Illustration: “Still Life with a Musical Score” by Thomas-Germain-Joseph Duvivier (1735-1814). Wikimedia Commons
When I was in seminary, we were often invited to “think theologically” on a particular topic or specific proposition. The idea, as I understood it, was to seek the mind of Christ. It was more than just “what would Jesus do” but rather “what would He think and do.” And yet not with any kind of permanence. Rather, it was to discern what the Spirit of Christ might be saying, thinking or doing on this particular hour in this specific place and to these specific listeners. It was all local context. The expectation was that the theological message would potentially be different to each one of us. It was a celebration of diversity and the premise that God’s love in Christ was intended to bring a better life. It was a human centric take on John 10:10b, where Jesus said “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (NIV) or “to give them a rich and satisfying life” (NLT).
I didn’t really question this ethos at the time. I just wanted to graduate. I embraced this thinking in all of my exegetical work. I accepted the proposition that the truth of a Biblical passage might mean something different if you were economically oppressed than if you were wealthy. Or if you were a minority group in any sense of the word. It gave credence to any number of different theological outlooks: liberation, feminist or black theology as examples. It falls under the umbrella of practical theology, in which the believer asks “what is going on, why is this going on, what ought to be going on and how might we respond?” It meshed nicely with my chosen Four-Page model of sermon presentation: “problem then, problem now, solution then, solution now.” Exegetical theology – in which the scriptural text was analyzed (ideally in its original language) to determine the message for the original audience – was also highlighted in my studies. The books of the Bible were historic documents with a specific literary form and purpose, written for people in a particular time and place. Did the same message apply today? Maybe or maybe not. We are all different and each of us is uniquely created with a unique DNA. Humankind is amazingly diverse. One size fits all is practically impossible.
In this increasingly fractious world, the need to be grounded on systematic theology is greater than ever
Theologically, this approach to exegesis allowed and encouraged a big tent in which virtually any interpretation was acceptable. There was a subtle expectation that the interpretation would be more useful and acceptable if it challenged the status quo and was compatible with socially progressive values. A more orthodox stance was acceptable as long as it could be backed up with evidence, which I often did. I actually did quite well in seminary despite being on the traditional fringes.
It wasn’t until I had been in congregational ministry for a few years that I started to question the approach we had been taught. My doubt centred on my belief that our Triune God was of one mind as witnessed in Hebrews 13:8 where we are told that “Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever.” I was aware of something called systematic theology but never looked past the titles on the books. It was only after I started noticing that colleagues from other denominations often had systematic texts on their bookshelves that I bothered to look into it.
“If we believe God loves order rather than chaos, then theology must follow a system.”
As the name suggests, it’s an approach which understands a divine order in which all aspects of the triune God operate in a well-oiled system which operates to suit God’s purpose and brings glory to Him. It understands that all of scripture is taken into account as its own system. It is theocentric rather than humanistic. At the same time, it still embraces divine creativity, reflected in the spectrum of human diversity. And yet it all centred on the will of God. It matched the longing of my heart to submit to a Divine order, light in darkness and order rather than chaos. In practical terms, it was the anchor in a storm, a safe harbour from the wiles of the devil. The fact that devotees of systematics adhere to traditional/historic/evangelical/orthodox (THEO) views made even more sense.
On an exegetical level, systematics understands that Biblical exposition was to reveal unchanging truth. Because it embraced all of scripture, not just what was in Revised Common Lectionary, in which worship and sermons were based on prescribed weekly scriptures which rotated through a three-year cycle. Starting in 2018, I began preaching through entire books of the Bible, verse by verse. So far, I’ve covered all three letters from John, Hebrews, James, 1-2 Timothy, Gospel of John, Colossians and Genesis. In January, I started into Exodus and will likely spend at least one year on the journey.
If we believe God loves order rather than chaos, then theology must follow a system. Theologian Gerald Bray suggests that “all theology is systematic because there is only one God and his mind is a coherent whole. Even if it is not fully revealed to us, his plan must make sense and be ‘systematic’ in some way, though there may be gaps in our understanding that will not be filled until the end of time when all things will be revealed.” I see it as a beautiful symphony. The sounds of the musical instruments might be capable of making beautiful sounds on their own. But in harmony with other devices we develop something powerful. When everyone is exactly on the same page and keeps at the same time and is in tune, the result is awesome. What brings it together is the conductor. All eyes are on the baton and each musician follows that direction. It’s a powerful system when everyone is on the same page.
“Humankind has always sought solutions in systems. A king had his way of doing things: just follow him and all would be well. Capitalism is a system, so is Marxism.”
Recently, I began studying psychotherapy. Among the therapeutic modalities I discovered was Internal Family Systems (IFS). This approach was rooted in systems thinking, which studied the ways components worked together. The planet Earth and all of life operate as a self-regulating system. It’s about relationships rather than individual parts alone. A car can be taken apart and you would have a thousand pieces which are not much use. Assembled, it’s a system that is greater than the sum of its parts. Only when a driver gets behind the wheel does it finally become useful. Systems thinking entered psychotherapy in the 1970s. IFS understands the human psyche as having different parts, each with a specific problem-solving function. Parts are mini personas with minds of their own. How often do we say, “There’s a part of me which feels/things/wants to do this and another part that doesn’t.” We operate with different minds. We can possess many parts, depending on our experiences. Parts are born often at a young age in reaction to trauma. Richard Schwartz, the founder of IFS, suggests that “every one of us contains an inner tribe of people, each of a different age with different interests, talents, and temperament.”[i] Parts belong to one of three categories. Managers are protective, strategic, and interested in controlling the environment to keep things safe. Exiles are the wounded ones and managers will push them aside to protect the system. Firefighters try to silence or anesthetize the exiles with no regard for the consequences. This internecine conflict results in a lack of harmony. The system doesn’t operate in a healthy way. Every one of us has parts which operate out of sync to some degree. It’s part of our fallen state. At the seat of consciousness is the Self, which embodies compassion, perspective, curiosity, acceptance and confidence. The challenge is for parts to disengage and find new roles, allowing the Self to be in the proverbial driver’s seat. As Schwartz points out, “systems at all levels—families, companies, and nations—function best when leadership is clearly designated, respected, fair, and capable.”[ii] When we acknowledge that God is in control of this system, we have harmony. (Of course, we have that crazy little thing called sin, which gets in the way and causes widespread dysfunction.)
“On a cosmic, macro level, the universe is a system. When we acknowledge that God is in control of this system, we have harmony. Of course, we have that crazy little thing called sin.”
Humankind has always sought solutions in systems. A king had his way of doing things: just follow him and all would be well. Capitalism is a system, so is Marxism. Every corporation is its own system and each employee must know his specific role and get with the program – or else. The military is a perfect example: when all parts are in sync it’s a machine which rolls over the enemy. When I chaired a local committee which staged weekly summer outdoor concerts I was lured to the job with the promise that the committee members acted as a team; everyone knew their part and they just worked together. All I had to do was chair the meeting and hear reports. Of course it didn’t last. A few members dropped out and replacements (often me) would have to step up or the machine fell apart.
Systematics as a whole is in sync with the mega theme of humankind: creation, fall and redemption. The essential problem with the world is sin, which is the result of missing the mark and not marching in beat with the Creator. We are drawn to whatever sounds our itching ears want to hear. The essential temptation is to be our own gods and take matters into our own hands. “Did God really say that?” the serpent whispered. We are similarly tempted to ask: “if God did not want us to act upon our desires, then why would we have them?” Progressive, human-centric theology invites us to explore the rich array of experiences available to those who live life to the full, physically speaking. We know that this is all junk food spirituality which provides short-term pleasure in the guise of freedom. This narrative ignores the integrated physical/emotional/mental/spiritual system written, orchestrated and conducted by God. I am not my own.
And yet, humankind continues to develop its own systems to solve problems. We love what’s new and exciting, a fresh system that makes sense to us. It is all very human centric. Unfortunately, they all miss the mark because God is not necessarily at the centre. We tend to worship the system/ideology/program/agenda etc rather than the One who has a system already in place.
“Humankind loves to develop its own systems to solve problems. We love what’s new and exciting, a fresh system that makes sense to us. It is all very human centric.”
When we choose to worship the God or order who has already developed a perfect system, we are required to put our own system aside. Systematic theology recognizes that God is the Divine Self in control of a universal system. We human parts try to go our own way. When we learn to allow God to be in the driver’s seat, the system works much better. We can do that on an individual, micro level, which is a vector of sorts. However, sooner or later we will encounter others who refuse to submit to God’s divine order. Balance and harmony are only possible when we submit to universal truths revealed by God, who is the same, yesterday, today and always. If we do not follow the Divine and his system, we march to the beat of the enemy. Everyone does what feels right for them.
Early in my seminary studies it dawned on me that the more I learned, the less I knew. It was a realization that as I added to my personal awareness and knowledge it revealed the vastness of God. It revealed how little humankind actually knows about anything. There is no possible way we will achieve perfection via any human system, not just because of our finite nature but because we are innately sinful. This is all the more reason to cling to our Confessions as we grasp some semblance of the Divine order. We are not worthy. Only God is sufficient to show us the way. This requires submission to a Godly order which is beyond my understanding. “To each their own” speaks to individual autonomy, which is fine insofar that we are fearfully and wonderfully made as unique reflections in the image of God. The divine purpose is not for us to make our own way as miniature gods. Rather, we are those musical instruments which operate in the score of life. Without God as our conductor, we are a cacophonous fury which might be useful on occasion as a catharsis. But we won’t get anywhere if each of us has our own program. If we believe there is only one God, then to seek anything other than His mind and will in a coherent system is folly and destined to fail.
For more information
Kevin DeYoung provides a useful list of arguments for and against systematics. Of course, the pro’s are more than enough to answer the criticisms.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/why-should-we-study-systematic-theology/
[i] Schwartz, Richard C.; Sweezy, Martha. Internal Family Systems Therapy (p. 31). Guilford Publications. Kindle Edition.
[ii] Schwartz, 38
Illustration: Still Life with a Musical Score by Thomas-Germain-Joseph Duvivier (1735-1814). Wikimedia Commons
