Integrative Theology

Gordon R. Lewis, Bruce A. Demarest

• Editorial: Zondervan Academic
• Año: 2010
• ISBN:
  9780310872764
• Categoría: Theology & Religion
• Categoría: Christian Theology

Integrative Theology is designed to help graduate students in a pluralistic world utilize a standard method of fruitful research. Each chapter on a major doctrine: (1) states a classic issue of ultimate concern, (2) surveys alternative past and present answers and (3) tests those proposals by their congruence with information on the subject progressively revealed from Genesis to Revelation. Then the chapter (4) formulates a doctrinal conclusion that consistently fits the many lines of biblical data, (5) defends that conviction respectfully, and finally (6) explores the conclusion's relevance to a person's spiritual birth, growth and service to others, all for the glory of God. Why the title Integrative Theology? In each chapter, steps 2-6 integrate the disciplines of historical, biblical, systematic, apologetic and practical theology.

VOLUME I
INTEGRATIVE THEOLOGY

Preface

Coherent thinking and authentic living in the modern world require that a person view life holistically rather than in fragments. For some people a meaningful world view is provided by the data of lived experience, while for others empirical analysis of the external world supplies the “big picture.” Christians, however, believe that a coherent understanding of reality begins with God’s perspective mediated by general and special revelation. In order to develop a comprehensive view of the real, the true, and the valuable and so to arrive at viable convictions by which to live and serve, we propose that Christians consider the paradigm of integrative theology.

Bernard Ramm, in his book After Fundamentalism, argues that Evangelicals must devise a new paradigm for doing theology in the post-Enlightenment world. The traditional approach to doing theology, he argues, will not suffice for the future. Ramm believes that Evangelicals “have not developed a theological method that enables them to be consistently evangelical in their theology and to be people of modern learning. That is why a new paradigm is necessary.”¹ Ramm chooses the method of Karl Barth as the preferred model for doing theology in the future. “Barth’s paradigm has resulted in an authentic methodology,” he claims.² In response to such felt needs for a new theological methodology, we propose the paradigm of integrative theology. This approach, we believe, follows a more reliable method than that of Barth and yields results that are more consistent with Scripture and the historic Christian faith.

The approach we call integrative theology involves six successive stages. The first involves identification of the problem under consideration. The investigator delineates the parameters of the theological problem and senses its significance for personal and societal existence.

Second, one identifies the various solutions to the problem that have been suggested in the history of Christian thought. Devout and gifted minds may have acquired insights that later Christians have not considered. But since equally competent scholars differ on many issues, we should view the alternative proposals as hypotheses to be tested by the primary biblical data.

Third, one goes behind the secondary testimony of history to the prime source of theological knowledge—inspired and inerrant Scripture. Following the method of biblical theology and employing a responsible hermeneutic, one finds the relevant teachings of the Old and New Testaments in their chronological development. This stage also involves relating one portion of Scripture to other portions that deal with the same subject in the progress of revelation.

Fourth, the investigator orders the relevant data of general and special revelation into a coherent doctrine and relates the same to the other doctrines similarly derived. The person commits himself to the thesis that satisfies the test for truth with the fewest number of difficulties. The commended test for truth is threefold: (1) logical consistency, (2) agreement with the data of revelation, and (3) existential viability.

Fifth, the Christian defends this doctrinal position in interaction with contrary positions in theology, philosophy, and new religions. At this stage the offensive component of an integrative theology becomes evident as the truth encounters and challenges alien ideologies. The goal of theology is to bring every dimension of thought and action under the lordship of the sovereign God.

Sixth, theology is applied to specific life situations in the world. This final stage assumes (1) that truth does not terminate in abstract contemplation and (2) that faithful living flows from truth as water flows from a fountain. It is imperative that Christians live by their convictions authentically before God, in relationship with others, and in service to the world. The ethical dimension of theology is apparent in this final stage.

The integrative approach to theology proposed in this volume thus may be summarized by six key phrases: The Problem; Historical Hypotheses; Biblical Teaching; Systematic Formulation; Apologetic Interaction; and Relevance for Life and Ministry. Due to space limitations each of these sections will be less than exhaustive and can only initiate thought in the given area.

Our contention is that integrative theology as implemented in this series offers more promise than alternative theological methods practiced in the past. It is superior to confessional theology, which presents the tenets that constitute a particular ecclesiastical tradition and invites adherence on that basis. The difficulty with confessional theology is that frequently few reasons are given why one tradition (Reformed, Lutheran, Anabaptist) is held to be superior to another. Such an approach seems to be closed rather than open to new insights from special or general revelation.

The integrative approach would also appear superior to fideistic theology, which enjoins belief on the authority of the speaker who claims to possess God’s Word. It may not be clear to the hearer of such a presentation that the claimant does in fact possess the truth of God. The element of unsubstantiated dogmatism present in the fideistic approach likewise may hinder the reception of the message.

The approach of integrative theology may be superior to traditional systematic theology for several reasons. The latter (1) usually does not develop a comprehensive history of the doctrine with a view to identifying hypotheses to be tested; (2) often does not follow the method of biblical theology but relies on proof-texting without the developmental context; (3) may not employ a comprehensive test for truth and thus not attain a high degree of objective validity in deciding which proposal is true and which views are spurious; (4) may not defend each doctrine in interaction with opposing views; and (5) may not show the relevance of each doctrinal issue for Christian life in the church and in the world.

Integrating our thoughts is something that we must do for ourselves—others cannot do it for us. These volumes provide several sets of data that should be coherently related in our minds. They also indicate ways in which the authors express their attempts at a coherent formulation. In the final analysis, however, we cannot organize your thoughts for you. Readers are urged to digest the material and to begin integrating their own thinking. If that seems discouraging at first, do not be surprised. Integrating our thoughts and then living by the convictions based on this integration is a life-time challenge. If a good start is made in that direction, the purpose of these volumes will have been achieved.

The method of integrative theology herein set forth is biblically grounded, historically related, culturally sensitive, person-centered, and profoundly related to life. Its goal is to set forth a comprehensive picture of the cosmos, of persons, and of history that is logically consistent, factually adequate, and capable of maximizing personal meaning and fulfillment. We propose a method for doing theology that follows a coherent research method, that avoids callous indoctrination, and that encourages the learner to come to his or her own conclusions and create his or her own commitments face-to-face with the Word of God and under the gentle guidance of the Holy Spirit. Our hope is that this approach may enable theology to overcome the impasse in which it finds itself in the contemporary situation, and that it might enable theology once again to speak convincingly to a church in need of instruction and to a world in need of God’s liberating truth and light.

After reviewing a few chapters of Integrative Theology, you may find yourself asking some of the following questions:

Question: Should the problem addressed in the first section of each chapter focus more directly on the urgent cultural problems of our times?

The immediate issues of a given culture provide valuable conversational starting points, but the study of each basic Christian doctrine begins with a problem of permanent, transcultural significance. A theological treatment of the multitudes of specific issues in each culture and subculture is important, but that can best be done by Christians who have specialized in the areas of the sciences, history, psychology, sociology, etc. Furthermore multitudes of contemporary issues may pass out of date almost as quickly as daily newspapers. The classical issues and doctrines have exhibited universal and permanent relevance because they are common to all men and women from the Near East, the Far East, and the West, in the two-thirds world and the one-third world, in rural areas and the large cities.

Question: Before looking at the “alternative proposals in the church” regarding a problem, should not theological research examine the biblical teaching? Would it not be wise to examine biblical truth inductively without theological biases?

Attempts to begin inductive research with the “objective” biblical evidence overlook the impossibility of obtaining complete objectivity in any comprehensive field. Nothing has become more evident recently than that all researchers and writers in any field have presuppositions. The ideal of objectivity is worthy and not in question here. The problem is to find a critical method by which to move toward greater objectivity. The most effective way we know for students of the Bible to identify their biases is to survey the alternative perspectives and so become aware of their own assumptions. By stating the alternative doctrines as mere hypotheses to be tested we not only become aware of the similarities and differences between our perspectives and those of others, but also of the need of verifying our own doctrine. This critical approach is necessary if we are to get out of our closed hermeneutical circles and in a spirit of openness do genuine research with any hope of making some progress. We make no claim to exhaustiveness but have attempted to state succinctly the most significant options from the beginning of the history of a given doctrine to the present time as a means of exposing assumptions so that they can be tested for their consistency and adequacy with the biblical evidence.

Question: Must a person adopt only one of the alternative views or can he be eclectic?

The section Systematic Formulation seeks to develop with clarity and some creativity a coherent interpretation of the primary biblical data in the space allotted—an interpretation that encompasses elements of truth from several of the different historical views and avoids their weaknesses. Beginning students may tend to take one of those views and reject everything in the others. Only where the others contradict a biblical position must they logically be dismissed. Often there is something to learn from views that have had major historical or contemporary influence. From their own historical and biblical studies professors and students may wish to formulate their conclusions with different emphases. So the formulation presented may serve as the springboard for further discussion.

Question: Could other views be considered in the sections under Apologetic Interaction?

The apologetic interaction sections are generally more concerned with the major non-Christian contemporary contradictory options than with fine tuning the evangelical position adopted as against other evangelical versions. It is our view that within the framework of an evangelical position there may be freedom to vary in specifics. Teachers and students in different traditions should feel free to focus in greater detail on the intramural refinements as they wish. Having tried to incorporate the values of the alternative options in the section Systematic Formulation, it is important not to undermine those elements of truth while opposing the nonbiblical elements or the system in general.

Question: Can other points of personal and social relevance be noted?

Readers are encouraged to supplement the section Relevance for Life and Ministry with their own applications of the doctrine. Teachers and students are free to consider other ways in which the revealed truth can make a difference in their own specific life situations and vocations. Keep in mind that the ministry here envisioned is not just that of ordained ministers, but more generally that of all Christians in their service to others, whether vocationally or avocationally.

Question: How can the review questions at the end of each chapter be used?

The review questions may help readers determine how well they can recall and express the major ideas of each section. The review questions may also stimulate discussions among students in larger or smaller groups. And they may be used as examination questions for essay tests.

Question: Can you briefly explain the relationship between the sections of each chapter? They are closely related as logically ordered steps in a verificational method of researching one basic issue. The verificational method of devising truth is not purely inductive, nor deductive. Rather, it is an abductive or retroductive method often called the hypothetical, critical, or scientific method of reasoning. The diagram on page 12 may clarify this.³

After a problem has been delimited, the verificational method does not begin with an allegedly blank mind (as in inductive methods), or with a confessional statement presupposed to be true (as in deductive methods), but with several historical and contemporary answers as hypotheses to be tested. These proposals are evaluated and confirmed or disconfirmed by the primary biblical evidence. Then the elements confirmed are formulated topically and logically in a consistent way that accounts for the biblical teaching. The section Apologetic Interaction indicates how the opposing hypotheses are inconsistent and inadequate in accounting for the evidence. Finally, the section Relevance for Life and Ministry indicates some of the viability of the conclusion for life and ministry.

Please note: because of the important connections of the sections of each chapter to each other in this verificationa...