Reluctantly Conservative

I am halfway through a book about 20th Century Theology. It is an overview of the scholarly movements there have been  in theology over the last 150 years. The point in reading it is to gain a cursory knowledge of all these different movements and better understand where different movements and figures stand in context. The first half included all of the people that I wanted to read about. I already had an appreciation for Barth and Brunner who are both very concerned with the Bible and orthodoxy. I had been told before that Ritschl, Bultmann, and Tillich were either heretics, atheists, or deists, but I really didn't know much about them.

I assumed that people were over emphasizing the problems with some of these theologies. All of the "heretics" listed above started with an idea. Ritschl wanted to formulate a theology that showed God as revealed in every culture (as though God could not do that on His own). Bultmann wanted to apply existential forms to the Bible and reconcile the "myths" of the Bible with the modern scientific view. And Tillich wanted to make his theology an apologetic for the faith by formulating theological answers on the terms of their philosophical questions. The only reason I am giving these reductionist summaries of their views is to show what can be plainly seen: These men are geniuses who committed to a theory and carrying that theory to its logical conclusion.

My theological background is more grounded in Luther, Calvin, and  Lewis: Men that are totally okay with the historic, biblical answers to theological questions. I have built onto this foundation with the thoughts of Barth, Brunner, and Kierkegaard.

What this new reading has shown me is that I have found the creative reaches of my theology. For the first time, I've read up on new theologies and had to completely disagree. I can appreciate that these were expressions of the Christian faith that sprung out of specific cultural and historic contexts, but I have to call a spade a spade as well. If a theology does not center itself on the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, it is not right, and it is hardly Christian. Bultmann seems to retain a bit of this (only a bit), while Tillich discards Christ, and Ritschl only pays Him lip service.

Honestly, I wanted to read this book and find eye-opening new ways to view theology. Fresh, underrated theologies that could continue to brighten my views of God. It has only succeeded in showing me where incorrect beliefs have cropped up and how they did. Overall, I hate that I have to settle with the mainstream theologians, though I suppose they are mainstream for a reason: They celebrate a faith that centers itself on Christ, the Spirit, and the Word. They use all of these thing to bring themselves closer (though only in small increments) to an understanding of God.

Christianity is a religion where these long philosophical systems will never be able to work. The only way to truly reach God is in humility and through the example of only one man: Jesus Christ. The best possible thing we can do with this knowledge is to proclaim it in our words and lives. All of the theology is really interesting, but it cannot pull us off the vitally important truths that redeemed us in the first place. Or as Paul said it, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ" (Col. 2:8).

Dr. Litfin said in my Christianity in Western Culture class last week that it is not a theologian's job to create something new, but to find new ways to repeat the old... Well then theology sounds boring compared to working for the Kingdom of God.

-Sam