Narrative theology is the idea that “Christian theology’s use of the Bible should focus on a narrative representation of the faith rather than the development of a set of propositions deduced from the data of revelation.1” Theologians in the Neo-orthodox and Post-liberal traditions developed it in the 20th century.
The Bible is seen as the story of God’s interaction with his people. This does not mean that the Bible doesn’t make propositional truth claims, but that the primary purpose of scripture is to record the relationship between God and his people (and how we today can continue in this story) more than detailing a systematic theology. One result of this, is that narrative theology is less likely to pull verse out of context to support doctrinal positions.
Narrative Theology in the Emerging Church
Perhaps the most obvious influence of narrative theology in the Emerging Church is the distrust and relatively low regard for systematic theology that many have. This is because systematic theologies tend to say more than what scripture actually says, and sometimes produces a very logically consistent theology that doesn’t do justice to the nuances in scripture.
Another influence of narrative theology is that it strengthens the value of community. In modern times, people have to often made Christianity into an individual faith, but the Bible’s story of God’s relationship to his people reminds us that community is essential.
The last influence from narrative theology I wish to mention is an increased attention to the story texts in scripture, especially the Gospels. As other groups (unwittingly) emphasize the propositional parts of scripture, especially the Pauline letters, many in the Emerging Church tend to focus more on the gospels. One important aspect of this, is the much greater attention paid to Jesus’ teaching concerning the Kingdom of Heaven than it typically receives from Evangelical circles.
Anything that emphasizes context is a good thing in my book. I’m not sure about focusing on the gospels at the expense of the Pauline epistles, though. Paul explains the requirements for salvation–grace and faith–clearly and simply, in a manner that just isn’t present in the gospels. From my human perspective, that’s the most important thing. And it’s what the unsaved need to hear about.
But I can understand why people might want to pay more attention to the gospels. After all, why study what Paul said when you can read the Jesus himself said? (Plus, if you ignore Paul you have a lot more wiggle room in your doctrine.)
If I remember right Donald Miller in Searching For God Knows What provides a basis for Narrative Theology by attempting to show why systematic theology isn’t right. I thought he did a good job with it.
a good review of this topic and the book mentioned by Bryan can be found here:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3VC2NFJTY1SFH/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm/
I wouldn’t say anyone is ignoring the Gospels or Paul’s letters, it’s more of a difference in emphasis.
I’ve recently read Searching For God Knows What and Miller makes a good case that Christianity isn’t about the formulas that many have reduced it to today. I guess systematic theology is a major cause of these formulas.
Good article, Jasen. While I tend to remain cautious in my optimism about the trends of the Emerging Church (and I am optimistic) the move from systematic theology to narrative theology really excites me. The diversity of voices in the cannon tends to get lost (or at least downplayed) in systematic theology’s well-meaning attempt to line everything up. This, in my humble opinion, actually cheapens our scriptures.
Darius, thanks for the link.
Jew, you said, “Paul explains the requirements for salvation–grace and faith–clearly and simply, in a manner that just isn’t present in the gospels. From my human perspective, that’s the most important thing. And it’s what the unsaved need to hear about.” Really? I mean, if Jesus spent so much of his time talking about life in the Kingdom, maybe that’s what’s most important. And if someone actively chooses to follow Jesus in bringing about the Kingdom, isn’t that the ultimate expression of faith? Believing in Jesus is way more than a theological understanding.
By the way, the Gospel of John has a lot to say about salvation.
Good point, I was thinking more about Matthew and Mark than about John.
As for Paul vs. Jesus, come on. Jesus talked in riddles and parables and half the time even the Twelve didn’t understand him. If I’m talking to an unbeliever, I’ll use the gospels to explain the story of Jesus’s death and resurrection, but then I’ll go straight to Romans rather than try to explain all the things Jesus said. I’m not trying to minimize the importance of reading the gospels and understanding what Jesus was talking about, but Jesus is a tough one to figure out. Jesus is anything but clear and straightforward.
Exactly, Jew. The non-gospels are quite useful in explaining everything in ways that people can understand, from the basics of salvation to critical Christian doctrine. And as I’ve stated before, right belief is extremely important. Just having faith in and of itself doesn’t do much for you, if you have faith in the wrong things.
Along those lines, here’s something I have been thinking about: if you had to pick one book of the Bible, and throw all the rest out of the canon, which book would you keep? You could keep the other books around as historical documents, they just wouldn’t be inspired by God. I’m not sure which one I’d choose, but it probably would be something Paul wrote.
I would agree, though maybe a Gospel. I don’t think I could pick just one… maybe 2 or 3. A Gospel, Romans, and Ephesians?
Cheater.
Picking one book is of course an impossible task. And if I actually had to do it, I would have to put alot of thought into it.
That being said, I’m sure alot of people would pick Romans. Without putting alot of thought into it, I would have to go with the Gospel of John.
Jew said “…rather than try to explain all the things Jesus said. I’m not trying to minimize the importance of reading the gospels and understanding what Jesus was talking about, but Jesus is a tough one to figure out. Jesus is anything but clear and straightforward.”
I agree with you. Jesus was more like a poet than a lawyer when he spoke. Some times it seems like he was intentionally trying to keep the scholars of the day from understanding.
Maybe because some things are better taught by poets than lawyers.
Thainamu, He was trying to keep people from understanding… “He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that,
‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!”"
The task of explaining salvation to the Gentiles was given to the apostles. Thus, in many ways, their writings are more useful when it comes to evangelism.
Darius said: He was trying to keep people from understanding
Yeah, and that always struck me as a little bit odd. Shouldn’t God want everybody to know the truth? It’s not like he owes us anything, but deliberately hiding the truth doesn’t fit into our conception of Jesus (or at least my conception).
But Jesus did explain many of the parables to his disciples, and since that is recorded in scripture, that is not so much an issue today.
Jesus also said things like “he who has ears let him hear.” It’s right before what Darius quoted but also in other places.
Matthew 18: 1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
I think it’s safe to say that those who approached Jesus’ teaching with humility did learn a great deal.
It gets into Calvinism discussion, but the Bible repeatedly speaks of God making a choice of whom He protects/saves/calls and those whom He rejects/condemns/hardens. First, He chose the Jews as the people He would make holy and save. Another place He hardened Pharaoh’s heart.
Part of me thinks that is unfair, but that’s the way it is. No matter of wishing or misinterpreting can change the fact that God calls some and rejects others. For what reason, we don’t completely know. We do know that God is primarily interested in receiving glory, so He works toward that end. No one comes to the Father of their own volition. 1 Corinthians by itself mentions God calling us eleven times. Furthermore, Jesus himself said “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
In the last 20 years this has been challenged. Even within my own seminary-Dallas Theological Seminary, this has been challenged. But it is not primarily being challenged because of a difference in the interpretation of a particular verse (lower criticism) but rather a difference of hermeneutic (higher criticism), meaning that the Bible was true then for that time, but not for ours. The hole in the theological dike here is obvious. At what point do we say what is now outdated? Something is ended only if Scripture says it is ended. That was not the way I was brought up. When I was in college we had to write in our Bibles and because I could not bring myself to do that in a pristine copy, I got a used hardcover study Bible complete with full-color pictures and commentaries. It was already highlighted and written in, but not much. It is still the copy I use to study my Bible and the one I bring to each Bible study even though it is bulky and heavy, but over the last couple decades, it has been thoroughly highlighted and written in. It has been a great blessing and I fully agree with Pastor Brian. If you haven’t experienced this blessing yet, perhaps you too were taught that you should never write on the word of God (or any book), then go ahead and jump right in. Perhaps you’ll want to get a used copy as I did.
“If you haven’t experienced this blessing yet, perhaps you too were taught that you should never write on the word of God (or any book), then go ahead and jump right in. Perhaps you’ll want to get a used copy as I did.”
I wise man once said, “If you have a Bible you can’t write in, then throw it away.”
I appreciate narratvive as a method of communicating, I just can’t understand how it became a method of defining doctrine! I guess that’s just because most post-moderns and emergents aren’t very intent on defining doctrine.