Tue 29 Aug 2006
For those of you who know me, you know that I typically carry 3×5 notecards with me (no, I don’t carry a pocket protector, and no I didn’t carry a briefcase in high school). I use these for Bible verses, for notes, quotes and other assorted jottings. For quite some time I’ve had a notecard on my desk with a quote on it that I for some reason didn’t reference. The card had a handwritten quote and the reference “page 160.” The quote read:
“Because we have approached faith through the lens of science, the rich legacy of art that once flowed out of the Christian community has dried up.”
I had a fairly good idea of where the quote came from, so I went to my bookshelf, pulled a book, turned to page 160 and continued reading:
“The poetry of Scripture, expecially in the case of Moses, began to be interpreted literally and mathematically, and whole books such as the Song of Songs were completely ignored. They weren’t scientific. You couldn’t break them down into bullet points. Morality became a code, rather than a manifestation of love for Christ, the way a woman is faithful to her husband, the way a man is faithful to his wife. These relational ideas were replaced with right and wrong, good and bad, with only hinted suggestions as to where right and wrong and good and bad actually came from. Old Testament stories became formulas for personal growth rather than stories to help us understand the character and nature of the God with whom we interact.”
I have mixed feelings about Donald Miller, author of Blue Like Jazz, Searching For God Knows What and other “relevant” books. I also have difficulty with much of the “pre-,” “modern,” and “post-” language, particularly when it comes to hermeneutics and the application of Scripture. However, There was a reason I jotted down that quote from Miller. I agree with much of what he is saying.
Several years ago I had the opportunity to teach two extended (totallying about 18 weeks in all) sessions of the Adult Bible study at Sovereign Grace Bible Church in Phoenix, AZ. The topic was an introduction and application of Biblical Theology and the Redemptive Historical heremeutic. I used a quote from Hodge’s Systematic Theology in which he compared theology to a science, in fact arguing that theology was the highest of all the sciences.
At the time I took his statements to mean that theology was the chief of all endeavors (which I believe it to be). However, I don’t think I grasped the implications of his use of the term “science” to describe theology. I didn’t grasp the implications of a rationalized approach to Scripture and the proof-texting that comes with it. Now, don’t misunderstand me, I do think that theology is the highest of all possible pursuits. I’m just not convinced that “science” is the right way to think of theology.
Miller argues that because we have tried to explain and compartmentalize so much of Scripture, it’s mystery, possibly even its majesty has vanished, and thus the wellsrping of artistic inspiration that it once was for believers. As I look at the anemic state of “Christian” arts, I tend to believe that marketing and propaganda are not the only culprits.
There tends to be a different mindset when one approaches a “science,” we immediately limit ourselves to engaging the head rather than the heart. This is exactly the way many otherwise well-intentioned believers approach Scripture in general and doctrine in particular. We expect to find a formula in everything and we act as though we’ve missed the point when a text doesn’t break itself down into three easily alliterized points. Fundamentally, much of this is because we bring with a “scientific” mindset that makes us believe that we can understand absolutely anything if we simply set the right parameters for the examination. What we’re forgetting is that we are finite grappling with the infinite.
It’s one thing to rationally accept God at His Word when he says in Isaiah 55:9: “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts,” but it’s another to grasp the full truth of this, to let it wash over our souls, ignite our passions and fuel our humility. Scripture is so much richer, so much deeper than we often allow it to be.
Yet how do we overcome this mindset when it’s all that many of us have ever known? How do we move beyond rationalizing, proof-texting and systematic theology? I think this is where many of the emergents go wrong. We don’t do away with these things. Instead we recognize their limitations, but we also recognize their value. Systematic Theology is necessary and it should be beautiful. Rather than throw out the head, we reconnect it to the heart and we realign our lives with hearts on fire for God. When more Christians understand the beauty of God as much as the sovereignty of God, we will see the return of art because our souls can’t help but sing “a new song, for he has done marvelous things! His right hand and his holy arm have worked salvation for him (Psalm 98:1).
on 29 Aug 2006 at 1:14 pm 1.Rhett Smith said …
Great post Brent! That’s all..no other great insights on my part….but I have to say, that I think a lot of the draw the “emergent church” and more non-traditional style of church has been this idea of approaching scripture, etc., away from a scientific lens, and looking at it more mysteriously.
on 29 Aug 2006 at 2:14 pm 2.Brent Jeffrey Thomas said …
The Isaiah verse you quoted reminds one of God’s sublime grandeur. The dominent well-marketed Christian music, art, architecture,etc., in our time seems to me too mushy, too familiar. It does not often communicate the reality expressed in Isaiah55:9. A challenge for the Christian artist is communicating the full mysterious richness of Jesus, to the best degree that we can: His familiar physicality combined with His Deity.
Thank you for this fine essay. I will put this Isaiah verse on my studio wall.