Who's Driving the Bus: Narrative vs Systematic Theology
I'm working on a little side project at the moment that deals with narrative theology. Narrative theology is an approach that has received increasing attention in recent years; you'll likely see the term floating around in emerging church or postevangelical conversations, and it's gaining traction in other spheres as well. In a formal sense, my understanding is that it's connected to the postliberal theologians (Frei in particular), although I'm not all that knowledgeable about that particular school. In a popular sense, it's usually used to refer to an approach that attempts to take seriously the biblical narrative as a theological statement in and of itself - in other words, the form of the text matters a great deal to what the text is trying to say. It's often placed in contrast to systematic theology, which is in essence the attempt to summarize the message of the biblical text on a number of subjects, things like the nature of God, the nature of humanity, and the nature of scripture.
So I've been thinking about what it is that makes narrative and systematic theology different. I've read some critiques of systematic theology that I find just naive, especially in that they are often paired with an elevation of narrative theology. But on some level both approaches share a lot in common. Both are attempts to say in some kind of summary form what the text says at length. Narrative theology - and I'm referring to the popular approach as opposed to any specific work by the postliberal theologians - must take the text and condense and summarize it if it wants to say anything about what the text means. This task is typically driven by what is perceived as the "themes" of the narrative. So, for example, a narrative approach would probably describe the primary themes of scripture as something like Creation, Fall, Redemption, and New Creation. And, if you're paying attention, you can see those themes repeated and reinforced and echoed and fulfilled through the larger narrative - they form a framework through which we can understand what the text means. And those themes can be broken down further - you can speak of election, or of atonement, or of the church, or of the mission of Christ as themes that weave in and out of the larger theme of redemption, for example. And I'd say that an approach that takes those things seriously and uses them to illuminate the meaning of the text is an approach that's doing justice to scripture.
But wait - isn't this starting to sound suspiciously like a systematic theology? After all, systematic theology also breaks down scripture into its components and then organizes and summarizes its findings. Isn't that the same thing that I've just described? I'd like to suggest that there is one significant difference in particular that shapes how I think about the two approaches: it's what drives the organization of the framework. Systematic theology begins with a framework already in place, and then mines the scriptures to fill in the predetermined structure. In other words, a typical systematic theology text will begin with the doctrine of God, and then go to the text to try to fill in the blanks or answer the questions that the framework has posed about God. And then that leads naturally to the doctrine of Christ, so we go back to the text to fill in the blanks for our new set of questions that the framework has naturally posed. And so on. The framework drives the exegesis. Narrative theology, however, begins with the text. The text begins, not with the doctrine of God, but with the story of Creation - so narrative theology, likewise, begins with creation. It's interesting that we don't really get to see what this God is like until about Genesis 12 or so, when we start to see God and Abraham interact. And it's not until Exodus that we even know how to refer to this God - until then, we don't even have a way to talk about him, except to call upon the experiences of our forebears. The one who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob doesn't even reveal himself as Yahweh until the story is well underway. And that revelation is as much a concealing as a revealing - it would be hard to construct a doctrine around "I am that I am." (And perhaps there is a lesson in that...)
The point, then, is that narrative theology attempts to allow the text itself to set the agenda. It tries to let the text drive, not just the answers, but also the questions. That isn't to say that systematic theology is bad - sometimes, there is a need to ask the questions of our context, and to then search the text for what answers it may hold. It is, rather to say that both approaches need each other, because they both bring something different to our understanding of the scriptures.
Technorati Tags: narrative, scripture, theology
Scott,
What I remember of ST is that it typically begins with the doctrine of God or revelation. I'm not familiar with narrative theology but I like what I'm hearing from you. However, I'm not sure you're being fair to ST. We've got to start somewhere and ST begins with the Bible - in our understanding of how God revealed it to us or in our understanding of the God who gave it to us. But it still starts with Scripture.
From your description of narrative theology it sounds like the advantage is that we allow the flow of the story to teach us about God instead of saying everything we can about Him from the very beginning.
Even so, I don't think we can develop narrative theology from an agnostic perspective. What I mean is we have some belief about the Bible before we beginning reading it and developing a narrative theology. Our practical development of theology is not as clean and distinctive as the definition of a particular type of theology.
Posted by reid on June 19, 2007 08:19 AMHey there. This is my first time hanging out at your blog. Good stuff.
I was really liking what you were saying at the beginning in terms of the similarities between the approaches, and then you stated of Systematics that:
The framework drives the exegesis. Narrative theology, however, begins with the text. The text begins, not with the doctrine of God, but with the story of Creation - so narrative theology, likewise, begins with creation.
But in one sense this is disingenuous. One might try to begin with the text, but in reality we all bring our own viewpoints and concerns and questions to a text and this, invariably, affects our reading and interpretation. In the case of Systematics the intention is clear: Coherence is king and the text is something of mine-field of data to be scientifically excavated and integrated into a framework and structure.
But just because I focus on the narrative does not mean I have any less of a framework, nor does it mean that my reading is not going to be looking for something. Because the fact of the matter is that I am historically situated with biases and prejudices that determine, in advance, how I am going to read the text. In fact, it is the presence of these biases and prejudices themselves that allow me to interpret, in the first place. (crf. Gadamer on the issue of "prejudice")
All in all, I appreciate the approach of narrative theology, but in is also paradoxical to me because many advocates of a narrative approach would agree with what I am saying about each of us bringing biases and prejudices to the text. However, then they turn around and criticize Systematic Theology for reading the text through the lenses of Coherence/Logic/Rationality/etc.
Posted by Erdman on June 19, 2007 02:03 PMA general comment at the moment, as I'm in the middle of making dinner ;). I think you're both reading a set of values into this piece that aren't really present. What I have not said, and in fact what I thought I tried to go out of my way not to say, is "THEREFORE, narrative theology is good and systematic theology is bad." In fact, my point was this:
It is rather to say that both approaches need each other, because they both bring something different to our understanding of the scriptures.So please take the "vs" in the title with a grain of salt: it means merely a comparison of, and not a competition between.
And as to erdman's questions of perspective and such influencing one's reading of the text, I think you're missing what I'm getting at by saying that narrative theology begins with the text. All I'm suggesting is that narrative theology is primarily concerned with the forms and structures of the text itself. It asks questions such as, "Why does the text say it in this way?" or on a different level, "Where is this theme headed?" - questions which systematic theology would never ask (not a values statement, just a comment on the approach). It attempts to take seriously the unfolding of the narrative as a theological statement in and of itself. And of course the way that we understand that is shaped by context; that's merely a truism. But the emphasis and approach of narrative theology concentrates on the how and why of the development of the themes - that's just a plain statement of what it intends to do, not whether or not its outcomes and conclusions are influenced by the context of the reader (which of course they are).
Thoughts?
Posted by ScottB on June 19, 2007 06:21 PMScott,
I recognized that you were not making a value judgment, and hence my point was not to argue over which approach is better. My point was more fundamental and hermeneutical: In either approach an interpreter brings "stuff" to a text. In the case of Systematics the stuff is obvious: We want to develop a comprehensive, coherent structure/framework. (Contra your post the systematic theologian most often claims that the framework comes from the text via induction, and most classical systematic theologians would deny your charge that the system is determined at the outset before engaging the text.)
Yet what strikes me as disingenuous is that the Narrative Theologian, as portrayed in this post, "begin with the text." As mentioned, most systematic theologians would make the same claim.
I suggest that it is naive for anyone to think that they can "begin with the text." We begin with ourselves. The text is secondary.
Posted by Erdman on June 19, 2007 11:13 PMI confess that I'm a bit baffled by your comments. For one thing, I don't disagree with you that we bring our presuppositions to the text. I've written about that extensively in other places, so can we recognize that we're in agreement on that point? To be honest, it doesn't matter for the point that I'm trying to make. I'm not talking about interpretation. I'm talking about approach, about how one organizes the task of theology. Of course we bring "stuff" to the text - that isn't my point, nor my concern.
To reiterate - my contention is that narrative theology is concerned with the form and structure of the text, and the way in which revelation progressively develops along themes. So, while the particular themes that a person might identify is undoubtedly affected by context, the approach of identifying and studying those themes as presented in the narrative is not. That is simply a description of the approach, and what I mean by "beginning with the text".
As to your other statement:
Contra your post the systematic theologian most often claims that the framework comes from the text via induction, and most classical systematic theologians would deny your charge that the system is determined at the outset before engaging the text.I've read a lot of systematics, and I've never read one that suggests that its organization is native to the text itself. In fact, that claim would be counterintuitive - the organization that systematic theology provides is needed precisely because the text itself is not organized in that way, true? Why would the framework "come from the text" when it is in fact an attempt to collect and organize the various texts in a structured, systematic way? Perhaps I'm not understanding what you mean, but I don't know of anyone doing systematics that claims that the framework itself comes from the text.
To quote Grudem's systematic text:
In fact, the adjective systematic in systematic theology should be understood to mean something like "carefully arranged by topics," with the understanding that the topics studied will be seen to fit together in a consistent way, and will include all the major doctrinal topics of the Bible.And my point is that this arrangement which is the goal of systematics can't truly be seen to begin with the text, in the sense that it takes its form and structure from the text. It fills out that form and structure from the text, to be sure - but the text doesn't drive its organization and development.
Think of it this way: if I were to do a systematic summary of the Star Wars trilogy, I might begin with a discussion of the Force, because it plays a significant role in the series. But in terms of the development of the narrative, the Force doesn't really begin to be expounded until the middle of Empire (classic trilogy assumed ;). Obi-wan offers hints and suggestions in the first, so that we learn just enough to move the narrative along. So a narrative summary of the trilogy would never begin with the Force - for the simple reason that the narrative itself does not begin there.
Again, this is about form, structure, and approach. This is not about interpretation or conclusions. And I don't think that's naive nor disingenuous by any means - I'm simply trying to describe how one goes about the task.
Posted by ScottB on June 19, 2007 11:49 PMWell, I think we may have different experiences and interpretations of Systematic Theology. I don't think that your Grudem quote suggests that he does not "begin with the text." I think if you asked Grudem if he begins with the text he would answer in the affirmative, as would any good, Evangelical Systematic Theologian. They would just suggest that their "concerns" are made known at the outset. As Grudem says, he is interested in (i.e. his "concerned" with) various topics as well as consistency. All I'm saying is that everyone has some kind of "concern" whether they state it or not. (In fact, the unstated, subconscious concerns are the most fun to analyze!) These "concerns" necessarily structure our interpretation. Hence, I don't think one can claim (contra Narrative approach) to be developing their structure from the narrative itself. We can try. But we structure the text more than the text structures us.
I still think that maybe the Systematics/Narrative difference is overstated if you say that narrative begins with the text for its structure because "structure", as I see it, is determined by our "concerns", and since I believe that everyone brings their own "concerns" to the text I think that Systematics and Narrative are really not as different as one might initially think. In any case, we may not be on the same level when it comes to defining Systematics/Narrative, so that may account for our differences, as well.
Blessings,
Jon
i think you make an excellent presentation, which seems to suggest a need of narrative and systematic theology.
i do, however, agree that we should begin with the narrative (the Text) and then move into framework, and not the other way around. sure there is a time and place for systems, but they can easily become doctrine and doctrine become truth and truth become Truth, when they may not even be correct to begin with.
i think that the kind of systematic approach you describe which begins with the framework is very dangerous, and i have firsthand seen it misused in many instances to condemn "heretics".
however, the narrative must have some themes that continually come up, as you mention redemption. and those can become systematized themes. again, they can be oversimplified and skewed though.
therefore, i think a balance might be needed.
peter
Posted by pbandj on July 11, 2007 11:40 PMpeter -
however, the narrative must have some themes that continually come up, as you mention redemption. and those can become systematized themes. again, they can be oversimplified and skewed though.I agree - I think there's a lot of common ground, and both have their place.
Posted by ScottB on July 14, 2007 01:29 AM
scott
i was thinking while i was rereading the book of romans the other day after i read your posts. i think there is a lot of validity to narrative theology. however, paul certainly seems to have gotten pretty close to systematic theology in his letter to the romans.
of course, the Gospels are narrative, but many of the epistles are more "systematic".
as i thought more, i realized that the Torah is a funny mixture of both. because Torah is a narrative that talks about some systematized things that God said to Moses and others. and of course the rest of Tanakh is not very systematic at all.
so, i think there is a good mixture of both narrative and systematic theology within the Scripture. maybe a model for how we should do things?
peter
Posted by pbandj on July 14, 2007 08:13 PMpeter - interesting thoughts. I wanted to give them a bit of thought before responding. I think that I wouldn't classify Romans as systematic theology. What I think Paul is doing instead is exactly what I'd call narrative theology, in the sense that he's basically reinterpreting the story of Israel and finding a place in it for the Gentiles. It's not really systematic in the sense that it's a collection of everything that the OT has to say about justification, for example - it's more a reflection on the story itself, which is how I'd understand narrative theology to work. ;)
Again, though, that's not to say we shouldn't or can't utilize a systematic theology framework. It's helpful in some ways, and I definitely don't want to get rid of it. I just want to make sure that the framework clarifies and doesn't distort, you know?
Thanks for the thoughts!
Posted by ScottB on July 18, 2007 12:21 AM