A Model of Theological Integration

Seong-Hun Calvin Kim

May, 2002

1

INTRODUCTION

John Locke once advocated the idea of tabula rasa, claiming that human mind is like a blank

slate upon which our knowledge gained through experience is inscribed. In a certain sense, he

was right, since there is a long acquisition process of cultural values and presuppositions.

Everyone acquires a certain set of presuppositions within one's own cultural context. Yet,

Emmanuel Kant was also right in saying that human beings possess the innate categories

through which they assimilate knowledge. Without the innate categories, no one will be able to

acquire any knowledge at all, for acquisition of knowledge is always a process of making a

value judgment about something. This mental act of making value judgment is impossible

unless we have the innate categories. These innate categories are, then, culturally selected and

conditioned. Nothing escapes this selecting process that occurs within a cultural context.

Certainly, Christian theology does not escape this culturally and socially selected and

conditioned innate categories of knowledge. Though the majority of theologians have believed

the universal nature of theology, the recent torrent of postmodern philosophies has demolished

such a naïve theological presumption. This assumption of universality tends to make one's

theology rigid and closed to change and improvement. This also makes one's theology unable

to keep in step with the changes people experience on a small and large scale, making

theology an academic novelty at best, and at worst an irrelevant bigotry in today's world.

One's theology must be fluid and open to change, able to adjust according to the

demands from the society and culture. Unless one is able to address current affairs from a

theologically well-informed perspective, that person's theology still has much to be desired.

However, there is a danger of letting the society and culture is the guiding light of theology.

For human culture is truly relative in many of its facets, people will face many contradictory

issues that are self-defeating if left on their own without any universal framework that serves

as the universally guiding principles.

Three Working Presuppositions

My first working presupposition is that no one is free from the preconceived assumptions that

were inculcated within the melting pot of one's own cultural context. Theology, though it

2

contains some universal truths, cannot escape the cultural influence and conditioning. Because

the theologian, who theologizes in a cultural context, formulates theology it should be properly

called "a" theology. As such, a theology is an effort of the theologian to formulate his/her

understanding of the world in light of his/her own understanding of Scripture. This

presupposition will have a determining impact on my theological model. The moment the

theologian claims a complete freedom from the preconceived ideas in one's own theologizing

process, s/he is immediately in danger of elevating his/her own theology above all the others'.

This makes the theologian vulnerable to spiritual arrogance, a judgmental spirit, and an

intellectual pride. Nevertheless, the theologian cannot and must not deny the reality of the

universal truth. Although no one can claim exclusive ownership of the universal truth, neither

should we say along with postmodern philosophers that there is no universal truth. This leads

to my second working presupposition.

Second working presupposition is that there is a complementary dualistic interaction

between theologies and metatheology. Metatheology is universal, absolute, and unchanging,

while theologies are particular, relevant, and changing. Unlike what postmodern philosophers

have claimed and as the postmodern society has followed their suit, we must recognize the

reality of possessing the true, albeit partial, knowledge of metanarrative, that is, metatheology.

This conviction is born out of my understanding of the triune God as the communicating God,

of the universe as the personal universe created by the personal God, and of the humanity

possessing the genuine ability and capacity to know not only the personal universe God has

created, but also the triune God himself who revealed himself. On the other hand, no one can

claim that s/he possesses metatheology in its purity or entirety. We human beings are always

bound within time-space continuum, unable to transcend completely the force of the Fall and

fallen human culture; even in we are partially restored into the image of Christ. The perfection

is not yet. Thus, our best effort to theologize will always produce theologies, which reflects

the different facets of metatheology that is universal, absolute, and unchanging. Recognizing

the reality of metatheology will give us the confidence that we can know the universal truth,

because the reality of the universal truth is firmed grounded upon the nature of God who

communicated with people and reveals himself to them. Yet, this also must foster humility

3

among us, for we have much to learn from theologians from different cultural background.

Moreover, this also guards us against automatically assuming that our own tradition of

theological understanding is unbiblical, because other cultural ways of looking at the reality

seem to be closer to the biblical way. Just because Africans have an idea of community

closely resembling that of Scripture, it does not mean that American or European idea of

family is automatically unbiblical.

Third working presupposition is that God's self-revelation is not limited to the

Scriptures. Certainly, Scripture, beside the person of Jesus Christ, is the most accurate and

clear revelation of God to the humanity. However, Scripture does not represent the

comprehensive revelation of God. God has revealed himself through other means, though they

may not be as clear as Scripture. Paul clearly stated that God's nature and attributes are

clearly seen through the creation (Rom. 1:20). This means that people are able to see the

glimpses of who God is and what he is like. Whether or not they will submit to the God

revealed in the creation and recognize him as the God revealed in Scripture, it does not

change the fact that people do possess the ability to know God to a certain degree. This has

a direct bearing upon the sources of theology. Without a doubt, Scripture must be the Source

of theology; however, there are many other sources of theology. Extra-biblical source of

theology must not determine the content of theology so as to distort Scripture. Nevertheless,

they will significantly limit and condition how the theologian will approach the Source of

theology. This working presupposition also encourages believers in all kinds of vocation to

look for the ways God may revealed himself in seemingly mundane and insignificant things in

life.

SIX THEOLOGICAL DISCIPLINES

In my theological integration, there are six theological disciplines: exegetical, biblical,

systematic, philosophical, historical, and contextual. One may notice immediately that I have

not included practical theology in my theological integration. The reasons for it are

multifaceted. First, the term "practical" theology seems to foster the idea among believers that

theology is impractical, so that we have to come up with "practical" theology. Without any

4

doubt, theology has often been the exclusive domain of the few highly intellectual and

privileged elites in the church who were not necessarily in touch with the daily struggles of

people. Many times, theologians have failed to relate to the believers in the church in such a

way to show how relevant theological topics were. Nonetheless, it is my conviction that

theology is relevant and practical. Whatever theological discipline a person is engaged in, that

person must be informed by the concerns and struggles of the believers in the church. In such

a case, any theological disciplines will be practical.

Second, any issue that the theologian deals with in the church is always shaped by

time-space context. "Practical" theology in the traditional sense fails to recognize the contextual

nature of pastoral/ecclesial functions. This is why a local church in Africa looks a lot like a

local church in Western Europe or North America. Can we say then theology is practical if

the expression of that theology in a form of pastoral/ecclesial function does not fully reflect

the cultural element of believers in a specific cultural context?

Third, the term "practical" theology seems to contribute to the underdevelopment of a

theological mind among the believers. Focused on the church practices, the believers tend to

ignore the importance of cultivating a theological mind. A theological mind or framework

enables the believers to critically look at the world and wisely formulate answers to the

questions raised by the suffering generation of people. Moreover, developing a theological mind

among the believers will strengthen the local churches, so that they will not be swayed by the

latest fads that cheaply imitate what the unbelieving world does.

I think that practical theology in traditional sense is better thought as contextual

theology. Contextual theology is not only deals with theologies developed by theologians and

churches in diverse contexts around the world. Of course, theologians must theologize on the

global level, as they dialogue with fellow theologians and learn from them. This often provides

a fresh insight into a problem and a challenge to consider things differently. However, on the

local level, every problem we deal with occurs within a context. Contextualization happens at

any level, whether or not we admit it. Simply, contextual theology deals with the principles

and individual incidents of theological contextualization. This is an effort to learn how we can

become all things to all people. More will be mentioned later on this topic.

5

Simultaneous Interaction

In my personal model of theological integration, the emphasis is given to how each and every

theological discipline is constantly influenced by the other five disciplines. When a person is

engaged in philosophical theology, for example, s/he is formulating a concept of God, of man,

of creation, etc. The moment that person draws such ideas from the Scriptures, s/he cannot

escape the fact that a set of hermeneutical principles are employed, for s/he is now dealing

with a text that is believed to be authoritative for faith and life by a large group of people.

Moreover, that person is, just like anyone else, bound by time-space continuum. S/he must

develop his/her own philosophical theology within a cultural context. The point is that

whenever the theologians are engaged in a theological endeavor, all six theological disciplines

constantly and simultaneously have their bearings upon the process itself, whether or not they

are aware of it. Therefore, it is practically difficult, if not impossible, to determine which

theological discipline is the actual beginning point in one's theologizing process.

My idea about the simultaneous interaction of all six theological disciplines is one

implication of my first working presupposition mentioned earlier. No one can engage in purely

biblical or philosophical theology. Whenever the theologians are involved in systematic

theology, they are inevitably a product of historical, cultural, and philosophical conditioning

effect of their own faith traditions. Even if they intentionally try to react against their own

faith traditions, it is possible only because they have something to react against.

Another implication of my first working presupposition is that the theologians do not

have to begin the theologizing process with exegetical theology. In the evangelical circle, the

authority of Scripture has been emphasized and rightly so. Because of this, a proper exegesis

– a proper understanding of the text of the Scriptures has been the hallmark of evangelicalism.

This evangelical emphasis on exegesis may create an illusion that as long as the theologians

begin their theology with exegetical theology, they will be free from the ideological and

theological trash of secular and/or pagan philosophies and religious beliefs. But the theologians'

exegetical principles are born out of the interaction among their own systematic, historical,

contextual, biblical, and philosophical theology. Therefore, I suggest that the theologians can

begin their theological process with any of the six theological disciplines as long as they

6

recognize that all six theological disciplines are active throughout the process. Because of

simultaneous interaction of all six theological disciplines, the theologians will eventually has to

deal with each theological discipline, if they want to be consistent, coherent, comprehensive,

and congruent.

One Cube, Six Pyramids

My theological integration is three-dimensional. It looks like a cube, consisted of six pyramids.

Each pyramid has five sides to it: four triangles and one square. There are three sets of two

theological disciplines that face each other. These sets can be visualized like the following.

Table 1

Discipline Commonality Discipline

Exegetical Theology Text/Literature Biblical Theology

Systematic Theology System/Logic Philosophical Theology

Historical Theology Time/Culture Contextual Theology

Exegetical theology shares the biblical text in common with biblical theology as its primary

emphasis. This of course does not mean that the other four disciplines do not. Nevertheless,

even if exegetical and biblical theologies are more or less influence by the other four, these

two primarily and directly deal with the text of the Scriptures. As the two following triangles

visualize the relationship of exegetical and biblical theology, they are on the same axis. This

axis represents text/literature.

Figure 1

Exegetical Theology Biblical Theology

Likewise, systematic theology shares the same axis of system/logic with philosophical theology;

7

historical theology with contextual theology. Again, these common elements of theological

disciplines are not exclusive. This does not mean that systematic theology exclusively deals

with system or does exegetical theology with the biblical text. All the six characteristics of

text-literature, system-logic, and time-culture are the forces that shape all six theological

disciplines. It is the matter of emphasis of each theological discipline.

The strength of visualizing theological integration in a form of a square cube is that it

highlights the constant interaction among the theological disciplines. This can be visualized like

the following drawing. Imagine that we are looking down at a pyramid. We can see its four

triangular sides, but not its square base. This pyramid represents historical theology. As the

theologians develop their historical theology, they will inevitably come under the influence of

the other five theological disciplines. Apparently, this pyramid can show the interaction of

historical theology with only four other disciplines. In reality, historical theology will be

influenced by one's own contextual theology. Despite its weakness, this pyramid clearly

demonstrates that historical theology interacts simultaneously with systematic, biblical, exegetical,

and philosophical theology. Moreover, the interaction between historical and contextual theology

is conveyed by their sharing of the same axis of time/culture.

Figure 2

When six pyramids come together, they form a cube. This represents my theological

integration. The goal is to avoid too much emphasis or dependence on one particular

theological discipline so as to break the balance among all six disciplines. In terms of a cube

model, this means that the cube will always stay a cube. In reality, however, the cube does

not stay rigidly as cube of six theological disciplines. The shape of the cube will constantly

shift and change because the theologians never stop theologizing. There is no perfection on

Systematic

Biblical Exegetical

Philosophical

8

this earth. There is no "perfect" theology. As one's understanding grows in one area, the cube

will be distorted and be a rectangular shape. The following two figures illustrate the point

clearly. Figure 3 Figure 4 Systematic Theology Historical Theology Biblical Contextual Exegetical Biblical Systematic Exegetical Theology Theology Theology Theology Theology Theology Philosophical Theology Contextual Theology

As the two figures above show, as the theologians' understanding grow in philosophical

theology, the shape of the cube is changed. Except systematic theology on the same axis as

philosophical theology, all four other disciplines are stretched. But the goal is to grow in other

areas as well so that perfect square shape can be maintained as much as possible. The growth

of the square cube represents the theologians' growth in their theological integration and

understanding.

DEFINITION OF SIX THEOLOGICAL DISCIPLINES

Although my theological model seems to be understandable at this point, it is still necessary

to provide definition of each theological discipline. I have already mentioned that I replaced

practical theology with contextual theology. I came to that decision because of my conviction

that every ministry situation to which theology must applied is a cultural context. Whatever

and wherever we do theology, we cannot escape our cultural setting.

Contextual Theology

It may be easier to begin with the definition of contextualization before I explain and define

what contextual theology is. Although there are various definitions of contextualization, the

following definition is one I present in this paper. Contextualization is the process of communication, taken up by the indigenous church

9

and the missionary-theologian who are informed of their own, each other's and the biblical cultures, through a careful reflection and action, to understand the universal truth of the gospel within a given cultural context, guided by the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit, and to live out the gospel message in a manner relevant to the given cultural context so that the individuals and society may be transformed.1 There are a few things to be highlighted in this definition for the purpose of this paper.

First, contextualization is a communication process. This process is never one way. Just

because something is said, it does not mean that it will be understood just the way the

speaker intended. Thus, communication is a dynamic process of not only speaking to the

audience, but also listening to them so that the message can be presented for the purpose of

understanding and transformation.

Second, there are three cultures involved in contextualization. The culture of the

original historical setting described in the Bible, the culture of the theologians, and that of the

audience. All three are engaged in dynamic dialogue.2 It is necessary to state a definition of

culture here. Culture is acquired or inherited, yet fluid and changing levels of pattern in

behavior, social authority, experience, and core presuppositions (worldviews) through which

individuals and communities interpret reality and find meaning of their existence. Having

defined culture, another problem rises. What is the relation between culture and gospel?

Niebuhr presents five models on the relationship between the gospel and culture: Christ against

culture, the Christ of culture, Christ above culture, Christ and culture in paradox, and Christ

the transformer of culture.3 However, Niebuhr himself concluded that none of these models is

adequate. Yet, each model is needed in different situations, because making any of them

absolute distorts the delicate balance between the work of God in creation, providence,

redemption, and re-creation.

Third, contextualization involves both reflection and action. These two must be kept in

a creative tension to spur each other. Reflection involves a careful exegesis of Scripture,

1 This definition was first presented in my paper for THS 680 Principles of Contextualization. Many of my ideas in this section will heavily depend on my course work for THS 680 Principles of Contextualization. 2 Could it be that there are four cultures involved, because the cultures described in the Bible are not necessarily the true reflection of God's nature? Through the means of Hebrew and Greek cultures, God communicates his own heavenly values. Should this be considered a culture, the heavenly culture that is universal and unchanging? 3 Niebuhr devotes one chapter to discuss each of these models in his book, Christ and Culture. New York: Harper & Row, 1951; Harper Torchbooks, 1975.

10

developing a biblically consistent and coherent theological system, and deeply meditating upon

it for insight. However, all these must be expressed in action. Proposed solutions are applied

and tested in action. Reflection informs action; action guides reflection.

The universal truth is always understood in a specific cultural context, and the Holy

Spirit provides help in this process. By nature, human beings are bound in a time-space

continuum. No matter how many propositions are formulated and claimed to be universal, they

are also time-space specific. This, nonetheless, does not deny the possibility of capturing some

element of universal truth in our propositions, for we know, for example, that people

experience death all around the world. It is a universal phenomenon. But our existential

knowledge of that truth comes only through time-space specific experiences of death. This

aspect of contextualization is important, for this is what makes people experience the

transforming power of God's universal truth. This also means that not only understanding, but

also the communication of that understanding will occur in a time-space specific situation.

Even if we encounter God who is eternal and transcendent, we always remember our

experience of God in association with specific experience in a particular place at a particular

time.

Last, contextualization is not complete until transformation of individuals and society

occurred. This is true not only for contextual theology, but for the rest of the theological

disciplines as well. But, because of the strong emphasis on contextualization, contextual

theology emphasizes the ultimate task of theology: knowledge of God and changed lives.

Then, what is contextual theology? Contextual theology is a theological discipline that

recognizes the selecting and conditioning force of culture upon people, listens to people to

learn how their cultures have shaped their thought and values, reflects how the truth of

Scripture can be explained to people in such a way they can readily understand, and

communicates the truth to people according to a specific cultural context so that they will

experience transformation evidenced by outward action. Contextual theology acknowledges that

God has revealed himself through human culture. Thus, contextual theology seeks to redeem it

so that every single cultural situation can be a conduit of God's transforming grace.

11

Historical Theology

Historical theology shares the axis of time/culture with contextual theology. If contextual

theology is synchronic approach to theology, historical theology is diachronic approach to it.

Contextual theology puts the emphasis on the synchronic nature of the believing community,

while historical theology emphasizes its diachronic nature. Simply, historical theology deals

with how the church throughout the history has dealt with the cultural scene that surrounded

her. The church has developed a numerous responses to the threats within and without. All the

confessions of faith the church has formulated are the snapshots of her effort to contextualize

the truth of Scripture appropriate to a particular time and space in the past. Historical theology,

then, is the study of this past effort of the church to be in the world, but not of the world,

whether or not this effort was successful.

Immediate problem arises, however, when we consider historical theology. What is the

relation between the Tradition and traditions? The Tradition is universal, absolute, and

unchanging. Traditions can always change; it is relative and limited by time and space. The

Tradition is something all genuine Christians must hold to if they are truly born again. It

finds its origin in the revelation of God. D. H. Williams stated, "The Tradition of the

Christian faith is that fundamental Christian identity for every believer no matter which of the

traditions – Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox – he or she may profess." 4 Thus, the

relationship between the Tradition and traditions is just like that of metatheology and

theologies. The problem arises when the theologians identify their own traditions with the

Tradition. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church seem to have made that mistake

explicitly by elevating their own traditions even above the authority of the Scriptures. On the

other hand, the evangelicals seem to have made the mistake of not recognizing a tradition of

their own even when they had one, thus resulting in the neglect of historical self.

Historical theology helps the church establish her historical self. One's self-

understanding must be rooted in understanding of one's past. This guards the church against

being swayed by the trends of the secular world. Though the church must respond to people's

4 D. H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 6-7.

12

need, people's need cannot determine the mission of the church, unless it is their spiritual need.

This sense of historical self also gives the church humility and sense of destiny. When

believers realize that they are descendants of the giants of the Christian faith, it causes them

to acknowledge how their forerunners have labored on their behalf. And realizing that

something invaluable has been handed down to them, today's believers will regain the sense of

responsibility of preserving that core of the Christian faith. Moreover, this corporate act of

handing down the gospel truth itself is considered an element of the Tradition. In addition,

this Tradition "is an awareness of the communal dimension of Christian faith, over an

extended period of time, which calls the shallow individualism of many evangelicals into

question."5

Historical theology may be defined this way: Historical theology is the effort of the

believing community to study how the Tradition has been understood, communicated, and

applied down the church history. This necessitates the study of different traditions of the

Christian faith. But all this study has the goal of knowing how the Tradition must be

understood, communicated, and applied in the present. Timothy George mentions three areas

that historical theology must concentrate: development of doctrine, testing dogmatic

formulations by the standard of the Scriptures, and history of worship.6 It could be said that

this three areas are respectively confessional, hermeneutical, and doxological. But, whatever

might be the focus of historical theology, it must be anything and everything that concerns the

health and mission of the church. Historical theology also reminds the theologians that God

has revealed himself through the history, not only the history described in the Bible, but also

through the entire human history, whether it is secular or sacred.

Philosophical Theology

Philosophy has had a love-hate relationship with theology. In my theological integration, as I

stated earlier, philosophical theology shares with systematic theology the axis of system/logic.

5 Alister E. McGrath, "The Importance of Tradition for Modern Evangelicalism," in Doing Theology for the People of God, Donald Lewis and Alister E. McGrath, eds. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996): 161. 6 Timothy George, "Dogma beyond Anathema: Historical Theology in the Service of the Church," Review and Expositor 84 (Fall, 1987): 691-713.

13

Therefore, there is quite a good affinity between philosophy and theology. Especially, when we

examine the philosophical categories such as metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, anthropology,

cosmology, etc., it is easy to see how these categories can readily transfer into categories of

systematic theology.7 Nevertheless, much harm was done to theology and the Christian faith by

secular philosophy. Though some philosophers were supposedly Christians, they inadvertently

contributed to secularization of the human society in general to the point that the general

society became very anti-Christian in its value and outlook.

Philosophical theology recognizes that even secular philosophers have observed some

aspects of universal truth, albeit distorted and essentially nihilistic. 8 Often, even secular

philosophers do have good insights to offer so as to know how people perceive and

conceptualize reality. This observation is based on the biblical truth of the general revelation.

If God has revealed himself through everything he created, and if the entire spectrum of our

human existence is immersed in this created reality, then philosophy is one of the vehicles

God uses to reveal himself to us.

Philosophical theology emphasizes the rational and orderly nature of God's revelation.

God's revelation to the humanity does not negate rationality, although it may seem to be the

case at times. Rather, it is better to see it to be supra-rational, i.e., it is rational in God's

mind, but human beings cannot understand it rationally because it is beyond their rational

capacity. Just because something does not make sense to us, it does not mean that it is

irrational. Despite its limitations, philosophical theology reminds the theologians of the need to

be rational and logical. However, what if a Christian doctrine is upheld by the church, yet it

is seemingly in a direct contradiction to the law of logic? Which discipline takes the upper

hand?

It is in order to discuss the relation between theology and philosophy. Vanhoozer

7 Philosophical categories of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, anthropology, cosmology, etc., can be theological categories of a theology of the Kingdom, sanctification, revelation, theological anthropology, and creation, respectively. 8 The reason I claim that all secular philosophies are distorted and nihilistic, even though they may reflect some aspects of universal truth, is because secular philosophies do not and cannot offer the true hope for the humanity. They may be able to give a fairly accurate diagnosis of the human condition, but not able to give a solution that touches the root of the problem, because their diagnosis only stops at the level of symptoms, not the true cause – sin.

14

utilizes a scheme similar to Niebuhr's five models for the relation between Christ and culture.

Vanhoozer puts it in terms of the relation between Christ and concept. 9 In short, Vanhoozer

list three characteristics of the relation between Christ and concept: individual integrity, relative

autonomy, and mutual accountability. In my theological scheme, the relation between Christ

and concept is analogous to that between Christ and culture or metatheology and theologies.

We need all five models of Christ and concept at different moments.

What is, then, philosophical theology? Philosophical theology is a theological discipline

that seeks to emphasize the rational nature of theology in order to show the rational, logical,

and reasonable nature of the Christian truths. In doing so, the theologians attempt to express

the biblical truths in philosophical language. Moreover, in this discipline, the theologians seek

to discern the relation between Christ and concept on any given theological issue. The

intended result of philosophical theology, though not in isolation from other theological

disciplines, is to develop a coherent and consistent way of life for believers that will be

appealing, reasonable, and understandable to unbelievers.

Systematic Theology

Systematic theology shares the axis of system/logic with philosophical theology. Often,

systematic theology shares similar, if not same, categories with philosophical theology. As the

name of this theological discipline shows, systematic theology utilizes a system of organization.

Systematic theology first seeks to organize all the theological findings into a coherent system.

Systematic theology does not seek to find the system inherent to the biblical writings, but a

system will be imposed upon the revelation of God. Then, the question is, what kind of

system should be used? Will it arbitrary decision by the theologians or is there anything that

guides them in their decision for a particular theology system?

Traditionally, systematic theologies began with prolegomena followed by theology

proper. Then, they moved on to Christology, anthropology, harmartiology, soteriology,

pneumatology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. Though there might be some variation in terms

9 Vanhoozer's five model scheme is like this: Christ subsumed under concept. Christ grounded on concept, Christ in dialogue with concept, Christ the Lord of concept, and Christ the contradiction of concept.

15

of the sequence, these have been the categories theologians have used for their systematic

theologies. As Fackre stated, systematic theology is "a journey though the loci." 10 Although

these theological loci are extracted from Scripture, Scripture itself does not present these loci

in an organized fashion. No matter what kind of loci the theologians come up with and what

they call them, such loci as God, Christ, Holy Spirit, Humanity, Fall, Salvation, End Things

will find their way into the theologians' systematic theologies. This shows that the traditional

organizational scheme of systematic theology does not have to be discarded. Rather, it can

serve as the beginning point as the commonly shared element among all systematic theologies.

Fackre mentions four criteria for systematic theology: comprehensiveness, coherence,

contextuality, and conversation. 11 These four criteria may well serve as the guiding light for

developing an organizational scheme for systematic theology. First two criteria are fairly self-

explanatory. Contextuality is where contextual theology and systematic theology meet and

interact closely. Systematic theology seeks to express doctrine in a language relevant to current

issues. Contextual theology takes on step further and seeks to guide the actual application of a

particular doctrine in a given cultural context. The difference between systematic and

contextual theology is that the former tends to focus on the universal nature of the truth,

while the latter focuses on its time-space specific nature. For example, the systematic

theologian may seek to address the environmental issue. S/he will first begin to develop a

theology the creation; then s/he will speak to environmental issue from the perspective of the

universal truth of the creation. But, the contextual theologian will seek to address a specific

issue such as dams and salmons in Columbia River from a theological perspective. As s/he

does so, s/he not only looks at the environmental issue, but also economy, agriculture,

electricity, fishing industry, etc., of that particular locale.

Systematic theology is different from philosophical theology in that it uses the

theological language, while the latter uses the philosophical one. But, they are similar in that

10 Gabriel Fackre, "The Revival of Systematic Theology," Interpretation 49 (1995): 230. 11 Ibid. Fackre explains that the last criterion, conversation, is "an engagement with a range of historical and contemporary points of view." In my theological integration, I would assign the engagement with historical data to historical theology and the engagement with contemporary data to contextual theology. However, the line of demarcation is not clear. Rather, it is better to consider it as where systematic theology overlaps with historical theology and contextual theology. Even my square cube model, although there are six separate pyramids, it is on integrated system, not the combination of six separate systems.

16

both seek to develop a comprehensive worldview. However, the primary difference lies at the

theological source these two theological disciplines draw from. Systematic theology has

Scripture as its primary source, while philosophical theology by nature must draw from much

wider range of sources. In a sense, philosophical theology may come close to natural theology.

What is systematic theology? Systematic theology is a theological discipline that seeks

to systematize the human understanding of God's universal truth revealed in Scripture in order

to develop a comprehensive Christian worldview, so that the Christian can bring all aspect of

his /her life under the sovereignty of God in obedience to his will and intention.

Biblical Theology

Biblical theology shares the axis of text/literature with exegetical theology. Traditionally,

biblical theology meant tracing theological themes in each book of the Scriptures or books

written by same human author, or books with in the same genre.12 Tracing of the themes in

books of the Scriptures raises the problem of deciding which themes are major theme, while

other are relatively insignificant. Traditionally, several themes have been suggested: covenant,

grace, kingdom, redemption, dispensation, etc. But, how do we know if these themes are not

externally imposed upon the Scriptures? It seems that Osborne provides a helpful tool as he

states, "There are thus two types of inquiry: the search for unifying or central theme(s) behind

the testaments or Bible (the task of the scholar) and the attempt to trace a particular theme

(such as the Holy Spirit or perseverance) through the various states of the biblical period (the

task of every Bible student)." 13 These two kinds of inquiries can mutually guide the

theologians to arrive closer and close to the themes the Bible actually seeks to communicate

to people. It seems that the harmony between the unifying theme(s) and particular themes

helps the theologians not to impose themes that are foreign to the biblical revelation. But, is

this enough?

12 Grant R. Osborne quotes Contra Carson's definition of biblical theology as "that branch of theological inquiry concerned with tracing themes through the diverse sections of the Bible (such as the wisdom writings or the Epistles of Paul) and then with seeking the unifying themes that draw the Bible together." Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1991), 263. 13 Ibid.

17

The principles applied to any kind of literature can be applied to the biblical books. In

any piece of literary work, we readily assume and expect the author to have written his/her

work with a unifying theme(s) in mind. This is exactly why people understand any piece of

literature at all. To be able to communicate what s/he has in mind, the author of a literary

work carefully weaves many themes together under the unifying theme(s). Because there is

order and organization according to themes, people are able to catch the message conveyed

through that work. This is closely related to the idea of the innate categories, which enable

people to perceive reality and assimilate knowledge into their web of belief. If human beings

are capable of this, why not God who desires to reveal himself to humanity? Because of the

Christian conviction and confession that God is the Author of Scripture, we must assume that

he has given us Scripture with certain themes and structure he thought to be needed for us to

understand his thoughts, will, and intentions.

This leads to the idea of compositional nature of Scripture. The assumption is that

God has worked through many people to produce the final form of Scripture in Hebrew and

Greek languages. God has built into the Old and New Testament the themes and structures

that will aid us in seeing and understanding them. God's message to us can be understood the

most if we read Scripture in light of these themes and structures. In a sense, it is possible to

develop a canonical theology. The literary shape of the Old and New Testament guides the

theologians in his/her understanding of Scripture.

Biblical theology is a theological discipline that seeks to understand the unifying

theme(s) and particular themes in the books of the Bible in light of its literary shape. It seeks

to faithfully reflect and present the theme(s) and structure(s) that are found in Scripture.

Exegetical Theology

Exegetical theology shares the axis of text/literature with biblical theology. Exegetical theology

may be considered to be the beginning point of understanding Scripture as the theological

Source. As much as I recognize that any theological discipline can be the starting point of

theological integration, it is actually exegetical theology where people formulate any

understanding of the biblical text. Whenever the theologians deal with the biblical text,

18

exegetical theology becomes the primary discipline they engage in.

Exegetical theology primarily works with hermeneutical principles and rules of grammar.

The presupposition behind these hermeneutical principles and rules of grammar is that meaning

is not only possible, but also inevitable, because God created reality in which personal

communication is possible. Moreover, this communication is achieved primarily through the

means of human languages – written and/or spoken. Therefore, in exegetical theology, the

theologians seek to employ the hermeneutical principles and rules of grammar in a consistent

manner so as to arrive at the most reasonable meaning without any exegetical fallacies that

eschew our understanding of the biblical text. This is primarily achieved by engaging in

exegetical theology in a community of exegetes. This requires the exegete-theologian to

interaction with exegetical works of fellow exegete-theologians, even if the interaction is not

done up close and personal.

The theologians will most likely work with Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to understand

the biblical text. However, this is not to say that people without working knowledge of those

languages cannot engage in exegetical theology at all. There are enough tools for anyone with

enough motivation and patience to use. Nevertheless, if the theologians have considerable

competency in biblical languages, this will be very favorable. This competency in the biblical

languages helps the theologians guard themselves from reading the cultural meaning of their

own languages into the words of the biblical languages. A simple example is the word 'heart.'

Generally, biblical meaning of 'heart' is the confluence of intellect, will, and emotion of a

person. Yet, the American cultural meaning of 'heart' is the seedbed of emotions.

Another aspect of exegetical theology is to determine which copy of the biblical text is

better. This involves textual criticism. Although much work as been done for textual criticism

of both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, there is still the need to

examine all the possible variant readings to determine the best meaning possible from the

biblical text.

Yet, the most fundamental element in exegetical theology is hermeneutics. Hermeneutics

has to do with the theologian's view of human language. This, essentially, has to do with how

19

the theologian interprets reality.14 Ultimately, the theologian's hermeneutics reflects his/her view

of reality. In exegetical theology, the theologians is not only interpreting the biblical text, but

also interpreting the world described in the text.

Exegetical theology is theological discipline that seeks to understand the biblical text

by applying hermeneutical principles, rules of grammar, and textual criticism in order to bring

out the meaning of the biblical text, which best reflects reality as God has created.

CONCLUSION

There is no "pure" theological discipline. In other words, there is no theological discipline that

is purely biblical, exegetical, systematic, philosophical, historical, or contextual. Even when the

theologians think that they are engaged in a pure biblical theology, they are developing their

biblical theologies that bear the marks of their own theological integration of all six disciplines.

As a final self-criticism of my theological integration, I must state that the role of community

in this integration process has not been explicitly mentioned. Although I have expressed that

idea occasionally, is seems better to have elucidated the place of the believing community.

Method of Theological Integration

I will conclude by discussing my method of theological integration. Stated simply, I apply the

method of retroduction in all six theological disciplines. This ensures the theologians the

benefit of being aware of their own theological preconceptions and blind spots. This

theological method also seems to best promote the theological dialogue among the theologians.

Applying this theological method enable the theologians to deal with the reality of the innate

categories and cultural selection and conditioning of epistemological acquisition. 14 Interpretation of reality is epistemic in nature. Any hermeneutics that is based on Cartesian subject-object separation seems to fall short of faithfully and effectively arriving at the meaning of the biblical text that results in personal transformation. In my epistemological system, this epistemological scheme is called objectification, in which the theologian stands in a transcendent relation to reality. This is virtually impossible, because the theologian is always a part of that reality s/he seeks to understand. Such an epistemological approach is contractual. On the other hand, the biblical epistemological scheme is covenantal. This means that the theologian consciously recognizes him/herself as a part of reality. The theologian as a subject relates to an entity as another subject. There is no subject-object separation, but subject-subject communion. This is why human beings are capable of knowing God who is truly transcendent; he alone can know reality as object. God chose to enter into subject-subject covenantal relationship with humanity. This is why God reveals himself to humanity.

20

Theological integration must ultimately bring all theology under the sovereignty of the

Father and the Lordship of Jesus Christ the Son. Actual success of theological integration can

only be determined by transformation of the human heart and obedience to the will of God.

Soli Deo Gloria!