Testing Theology

It is my observation (limited as it may be) that the truthfulness and validity of any point of theology in a religion is based primarily upon its derivation from the source it holds to be authoritative. In the case of Christianity (the religion with which I am most familiar) the authoritative source is the Christian Bible. If a point of theology can be sourced from the Bible, then it is assumed to be true.

That said, there are many ways of reading and interpreting the Bible and this, of course, leads to theological points held by different peoples and groups that are in contradiction to one another. That brings me to my question:

Is there a “test” that can be employed to determine if a particular point of theology is true or false?

I suggest that there is one. Even though theology is not science in the usual sense of the word, I believe it is possible and necessary to bring in processes and principles that are used in the social sciences, which are used to establish sufficient evidences to support the truthfulness of hypotheses in those fields.

Since controlled studies are sometimes difficult, if not impossible, in social sciences, what is often done are observational studies that take two events and determine a level of correlation between the two. The major problem with this type of study is that causation cannot be determined. It can be inferred, but it cannot be proven. But still, there is value in understanding that the two share a close relationship.

Might we be able to do the same thing with theology? I believe we can, and must. Does a particular point of theology correlate strongly to certain behaviors and attitudes? Because it does not prove causation, we may not know for certain if it is the behaviors and attitudes that lead a person or group to hold to a particular point of theology, or the other way around. But what I believe we can say is that if a particular set of negative behaviors and attitudes correlate to a certain point of theology, the truthfulness of that point of theology is in doubt. It really doesn’t matter if it is theology that leads to behavior, or vice versa: it is unhelpful in either case.

What happens when a point of theology is determined to be under question? There are a number of options. First, it may just be completely false; a lie. Or, it may be that the underlying reasoning to arrive at theology is flawed. Or, perhaps the interpretation of the text is wrong? Or, the text is no longer applicable. There may be other options. The important thing is to let go of bibliolatry (i.e., making the text a god) and let some of the other faculties (that God uses; e.g., our minds, our experiences) to help inform us about what is true.^1,2,3,4,5

Here are some signs that I believe point to unhelpful and false theologies: theologies that are used to excuse or accommodate abuse, control, force, violence, fear, hate, manipulation, over-emphasis on individual salvation, over-emphasis on end-times, over-emphasis on “getting to heaven”.

---

¹Job is a Bible character who reasoned and argued his position and beliefs about God against what his “friends” were arguing.

²Abraham argued with the Lord about the proposed action against Sodom, because what he [Abraham] knew and had experienced with God contradicted what he was about to do. (Genesis 18:22-33)

³Luke 10:27, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” (ESV)

⁴1 Thessalonians 5:21, “But test everything; hold fast what is good.” (ESV)

⁵Matthew 7:15-23; verse 20, “Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.” (ESV)

Book Review: Healing the Gospel

Healing the Gospel: A Radical Vision for Grace, Justice, and the Cross by Derek Flood
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

The primary thesis of this book, as I understood it is this: The retributive justice championed by the penal substitution model of Christ's atonement is false. Christus Victor, the classic and dramatic model of the atonement, reveals the other model for the falsehood that it is and then destroys it through the restorative justice that Christus Victor represents.

In short, all Christians and anyone interested in Christian theology ought to read this book. In the end you may still not agree with it, but it is important to understand the development of penal substitution theory that was based on the perspectives of the medieval church period. It is important to understand that there are other ways of understanding and interpreting the nature and importance of Christ's work through his life, death, and resurrection. It is important to understand that penal substitution is not rejected simply because it seems offensive, but because there is substantial biblical support for an alternative view, that in the author's and this reviewer's perspective, is more coherent with the whole of scripture.

Derek Flood does an excellent job of laying out the evidence for Christus Victor and against penal substitution. He goes through and logically dismantles the usual arguments in favor of penal substitution. He spends one chapter in this book working through the Suffering Servant passage of Isaiah 52-53 and shows that instead of God demanding some kind of punishment, it shows humans and the natural consequences of sin caused Christ to undergo suffering. The Appendix in the book is one of the most important portions as Mr. Flood works through the proper understandings of key soteriological terms: righteousness, justice, justifies, justification, and wrath. He shows how these should not be interpreted within a legal, forensic framework, but in a restorative and natural consequences framework.

This book builds upon Gustaf Aulen's original "Christus Victor" work. Aulen's work is quite scholarly and in it describes the history of the development of the three models - classic (Christus Victor), objective (Latin, penal substitution), subjective (moral influence) - of the atonement. Aulen's shows how classic is best supported by scripture and history.

What Mr. Flood does is take the next step. If one accepts Christus Victor, then the other models are not only inadequate, but they are false, particularly the penal substitution model. Mr. Flood explains how Christus Victor is, in particular, the antithesis of the penal substitution model and how the p-s model not only does not treat sin seriously enough, but it portrays a picture of God that is diametrically opposed to that which Jesus came to reveal.

Christians accept the Bible as the revelation of God. By "revelation of God" I don't mean in the sense of God reveals things but rather in the sense it shows humans what God is like. How one chooses to understand the cross and the atonement is critical for interpreting the rest of scripture. It is the lens through which we see God and how we portray God to others. If we get it wrong, we unknowingly end up lying about God. This book provides a clear differentiation between two ways of viewing God. It is critical to learn the support and reasoning behind the two opposed views and make the right choice.

View all my reviews