How hard it is to avoid the�innate desire that we all have to confirm our prejudices through our theological inquiry. Our studies,�more times than not, resemble an exercise of�a passionate pursuit of making the evidence fit our presupposed conclusions. We have our belief, then we seek to confirm that belief. Why? Because it is more comfortable to be than to become. Becoming involves humility which�brings about�change. Change is not really on the agenda for most of us. Yes, we may call ourselves sinners and express the need to change, but when change presents its resume, we reject it, contriving a long list of excuses. It does not matter whether it is matters of theology or an argument with your spouse, we believe�we are right and we will do everything to present our case in the best possible light.
It is a weakness to resist change. It is a fearful thing to even consider it. The problem is, this innate methodology is dishonoring to God, no matter what you are trying to defend. This methodology is sin. We are advocates of truth, not our prejudices,�and we must follow it wherever�it leads, even if it takes us where we do not want to go. God help us all to stop shaming His name by seeking our truth rather than the truth.
The following except is taken from Interpreting the New Testament Text Darrel Bock and Buist Fanning eds. (Crossway, 2006), p. 156.�David Lowery, New Testament�professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes about the importance of validating our studies.�I don’t think�I have ever read a finer�exhortation�concerning the integrity that we must possess when pursuing�truth. While this is written specifically to exegetes (those who interpret the Scripture), you can also apply it to all those who seek truth in any area of study. Please read it carefully.�
“This process may be better understood by clarifying what it is not. It is not a matter of coming to a conclusion about the interpretation in question at the beginning of the process and arguing the case for that point of view by citing the data that seems supportive of it. In other words, an exegete is not an advocate, like a lawyer representing a client. A good lawyer will try to put his client and his case in the best possible light. He knows what conclusion he wants to reach before the trial begins and will seek to discount (or exclude) the relevance of any data that may prove problematic for winning agreement on the point of view he is putting forward
Most of us would welcome a lawyer like this arguing our case in a trial. However, many biblical interpreters are confused about their proper role, and function for all practical purposes like lawyers arguing a point of view. They decide at the beginning of the process what view they regard as most compatible with their theological or ecclesiastical or personal conviction and then work to demonstrate the reasonableness of this interpretation against all competing interpretations. If certain data are problematic for their interpretation, they are ignored or discounted. It is a regrettable fact that many sincere (though misguided) people carry out research and writing as theological lawyers rather than biblical interpreters. Please do not be one of them
I hesitate to belabor this point but want to say as clearly as possible that manipulating the data of the text to support a particular point of view is not authentic exegesis or interpretation, and it is not validation that has any integrity of method associated with it. When you as a researcher detect this bogus approach to exegesis in the writing you are reading (or the lecture you are hearing), regard it as the wishful thinking of its author that it is. If you own writing of this sort, the only reason to read it is as an example of what not to do (libraries, by virtue of their role, routinely find shelf space for work of this sort and must be excused). Let no one say of you that you made up your mind about your conclusion before you started the process of validation. Instead, aim to follow the data to the most probable conclusion. Practice integrity of method. Your conclusion may be unsettling to you and may create more than a little personal tension (a circumstance that may never be resolved for some issues: welcome to life in an imperfect world). But you (and those you minister to) will be better for it if you treat the data with integrity (and you will not be a phony exegete).”
Would it be that every Christian would read this and take it to heart.
3 replies to "Theology is the pursuit of truth, not prejudice"
This is what I love about RTM. For years I approached theology in exactly that
way – as a lawyer attempting to prove my case. This first course, Intro, along
with ATTEMPTING to read Scripture without prejudice of my past experiences,
emotions and prior teaching has made my goal to approach theology with a
clean slate and try to start over and be open.
Sometimes I am just about mentally worn out after a class, but I am ever so
grateful that this ministry is here and promoting what for me is a somewhat
new way of approaching Scripture. I am hopeful that I will learn much more
in the future and I hope that many others will have an opportunity to take
these classes.
I see through a glass darkly but am hopeful to see truth revealed,
Chuck
So true Chuck but my legal training always gets in the way of “doing theology” and
yet I believe that all of us although we try not to, our presuppositions are in the
forefront even though we think we have buried them. Also, regeneration invariably affects the way we do theology because the Holy Spirit has illuminated us in a way we can’t understand.
I have been, as you, greatly affected by the way we do theology although my positions on doctrine haven’t changed much.
I believe though that irenics plays a large part so that even if we are leaning towards
one side of a doctrine, we do so irenically.
Guilty as Charged. I have been guilty with the “bigger group” of defending my position of what I think is right. I think most of it is because most of the time I am challenged by those who have no basis. I am realizing that even though I have a basis doesn’t mean that I am right either. I feel like Chuck after reviewing material. So many things go off in my brain at once triggering what I know is grounded and what is speculation. I have had the “FEELING” that the denominational Church’s are messed up and the non-denominational Church’s seem to be just as bad off in respect to the controversial issues of their doctrine respectfully. I hope see this in clear daylight someday.