Biblical Theology in Crisis by Brevard S. Childs Part 2: Seeking a Future
Chapter 5: The Need for a New Biblical Theology
There will be some theologians in America who upon hearing of the demise of the Biblical Theology Movement will surely rejoice. They will sigh in relief that this "bout with the Bible"
is now passed and that theology can direct its full attention to the solid social issues of the day.
Surely it is only a small minority, however, who will think that the clock can be turned back. In our opinion, the majority of theologians are rather asking, Where do we go from here in the use of the Bible? Again, there is the same uncertainty among Biblical scholars. Probably the
majority would agree that the old-style Biblical Theology proved in the end to be inadequate.
Yet only a small group would suppose that the way was now clear for returning to the minutiae of historicocritical scholarship without any continuing concern for the theological dimensions of the Bible or responsibility for the life of the church.
Not only are the seventies different from the thirties, but the movement has left an impact on the American scene -- in its moments of both success and failure -- which cannot be overlooked. It should not be forgotten that many of the present leaders in American theology not only were trained in the period of the movement but caught their first enthusiasm for theology through the impact of these Biblical theologians. The present health and tremendous vitality or Biblical studies in America is due, at least in part, to the reawakening of the discipline through the
energy of the movement. It is highly significant that many of the leading Biblical scholars of the present generation, while at times critical of the older theological positions, still identify with the long-range goals of the movement and share in gratitude a strong sense of solidarity with this generation of church-oriented scholars. The majority of these scholars are likewise
concerned that the ground won by the last generation not be abandoned by the present. This can only be accomplished if the discipline is not renounced but pursued with new rigor, insight, and enthusiasm.
There are a number of reasons that suggest that the need for Biblical Theology in some form is greater than ever. First of all, the shape of the disciplines of Old Testament and New Testament in America for the next decade at least gives the impression of being basically oriented toward historical, philological, and literary problems, with priority being given to highly technical competence. This direction can be explained and justified in the light of the new areas that have been opened up through Ugarit, Qumran, Nag Hammadi, etc. There is no doubt that a
descriptive task of importance needs to be done that will serve to break new ground and critically to test the older foundations. However, with such a concentration on detailed
description the danger is acute that the Biblical disciplines will again be fragmented. There is need for a discipline that will attempt to retain and develop a picture of the whole, and that will have a responsibility to synthesize as well as analyze.
It is equally important to raise the question as to how the Biblical material is to be used in the constructive theological and homiletical disciplines of theology if the emphasis of Old
Testament and New Testament is primarily descriptive. To suggest that the responsibility lies with the theologians is fully inadequate because the material is not in any form that can be appropriated. This is not to suggest that Biblical Theology serve merely as a packaging process, but that a constructive use of the material of the separate Biblical disciplines must be done first by a Biblical scholar. The task lies not primarily in sifting, simplifying, and ordering, but in approaching the material in a theologically significant way and addressing questions that not only are compatible to the Biblical material but relate to the theological task as well. There is little hope of the Biblical and theological disciplines interacting in a beneficial way unless Biblical scholars are working constructively in theology, and conversely challenging the theologians to come to grips with the material described by the Biblical disciplines. The
proposal is not implying that the traditional division between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology be abandoned, but rather suggesting that to have an area of overlap can aid in creating a genuine dialogue. It simply will not do to limit Biblical Theology to the descriptive task.
One of the soft spots of the Biblical Theology Movement lay in the failure to develop the area of Biblical Theology as a rigorous discipline. It tended to be considered an avocation by men whose primary competence lay in some other area. It remained unclear how the constructive and descriptive tasks related. Often one gained the impression that what distinguished Biblical Theology from the disciplined study of the Old and New Testaments was a homiletical topping.
One obvious reaction to the lack of rigor is to reject Biblical Theology in toto. A far more responsible reaction is to establish the discipline on a solid foundation while resisting the challenge of those denying the right of constructive theology to relate Bible and theology.
There is another important aspect of the problem that would support the need for developing the area of Biblical Theology in our time. The United States has entered a period of tremendous political and social change. A series of crises have produced a turmoil and soul-searching restlessness which is unparalleled since the Civil War. And yet it is a period with enormous potential for creativity in every area of our culture. Certainly this is no time for Biblical studies
file:///D:/rb/relsearchd.dll-action=showitem&gotochapter=6&id=551.htm (2 of 4) [2/2/03 8:37:05 PM]
to turn its back on the burning issues of the day. The church needs the guidance of the Bible as never before in its own struggle for understanding and faithful response. It simply cannot afford to enter a barren period in which its life is fragmented into activist and traditionalist factions, or one in which the intellectuals are at odds with the devout. To be relevant without being faithful or to be faithful without being relevant are both errors that the church must seek to avoid. The threat of a new American theological liberalism that finds its warrant for social action in a vague reference to "making human the structures of society" has already made strong inroads into the life of the church. Biblical Theology would seem to have a decisive role to play in meeting this challenge at this time.
Again, a good case could be made that some of the major impetus for the new left in theology has come from the Bible even though the influence has been largely indirect. The majority of cliches that one associates with radical theology have roots within the Biblical tradition: a
"prophetic" ministry against the religious establishment, social justice for all men, the idolatry of nationalism, the freedom to live and love boldly in the present moment, radical secularity as the grounds for recovering one’s full humanity, the search for authenticity, the humanizing of society, etc. It is of great importance that these concepts be filled with a content that is informed by the study of the Bible. Nothing would be more unfortunate for theology if these concepts were distorted and misunderstood in order to serve a totally alien function from their original intent. One only has to recall the tragedy of the Marxist discovery of Christian eschatology at a time in which the church had largely forgotten it, or Christian Science’s use of a Biblical
emphasis on wholeness of body and soul when the Christian church had, by and large, ignored it.
The reverse is also true. If Biblical studies are to remain vibrant for theology, they must benefit from active confrontation with the new questions of the age, and not be allowed to slip back into a state of scholarly antiquarianism. Because of the changing context of our society, even when one simply passes along established scholarly contributions of the past, this task must be done in a fresh way. The future has a way of robbing the past of its meaning unless the heritage is rethought and reevaluated.
Then again, there is a very practical reason why Biblical Theology should be pursued in a fresh and disciplined way. Christian pastors continue to do their own Biblical Theology. Whether consciously or unconsciously the working minister must come to some understanding of theology in its relation to the Biblical tradition. The real question is not whether to do Biblical Theology or not, but rather what kind of Biblical Theology does one have! By the very nature of his office a Christian pastor must have arrived at some level of theological reflection that informs his work. The fact that in practice a minister’s theological synthesis may be
fragmentary, incoherent, or even irrational does not vitiate his having made some sort of personal appropriation of tradition that affects his ministry at various levels.
During the Biblical Theology Movement many pastors found the current emphases of great aid.
To one group whose Biblical training had seemed totally irrelevant to the Christian ministry, the movement provided ways of making the Bible a central focus to its ministry. To another group that came from a Bible-oriented tradition, the movement often served to buttress and update this heritage. With the slow breakdown in the movement the confusion has spread among these pastors. Is it really true that modern Biblical studies have repudiated Biblical Theology? Have we been misled? Where does one go from here? It is imperative that direction be given to these pastors and that substantial help be offered in making the Bible again a tool of fundamental importance. The tragic part of the Biblical Theology Movement lies not only in the defeats it suffered because of its inadequate scholarship and conceptual confusion but also in the impression that has been left that the Bible has no significant role to play in the coming age.
The ultimate judgment on the Biblical Theology Movement will depend, in large measure, to what extent interest in Biblical Theology can survive and flourish in a new form rather than leading to a total disaffection with the subject.
As Biblical scholarship enters a new period it is important to be reminded that the scholar has the important function to perform in attempting to control the rise of new fads within the discipline. While it is highly unlikely that the "new hermeneutic" will ever make a lasting impression on the Anglo-Saxon world because of its heavy-footed. prose, it certainly does add to the present confusion of the parish to have such turgidity heralded as the hope of the future. It is a disheartening experience to be asked to advise a church board on a new educational
curriculum and be forced to characterize the proposed "new approach" as a passing curiosity that has already been bypassed by current Biblical research. Surely a major responsibility of the theologians of the church is to caution against such pitfalls and seek to distinguish between creative scholarship and enervating fads.
It might also be refreshing for the pastor to be told that the interaction between the university and the parish is not a one-way street. It may well be that some of the direction for the new Biblical Theology of the future will come from the experiences of pastors on the front lines of the church’s confrontation with the world. It was not by accident that a working pastor in the forgotten Swiss village of Safenwil first discovered what Romans could mean to a congregation before dropping his theological bomb on the scholarly community. Fortunately God still has a way of making use of the Bible which is not synchronized to the publication schedule of the religious press.
16
file:///D:/rb/relsearchd.dll-action=showitem&gotochapter=6&id=551.htm (4 of 4) [2/2/03 8:37:05 PM]
return to religion-online
Biblical Theology in Crisis by Brevard S. Childs Part 2: Seeking a Future
A Presbyterian, Brevard Childs received his B.D. from Princeton in 1950, and his D. Theology at the University of Basel in 1955. Since 1958 he has been Professor of Old Testament at Yale University Divinity School. The following was published by The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1970. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted & Winnie Brock.