Not Every Theologian is a Theocritic

Waldmark, 15 September 2008

In defense of the few Theologians who love God I will point out how we may learn from Art Critics why Theos Critics are on the wrong track.

An Old Master painting will tell us more about the subject it depicts, than a study into the historicity of the setting in which the subject is painted would tell us about the painting. Often a painting is the truest representation that we have of many subjects, sometimes the only indication or evidence that some subjects or some scenes existed at all!

Wouldn’t it be odd when Art Critics would evaluate a certain old painting – let’s say a landscape painting dating from 1656 in which a farmhouse can be seen in the top left-hand corner – on the basis of whether the farmhouse might possibly have had 166 tiles on the visible section of roof instead of the 147 that can be counted on the painting? None of the Art Critics who are alive at present were walking the earth in 1656, so what is their expertise on the subject matter of roof tiles in the late Middle Ages? They would rely entirely on documents that most likely cannot be substantiated because having been written by unknown others, people whom they have never met. In a court of law documents such as these would be disallowed on the grounds of hearsay.

However, it is precisely this kind of critical attention to unsubstantiated details that Theology often focuses on. That’s why in my mind I refer to many Theologians with the term ‘Theos Critics’ or Theocritics. Theocritics search through dusty shelves trying to find evidence on obscure pieces of forgotten parchment – the origins, authorship, provenance and general reliability of which no one can vouch for – that might help them to prove their doubts.

Fortunately not all Theologians are Theocritics. Indeed, there are some outstanding Theologians active in our world. But how do we recognise them, how do we discern between them and all the others?

In Paul’s second letter to Timothy (3:16), we read: ‘All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.’ Therefore, Theologians who admit that Scripture is all true, and who are willing to hold on to this position even in the face of contestation from Archaeologists or Cosmologists or ruling body’s at Seminaries, these Theologians are worthy of our trust. Read their books! Listen to their lectures! Pass on their names to your friends!

Not everyone who studies paintings is an art critic; some simply love art. Likewise, not every person who studies God’s word at University or Seminary is a Theocritic; some actually love Theos. How refreshing to hear a painting described by someone who apparently loves the painting and who revers the painter. Similarly I consider it inspiring to hear or read the Bible being explained by a Theologian who loves the Word of God and who stands in awe for its Author.

Trusting that the Word of God is true is the only deciding factor to distinguish between Theologians; not the name or reputation of the Seminary or the University a person graduated from, nor the number of centuries ago that the Theologian died.