The provocative heading comes from the sub-title of an essay by Carl Trueman in his collection of essays: The Wages of Spin: Critical Writings on Historical and Contemporary Evangelicalism (Mentor 2004) that I referred to in my last post. With glowing recommendations from the likes of Paul Helm, Mark Dever and Derek Thomas, it is well worth a read.

“Biblical” Theology

The word “biblical” in the heading refers to one of the four disciplines in theology (systematic, biblical, historical, pastoral). Each of these disciplines is itself biblical, if faithful to God’s Word. Trueman’s reference here is not a plea to be less biblical in that sense; but rather a plea for some balance to be restored after 50 years of the dominance of biblical theology over the other disciplines.
What is he referring to?

First, what does “theology” itself mean?
Theology simply refers to what we can learn about God; in the broader sense, it refers to all we can learn about God through His acts in history and especially through the revelation He has given us through His Word, and through Christ Himself. This covers our knowledge of God in and of Himself, of Man and Creation and the Fall, of Christ the Redeemer, of the Work of Salvation, of the Church, and of the Last Things.

Studying the knowledge of God under each of the headings just listed is especially the domain of systematic theology. Systematic theology gathers together all that the Bible has to say on one topic (eg. creation, sin, justification etc.) so that we get a well-rounded, overall picture of truth.

But historically, God didn’t reveal truth to us this way. Instead most doctrines are drip-fed to us down through history. We only acquired true knowledge about God and ourselves, through successive revelations from God and interpretations of His acts. Biblical theology seeks to follow this trajectory, and introduce us to knowledge of God and ourselves by following the flow of revelation in Scripture itself.

It should be emphasised that, when properly done, both systematic theology and biblical theology are biblical; neither can claim to be more biblical than the other. Also, each has its strengths and weaknesses; Vern Poythress comments: “At their best, biblical theology and systematic theology interact and help to deepen one another.”

Biblical theology’s strength is that it focuses on the individual text in its historic context, so that we understand what was meant at the time, without reading into it our fuller understanding of a particular doctrine that comes with the completion of Scripture; eg. just because the word “justification” appears in an Old Testament text, we should not necessarily read into that the fuller breadth of meaning of “justification” that comes through in the New Testament.

However, this is also biblical theology’s weakness, as there can be a temptation to confine our knowledge of a particular doctrine to what is revealed in the particular text, without considering the broader revelation of the whole of Scripture; eg. passages that speak of Christ’s subordination (in His work of redemption) to the Father, and to read into that an eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. It is particularly when it comes to a doctrine like that of the Trinity that systematic theology shines (and biblical theology doesn’t – as Trueman observes).

A Revolution

About 50 years ago (i.e. 50 years before 2004) there was a revolution, which resulted in biblical theology becoming the dominant force in preaching in particular, and in the interpretation of Scripture in general. This was not a bad thing; as Trueman observes: “It is, I think, true to say that fifty years ago or so in the UK there was a major problem when it came to preaching: if it happened at all, it was often little more than pious platitudes or, in very conservative circles, a lifeless reiteration of the tradition.”

But since then, “one of the great revolutions in the church has been that this is no longer the case. Good preaching and teaching, while still not universal, is more common than it once was.” (This, and all the following quotes, are from Trueman’s essay). This “revolution” he attributes to “the biblical-theological/redemptive-historical movement… which has, perhaps more than any other movement over recent years, served to transform how churches read and teach the Bible. One might say, in fact, that if Lloyd-Jones led the revolution which placed preaching back at the centre of British evangelicalism, the biblical theology movement has led the second revolution which has put careful attention to Christ-centred exegesis back at the centre of preaching.”

This was undoubtedly a necessary corrective. Many revolutions are about necessary correctives. The problem comes after the revolutionaries come to power. Trueman says: “I am fascinated by the problem which all successful revolutionaries must ultimately face: the transition from rebels with outsider status to establishment with insider status.” It is one thing to overthrow an existing government; it is another then to govern.

“It afflicts all revolutions: when do the revolutionaries stop fighting the battles of the past? When do they come to realize that their agenda must change, that the pendulum must swing back in the opposite direction? When do the particular useful insights that they bring to bear upon particular situations become not simply insights but overwhelming and exclusive ideologies which prevent them from seeing wider realities and which fundamentally distort their perception of, and responses to, reality?”

In the present case: “The problem today is not what it was ten, twenty, or fifty years ago when fanciful pietistic exegesis and non-exegetical doctrinalism might have vied for centre stage in the church (or so we are told); it is, rather, that the triumph of biblical theology has been so complete in some quarters that we now need to realize that this new establishment might itself be generating problems of its own.”

What sort of problems?

One such problem is the way so much of the preaching ends up so much the same. “One of the problems I have with a relentless diet of biblical-theological sermons from less talented (i.e., most of us) preachers is their boring mediocrity: contrived contortions of passages which are engaged in to produce the answer ‘Jesus’ every week. It doesn’t matter what the text is; the sermon is always the same.”

To understand the other problems we need first to appreciate the distinction between “ontology” and “economy”. “Ontology” refers to “being”; “economy” refers to “acting” (literally: “managing a household”). We distinguish between understanding who God is in His being (i.e. as He is from all  eternity, quite apart from His acts in history) and a broader understanding of God through His works in history, i.e. managing His world through His works of creation, providence and redemption.

Biblical theology is good when it comes to appreciating how God has worked throughout history (“economy”), but not so good at coming to an understanding of who God is in Himself (“ontology”). For understanding the latter you really need systematic theology, which brings together everything the Bible has to say on a topic, and which forms the basis of “nearly seventeen hundred years engaging in careful doctrinal reflection; formulating a technical language allowing her theologians to express themselves with precision and clarity; writing creeds and confessions to allow believers over the face of the earth to express themselves with one voice.”

It is here that the current dominance of, and (in some quarters) sole dependence on, biblical theology has let the church down. It was not always so: “The economics of the history of salvation, on which the biblical theology movement is so good, was always carefully balanced by judicious reflection upon the ontological aspects of God which undergirded the whole of the church’s life and history.” But now that systematic theology in general, and creeds and confessions in particular, have fallen on hard times, obscured by the dominance of biblical theology, the church is poorer for it.

Which leads Trueman to his “greatest concern”, i.e. “that it places such an overwhelming emphasis upon the economy of salvation that it neglects these ontological aspects of theology. In doing so, it will, I believe, prove ultimately self-defeating: a divine economy without a divine ontology is unstable and will collapse. Trinitarianism will dissolve into modalism [i.e. Sabellianism, see my last post].”

As a result, “the theological unity of the Bible will be swallowed up and destroyed by its diversity because it has no foundation in the one God who speaks; and Christian exclusivism will be sacrificed to a meaningless pluralism as the church’s narrative is reduced to having significance only within the bounds of the Christian community.”

Summing Up

To sum up: “My fear is that the overwhelming economic emphasis of the biblical theology trajectory effectively cuts the church off from probing the ontological questions which I believe are demanded by reflection upon the biblical text, by consideration of the church’s tradition, and by our Christian commitment to the notion of the existence of a God who has revealed himself yet whose existence is prior to that revelation.”

Trueman allows that: “Biblical theology is – or rather, was – a necessary corrective to fanciful pietistic exegesis and mindless doctrinalism.” But, “anyone who thinks that these are still the major problems in evangelical churches clearly inhabits a different world to the one of which I have experience. In most churches where preaching still holds a central place, I suspect that an overemphasis on doctrine and systematic theology is not the problem… In my experience as a teacher, it is a lack of knowledge of, say, the doctrine of the Trinity rather than puzzlement over how to preach a Christian sermon on David and Goliath which is today the most pressing problem…”

He concludes: “Christianity is Trinitarian at its very core, and it is my suspicion that biblical theology on its own is inadequate to protect and defend that core. We need ontology as well as economy if we are to do justice to the Bible’s teaching on who God is and what he has done. The biblical-theological revolutionaries have become the new establishment; and it’s time for those of us rebels who think that the Bible raises more than just redemptive-historical questions, and that the creedal tradition of the church gives important insights on this, to raise our voices in dissent, to highlight the very real dangers of making this insight into an ideology and to do our best to bring the pendulum back a little.”

This is a critical issue today.
Get hold of his essay.
Read the whole book.