One of those BIG questions

Two weeks into my first semester, and I'm already running into some big questions, the answers to which will shape my approach to theology and ministry in a profound way. The question of the day involves just how much we can "systematize" our understanding of God (ie. theology), and how much we should simply accept mysteries as being mysterious.

With regard to this question, I see three possible extremes, and while few would explicitly advocate any of these positions, they seem to represent some of the pitfalls of theological study.

One option is to make theology subject to reason and logic, and seek to eliminate any seeming contradictions, and to systematically explain mysterious concepts like the Trinity and the sacraments. I'll call this systematicism (there may be a "real" term for this already, but I'm not aware of it).

Another option is to pretend that these mysterious doctrines (Trinity, sacrament, atonement, etc.) are not really mysterious at all, but are rather plainly obvious to anyone with the common sense of a muskrat. This view tends to ignore the literary diversity of scripture, taking as literal things that are poetic or hyperbolic, and seeks to end any discussion of theology (even with non-Christians) with the nuclear option of proof-texting and "because the Bible says so, that's why!"* Let's call this one hyper-fundamentalism.

The third option puts too much emphasis on mystery over against reason. It dismisses systematic theology as a waste of time and positive energy, and falls victim to theological and intellectual laziness, stressing that God's "ways are higher than mine." This we dub Christian agnosticism, and, alas, good Anglican that I am, I must confess that this is my natural pitfall.

The common root of all of three of these extremes is ultimately a low view of scripture. Systematicism subjects scripture to human reason; hyper-fundamentalism dismissed the power of scripture to engage the human mind in a profound way; Christian agnosticism, similarly, denies the God-given faculty of reason, and makes the bible into an esoteric spiritual text.

I'm currently about halfway through my first read of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the central doctrinal statement of the English-speaking Reformed tradition. My first reaction to it is that it tends toward systematicism, though that may just be my Christian agnosticism talking. I am starting to really wrestle with these three extremes, and trying to find where the Lord would have me land. How much mystery should I be comfortable with? To what degree should I read the bible, not itself primarily a systematic theological text, from a systematic perspective? Where is the balance between humbly accepting at face value the plain teachings of scripture, and seeking to logically reconcile some of the really "hard" passages?

I have a feeling that over the course of my seminary studies, I will move in the systematic direction, and this is probably a good thing. I don't think I've yet come to fully appreciate the depth and comprehensive nature of scripture, and I look forward to growing in this area. But I have to say, some of the most profound spiritual growth in my life has come through things I don't, and probably can't, begin to wrap my mind around. Things like the work of the Holy Spirit in renewing my heart and mind, the transcendence of liturgical worship, and especially the foundational conviction that Christ is in fact the Lord and Savior of the world...I could go on for hours. I don't think the Lord will ever show me the divine mechanics behind all this; he certainly doesn't do this in scripture, at any rate, and that's ok with me.

In all this, my prayer is that the Lord would give me the grace to humbly submit myself to His Word, and to learn from men and women who have spent their lives seeking to know Him and make Him known. Amen! Lord, have mercy!

*"Because the bible says so," properly used, ought to be convincing for CHRISTIANS, who view the bible as the basis of our faith. But we've all made the mistake at one time or another of simply quoting a proof text, as if our brother or sister had never read John 3:16 (or whatever passage), thinking that will magically convince them that we are RIGHT, dammit. And for God's sake, when you're talking about theology with non-Christians, belittling them for not believing in the primacy of scripture will get you NOWHERE. Try loving them, and go from there in humility.