Humility- The Key to My Theology

When I was learning to drive, my dad taught me to relax, hold the wheel firmly, and make small adjustments. He knew if I overreacted to a small blip in the road, it could cause an accident. Similarly, it seems the driving force behind different historical approaches to theology has been reacting to perceived errors in previous methods or culture, leaving believers going from one ditch to the other. Is it possible the road of orthodoxy is wider than we may think? The key idea of my theology is: God Alone is Certain, We Live by Faith. This takes a generous approach to theology that leaves room for differing expressions and diversity in practice.

My method to theology begins with humility. To embark on the study of God is the greatest undertaking of one’s life and indeed the ultimate task of humankind. Theologians have yet to consolidate ideas about God into certainty. The Church universal continues to refine concepts, distilling the truths about God into frameworks from which we can make doctrinal conclusions. The immensity of the task should not discourage us, but we must come to it with a willingness to admit our own limitations and hold conclusions with varying degrees of certainty. For this reason, the emphasis on paradoxes in the Dialectical approach to theology is compelling. Often, we are faced with two seemingly contradictory ideas such as Christ’s deity and humanity, and we must allow the tension to remain instead of trying to neatly solve the perceived problems.

Absolute certainty is not required to draw conclusions on doctrine. In 1 Samuel 13 and 14, the parallel accounts of Saul and Johnathan offer a character study. Saul has a direct and obvious command from the Lord that he disobeys because he was not willing to wait, presuming the command was wrong. Jonathan, however, steps out in faith and risks his life because he knows God is able, yet he does not presume to claim surety of his own understanding of how God is working. Similarly, we do not need to achieve 100% certainty on issues before acting to create doctrines or settling with relative certainty on ideas. We can rest in knowing that God alone is certain, and we live by faith. We do our best to honor him in our study, coming to educated conclusions in line with what we know of him. Indeed, our faith is tested more on the areas which there is less certainty. We can trust that God will continue to reveal and correct as we step in faith toward the work of theology. 

Does God desire right doctrine divorced from submissive hearts (Amos 5:21)? The study of theology can produce scholars who are puffed up with knowledge (1 Cor. 8:1) who prize getting God ‘right’ rather than seeking to love him with all their mind (Luke 10:27). The value on certain truth in doctrinal studies leaves little room for humility and yet the mysteries of God require a humble approach. God alone knows all the answers, yet he is gracious to reveal himself to us. This was chiefly accomplished in the life of Christ and continues now in scripture and by general/natural means guided by the Holy Spirit. I have a high view of scripture as found in the Theologies of Escape. However, I recognize the necessity of reading scripture, directed by the Holy Spirit, in a diverse context that reflects the picture of the church in Revelation. I reject a Biblicist view in the Pietistic approach and the Christocentric implications of Dialectical theology in favor of a higher view of the Holy Spirit’s role in revealing truth through general and natural means. 

The Doctrine of the Trinity is an excellent place to display how holding paradoxes can enable greater clarity. The historical understanding of the Trinity came gradually and after wrestling with seemingly incompatible truths. To understand that God is three persons and yet one being requires a refusal of the either/or fallacy. This has implications for the church because we are a collection of believers and are yet one in Christ. Paul explains this paradox for us by using the metaphor of a body with many parts (1 Cor 12; Rom 12). This relates to another aspect of my approach to theology. God has called people from all tribes and languages to be a part of his church. A commitment to communal theology, embracing diverse perspectives (ethnic and historical), will result in more comprehensive conclusions that have a greater degree of certainty.

The metaphors of the Bible provide a way to see invisible spiritual truths. The concept of salvation is described using many different images such as: adoption (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:5), justification (Rom 5:1-2), and redemption (1 Cor 6:20). How are all these things true at the same time? Together they help us get a glimpse at the multifaceted way in which Christ’s death and resurrection secures eternal life and reconciliation with God. With regards to how the relational and legal aspects of salvation interact, it is possible that either could be primary and flow from the other; good arguments could be made for both sides. The importance lies more in the foundational truths that we can have a relationship with God because of Christ’s sacrifice and the legal ramifications of the price that was paid. 

The doctrine of salvation is necessitated by the doctrine of the fall. Because I place a high value on the need for faith, I view the actions of the fall as the direct consequence of the misplaced faith of Adam and Eve. Their disobedience began with their lack of faith in God’s command, instead relying on their own judgement. I appreciate the conclusions Irenaeus makes in his theory of recapitulation and the need to regain what had been lost by Adam’s sin.  We need a savior who is fully human because only then is his death truly substitutionary for what Adam failed to do. We also need a savior who is fully divine so that he did not inherit the sin nature from Adam. Holding these two truths in balance allows us to see the greater picture.

The tradition from which I emerge values a ‘Big Tent’ approach, meaning that people of many different traditions can find a home here. We are united by a common statement of faith and yet are diverse in practice, leaving room for differences in areas that are not essential. Faith and humility are central to my approach to theology. An openness to the possibility of being wrong enables us to hold our theology less rigidly and allows for slight course corrections along the way. Where the consequences of our conclusions have more serious implications more certainty is required. In those cases, guardrails of relative certainty can be balanced with the need for theological precision. We can live by faith in the uncertainties because we know God alone is certain.