[S]ymphonic theology, as I conceive it, involves learning how to learn more from other people, by listening sympathetically. Other people have both good and bad ideas. By looking for the “grain of truth” even in some bad idea, we can sometimes find a starting point for a new perspective or a a piece of truth that we ourselves had overlooked. The theology of liberation is a case in point. The mainstream of liberation theology conceives of liberation in a distorted way, as almost wholly political and economic. But the theme of liberation is clearly a biblical theme. It is therefore possible to develop the theme in a balanced way, as a positive answer to liberation theology.

The question of the cessation or continuation of miraculous acts of God is another issue that can be clarified by using different perspectives. People occupying either of the extreme positions on this question can be led to modify their views if they ask themselves what is the grain of legitimacy that gives the opposite position some of its appeal. Symphonic theology, therefore, is interested in using the different insights given to different poeple in order to enhance the abilities of any one individual to grow in knowledge of the truth.

From Symphonic Theology: The Validity of Multiple Perspectives in Theology by Vern S. Poythress (pp. 52-53).

Dr. Vern Poythress (bio, writings) formed his method of symponic theology out of his insight that the truth communicated in the Bible comes to us in multiple perspectives. [Disclaimer for Reformed Scrabble players: Poythress does not believe that all human perspectives on the Bible are equally valid, but rather that the Triune God put his own multiple perspectives into the text. Read the book.] Nothing in the Bible is described to us in just one way. For example, the Bible depicts God as a shepherd…but also as a king, a rock, a servant, a shelter, etc. Moreover, there are multiple ways to read the Bible, depending on one’s purpose at the moment. Any passage can be read ethically, devotionally, doctrinally, naratively, etc.

In the same way, in doing theology, we realize that people themselves, being diverse, come away from the Bible with a variey of perspectives. Setting aside the obviously corrupt or whacko, most of those perspectives are sincerely held and the result of much study and reflection. This does not mean they are all 100% accurate and true to God’s truth. That would be impossible, since in some ways they inevitably contradict each other, and there is no contradiction in God. But there is diversity in God (the Trinity), and the array of sincere perspectives on his truth do not contradict each other at every point. Therefore, Poythress says that there is much to be gained by a sympathetic listening to sincere perspectives that differ from one’s own. Even if one ends up rejecting the core of the perspective, there will usually still be insights that can contribute beneficially.

This brings me to why I post what I do on this blog. Long-time readers will notice that I often quote from, refer to, or link to teachers and theologians who are, shall we say, controversial in Reformed circles, the circles within which I and they draw ourselves. People like N. T. Wright, Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, Mark Horne, John Armstrong, the Internet Monk, and even Westminster’s own Pete Enns, Doug Green and, since he inspired this post, Vern Poythress, are often pushing Reformed theology to interact with new ideas, evidences, and perspectives. You don’t have to read far in many of my comment threads to see that interacting with such folk causes near heart failure in many who have been taught that everything we ever needed to know about God and the Bible was written down between 1517 and 1564.

Maybe my openness to fresh thinking in Reformed theology has come about because I didn’t grow up in the Reformed world. Neither did I have a Damascus Road conversion to Reformed theology (resulting in what some call the “cage stage.” I came into RT gradually, piece by piece, as my own study and the teaching and influence of close friends gradually convinced me. But I’ve never seen it as an “all or nothing” proposition as some appear to, where it’s like RT has become your new religion (”My hope is built on nothing less than Calvin’s notes and Westminster Press”). Perhaps that’s what leaves me more open to listening to multiple perspectives.

Now having many of the links and topics that I do on this site, some have probably pegged me as a New Perspectives guy. They would be wrong. I don’t know or understand nearly enough of the core issues to have sold my soul one way or the other. But I am, to this point, quite sure of one thing. None of the gentlemen I named above as teachers/theologians I read and interact with are outside the Reformed camp, no matter how much Reformed Scrabble players may wave their dictionaries in the air and object.

That doesn’t mean that I agree with or absorb everything that proceedeth out of the mouth of those teachers. But every time I see one of them surrounded by an angry mob of Reformed Scrabble players, each ready to cast the first letter tile tray, something goes off in me and instead of kicking my neigbor’s dog (I don’t have one) or committing acts of civil disobedience…I respond by quoting them in a blog post. I admit it…it’s partly my little way of tweaking the Scrabble guys under their game tables.

But my passive-agressive behavior aside, interacting with the aforementioned “border stretchers” stretches me. It makes me think in new ways about my faith and practice. It keeps me aware that I learn more when I listen than when I speak. It keeps me awake in the classroom when my professors are doling out the Scrabble tiles. And it reminds me constantly that my God is big enough to hold me to himself as I wander through the Valley of the Shadow of New Ideas.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 30th, 2005 at 7:07 pm and is filed under Christian Community, Theology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.