Narrative vs Systematic Theology

Comments

3 responses to “Narrative vs Systematic Theology”

1. 

   Alan

   June 19, 2007

   At Fuller, graduated in 1980, Dr. Ladd would have called it “Biblical Theology”. It is a theology that flows from the text itself rather than preempting what a particular passage is saying to the people involved.
   Peace
   Alan

   Loading…

   Reply
2. 

   Kevin

   June 21, 2007

   So how would narrative theology interpret or pute a framework around much of Romans?

   Loading…

   Reply
3. 

   Michael W. Kruse

   June 21, 2007

   Kevin, I was hoping someone who actually knows what they are talking about would answer but instead I’ll give you my take. *grin*
   If I ask you to tell me a about yourself and who you are, you are going to extract out pieces of you biography and weave them into a narrative. That narrative is going to shape how I interpret anything else I learn about you.
   The Old and New Testament gives us testimony about a narrative with a beginning (creation and shalom), a middle (rebellion and redemption) and an end (consummation of the new creation). The problem is we have a major cultural barrier to understanding the Biblical narrative. We Westerners are linear thinkers that want to look at things through systematic analytic reason and didactic instruction. In our preaching we often read a passage from the Gospels and then from one of the epistles. The pervasive perception is that Jesus did the work of redemption and told some good stories. However, Paul was the theologian and it is to Paul we turn to for the “theological meat,” using Jesus stories to help the less insightful among us get the picture.
   In reality, Jesus was the master theologian. But his theology was taught metaphorically and through narrative, in keeping with his near eastern cultural roots. These stories created narrative realities where the listener entered into the story and experienced the relationships and contexts within the story. Much like we view a “story” as a supplemental to the theology taught didactically, didactic explanation of narratives was the supplement for those who didn’t get it. Each of the gospels are not history in the modern sense of the word. We see history as an accurate chronological recounting of facts. That view of history emerged, more or less, with the Enlightenment. The gospels are Jesus teachings and events organized to communicate larger theological truths. This is true of much of the Bible.
   So what about Romans? Paul was translating the metaphorical/narrative theology of Jesus into Greco-Roman contexts that taught in didactic ways similar to our ways. That is why we latch on so easily on to Paul but Jesus often seems so opaque. Furthermore, Paul was usually writing about application of the Truth to specific contexts in response to specific concerns as opposed to laying out a full-blown theology. Jesus was the theologian. Paul was the intermediary helping to apply the theology in a foreign context.
   The Bible comes to us with its own agenda. It is tells a story and calls us into it. The danger of ignoring this reality is that we turn the Bible purely into a disparate collection of books that we mine to find answers to the questions we have postulated. In other words, we come to the Bible with our agenda rather than responding to the agenda of the narrative in the Bible.

   Loading…

   Reply