teaching function of the church.

No, Kevin, iconsistency is not a "sure sign" that one or more of a given set of beliefs is in error, at least, it certainly doesn't function that way in real life. Dangit, we hold inconsistent (or apparently inconsistent, but that's begging the question) beliefs all the time. The noetic effects are just a failure in reasoning, its a failure to generate a coherent system that negotiates the truth-bearing relationship between given truthful particularities.

And finally, I think the belief in systematic theology as a central aspect of the teaching function of the church lacks massive Sciptural support, in fact, Christ never talks about the Christian life in that fashion. Of course, at this point I'm probably touching on our fundamental disagreement in assumptions, namely that I don't like to think of theology as an abstract system, but as a very subjective enterprise in the vein of Schliermacher & Harnack (with some important qualifications).

I just think we submit to people or persons or a Person, and not to some idea or set of ideas.

Perhaps I should be more precise. I was using "inconsistent" as a syonym for "contrary" or, in some cases, "contradictory." If a pair of beliefs are contrary, both may be false, but only one may be true. If they are contradictory, one must be false and the other must be true. Either way, there's a false belief lurking in there. This is exactly the way it functions in real life. Your statement that the difference between "inconsistent" and "apparently inconsistent" is begging the question indicates that you are thinking of the word as synonymous with "paradoxical," that is, "apparently contrary." If so, then you're right: inconsistency among beliefs would not be a sure sign that one or more of those beliefs is in error. However, if beliefs are apparently contrary, this is an indication that they may actually be contrary; it would, therefore, do us well to examine our particular beliefs to see if they are actually biblical. The fact that we hold inconsistent beliefs all the time is no indication that we should.

You're going too far to the side of the particular. It is possible to submit to a person without systematizing any of the ideas that he has communicated. [I am, for the moment, not concerned with the fact that particular ideas are meaningless without the context provided by some sort of system. The point here is not understanding, but submission.] However, this requires that that person give particular instructions for each particular case. Not very feasible. As soon as we try to answer the question of how the instructions given in one situation apply to another in which the authortiy figure is not present, we have, in however rudimentary a fashion, put a set of ideas into a system. Systematization is not an option. It is a necessary component of responsible and accountable thinking and submission.

Are you actually serious in suggesting that, because Christ does not talk about systematic theology, it is therefore unscriptural? If not, please tell me what you meant. As it is, I'm looking at a proof-text mentality run amok. Maybe it would be helpful to consider the benifits of systematic theology to the teaching function of the church. Chiefly, it is indispensible in combatting heresy. Suppose I claim that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God. Easy enough, you simply show me scripture that says that he is. No systematics involved. I submit to the particular truth and we both part ways in apparent agreement. But this begs the question as to whether we actually agree. When you believe "Jesus Christ is the Son of God," does this mean the same thing as when I believe it? Let me take the claim even further, "Jesus Christ is no more the Son of God than I am," or, "I, too, am the Son of God." You may feel that this is terribly wrong; nevertheless, this is as far as it will go if you limit your beliefs to particular truths. Either you will find no particular statement in scripture to refute my claim, or you will have to resort to making up an opposing claim; in which case it will simply be your word against mine. You would essentially be asking me to submit to your opinion. But if you want me believe, "Jesus Christ Alone is the Son of God and this in a way that no one else can be," and if I am to believe this in submission to Christ and not to you, then you must resort to systematic theology.

Finally, aside from being a practical refutaion of sola scriptura, the person/idea dichotomy that you have presented is false. We cannot submit to any person unless that person communicates some ideas. If, for instance, we agree that we must submit to our elders, then we must also agree that those elders need to say something. It would be insufficient for your pastor to stand behind the pulpit every Sunday and smile for twenty minutes. Nor is it the case that, because theological beliefs have been systematized, that system is necessarily abstract or unrelated to submission to a person. We probably do have a fundamental disagreement in assumptions; however, despite your implication to the contrary, I do not think of theology as an abstract system. For me, theology, both in its particulars and as a whole, is entirely about the exaltation of the person of Christ. Systematics enhances this; it does not deny it.

I can't quite follow all of the AAPC stuff, but the overall gist of trying to see the corporate dimension to salvation is important. I was watching Cool Hand Luke this past week with some high school kids, and the ending was interesting. Luke has died, but he continues to give life to this new community he's created through the stories they tell of him. The final scene has Dragline (sp?), one of the prisoners, whistling while he's in his chaings, testifying to the freedom he has through Luke's life in the camp. I say this mantra to myself a lot, probably too much, but it seems to me like there's an undeniable corporate dimension to salvation. The story-formed people of God are saved corporately on some level - otherwise I don't know how I'm supposed to interpret Christ when he tells his disciples that whatever is loosed here on earth will be loosed in heaven. A recovery of the sacraments and that corporate dimension of salvations brings us closer to the historic church, which is one reason why I figure AAPC is on to something positive. The theological details that Wilson & co. get into is over my head, but I think I get the basic point, and I think that basic point is something our pietistic, revivalistic tendencies in the PCA could benefit from serious discussion. But it'll probably just evolve into its own sectarian deal, like everything else Wilson gets his hands on.

Kevin, dang, I always forget that getting involved in any sortof discussion with you will inevitably lead to lengthy paragraphs, no, lengthy pages of point counter-point, but, I'll try to be brief.

Your distinction between contrary and contradictory is helpful, to a certain extent. But I think what you're missing is the suspension of judgement on beliefs which may or may not be contradictory OR contrary. I dig Wilson's Covenental-heavy thinking, but I also sympathize heavily with not fudging with Justification. People claim there is an inconsistency, that one must be correct. I just don't think we have to choose.

I'd like to maintain a distinction between systematization of beliefs as a necessary bi-product of, well, existing and systematization of beliefs as something necessary to Christian faithfulness. I don't sweat the former, but the latter approaches something I feel isn't presented in Scipture. Its not that there's anything wrong with it (I'd use un-Scriptural in an ommissive sense and not a non-permissive sense), its just that its not, fundamentally, what we Christian are and should be "all about." I, as much as you, really don't like the proof-text mentality, for a myriad of reasons.

Again, I think you're assuming that I'm doing a carte-blanch denial of systematic theology, abstract thinking, formal logic, popositions, etc. etc. etc. I'm not, what I'm suggesting is a different paradigm for being/existing. I see propositions, ideas, logic, systematic theology, etc. as all very good things, but woefully incomplete for life and truth.

You know all the arguments, heck, we took many of the classes together. When it rings true to me that a 6 year old doesn't need to give justification for why he loves his father or mother, its simply true that he does, its indicative to me that not just justification for belief is something incomplete if simply viewed in propositional correspondence terms, but that epistemology as a whole is incomplete if we view it as a self-contained enterprise.

Were I've ended up so far, in my thinking, is something I took from Vos & Skogan, namely, The Word, and by that I mean Scripture and its mystical (for lack of a better term) union with Christ. If Christ, a person, is "The Way the Truth and the Life", then that to me suggests a radically different approach to how we go about doing our lives (And therefore theology) than is done in the traditional Reformed sense of the term. I just don't think we take it into account enough in our theologizing...

ok, back to work.

Admit it, Josiah, you miss me. It did look like a carte-blanch denial, so I'm glad to hear that my assumption was wrong. I agree with you when you say that these things are "woefully incomplete for life and truth." I also think that it is valid to draw the distinction between existence and Christian faithfulness when it comes to the systematization of beliefs. However, it appears that you have turned a valid distinction into an invalid separation. As soon as you have admitted to the systematization of beliefs as necessary from our existence, from how we are constituted as human beings, then the question of this systematization as it relates to Christian faithfulness can longer be whether or not it needs to happen. The fact is that it does happen. Rather, it is a question of combatting heretical or ignorant systematization with orthodox systematization.

This is what I was getting at when I said that systematic theology was part of the teaching function of the church. As individuals, especially as sinful individuals, we can be prone to some pretty bizarre interpretations of biblical data. We need the wisdom of the historic, confessional church to keep us in line. On the other hand, we shouldn't be mindless puppets just doing whatever a church says. Denominations have been known to disagree. There are biblical admonitions for us to grow up in matters of doctrine. While I don't believe that everyone is called to be a full-scale theologian (a task that takes an enormous amount of study), I do think that there is an epidemic of theological immaturity among professing Christians. Your example of a six year old, unfortunately, illustrates more than you mave intended. Forget your average Christian reaching spirtitual adulthood; heck, at this point, I'd be ecstatic over spiritual puberty.

As to the mystical union between Scripture and Christ, I like that. I do believe that this leaves no room whatsoever for what may be called "dead-orthodoxy." Nevertheless, I will not equate this with the traditional Reformed sense of theology. I have no problem with and the greatest respect for traditional Reformed theology. Beyond this, though, what this union suggests to me is the sanctification of speech. It is because there is such a close identity between the speech of God and the Son of God that ideas, words, propositions, and the like are indespensible to theology and to theology's greater goal, which is the knowledge of Christ.