Besides learning how to read stories, we need to consider viewing the Bible as a story, with us as participants. I’m sure that others of you have spent more time with “narrative theology”; it’s somewhat new to me. Much of it reminds me of what Tom Olbricht taught so many of us about theology being the story of the mighty acts of God. I think narrative theology builds on that idea, looking at how we fit into that story.
Apparently, Christian Smith’s book The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture moved a lot of people to think about narrative theology. At least it sparked a lot of discussion on the subject.
One blogger who sought to summarize narrative theology is Roger Olson. He boiled his thoughts down to these points:
- Narrative theology focuses on the Bible as a dramatic account of God’s activity.
- Narrative theology acknowledges that the Bible contains propositions, but it says biblical propositions are not independent of or superior to the metanarrative of God’s saving activity.
- A biblical proposition is “God is love” (1 John 4:8), but it needs interpretation. The only way to interpret “God is love” is to look at the biblical story that reveals God’s character through his actions.
- According to narrative theology, the Bible contains many kinds of statements—commands, propositions, expressions of praise, prayers, poetry, prophecies, parables, etc. All must be interpreted in light of the great story of God and its purpose—to reveal the character of God through his mighty acts leading up to and centering around Jesus Christ.
- Theology is our best human attempt to understand the biblical drama-story. But a theologian cannot do that properly unless he or she is “living the story” together with a community of faith shaped by the story.
- Doctrines are secondary to the story. They are judged by their ability to draw out and express faithfully the character of God as revealed by the story.
- The task of the church is to “faithfully improvise” the “rest of the story.” Christians first must be grounded in the story. Second, they must together (communally) improvise the “rest of the story” faithfully to the story given in the Bible.
- The alternatives are to either a) regard the Bible as a grab bag of propositions to be pulled out to answer questions, or b) regard the Bible as a not-yet-systematized system of theology (like a philosophy). Both alternatives fail to do justice to what the Bible really is—a grand drama of God’s mighty saving acts that progressively reveals his character culminating in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
I want to explore that some more next week, but for now, let’s hear your thoughts and critiques.
Interesting that he seems to downplay systematic theology in number 8, yet the only way to achieve number 3 is through some kind of systematic presentation of the narrative. How do you know a propositional statement like “God is love” is true? Well, look at the story here, and here, and here, and here. That is systematic theology.
I understand the points given, and I think it is a good move to keep everything in light of the meta-narrative. But what I have found in my experience is that those who fail to have a coherent systematic theology fail to have a coherent theology. After asking enough questions, it tends to end up a lot like Swiss cheese when you get beyond the surface level of the meta-narrative. It can leave one open-prey to a thorough and knowledgeable inquisitor.
Grace be with you –
Jr
Maybe I’m still not getting it, or maybe I’m just ahead of the curve and have looked at Scripture this way all along (strange thought coming from a very strict CENI background). This appears to be how I’ve been taught and studied all along (again, unless I’m missing something). It’s all one big story of God’s love for man and His plan for our redemption. Everything falls into that category. Maybe we just need to keep the purpose or meta-narrative in mind as we read those commands, principles, precepts, etc. Why should I do those things? Why should I live my life a certain way, change my behaviors, subject myself to various requirements? Because it’s part of God’s plan, as told through the Scriptures. God loves me. He’s proven it throughout history. Now I need to have faith to obey and live for Him. That puts me in the living narrative.
After having two theology classes with John Mark Hicks, I was hooked on a narrative theology approach. I also think the hermeneutics of narrative theology are important…that we are to live the rest of the story. Here I have found N.T. Wright’s five-act drama model to be very helpful (see Wright, “The New Testament and the People of God,” Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.).
I also would say that one can do narrative theology without systematic theology and still have a coherent theology, since the Biblical writers certainly did and they by no means ever put forth what we a systematic theology. In fact, in the New Testament it seems that we can really say that the narrative the writers worked out of became a contextualized missional and pastoral theology. And the more I preach the more I realize how important it is for our theology (derived from the narrative) to be contextualized for missional/pastoral purposes. As I was thinking today, I can preach from Philippians 2:5-11 in any church and have a good sermon but give me two years serving on church and that same text will be preached differently…the same core will be there but the particularities will be noticeably contextualized.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Rex, Wright’s five act illustration can be found in this essay: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm
It’s in the section titled “The Authority of a Story”
Travis –
perhaps that’s the reason you found it so hard to fit into that background… because narrative theology came so naturally as the way to handle the Big Story we’re in.
Some places where I definitely see divergence from your background – narrative theology assumes that the commands and examples that we find in the text are authoritative, but not in the way we’ve traditionally applied them – because we’re not in the same act of the play, the same chapter of the story, that the characters who received those commands were.
Thus, while in Babylon, the synagogue concept became prevalent without command or example. They were improvising in their part of the play, in harmony with how the story had gone before them.
Likewise, the day of assembly for followers of the One True God moved from sabbath to first day of the week.
The instructions given and the examples lived out in Scripture are there for us to imitate, not slavishly but no less carefully, appreciating the differences and improvising for our own time and place. Thus Paul says, not simply, “Imitate me” or “Imitate Christ,” but “Imitate me *even as I* imitate Christ.” We don’t see Paul teaching in parables, gathering 12 disciples, etc. We see him being a faithful witness (Isa 43) of the glory of God.
Travis- I *highly* recommend that you find some time this weekend to read the essay above that Tim linked to. It, more than any other single piece of writing, started me down the road from where I was to where I am.