Let's pick up our discussion under Room No. 4 on page 4, Objections to Theology. After I finished college, I applied and was accepted to study theology in a graduate school program. Well, kind of like what you're doing here. And one day in church, a woman approached me and she offered this admonition. She said, don't let those theology professors destroy your faith. This lady was concerned that a study of theology would undermine the firmness of my Christian convictions that it would steal something of my zeal away. Perhaps her admonition expresses something of your fears as well. Does theological study pose a danger for Christian piety, faith, and practice? We've all heard this. We're all aware that there is a certain fear, a certain distrust, and even a certain dislike among Christians for theological study. Well, where does this antipathy to theology come from? There are, in fact, a number of possible sources. Anti-intellectualism, folk superstitions, populism, an emphasis upon experiential subject to this religion, erud and sterile academic theology, a lack of translation of theological ideas, dense jargon, and simply poor interactions between the rank and file, excuse me, I'm from factory town, I don't think of lay people, I think of the rank and file, and theologians. Well, the fact is theological study can be an enemy to faith. Bad theology is always the enemy of faith, but the antidote to bad theology is not no theology. It's good theology. What we want to do here in our second hour is to defend theological study from its detractors to face some of the objections to theology. And those objections usually come as questions. Things like, can we study this stuff too much? Can't I just believe it? Do I really have to know that stuff? Can knowing the Bible or theologically, theologically reflecting on it hurt my faith? We want to do a examine number of the sources for these questions. And in responding to those sources, we will in effect be answering the primary objections to theological study. And if you look at the outline, I've really organized the objections under two categories. First of all, commitments about the nature of theology and then psychological dispositions. So first of all, commitments about the nature of theology. Or I could have titled that, I guess, theology about commitments about the nature of the faith, because these two will go hand in hand here. One objection here under commitments is this. You hear it many times. God and His word are to be enjoyed. Not studied. Theology just examines things to death. And it takes all the life out of the believer's relationship with God. A radio preacher once said, happy is the Christian who never met a theologian. Theologians are hopeless kill joys. They're bent on taking all the fun out of being a Christian. Stanley Grins in a little book, an introduction to theology talks about Linus Van Pelt, a character in the penance comic strip. And if you don't think about that comic strip, Linus is the resident theologian slash philosopher. And he tends to reinforce this particular stereotype. As Linus is carefully putting the finishing touches on a snowman, Charlie Brown walks up to him and says, well, Linus, did you have a good Christmas? Linus looks back and says, what do you mean, good? Did I get a lot of presents? Did I give a lot of presents? Are you referring to the weather on Christmas day? Or the Christmas dinner? Do you mean was my Christmas good in a spiritual sense? Was my Christmas good and then I saw new meanings to old things? And of course, by this time, Charlie Brown's gone. Well, that's exactly the way many Christians see theological study. It introduces needless, joyless distinctions, definitions, and endless questions. But I introduced this source of dislike for theology, is coming from a particular understanding of the nature of theology. A particular understanding of the faith. You see, many Christians have a kind of bias, a bias toward the subjective, a bias toward the emotional, a bias toward the experiential. Sometimes popular, for lack of a better term, revivalist, or piousist strains of the Christian faith have inculcated the idea that what's really important is not what I think. That's how I feel, how I feel about Jesus. And whether those feelings have any connection to objective truth is perhaps secondary. I should really say here that such ideas are really a distortion of either pietism or revivalism. Because as both of those arose, pietism in the 17th century and revivalism in the 18th century, yes, they both did emphasize the effective, the emotional, the subjective. But not at the cost of biblical religion or biblical truth. None of the leaders of either of those movements claim that true religion is about pure subjectivity, feelings divorced from truth. Nevertheless, countless Christians have gained the impression that being a Christian is primarily about having certain emotional feelings about Jesus. We run into it a lot, quite frankly, in popular Christian music. By the way, this is one of the reasons music is important. No one remembers the sermon. And those of you who have preached need to understand that. Half an hour after you've preached, it's gone. No one remembers the sermon. What they remember is the music. Choose the music. Carefully. Read the music. Pay attention to the music. That's what people take home. But what we hear many times in popular Christian music is that what matters isn't cognitive stuff. Isn't the stuff you can put in your head, but love, how we feel about Jesus. This problem has grown so endemic within American evangelical circles that writers like Mark Noel, Os Guinness, David Wells have all spoken of the death of the Christian mind, of the evangelical mind. In a book called the scandal of the evangelical mind, Mark Noel said that the scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is no longer any evangelical mind. And he's talking about the spray reality that we have fallen into a kind of sentimentality, a kind of subjectivity, emotional subjectivity. We have fallen into the idea that what matters is the depth of our sentiments. Well, my own response would go something like this. Millions of people today believe and believe with all their hearts that racism is good and proper. Doesn't make it true. Millions of people believe and believe with all their hearts that artificially ending the lives of the unborn is good and proper. And a means of human wholeness and freedom doesn't make it true. The depth of sentiment and depth of sentiment for Jesus is good. I hope you had it, but it's neither self-nefficient, self-sufficient, nor is it self-authenticating. Let me put it in biblical terms. While God wants us to love Him, He declares that our redemption is not a matter of the depths of our passion. Our redemption is a matter of the depths of Christ's passion, of His suffering. Our love for Him is always a response, a response to His historical action at Calvary. And without that historical objective event, proclaimed and interpreted in Scripture, our feelings are merely empty sentimentality. In other words, our deeply held beliefs are not self-authenticating. They must be tested by the Word of God. A common version of this objection is that Christian faith should be child-like. Aren't we supposed to be like children and not question everything? Now people who raised this objection often point to Jesus' acceptance of little children when he held them up as examples of those who would enter the kingdom of God. But they overlook that the Apostle Paul commended the Christians of Berea because they examined the gospel of Christ in light of the Hebrew scriptures and that they looked at them critically before accepting them. That's in Acts 17. It seems to me that both child-like faith and critical examination have a place in Christianity. How many of you have small children? Children three to five years old? I've got one of them too. The favorite word right now is why? And right after that is what? And then how come? That hardly sounds like what we have in mind sometimes, we're going to talk about being child-like. The issue that Jesus is getting at with child-like faith is not that you don't ask questions. It's that you're accepting. You're not cynical. We adults who tend to be cynical about everything, right? Shoulder aren't that way. So the issue is not a kind of ignorance. We tend to confuse simple child-like faith with simplistic child-ish faith and not the same thing. Good theology does not deny the necessity of humble acceptance before God. It's talking to Mark Ryan at the break about Calvin's institutes. When you read through Calvin, that's something he comes back to over and over and over again. Standing still, standing before the throne of God. It's child-like in coming face to face with the God who is there. And Calvin was a great theologian. Good theology does, however. Push beyond blind and unquestioning acceptance of any and everything. It seeks to be properly critical. Need to face something about this word critical. It's a one that's gotten bad press. When we hear the word critical, we think it means negative, judgmental, sensorious. But actually, all it means is to make a judgment, to make an informed opinion. You can be critical and have a good outcome. You can be critical of someone and have a glowing report. All the word means is to judge. It's all that it means. Second objection. Our second objection is that doctrine divides people. It breeds intolerance and strife. An old slogan went like this. Jesus unites, but doctrine divides. Well, theological reflection and insistence upon doctrinal reality does divide. But that's the nature of truth. Ask the biblical prophets. Ask Jesus. He came as he put it to divide men, to divide truth from air foolishness from wisdom. Because he came to do the father's will. To be wise, to know the truth is to what? It's to reject that which is foolish, trivial, unhelpful, and erroneous. Love does not mean tolerance. Contrary to much of what we hear in our culture today, loving neighborliness does not mean toleration of all things. The most loving thing you can often do for another person is to have the courage to speak the truth. Now theological study does include a kind of formalized thinking which seeks to be critical of beliefs. To judge whether they're true or false. And that function means that the theologian will come to the judgment that some belief is false. And that will divide people. The theory of church debated over such issues as whether Jesus was merely a man or somehow far more. Perhaps even God. And that debate would take the better part of 200 years. And before it was done, it would declare many beliefs, many statements about Jesus. And many groups who were making many statements about Jesus, heretical. And that brought huge controversy into the church. Before it was done, it would necessitate the first church-wide ecumenical council. The year was 325. The place was Nicaea. One of the heroes of Nicaea was a man named Athanasius. Athanasius was a champion of the position that Jesus is homo-usias of the father of the same essence. You see same essence here in Greek. The other major party at Nicaea were the Aryans, the Aryan party. And they said that Jesus is not of the same essence. The other he is of similar essence, homo-usias, similar essence, or like essence. Notice the difference in these two words. How similar they are. The difference is a little yota, a little i, the letter i. But what a difference. The difference between being a creature. Which the Aryans said Jesus was, and being God, which Athanasius and the Orthodox party said Jesus was. Now Athanasius refused to compromise. Sometimes he had so few allies that the motto, Athanasius against the world, became something of a joke in 4th century, Northern Africa. And he would spend over 40 years of his bishopric in exile. He was a hunted man, a hounded man. And he has come down to us as a belligerence, a divisive hair-splitting fundamentalist, a man who would bring down the entire church over a single yota. But Athanasius was right. And on his rightness hung the very deity of Christ and a trinitarian reality of God. Obviously not all the issues that face us are as decisive as the issue which Athanasius challenged. Some differences are not the difference between orthodoxy and heresy. So a matter of fact, many of the differences that the church faces are not like that. But truth does always have the potential to divide. But perhaps the best answer I can give to the divisiveness charge is that which was given by Martin Luther. First simply went like this. The primary purpose of the truth of theology is not to divide nor to unite, but to discover and protect the truth. Theology delves too deeply in things it can't know, mysteries that are beyond human understanding. And this preoccupation with the unknowable puts theologians out of touch with the practical everyday lives of people. Well, this one makes me scratch my head because it's unfortunately often true. Theology is often too speculative, far more speculative than it has any right to be. That's one of the things I'm going to argue in this course. Much of 17th century Calvinism, my own tradition, engaged in the kinds of inquiry that Calvin himself would have called speculative. Theologians have sometimes claimed to know more about heaven and hell, the age to come, the ministry of angels and many other things than the Bible says. And sometimes we have specialized in and we've trafficked in the most highly questionable of theological concerns, perhaps to tickle the ears of the overly curious. But let me spread the guilt around here a bit to get other people involved. I think that an overly speculative and argumentative theology is also sometimes the special interest of theological students. Once we have mastered some of the ideas and the impenetrable fog of jargon, we seek for someone to joust with. We haven't mastered the goal of theological study or it's real intention, but we've got some of the tools. I was going to say the weapons and thus we seek to do intellectual combat with anyone who's willing to take us on. In other words, sometimes we know just enough theology to get into trouble and to give the theological enterprise a bad name. So unfortunately I think number three is far too often too true. And one of the things I want to argue for this semester is that one in order to be a faithful reader of scripture, in order to have and to develop some theological discernment, one does not need a baccalaureate or a master's degree in philosophy. So, in fact, those things may hurt you more than help you. I think it's the case that a little old lady sitting in Minnesota or Norway or wherever can be as faithful to the Lord and know the Word of God as surely and truly as anyone else. And it has nothing to do with her prowess as a philosopher. Fourth, I sometimes heard students not around here, but in the past, complain that the Bible, theology, and doctrine are inappropriate subjects of study because, hey, nobody really truly knows. It's all just a matter of interpretation. If you all heard that one, it's all just a matter of interpretation. I find that a curious comment because you see, isn't everything a matter of interpretation? The study of history is a study of man's interpretation of the past. The study of biology is a study of man's interpretation of a biotic aspect of life in on and on. Astronomy and interpretation of the physics of astral bodies. So, it's curious that this argument be applied so only to scripture and theology. In simplest terms, let me answer this objection by saying that the Bible is meant as God's communication to man. He expects it to be read. He expects it to be understood. If we really want to say no one can understand it, I think we've passed a judgment upon God's abilities as a communicator. A little bit later, we will make the point that reading the Bible well, understanding it, is work. It's hard work, but it's worth that we are commanded to do. God's a good communicator, but we're going to have to work to hear it. Not because what he's saying is vague, but because we got so much gobbledygook between the word and us. Fifth. Again, I have to admit, many of these come from my experiences teaching at the undergraduate level in a Christian liberal arts college. I've also heard students say, well, we don't have to study this stuff. It's self-evident. This is kind of a most reformed problem, I think. And it comes from some of our notions about the covenants. I've heard it this way. I was born a Christian. I didn't have to go out and get it. It's my right. It's my heritage. It's in the water. And because I was born into it, I don't have to strive for it. Well, nothing in life worth having comes automatically. And there's nothing automatic about the Christian faith. No one in this room is a Christian, simply because your parents are Christians, or because you went to a Christian school, or were categorized, it's not original equipment. And again, God commands us to know, to be able to give account and accounting for the faith that's within us. I think there are also some psychological dispositions which oftentimes function as objections to these very quickly. Can I say that we live in a culture that's just plain lazy? We don't want to invest the time or effort that it takes to read carefully, asking what's there, what it means, and how it's to respond. We live in a video culture. You turn it on, it doesn't ask you to do any work. It doesn't ask you to... It doesn't even ask you to address for crying out loud. Just ask you to be there. Too many of us today are not as willing to invest the time or commitment to Scripture that we spend playing video games or perfecting our jump shots. And I know that sounds a little harsh, but I think it's something we see in the broad Christian culture today. Second, and this is, I think, much more substantive, a fear of subjecting our biases to criticism. I really suspected this was the strongest psychological motivator behind the popular dislike. You see, many of us don't know our faith very well, but we know that the world dismisses the Christian faith. And we're really somewhat fearful that if we studied our faith closely, if we studied its grounding closely, we'd find out something that would undermine it. We'd find out that the world's rejection of Christianity is true. In other words, the truth, the real facts of the case, would be a hindrance to our faith. Bob, you have a question. I'm just simply reply that such a faith is not faith at all, but superstition. It's a belief without roundings, without facts. The question was, is that possible due to the fact that we're comfortable with our culture? I mean, the extra Christian culture or the Christian culture? Which culture do you mean? Yeah, I would give a yes answer if the question is because we've grown comfortable with Christian culture. There is a kind of cultural Christianity among Christians. We have accepted, and generally we've been regenerated. We are generally redeemed, but it's really within a cultural context, within a very narrow cultural context. And what happens, and I kind of come from one of those communities myself, I guess, I must admit that, you stay within that community. You don't want to venture too far out. You don't want to subject the faith to the acids of the larger culture. Not only because you're frightened of them, but you may in fact find out something that will destroy that place where you are comfortable. And again, I mean that's a psychological factor. And finally, I think for many young people, particularly second generation Christians, people who were raised in sunny school, maybe a Christian school movement, catacism, and all the rest, there's a sense that Christianity is boring, and it's irrelevant. They've heard it, or at least they think they've heard it, all their lives. And my response is here is that we admit that we have often made the faith boring. But notice why I said, we have often made the faith boring. Many people who profess to be its teachers don't understand it well, have a little gift for teaching, and fail to see its application to life. But again, this fault is not the fault of God, or his word, it's our fault. You need to read Dorothy Sayers, the greatest story ever told, or she's, how can this be boring? How can this drama be boring? Well, sometimes we do, we just kill it, we fail to communicate it well. Another way I can respond to this, response is this, when people say that's not relevant, that judgment can go in the opposite direction. What they're saying is that there's a break in relevance. If the kingdom of God, if the word of God is not relevant to our lives, maybe the reality is that our lives have been, we've created our lives in such a way they're not relevant to the word of God and his kingdom. So maybe we just need to turn the issue around a bit. But in Romans 5, what is systematic theology? Since this course is in that discipline, I should say something in our introduction to theology about systematics. Again, if you recall, we made much, beginning tonight, about a distinction between revelation and scripture. One of the reasons that distinction is so crucial is that when most of us think about theology, when we hear that term, what we really think of is systematic theology. Systems, doesn't matter whether it's Calvinist theology or Lutheran theology, dispensationalist theology, tomistic theology, neo-orthodox theology, black theology, liberationist theology, feminist theology, you name it theology. But contrary to what many of us have said, and it happens, it could settle on. Nobody ever did this. No one ever opened their Bible, turns it over, shook it, and out popped Calvinism, or dispensationalism, or any other ism. There is no systematic theology in the Bible. Any theological system is a complex product of culturally conditioned methodologies and presuppositions. It's the product of an engagement with the biblical text. It's a product of the testing of the confessional heritage of the church. It's a product of the testing of ideas in the marketplace and in the life of the people of God. Fact is there are many, many steps or theological functions between the biblical text and any system of thought. Some of those steps, some of those functions have been institutionalized within a systematic theology or theological curriculum. They are such things as exegesis, biblical theology, historical theology, systematics. So just for a second, I want to zero in on some of these, the theological or psychopedia, or what I have there as the branches of theology. What are some of these theological functions? First of all, exegetical theology. What does the exegetical theology do? The exegetical theology largely relies primarily upon a literary analysis. His job is to ask what does the text mean? What does it say and what does it mean? His focus is the text. He works phrase by phrase, sentence by sentence, hopefully in the original languages in order to understand and interpret the message of scripture. The tools of the exegete are a sound knowledge of languages, a feel for how language functions, and the knowledge of ancient and Austrian culture in history. Second, biblical theology. Biblical theology studies the history of God's dealings with creation as that history is communicated in scripture. Gerhardus Vos refers to the focus of biblical theology as being the history of redemption. The exegete, as I said, he's looking at the text and he's asking, what does this text say? The biblical theology is also looking at the text, but his primary question is, what's the historical story, the historical drama behind the text? So rather than a literary analysis, he's using an historical analysis. What's the story that's being communicated? And he's looking for the mighty ex of God. Gerhardus Vos himself would be a good example here of biblical theologian. George Ladd, the American Baptist theologian, would be another good example. Third or C, let's see, or three, I'm using this somewhat different system in my notes here, historical theology. The historical theologian focuses upon the history of God's people and their engagement with scripture. This means that the historical theologian concentrates on the history of interpretation, the history of theological developments, and the confessional history of the church. He's not looking at the biblical text. So instead of saying, what did Paul say? He's going to be asked, what did Luther say? Or Malayton say? Or Irenaeus say? Systematics. While exegetical theology focuses on specific passages and biblical theology on the historical features and historical on the post-biblical story, systematic theology seeks to bring it all together. To synthesize them. Systematics asks, what does it all add up to? In investigating the intermediate state, for example, the systematician looks at the biblical texts that are relevant to death and the pre-resurrection state. He asks, what biblical theologians have said about these texts? He listens to what biblical theologians have said about the grave, she all in the Old Testament and Hades in the New, and he also examines what important historical figures like Augustine, Calvin, the Ritterboss had concluded on these issues. In short, he asks this question, what's it all add up to? What does the whole Bible teach about X? In a second, I want to look at systematics a bit more carefully, but the sake of being comprehensive. Let me run number five, practical theology. At first glance, it might seem like exegetics, biblical theology, historical studies, and systematics mean to find the meaning of the teaching, and that practical theology seeks application. But that's really a misnomer. Any theology, any theology well done, is practical in the sense that its goal is biblically enlightened, faith, and obedience. Practical theology is no more and no less practical than exegetics or systematics. In fact, a better term than practical theology would be pastoral theology. The pastoral theology concentrates upon the study of the ministries of the church, preaching, counseling, missions, evangelism, worship. It might even think of pastoral theology as applied ecclesiology. Now, let me come back under B here, the characteristics of systematics. First of all, systematics is a synthetic discipline. Systematics is an integrative discipline for it stands upon the shoulders of the exegete, the biblical theologian, the historian, and even the pastoral theologian. He draws from all of them. I spend my entire day wandering the halls, asking my colleagues what is truth, and they tell me, and I add it all together. Second, his analysis is topical. He is asking what does it add up to? What is a biblical insight on? And that topic can be a topic from scripture, the nature of Christ, the nature of man's life in the world, or it can be a question that arises from the culture. What is a biblical response to abortion? Nuclear armaments, anything like that. Third, his concern is contextual. Since systematics takes up questions that may derive from the cultural environment, it is a contextual discipline. In fact, and I think that systematics shares this with homologics preaching. Systematic theology has the particular calling of relating the message of the Christian faith to the contemporary world. Its very job is the application of the message to the world. And funny, fourth, his job is, or his goal is prescriptive. By the word prescriptive, I mean it aims for what we should believe rather than descriptive. A descriptive analysis has hear your options. Prescription says, here's what we should believe. I've sometimes heard students again at the undergraduate level, particularly I guess they say it when they hear me saying something they don't like. So you should just give us the options. But the problem here is I can't find any historical precedence for that. Lutheran Duthiology that way, Calvin and Augustin and Athanasius, there is no historical precedent for that. The systematic theologian aims for a prescriptive analysis question. Now this means, I think, that there's a particular relationship between the systematician and the church and a particular relationship between the systematician and the confessional heritage of the church. Whatever degree of authority, and we'll talk about those things, whatever degree of authority the church has or a confessional tradition has, they will come to bear most clearly in systematics. The exegete or the historian may strive for a descriptive analysis, but not the systematician. He must always strive for a normative statement, thus his resources are broader. But this also means that that systematics is a less purely academic discipline. It is an ecclesiastical discipline. And the reason I say all of this is to alert you that as a reformed Presbyterian theologian, I am held accountable to that church, and I am held accountable to its confessional underpinnings, and I believe that that is right. Theology is always done in the context of the people of God, and it is done for the people of God.
See the traditional loci of systematics, and we're almost done here. We're going to break a little bit early tonight. I'm not going to ask you to memorize these 12 terms, but I will ask you to familiarize yourself with them. Because you may hear these terms used throughout the course at different points, this is the traditional way or the traditional subjects or topics that systematic theology has been divided into. Polygamina, the word only means a first word, a preceding word. It includes such things as theological method and epistemology. The word epistemology means how do you know? And we've started with polygamina tonight. But as you can see, we'll continue on with that because it includes the doctrine of Scripture as well. Second, theology proper, the doctrine of God. Third, anthropology from Anthropos, the doctrine of man. These are all taken from the Greek language. Fourth, hematology. The study of sin, hematia. This is the word sin. Fifth, Christology. Obviously, the doctrine of Christ. Sixth, Soteriology. The doctrine of salvation. From Soteria, salvation. Seventh, pneumatology. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit. From Numa. Eighth, ecclesiology. The doctrine of the church. Ecclesia is required for church. Ninth, eschatology. The study of the last things. Eschatos is the Greek word for last. Tenth, harmonetics. The science of biblical interpretation. We will address that discipline in this course. Of course, eleventh, ethics. The study of the principles of reconduct. And twelfth, apologetics. The study of the defense of the Christian faith. Let me say one thing here about D, the exogetical theological method. Here at Covenant, we are committed to the agenda. That systematic theology stands upon an exogetical biblical base. Without naming any names or casting any stones, there are people, there are folks, both within the reformed Christian and outside of it, who believe that theology stands upon a philosophical foundation. There is a long history of that within the reformed tradition. Certainly, God can be philosophized upon and legitimately. I mean, to cast stones at the discipline of philosophy. Again, a little lady in Minnesota. I don't think she needs a degree in philosophy. There are also folks within the tradition, who believe that the discipline of systematics should stand upon or work from our confessional standards. That one should start with the Westminster standards and secure their theology from there. Here at Covenant, however, we are committed to, when I argue this a little bit more fully later, we are committed to the idea that rather than starting with confessional faith, we work toward confessional faith. We start from Scripture. We believe the Principle Solar Scriptura presses that upon us that the Bible is our sure norm, our final source of authority. Yes, and what I just said about being a systematic theologian under the church. I want to take that seriously and that means I stand under the confessional heritage of the church. But it's at the end of the day. I work toward it. Therefore, the materials we will seek to use will be biblical rather than creed or confessional. Does that make sense? There are many, many, many more things we could do in terms of an introduction to theology. I wanted to do it only for one evening. Questions of process are usually not the kinds of things that get people excited. I see some droopy eyes this evening. Next week, we will move on to the issue of Revelation and to Scripture. You've been very quiet this evening. I don't think it's necessary that you be so. Feel free to ask questions. Since you have been so quiet, let me shut up at this point and ask you what questions you might have about standing, about what we've done this evening. Great question. Great question. Let me preface my answer. Question wise, would you consider Paul theologian? Let me preface my answer by reminding us that there's no privileged definition of theology. It's really a matter of usage. My answer is no. I wouldn't consider Paul theologian. The reason is, I simply want to protect that distinction between the word of God and our theological reflection on it. That's all. It's purely because of that that I want to make that I would say no. Is Paul reflecting upon? Yeah, what's he doing in the book of Romans? He is reflecting about on what God has done in Jesus Christ. And he's even doing so pretty systematically. I could say Paul is Paul's writing doctrine. I'm going to stop just short of things of theologian. Does that make sense? But simply for that reason, so I will not confuse God's revelation with my theological construction. Yes, and realizing what Luke says in his very first chapter about his methods, that he's doing research. He's talking to people, but I'm simply simply to protect the word of God. Now, there might be better ways to do that. But again, the word I can define this thing anyway we want to. And Bob, I'm not saying you must define theology the way I have. I just hope you appreciate what the distinction that I want to make that my theological constructions never have the authority of the word of God. When I make that mistake, then I have given my Calvinism the same authority as Luke or Paul. By the way, they're fully authoritative. So I'm protected. I hope I'm protecting Paul and Luke by making that somewhat artificial distinction. Very good question. Other questions? Another great question is every Christian a theologian? What's that? Or if not, should they be? Okay, my response is going to be in some ways a startling is my response to Bob's question. No, not every Christian should be a theologian. We are not doing theology simply by reading the word of God. I think that theology is a disciplined, organized activity. That little old lady, singing Minnesota. What she opens her Bible to have her devotions to find the words from her Lord. She's not trying to be a theologian. She's not responding to it in that way. She's not engaging it in that way. Let me suggest with an analogy, an analogy here might help. These lights that are above us in the room. They're for all of us, right? The light comes on. It shines on everybody. But one of us is called to attend to the light. There's a guy called an electrician. It's his job to make sure the electricity works, that there's juice to the box, that the bulbs work, all of that, right? The theologian's job is to attend to the light. It's to attend to the text, to ask those questions, to guide the people of God. We're not all called to it. We're all called to know what as well as we can, but let's face it. We all have a lot of different callings and more. Some of us are called to be farmers and to farm unto the Lord. Some of us are called to raise children. Others are called to be medical practitioners. And we will not have the time, we will not have the resources to give to the study of the Word of God and the theological arts. Some of us, however, are called to that, and we do that for the sake of all. So I would, again, someone artificial. I tend to think of theology as an academic discipline. But one other thing that that protects is the recognition that our response to God and to His Word cuts across the entirety of life, cuts across all the different ways that human beings function. Now, I know I did define theology fairly broadly as knowing how, knowing who and knowing how, knowing that. Right? So that's fairly broad. But if you look at Scripture, it actually calls for an even broader response from us than that. It calls, we are called to respond to God with the entirety of our beings. And even to His Word, that theology does not try to cover every possible kind of response. Hi, Rhonda. You know it's time to go. Rhonda asked if women are called to be theologians. Yeah. Need to realize, and now I'm going to dig myself out of the hole you think I got myself into, need to realize that theology is an academically defined discipline. Yes, it comes under the sovereignty of the church, but I don't believe that it's necessarily the case that a theologian be a member of the clergy. It's a matter of fact, not every, well, wait a minute, I was going to say not every member of our faculty is a cleric. What is true? Not every member of our faculty is clear. Now that's in the context of the PCA, restricting the office of elder to the male, but the office of elder and the academic office of theologian are not the same thing. So did I get out of that? Okay. Other questions? Danny Kim. Are what? Are liberal theologians Christians? No, wait a minute. I want to take your question seriously, partly because much of my education was gleaned in liberal theological schools. And I knew people there who I would have to call liberal, but we're all, but we're Christians, and people there who would have to call self-professional liberal. And I suspected, I found that they're Christianity suspect. I think we need to be careful with the word liberal. Classically, liberalism is a collection of commitments about the nature of scripture and how that scripture relates to contemporary culture. I think we tend to use the word liberal in very nebulous ways. Let me put, I can't answer this way though. Yes, some liberals are Christians, some conservatives aren't. Does that make sense? Does that, does that help? Now you've made it, made it higher. If someone does not believe in the resurrection, if someone doesn't believe in the Exodus, you know, I really dislike the idea of trying to create a list of essentials of fundamentals, because the word of God really seeks us seeks for us to affirm the whole council of God rather than a small list of things. However, it is conceivable that someone could deny the Exodus and be a Christian. We can be very confused about the nature and content of the word of God. This shouldn't scare us too much because, after all, the issue here is God's grace. Not even what I say about it, we're going to be surprised when we're all together in the Kingdom of God in the form of someone who's going to be there. Let me tell you, that guy made it with what he said, you know, and that church over there, you know, what a bunch of jerks. I think that's going to be the reality. And the fact of the matter is that every person there, every group there, is there by the grace of God, and no other reason. Again, it's not because of the great things I've said about Jesus. It's the great thing that Jesus said on my behalf to find. It's kind of a way of screwing it up from underneath your question, too, because it was a hard one. Mark. Now, make this the last question. What is the relationship between theology and our worldview? Many people assume theology is our worldview. Do you have a question, Mark, that's a big voice. What's the relationship between theology and worldview? Many people do. I think Mark is right. Many people assume those are the same things. You do hear people in the radio, for instance, talk about a worldview, and what they really mean is something much narrower. Theology is not everything, even within the Christian environment. I'm a theologian. I don't know beings about raising hogs, and I can't tell people how to do it, even though I lived in Iowa. There's a lot of things I don't know what I think about. And a Christian worldview is very, very big. It's a comprehensive collection of beliefs and presuppositions about the nature of reality and the elements of reality. Theology is one part of that. We're again to back to our analogy of the light in the room. Mark, the light, that's theology. But the worldview is the room. I think oftentimes, when we do that, we impoverish our worldview. Our worldview is as appropriate to the political as it is the theological. It is open to economic analysis, as well as theological analysis. However, there's one thing that stands over all of those. Revelation. Again, another reason why I should not confuse theology with Revelation. God's word is a word for all of life. For farming, for electricians, for economics, for child rearing, for sexuality, for all the rest. Great question, thank you. That's pretty good. Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you again for your marvelous faithfulness. We thank you, Lord, that though we're insufficient, although we don't have all the answers, although we're subjective and relativistic, mistaken, and all the rest of that, you never are. We thank you, Lord, that you're faithful to the end and you've given us a sure word, a word through which we learn of your marvelous grace, and your son who came to lay it all aligned for us, that we might become the righteousness of God, Jesus Christ. We pray Lord that over the coming weeks will gain just a little bit larger vision of the wonder of your word and a much greater vision of your character, of your commitment, of your long suffering love, of your covenantal jealousy, and through that all, through all of that, will know you better, will serve you better, and we learn to love the things that you love in Jesus' name. Amen. Have a good week, guys.