hen it comes to an appreciation of rigorous thinking and systematic theology, men like to careen from one extreme to the other. On one hand is the almost omnipresent attitude of fuzzy-mindedness, which wants to make no clear distinctions and has a deep abhorrence of careful definitions. And, of course, on the other hand, we have all seen those tight, narrow-souled individuals who have somehow managed to get their doctrinal skivvies in a knot.
Each group uses the existence of the other group as justification for staying on the same course. "At all costs, we must avoid being like them."
But these two groups actually may have more in common than they think. They each appear to believe that systematic thinking about God and His revelation to us is somehow optional. The advocates of a tight systematic theology insist that it is an option that should be taken, while their opponents say that it is an option to be avoided. Nevertheless, they agree that there is a choice involved -- "to systematize or not to systematize?"
There is a fundamental confusion here. A systematic ordering of thought is an absolutely essential aspect of thinking at all. The only way to avoid systematics is to avoid thought entirely. The question here is not whether we should have a systematic theology, but rather which systematic theology we will have. Some people think they have successfully avoided systematics when all they have done is to avoid consistency in their thinking (which can easily be done). But this just means that their systematic is informal, self-contradictory, and confused. It is not non-existent.
For example, when a scientist looks at the data of the world around him, he understands nothing until he begins systematically to order the data. Data alone is meaningless. Now a scientist may order that data in a way that does violence to the way God made the world. (A good example of this would be the paradigm of the evolutionary tree.) But his problem is not with the fact that he ordered his data, but rather with the way he ordered it.
In the same way, the data of Scripture is meaningless without an ordered understanding of all its contents. If the student of Scripture does not have a concept of the "whole counsel of God," isolated passages of the Bible can be made to say anything. An obedient student of Scripture orders the data in a way that respects and submits to all of God's word, the way God gave it to us. And, of course, it is also possible for students of the Bible to organize biblical data in a way that does violence to the Scriptures. But if someone undertakes to oppose systematics, he must do so (or attempt to do so) systematically. To say that systematics is bad, or unbiblical, is itself a statement reflecting a certain systematic.
So, if someone were to say that systematics is unbiblical, a good response to reveal his hidden dependence on systematics would be to say, "Yes, quite. I always thought ice cream had no bones." And when they look befuddled, you can then say, "Oh! Did you want to talk about this rationally? But isn't that unbiblical?"
When there is wrong-headed ordering of the data, there is a confused systematic. This is done, for example, by the rambling preacher, who says whatever seems like a good idea at the time. There is also a godly ordering of the data, which is done by the fellow in the third row from the back, who sees what this preacher is doing. And there is also no systematic ordering of data, which is done by the pews.
In this area of study, we are not left without an example. Christ shows us His perfect ability in systematics when He identified the two greatest commandments for us. All the Law, and all the Prophets, were summed up in loving God, and loving one's neighbor. Now does the Old Testament say directly anywhere that these were the two greatest commands? No, but Christ through His perfect knowledge of the Scripture organized all the case laws, and all of the Ten Commandments, around these two laws. This is nothing less than a systematic handling of the Word of God.
Now some might object and say that we only know this about these two commandments on the authority of Christ Himself. Had He not told us that these were the greatest commandments, it would be improper for us to say so. But this is simply not true. Remember how Christ praised the wisdom of the scribe who had already come to this understanding from his study of the Scriptures:
So the scribe said to Him, "Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. "And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." Now when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." But after that no one dared question Him (Mark 12:28-34).
What can we call it when a man reads through the Old Testament law (reads about the character and attributes of God, the history of His covenant with Israel, the commanded sacrifices, the case laws) and concludes that our primary duty is to love God, and to love our neighbor? It is godly systematics, and the scribe who had studied this way was not far from the kingdom. Christ describes his systematic as wise.
But suppose that our scribe had concluded that the following text was the passage around which the Law and Prophets were to be understood?
For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the giants. Indeed his bedstead was an iron bedstead. (Is it not in Rabbah of the people of Ammon?) Nine cubits is its length and four cubits its width, according to the standard cubit (Deut. 3:11).
This would be a systematic too, but a muddleheaded systematic. It would be a foolish ordering of the data of Scripture, in the same way that evolutionary theory is a foolish ordering of the data seen in nature.
Because speech is the vehicle of thought, there is no way for us even to talk about biblical truth without revealing a set of systematic assumptions about that truth. There is no choice for sentient beings about whether to be systematic in seeking to understand the revelation of God to us. Nevertheless, we do have a choice to make. These systematic assumptions of ours will either be wise or foolish. They will be clear or blurred, obedient or disobedient.
Which will it be?
