There are several parts to this book, and within them, numerous chapters span across topics that the authors wrote to help researchers write papers for academic interest and to produce written work of literary significance. In addition to carefully reading through the material of each chapter, it is necessary to zoom out and view the material and the intended purpose of the entire body of work to understand the authors’ point. The methods and techniques given are broadly relevant to academics and researchers who wish to organize, substantiate, and bring together material in a formatted way according to conventional standards and expectations.
While the read subject matter is understood and of pertinent interest, the following book review is given here to demonstrate the reading was completed as an acknowledgment of the material written to guide students in projects or their coursework.
Through my reading of the book, I’ve highlighted numerous areas with notes about what the authors meant about research to begin. The definition of research is explored with a discussion about its types, what it is to conduct research, and how to understand it as a process. The method of research isn’t mechanistic but organic, as it’s a process that isn’t linear but iterative. At least in terms of how sources are collected, read, and understood. And how data is organized to support assertions and conclusions.
Research makes its way into various kinds of writing. The numerous types are given at length, from short essays to Ph.D./Th.D. dissertations, with many more in between. It is helpful to recognize what authors clearly define or share as academic writing types, but it would be of further interest to see examples of those types and their length ranges. For example, the authors wrote that a book review is a short paper (1-4 pages), but I have written various book reviews that go well beyond that as I trace historical backgrounds, citations, and source materials.
The authors try to inform readers that research is not biased, emotional, or charged with loaded terms for dramatic effect. Research for theology students is not a sermon. Research is not embellished and makes use of neutral terms. Assuming the authors mean that terms chosen to convey meaning are gender-neutral, what material is written, and how it is presented. Generally, intentional or not, I believe there is no such thing as a complete absence of bias. While research should be derived from data, not information, sometimes that isn’t possible.
As the authors further wrote about the value of research, they listed the apparent favorable outcomes of problem-solving capacity, character development, and writing skill improvement, there are other research merits as well.
The seven steps to performing biblical exegesis are reminiscent of the hermeneutics coursework completed earlier in the program. With a lot of attention toward the resource types, readers are informed about concordances, dictionaries, atlases, software, commentaries, apparatuses, and the like. What’s especially useful is step (6) about how to establish the original theological meaning of the text under study. As this is a critical step to understand and follow, it is not appropriate to apply an interpretation developed and understood, but make certain the original meaning is understood and accepted even if contradictory to denominational interests, tradition, or popular reading.
It is especially beneficial to follow the outline structure given in this section. Categorical separation of key facts surrounding the interpretive work of a paper support conclusions and applications with ease of acceptance or push-back. This is the best outline I’ve seen of an exegetical presentation, as it covers relevant areas of interest. In fact, to serve as a template, it is repeatable for indexing, tagging, and retrieval.
This chapter’s primary points of interest concern the use of primary and secondary sources, theological analysis, and historiography during the course of research. Distinctions between primary and secondary sources are essential to understand as they pertain to the historical origination of the material. Primary sources closest to the origin serve as the highest documentary evidence as rationale or justification for material gathered and processed for research. Primary source materials come in many forms.
While secondary sources are generally one step removed from the source, they can reference primary sources that may no longer exist. These are source materials that include discussions and commentaries about primary material. There are numerous examples of secondary sources from many resource types (e.g., articles, monographs, reference works, testimonies, inscriptions, historical records, and so forth).
The authors clearly explain that the objective of theological research is to “document an orderly and coherent account of theistic beliefs.” Furthermore, Biblical Theology concerns topics derived from Scripture to further narrow macro or micro exegetical forms of literary research that concern theology students. Conversely, there are theological comparison studies that help researchers understand the historical positions of theologians.
The authors close the chapter by touching upon historiography and pastoral theology to indicate their types as having a bearing on how materials are analyzed, collated, and applied. The guidance about historical events, theology, and people together is helpful to scope time intervals and select figures by available materials. If it isn’t possible to focus on an individual during a theological course of study, it is helpful to redirect concentration to an institution.
The overall gist of choosing a topic rests on reading the relevant subject matter and asking content and feasibility questions about the material. Once the topic is chosen, the task then turns to limiting the scope and depth of the research project. Setting parameters in advance is necessary to accomplish research objectives within a defined period of time. The book’s authors lead readers to understand the differences between undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate research in terms of breadth and coverage of the subject matter.
There are basic steps offered to plan for the research undertaken. They together contribute to how a research project is proposed. Before outlining the elements of a proposal, it is first necessary to define the problem to resolve. Once it is determined what problem exists, what question is unanswered, or what gap in knowledge there is, it is then necessary to determine the research project’s purpose. For example, an analysis of a matter or event could be pursued to develop an understanding of a specific topic. The range of possibilities here is enormous, so determining the research project’s purpose is a necessary step to keep focus and remain within the boundaries established as the paper sets about resolving the problem. Finally, it is advised to design a methodology concerning the assembly and delivery of the research. By the examples given in the book and the final paragraph in this section (page 150), the author suggests that methodological reasoning should be deductive rather than inductive or abductive.
The proposal area developed here is very helpful for organizational effort, too. By beginning with the end in mind, the various elements of the proposal point to what effort and resources contribute to a successful outcome. The explanatory strength of each proposal area is of significant help in the preparation of the overall project. All three steps in the planning process also support the outline to build the paper’s body as it develops. The outline structure that guides the writing and interfacing elements of the subject matter enables coherent thought throughout the reading of the entire project. It is always best to use a conventional outlining format according to the institution’s guidelines where the research is conducted (if one should exist).
A further area of significant interest is the researcher’s library access and use. Whether institutional, municipal, regional, personal, or some mixture, efficient information mining and retrieval are necessary to produce a research paper. While the book has much to say about using physical hard copy books, that is a vital area of interest. However, too often, meta-data and the parsing of narrative verbiage within the body of such content don’t exist. From the book, it is clear that libraries have a lot of digitized subject matter available in databases. Still, when it comes to EBSCO or Atla Religion for journals and historical research papers, those two might be among the more prominent libraries and wouldn’t be found among municipal or community libraries. Universities and Seminaries often contract or subscribe to both for students and alumni. Master’s University provides both for its students, and they significantly help with assignments, research projects, and overall spiritual development. Master’s University does not provide access to EBSCO and Atla Religion databases for alumni. As I don’t live near a library that carries access to either, a few years ago, it was necessary to begin building a personal digital library as a permanent download via purchase and licensing. After continuous persistence, a personal library has grown to over 30,000 titles, mostly purchased (except for journals, which are a low-grade subscription to everything common to EBSCO and Atla Religion.
The purpose is not to hoard but to establish a framework to which retrieval of data and information is made feasible by materials derived and indexed from numerous locations (historiographical, literary, academic, and biblically sound institutions). To run logic or boolean operators upon parsed data, whether tagged or not, yields a canvas of weighted results that help save time, minimize cost, and filter what’s most meaningful or relevant. It also becomes more readily possible to retire what becomes outdated. With subscriptions and outright digitized copies of scanned texts, it is better to gather, collate, and index for speedy retrieval everything written as scanned into the record (such as popular patristics, puritans, theologians, and philosophers down through the centuries). It is too inefficient to return to the days of exclusively working through hardcopy texts to complete a research project or even a robust intertextual bible study on a given point of interest. ProQuest is an institutional-only access database for theses and dissertations, so it will not be possible or of interest to begin seeking its value for research ahead. PQDT is now ProQuest and no longer an open-source application for use. Access to theses and dissertations is an exclusive service to academics or anyone with a library that hosts ProQuest.
The authors of this book take a well-spent time to cover the basics of reading. And how to take notes on that reading. There are helpful tips about what applications to use for various circumstances and purposes, whether notes are taken manually or via computer. For example, a “Word Processor,” “Database,” and “Spreadsheet” are the types of applications that the authors identify as helpful and common among researchers. This review is written with a Word Processor. The subject matter covered here is really very basic. Further discussion is offered about life balance around studying and reading, such as rest and physical exercise.
While the book covers specific details about how to format bibliographical data and citation references in Turabian or other styles, not all academic institutions accept the book’s guidance in each area of character, terminology, or registration. The book provides general guidelines for using Turabian, but individual mileage may vary from institution to institution that requires Turabian.
The book extends further into the composition of the research paper. It covers familiar ground as graduate students have already learned how to form sentences with independent and dependent clauses, appropriate grammar, and punctuation to communicate meaning within the structure of a paragraph. Transitional terms, phrases, and sentences within paragraphs, or as ideas and subject matter, that flow from one paragraph to another, readers can track through in a coherent way to arrive at an understanding the writer wants. The book’s authors make a compelling case for the need to research English and learn from examples that help both experienced and novice writers. When the writing process of a research paper begins, the applied craft of composition takes shape. From the author’s experience, there are numerous valuable points to consider during the editing and revision process of the paper. The caliber of their guidance makes clear that the writer of a research project should have mastery of the written English language to set it apart from other literary genres. That is to say, according to the authors, it is not enough to be well-developed in terms of research, analysis, investigation, reconstruction, and the derivation of biblical, historical, and philosophical truth, but the capability and fluency of writing at the same caliber is expected. Time and energy spent on biblical and theological research should be matched by how that research is written.
As this text serves as a reference handbook, it is a go-to resource for handling the parts of a research paper when laying it out in an organized manner. The various elements expected in the research paper are covered to show effective placement and orientation for readability and interpretation. To Turabian style, proportionality, and other parts of the paper, the initial pages, introduction, main body, summary, conclusions, appendixes, and bibliography are covered to reinforce further adherence to the document standard for uniformity of research papers developed and formatted to convention for the benefit of readers and institutions.
Chapters 18, 19, 21, and 22 of Quality Research Papers: For Students of Religion and Theology, Fourth Edition together amount to 53 pages of reading that this short paper summarizes. The sections concerning these chapters are about the structure and substance of a research paper. More specifically, the range of topics covered includes the necessary elements of a research paper. Namely, this concerns the paper’s documentation, statistics, tables, graphs, footnotes, bibliography, the Turabian standard of citations, and styling of various literary and media materials. The subject matter ranges in substance to aid the research writer in preparing and presenting the material. The book largely serves as a narrative guide with explanatory value and a handbook for continued reference.
As the author prepares the subject matter for the layout and construction of the research paper, it is organized by relevant sections of interest around types and categories. All four areas of the paper’s development touch on common points of reference to guide a reader through the text of the paper. Including annotations, visual aids, quantitative illustrations, and sources accompanying the researcher’s text body, each area addresses a paper’s segments or components to conventional standards for conformity to the expected readership style.
Various examples are presented about referencing notes and formatting them throughout a paper for retrieval, source verification, and further research. Beginning with supporting documentation declared within the research paper. As notes are produced within a paper from authors of primary, secondary, or tertiary sources, those sources to substantiate those notes are cited or quoted by necessity. The way to do that is given with the rationale concerning the use of source materials, along with examples to format them properly. Footnotes, or endnotes, that specify cited source references follow conventional standards (Turabian) requirements for consistent readability. With each source reference cited alongside the various others within a paper, they together form a coherent means of support of what the research author conveys among various points made.
Of considerable clarity, beyond citing sources using reference notes in a consistent format, is the proper way of producing second and later references. The correct way of using abbreviations that are succeeding citations involving the Ibid term is especially helpful. Moreover, Bible versions and the use of translations with changes as exceptions are understood by the research student to follow for continuity and thorough use consistent within a paper. Furthermore, content notes that consist of explanatory messages are of significant utility. The proper method and format of those notes given by examples enable the writer to augment the paper without disrupting the research flow and narrative.
As the book’s author turns attention to statistics, tables, and graphs, there are various topics centered on quantitative reasoning in which calculations make a point in support of the research project. The range of coverage on the topic is wide enough for what a research paper would convey for purposes of analytical comprehension. Numerical and visual representation of calculated probabilities, standard deviation, averages, median values, frequency, weight, and distribution further reinforces an understanding of claims or assertions about a matter of interest. For example, demographics, population samples, tendencies, and correlation are focal areas of conclusive interest from data collected and presented compellingly through statistics.
While the focal area of reading does not include chapter twenty, there are various additional aids given about how to format the pages of a paper’s text body. Further guidance about page numbering, titles, headings, and preliminary pages is also covered in useful detail. The basics about proper spelling, punctuation, and grammatical concerns are discussed as expected, but with respect to a research paper unique to various different forms of writing. Additional details about footnotes and quotations aside from the previously presented details and examples are relative to their placement, when to use them, their methodology of inclusion, and their considerations.
As researchers encounter various source materials, the authors of this book present an exhaustive range of examples, both Footnote and Bibliography style and Author-Date style. Writers of their papers use these as examples from either parent category of citations. As such, this section serves as a handbook for placing citations according to source type. Rather than prepare rationale or guidelines for producing cited references according to source author, periodicals, monographs, commentaries, general books, specialized books, or unpublished materials, meticulous detail is given as examples. Numerous explanatory notes accompany those examples, but they have less instructional value as a comparison. Among the many examples interspersed throughout source categories, alternate formats are also given.
Among both examples by group, the examples mechanistically indicate where source names, titles, dates, locations, page numbers, and more are placed on a research paper with consistency. Writers must use one type or another depending on the institution, convention, journal, or agency requirements. Accordingly, citation designations have general rules and guidelines with numerous exceptions fluent with an editor very adept and all the particular source reference entries. The format and elements within a citation vary widely by source type (whether published or unpublished materials), whether as a note, second note, or bibliography entry.
Overall, across four major book sections, the authors took meticulous care to walk readers through what research is and what it involves. With copious details about biblical and theological research, there are many clarifying details about what the practice of research is with appropriate definitions. How readers or students conduct research is not just about methods of analysis and conclusions drawn internally by the researcher. The analysis, writing, formation, and presentation of discoveries, propositions, claims, arguments, and warrants constitute the integral nature of a research project. More meaningfully, research completed around biblical and theological interests leads readers and researchers together toward application-oriented learning and pastoral theology that informs individuals in ministry who love and serve people. Any effort to conduct research for the sole purpose of learning itself is an empty endeavor. Research should be for the edification of the church or individual or to challenge, educate, and inform people to love and do good works (Hebrews 10:24).
The further historical and literary value of analysis in support of research (as guided by this book) is constructed and presented so that the subject matter doesn’t just serve the academy or institution but people overall from the researcher’s contribution. So this book is a standing reference for what, how, and why research is done to write about biblical, theological, historiographical, or literary subjects with the necessary convention and format elements necessary to reach people with credible and lasting interest. As topics selected and researched carry practical value, it is also a fruit of labor that supports personal growth, the growth, knowledge, and development of others, and a form of worship that glorifies God. Research inclusive of written materials has lasting meaning, purpose, and value for faith and practice. It contributes to a larger ongoing conversation about what it means to love God and others well.
To begin the book, there are preliminary thoughts about becoming a researcher as a prologue to forthcoming topics that elaborate upon what it is to develop research as a craft. As the authors set about laying the groundwork for the practice of research, they draw our attention to research itself and its researchers through interaction among readers who are engaged with the subject matter.
Immediately before consideration of the roles between researchers and readers, the authors first define what research is and how to understand it as a discipline. As it is formed and delivered by means of a formal paper, the written work of the researcher isn’t only for the readers but for the researcher himself. The work of research includes written expressions of thought, understanding, rationale, and remembrance to convey ideas, discoveries, and conversations worth exploring. To ask questions and answer them or to encounter problems and seek resolution can involve the formation of projects where a pertinent subject matter of interest is developed as a topic of concern.
The work and product of research together form the body of research projects that have a bearing on readers’ views about topics as either questions or problems that further an overall community conversation about a subject. While the research material itself is central to the work of research and the written labors of researchers, a larger conversation is likely occurring about the topic at hand. The inputs to research, in the form of source materials, experiments, and data analysis, correspond to outputs researchers produce as they together become processed in a coherent fashion. The process by which research inputs are transformed into outputs in the form of answered questions, problems solved, recommendations, or advancements in the total conversation, bears out a range of methods to arrive at practical, abstract, or theoretical solutions. This book guides the student through what it looks like to ask questions, state problems, understand topics, and develop an interest in a research subject among readers.
An essential method of turning a question into a problem involves three steps (pg 49).
Topic: I am studying __________
Question: because I want to find out what / why / how __________,
Significance: in order to help my reader understand __________.
Whether the topic of study is a research problem or a conceptual problem, the distinctions between them should be clearly understood to solve what is relevant about a specific matter of interest. So as researchers work with problems, questions are formed either of practical concern or as a prospective and conceptual interest in an effort to arrive at solutions. Questions that researchers transform into problems to solve must be those problems readers think are worth solving. Meaning, there must be significance or merit to questions answered and problems solved in order to understand the research work undertaken.
The book points out that research supports answering questions and solving problems to satisfy the community. That is the end object to the practice of research according to the authors rather than for personal understanding, worship, or God’s glory for the work performed while seeking truth according to general or special revelation through Scripture. In this regard, the practice of research as a discipline doesn’t belong to the community or society, as the authors insist. In fact, it is subordinate to the purpose and practice of research that individual researchers bear fruit by what questions are answered and problems are solved. Individual exceptionalism for its own end, with or without benefit to society, is of far greater concern. As many individuals, in their pursuit of research excellence, produce work that bears upon society as a by-product, the community stands to gain from that. Otherwise, societies, communities, the State, etc., might not be valuable enough for research endeavors of more meaningful value (whether purely theoretical or applied). Researchers must love objective truth directed to something of much greater weight or more lasting significance over themselves or the spectacle of corrupt societies and communities for research work and its outcomes. This book places too much emphasis on the supremacy of society and the researcher’s role within it as a fulfillment of some “social contract.” As if the researcher’s first and overriding obligation to anyone and anything is to that of society.
While the book offers meaningful rationale about how to structure problems and frame questions around matters of interest, the authors set up statements and examples of very basic conditions and responses that guide students through the work of understanding a problem. Questions formed and reshaped to problems that set up a “so what?” form of inquiry. To derive problems from questions to answer where research opportunities arise of interest to readers. The effort is not to purely find new problems to solve but to derive them and set them up as valid with defensible premises and data to support their investigation. Coherence to truth and resolution for a specific purpose doesn’t necessarily correspond to what’s of value to answer a “so what?” question. The book begins with these chapters to set the means by which research techniques come together for students to understand questions and problems, form them, and derive answers for research. As a sort of call-and-response approach to research, the authors write of linear thinking to deductively adduce factors that have explanatory power as evidence to form conclusions or pursue research to answer “so what?” questions.
The various examples and conditions authors set up help students work with problems they can find and solve. There doesn’t seem to be support for canvasing a subject matter of interest to traverse at some level topically. To find answers to good research problems, authors begin with the notion that researchers must answer questions toward practical applications with a level of high granularity to benefit readers. There is a top-down approach to practical applications (“so that” or “so what”) from the course of research at a narrowing perspective to arrive at conclusions stemming from a chosen topic and its significance. This is an A + B + C must equal D framework of reason that begins with the end in mind. An overarching upper-level topic is selected with conceptual questions and significance to follow in support of questions to answer and problems to solve. Where the effort is not purely for purposes of defensible rationale but a justification for conclusions formed. Rather than follow where research leads, the authors advocate the derivation of questions transformed into problems that appeal to readers by answering “so what?” questions in their interest or that of society.
As the reading and review of these chapters cover the subject matter of interest, it must be said that much of the material is very basic, with principles and facts grounded by common sense. The range of content extends from basic ideas about what research is, why it’s important to write about it, and the roles of both you as a writer and your readers. Understanding research and how to produce it as written material is about developing organized thinking for the clarity of meaning about the subject matter of interest. The authors of this text make a clear connection between research as a practice and discipline to the total effort of conversing with readers.
The book further considers the topic of sources, which involves a bibliography with annotations that pertain to the research material. An argument constructed from reading during research takes shape to form a thesis or a statement in the form of a problem or proposition. Arguments developed from claims become supported by source materials of differing levels of credibility in proximity to the subject of interest. A body of rationale about the subject matter constitutes the research carried out to develop an understanding of statements or propositions that support a research project to draw conclusions and arrive at an understanding of facts or assertions related to material of interest.
As research development progresses and the material is committed to writing, claims are made from developed reasoning and evidence constructed through sources. Claims and arguments are supported by sources and external facts or assertions from cited references, or they’re directly refuted or indifferent to those claims. The book makes a clear link between the researcher’s work and his claims to sources that support those claims. As questions are asked with answers sought during the course of the research, they are concentrated on the problems and propositions made evident to readers, where logic and rationale are made to withstand counter-claims or counter-productive assertions that contradict the research.
Further research effort is placed around the assembly of reason and evidence in support of a research project. The organization and planning around reason and evidence involve order, structure, layout, and evaluation as research is performed to identify and build it for proper consideration. Arguments supported by sources and evidence are then reinforced by arguments using acknowledgment, observation, reason, and logic to settle understanding. It is one thing to acknowledge and understand claims and arguments supported by evidence and sources, but another to accept them or internalize understanding by comprehension and a new awareness concerning the research subject matter.
Before planning a paper and drafting it, a final subject of warrants bears attention. As it is necessary to connect reasons to claims, readers might not understand arguments, or readers may challenge reasoning that supports claims made, so warrants are developed and explicitly stated to trace a line of argument. As a cause-and-effect line of reasoning forms as circumstances give rise to consequences, connections are made between reasoning and claims. Implications and inferences are developed between general and specific circumstances to general and specific consequences that support acceptance of claims made from arguments that stem from logic and reason. To further examine the merits of warrants as they are applied to reasoning and claims, they are tested to assess their validity or how well they apply to arguments as they become challenged. There are several criteria for acceptance of a warrant that researchers investigate in the form of questions. The book offers these questions in the following outline (pg 160), with further explanation to follow.
Is the warranty reasonable?
Is it sufficiently limited?
Is it superior to any competing warrants?
Is it appropriate to this field?
Is it able to cover the reason and claim?
When asking if the warrant is reasonable, the researcher inquires about the acceptability of its consequence from its circumstance. If readers cannot accept a consequence, warrants then must become claims as having their own arguments while supported by reasons and evidence.
It follows that a warrant is reasonable if it is limited. The book specifies “most warrants” as the scope or limits to assertions, but exceptions cannot then exclude reasons and claims. Sufficiently limited warrants with equivocations and qualifications have to consider exceptions where they cannot exclude reasons for claims made.
A warrant can be contradicted even if it is limited and reasonable. A contested warrant that requires one to prevail over another implies the necessity of further argument in support of the one offered superior to another. The book further explains that contested warrants can be reconciled by limiting them. Again, according to the book, without further strength of argument having reason and evidence, a warrant is reconciled by placing a limit on one or the other. There is no discussion about disproving the claims or evidence of a competing warrant, nor is there consideration given to the comparative weight of probability of one warrant over another.
As the strength of a warrant is put forward as reasonable, sufficiently limited, and superior to others, it must be narrowed to the particular area of research to which it pertains. If it does not pertain to the field of research of interest, it can be rejected on the grounds of inappropriate consideration.
The researcher must understand a warrant’s general circumstances and consequences is subordinate to or within the reason and claim asserted in support of an argument or proposition. The logic of arguments claimed and supported by reason and evidence with warrant may not be acceptable to a reader if it doesn’t cover what concerns the contested claim or warrant. Strict or pure logic is a relative proposition that pertains to the general circumstances and consequences to the reader who may accept or reject a warrant offered by a researcher. The topic of warrants is further developed in the book to explain when it is suitable for use and why it can test arguments made. Warrants can also be stood up to challenge others’ warrants against propositions or arguments made within a research project. Reasoning from arguments and propositions made is not always clear or obvious to readers, so warrants must be stated under the following occasions outlined in the book.
Readers are outside the researcher’s field
A new or controversial principle of reasoning is used in an argument or proposition
If a reason or claim for an argument is rejected because readers don’t want it to be true, it becomes necessary to state warrants as further evidence and reason.
The researcher relies upon the reader’s rationality to accept arguments and claims based on logic to advance an understanding of a matter, even if the claims of an argument are unwanted, disbelieved, or confrontational.
Going further to understand the value of warrants, they can also be used to test arguments. As all arguments have implicit or explicit warrants, they are instruments by which a researcher can check the validity of an argument. Specific circumstances that do not fit a warrant’s general circumstances can invalidate an argument. Imagining the circumstances in which a warrant is applied can render further clarity about the viability of an argument to determine its acceptability and alignment with claims and whether or not they’re true. Justified claims made in support of an argument must accompany valid warrants. Instances of warrants that do not fit as evidentially valid of a warrant’s general circumstance can dismiss arguments.
Challenges to arguments can appear to claim endlessly, what about this? Or what about that? Under such circumstances, readers object to a researcher’s reasons that are not based on sound evidence. Or reasons that are not relevant to a claim should themselves be tested. Anecdotal evidence, dismissals, or counter-claims in support of the whataboutisms of readers who do not want to accept testable and sound evidence in support of arguments or propositions must bear the burden of rationale and evidence on the merits and truth of contested assertions. The book offers the notion that the researcher bears the burden of finding better evidence or providing a warrant that makes reasoning and rationale relevant to the reader. I reject this perspective from the book’s authors on the ground that reason with evidence and objective truth with valid warrants are sufficient for acceptance regardless of a reader’s interests. The book assumes readers are always purely objective and without bias or predisposition against the researcher’s material, worldview, or the researcher himself for personal reasons.
What a research community accepts is not the criteria by which arguments or propositions from reason and claims are understood as true with valid warrants. An entire research community or a subgroup of it can be incorrect about a matter concerning the research. The authors give further attention to challenges by categorizing them as types or as having conditions. Researchers who persuade and influence readers through arguments with associated claims and supporting evidence have clear methods of delivering facts and warrants. Still, some challenges come from beliefs or concerns outside of the various forms of reason and logic.
According to the book, warrants are challenged by:
Experience
This attempt to challenge a warrant rests upon the reliability of the experience. If a reader can challenge the reliability of the experience stated within the research with valid evidence to its contrary, the warrant is dismissed or weakened. Conversely, special case counter-examples can have a detrimental effect on warrants.
Authority
A source of a challenge based on the charisma, position, status, or expertise of a person or group is the easiest and doesn’t necessarily have all the evidence to support warrants. Even if all the evidence was in the possession of figures in positions of authority, that authority alone is not sufficient to challenge the warrants of a researcher. People in positions of authority who borrow on that authority and challenge warrants by consequence damage counterarguments, dismissals, or assertions to the contrary have less to contribute to the overall conversation concerning the research in question.
Systems of Knowledge
Irrelevant facts that come into question when warrants are challenged have no bearing on the systems of knowledge to the contrary. According to this book’s authors, warrants backed by systems definitions, principles, or theories often withstand challenges. Facts under these circumstances are irrelevant.
Cultural Warrants
Social pressures, cultural traditions, and heritage can challenge warrants, but these challenges carry less weight or have a reduced strength of argument because “common sense” is rooted in social sensibilities. Readers who resist warrants from a position of beliefs stemming from cultural inclinations have very little bearing on the merits of well-crafted research and its results.
Methodological Warrants
The means by which a researcher can arrive at warrants comes into question and could get challenged if argumentation is not supported by the practical implementation of generally accepted patterns of thought. Principles in support of a methodological warrant can fall apart when they are applied to specific cases.
Articles of Faith
The authors of this book don’t allow for evidence that arises from faith (Hebrews 11:1). Meaning proofs are given in support of assured things through propositions or arguments from research unseen yet with facts and revelation attested through the testimony of witnesses and other forms of evidence. Warrants of belief that challenge warrants of research do not always come contrary to evidence as the authors of this book wrote. While that can be true in a general sense, it’s not true from correct biblical understanding about reasonable faith and associated merits of belief contrary to warrants from research contrary to faith claims upon evidence in numerous forms.
As compared to prior chapters of the reading of this book, the next two chapters concern the practical assembly of a research paper. More specifically, the paper is planned and drafted in an organized and coherent way suitable to the interest of readers. With attention to detail concerning the arguments made within the paper, the plan of a research document follows a thoughtful path that corresponds to the following draft. The plan in which a paper comes together corresponds to meaning that comports with the delivery of arguments, propositions, rationale, claims, reason, and warrants that offer compelling interest to the reader.
The book further delves into the introduction and body of the research paper to include storyboard sketches of what the subject matter concerns for each given paragraph that conveys a central idea. The introduction parses the sections of the paper where the reader is given a set of expectations about the subject matter ahead. As the paper groups together the major sections of the material, the researcher identifies key concepts early in the paper to run a thread of interest for the reader’s benefit. Once the introduction section is drafted with the sections and top-level ideas presented, the researcher turns his attention to the body of the paper itself.
The book continues to guide the researcher through suggestions concerning the body of the paper as it is structured to guide the reader. Rather than begin writing outright without a plan to construct a coherent series of part-by-part ideas or a cause-and-effect sequence of pointed interests, there is an order assembled by the researcher in which meaning is stitched together to support and develop an understanding of the arguments or propositions claimed. The order and complexity to which the body of the document is assembled depend largely upon the subject matter of the research and the intended reader. As the planning in this way is iterative to develop a draft, edits and refinement of the paper further support clear and coherent points partitioned by sections and subsections to guide the reader. Sections are organized in such a way as to present evidence for arguments and warrants for claims made. In anticipation of what readers might think about the subject matter, the researcher acknowledges them and responds accordingly.
Before the arguments are organized, further discussion is offered about how to avoid the development of flawed plans. As a researcher turns an organized plan into a draft document, sufficient support is needed concerning the substance of the document while supported by the format and layout for readability. The structured organization for the paper to include headers, spacing, positioning of argumentation, placement of claims, and reasons must flow for readability to the reader’s liking. Where the readability and organization don’t get in the way of the subject matter presented.
While the drafting and editing of the document consist of proper paragraph structure, dependent and independent clauses for sentence formation, correct punctuation, and so forth are the mechanics that are in service of the messages formed along the body of the paper. While there are numerous pitfalls in how a paper is written to convey its ideas, arguments, and propositions, the book offers guidance about how it is revised to improve organization and readability. Arguments strengthened in revisions of the paper from research has a significant bearing on both readability and the reader’s views about the researcher’s quality of research and how it is presented.
The following are chapter notes in the form of questions and answers that cover the subject matter of the book, “To Know and Love God.” The book is a monograph from David Clark and it is about the theological methodology of evangelicalism. It was published in 2003 by Crossway Books (Good News Publishers, Wheaton Illinois).
Chapter One: Concepts of Theology
1. What was the historical task of the church as it relates to theology?
Justin Martyr (c. 100–c. 164) sought to articulate the content of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the context of a particular culture. Historically, this was the task of systematic theology (Clark, 33). That is, to relate to others the gospel and the meaning of faith in Christ.
2. Does philosophy and reason have a relationship with theology?
Philosophy and human reason are subordinate to theology. Philosophy is merely a tool to demonstrate the fundamental truths of theology. Theology goes beyond the bounds of philosophy (Clark, 38). Human reason is the lesser of all faculties of understanding due to its limitations and the presence of sin. Aquinas’ (1225–1274) view was that faith and reason reinforced theology as some doctrines were out of reach by reason alone. Reason and faith provided the means to observe, set categories, conclude, and trust by acceptance revealed truth.
3. What were the differences in theology between Schleiermacher and Barth?
Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) rooted theology in religious experience (Clark, 43). He was the father of liberal theology, who formed a new model of theology around people’s religious experience. He cut God off as the object of theology to emphasize what humanity experienced about Him.
Karl Barth (1886–1968) viewed theology as dogmatics entirely independent of human modes of thought. He viewed theology as the science of dogma.
4. What were conservative theologians concerned about by reasoning during the modern era.
Martin Luther (1483–1546) viewed the subject of theology as man, guilty of sin and condemned, while God is the redeemer of mankind as sinners (Clark, 40) and “Whatever is asked or discussed in theology outside this subject, is error and poison.” Like Luther, John Calvin (1509–1564) held a biblical orientation toward theology and theistic metaphysics. Luther and Calvin distrusted human reason and saw the purpose of theology as salvation.
Through the Word, the Holy Spirit reveals theological truth to those who seek God to glorify Him and follow His instructions to include the spread of the gospel, holy living, and the search for wisdom, among other pursuits. Luther and Calvin, in this sense, had an undeveloped utilitarian view of theology as there are numerous doctrines formed by revelation through the Holy Spirit by the patriarchs, apostles, and prophets (i.e., scripture).
5. What is meant by contextual and kerygmatic poles of theology?
The poles are polarities in which liberal and conservative ideas of narrative thought are either synergistic through liberal reason and human experience or strictly authoritarian by the Word-centered standards of theological and gospel truth that exist from inspired scripture (Clark, 52). The gospel message supported by theology must be given and made relevant to all peoples along the liberal, moderate, and conservative spectrum. At each polarity, or both poles. The gospel is made clear and not necessarily in strict adherence to all doctrines as a matter of theological truth and coherence.
Chapter Two: Scripture and the Principle of Authority
1. What is moral and veracious authority? What is the difference between them?
They’re both forms of authoritarianism. One concerns truth (veracious authority), and the other concerns morality (moral authority).
Veracious authority refers to communicative truth to a viewer or listener from a communicator. Because of who the communicator is, the recipient is justified or rational to accept a message as true or valid.
Moral authority refers to an asserted position or status in leadership that opposes and fights moral evil and therefore exerts power or the capacity to apply it.
2. Describe ontological ground of biblical authority and epistemic acceptance.
The ontological ground of theology originates from God, who we know, and not from us who do the knowing (Clark, 182). Imbued knowing comes from objective reality by grace and revealed truth by the Spirit’s inspiration from scripture (Clark, 65). God is the authority by which acceptance of what He reveals is made certain upon epistemic and ontological grounds.
3. What is intentional fallacy?
The intentional fallacy is the false belief that a reader can get into the author’s mind to reveal private mental acts aside from what was written. The inference of written text doesn’t correlate to what is in the mind of the author. Unexpressed inwards thoughts of an author don’t correspond to meaning inaccessible to a reader (Clark, 70).
The illocutionary force of what the Spirit conveys through biblical authors gives meaning to what is authoritative, accepted, and actionable. The witness of the Holy Spirit to the meaning and force of scripture is what gives it authority as God’s Word (Clark, 83).
4. What objections can be put up against the appeal to authority?
First, “a commitment to theological authority usually deteriorates into authoritarianism” (Clark, 75). This objection is not valid because Scripture itself subverts religious authoritarianism (Clark, 77). Second, some argue a circularity in theological methodology and it cannot provide warrant for its assertions (Clark, 79). This objection is invalid because warrant is found in the affirmation of the life of the Church, the self-witness of the Holy Spirit, and sola scriptura. Objections to the appeal to authority are not subjugated to the critical method because its assertions and evidence are not defeated by outside claims against reliable biblical witnesses (Clark, 80).
5. Do theological propositions have value beyond the text of Scripture?
We are to use the Bible for spiritual formation and worship. However, it is of value to appreciate theological propositions from among those who place themselves under biblical authority (Clark, 236). Not necessarily to accept or adopt those propositions, but to appreciate them for purposes of research or discovery. Such sources, such as early documents, sayings, or the pseudepigrapha, must not keep us from the Bible itself (Clark, 96). This is of utmost necessity because the Bible itself is authoritative.
Chapter Three: Theology in Cultural Context
1. To what extent is current evangelical theology contextualized?
Poverty relief, language and traditions, biblical instruction within the framework of national heritage, and limited tolerance of worldview are examples of how theological principles are conveyed and transferred to people groups of various interests and backgrounds. Specifically, a contextualized theology produces doctrines of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Together, they integrate in a relevant, tolerant, and supportive way toward Kingdom interests and the gospel. Across ethnicities, races, generations, cultures, and time.
2. In what way is contextualized theology a positive thing?
Contextualized theology is included within the imperative to make disciples of all nations. It’s scriptural theology to infer biblical and kingdom principles as they become situated within existing conditions of different well-established contexts. Such as language, customs, traditions, resources, social environments, and values as people become transformed as citizens of yet another Kingdom.
Occupants of where they dwell or reside physically, but they undergo a worldview transformation toward a new and growing Kingdom. From revelation, it’s a resolute perspective (I’m aware of the dangers of perspectivalism, Clark ch.4) that prevails to accept core doctrines and biblical or theological principles that by necessity unify in truth. Every bit of it framed in a cultural context absent hostilities by ideology and ”social justice” endeavors that would seek to destroy the family, the church, and Western civilization. Particularly in support of objectives around attempts to force acceptance of gender identities, sexual orientation, feminism, and Islamic Jihad (i.e., Sharia law) as a matter of evil self-interest. Tolerance is one thing, but acceptance and support of those objectives are quite another.
3. How should this contextualization be accomplished if it is an appropriate goal?
A transcultural approach toward contextualized theology can be appropriate depending upon the target culture. As necessary to bring the gospel and discipleship to the nations and their cultures, our obligation to fulfill Christ’s imperatives becomes satisfied. As appropriately suitable, according to biblical standards, existing cultures must not be reshaped or lost, provided they’re within biblically specified forms of new covenant ethics and morality.
By successive approximation and iteration, harmful contradictions come into a fuller interpretive dissolution from newly learned core beliefs (orthodoxy) and toward daily living (orthopraxy) within existing traditions, lifestyles, and cultural structures without losing heritage or traditions. A relativism of truth according to culture is not acceptable. As founded upon absolute biblical truth, it is essential to incorporate contextualized theology concurrently within friendships, general education, vocational instruction, poverty relief, shared resources, and collaborative efforts.
4. What are the issues with multiculturalism and in what ways should it be rejected?
An acceptance of multiculturalism is desirable to a limited extent. At the same time, it is imperative and more than necessary in support of Kingdom objectives.
A one-world homogenous praxis of cultural accommodation is an antithesis to multiculturalism. The temporary suspension of personal culture is also an antithesis to multiculturalism. However, Christ-centered theological contextualization across cultures must prevail as God is pleased with diversity and variety. A synergistic growth in Kingdom development founded upon biblical truth and justice is expected and necessary according to standards of Christendom (such as evangelicalism).
Within a multicultural framework, some societies or social movements can seek to impose ideologies upon evangelicalism that inhibit or destroy its effectiveness and drain resources better directed elsewhere. Multiculturalism should be a component of an overall strategy that does not exclude hostile ideologies but instead carries a reasonable probability of reaching its Kingdom objectives. Other features of that strategy should include existing political, defense, economic, and lifestyle influences as a collaborative effort with what God is doing on the world stage. Perhaps by attrition among some cultures less tolerant, by a measured effort elsewhere as likely successful, and where the return on multicultural activity is closer to the optimum.
Chapter Four: Diverse Perspectives and Theological Knowledge
1. What is meant by incommensurability? What is the difference between “strict” and “soft” incommensurability?
Clark states that Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), an American philosopher, coined the term ‘Incommensurability’ to explain the notion of conceptual schemes or noetic structures that are closed off from each other, where there is no rational choice of the truest or best paradigm possible between them.
Hard (strict) incommensurability is where there is absolutely no contact between paradigms. Soft incommensurability, while still strict, is the claim that we cannot “evaluate two paradigms relative to each other by translating them into a third perspective without remainder or equivocation” (Clark, 137).
Further, Clark disputes the rationale concerning the differences as follows:
“If strict incommensurability were true, then each discipline would be utterly unique, and communication across disciplinary boundaries would be impossible. But such communication is possible. So, the various disciplinary horizons are not closed to each other but are instead open to each other. Disciplinary horizons or perspectives are not so unique as to be locked into their own ghettos of meaning.” (Clark, 184).
There is also a caveat of note:
On one interpretation, incommensurability, even in Kuhn himself, does not entail that the meanings of different paradigms are cut off from each other. Rather, incommensurability means that different paradigms focus on different problems and use different standards in solving those problems. In this understanding, we can translate the meanings from one paradigm into the terms of another paradigm. See the discussion in Richard J. Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983), 85.
Clark rejected the viability of strong incommensurability while supporting a weaker version of it (Clark, 152). He argues that we must distinguish between the stricter and softer versions of incommensurability.
2. What is the difference between modernism and postmodernism? What do they have in common?
Modernism is the gospel of the Enlightenment as it views the human individual as liberated from external authority with autonomous reason who can discover absolute truth. Implementation of modernism, through rational planning, emphasizes standardization and science, leading to social progress (Clark, 141). Postmodernism differs from modernism in that “worldviews, macroperspectives, and explanatory grids” do not rest upon universal human Reason. It rejects absolute truth.
Postmodernism values a plurality of perspectives, myths, cultures, and narratives. It is different from modernism as it distrusts universal Reason. Modernism affirms “individualism, anthropocentrism, patriarchy, mechanization, economism, consumerism, nationalism, and militarism.” Postmodernism rejects the dehumanizing power of modernity (Clark, 141).
Both modernism and postmodernism idolize freedom and individualism.
3. What is perspectivalism? Should evangelicals accept perspectivalism?
The heart of perspectivalism is the recognition that there are differences in the noetic structures of different people. More specifically, the nature of those differences gets at the heart of perspectivalism. Given, “the truth value of every belief is entirely relative to or completely dependent on a particular conceptual scheme, noetic structure, or web of belief” many accept this assertion as true. Different people have different versions of beliefs to hold true depending upon paradigm or worldview (Clark, 135). To say there is no truly rational choice between macroperspectives is possible is the heart of perspectivalism.
Evangelical theology cannot adopt comprehensive perspectivalism (Clark, 147). It should not be embraced but be kept at a distance with limited use and merit. While amended perspectivalism doesn’t confine Christian theology to its own intellectual prison, it is implausible overall. As relativism is closely related to perspectivalism, they are inconsistent at best and self-referentially incoherent at worst (i.e., all knowledge is relative to perspectives, worldviews, or paradigms).
4. What is foundationalism? Should evangelicals accept foundationalism?
Source-foundationalism, distinct from belief-foundationalism, is contrary to individual beliefs, as it is viewed as a collection of major sources of genuine knowledge (Clark, 153). It is a holistic methodology or a complex historical truth source.
Evangelicals should embrace soft foundationalism as it is a form of belief-foundationalism, and it accepts what is true about perspectivalism. It rationalizes effective epistemic practice leading to warranted belief, and “soft foundationalism allows evangelical theology to develop knowledge from its own perspective” (Clark, 162). In contrast, belief-foundationalism is where individual beliefs are anchored as foundational.
By comparison, evangelicals should not embrace pragmatism or coherentism for various reasons that undermine evangelical theology. It must not embrace source-foundationalism that is of an Enlightenment period mentality that hungers for a source of perfect knowledge (Clark, 153).
Chapter Five: Unity in the Theological Disciplines
1. How would you distinguish the theological disciplines?
a. Historical Theology
Historical theology concentrates more closely on themes and theories across various historical periods (Clark, 169). It is a form of systematic theology immersed in the cultures of different periods during covenantal periods.
b. Biblical Theology
Biblical theology is any biblically grounded theology that rightly expresses biblical teaching or is correctly rooted in Scripture. Biblical theology is narrower in focus than biblical studies. It is faithful to Scripture. It recognizes the importance of literary and semantic theories around various genres of biblical languages. Biblical theology stresses the theological content of the biblical corpora as its subject matter. Unlike systematic theology, biblical theology limits itself to biblical materials, tracks the bible story, and organizes itself around a historical and chronological pattern (Clark, 170).
c. Philosophical Theology
Philosophical theology originates from Friedrich Schleiermacher, a protestant liberal theologian of the 19th century. It is an examination of theology built out of materials and thought outside of biblical data. It includes natural theology or data, which is derived from natural revelation or observation. An example of natural theology would consist of Thomas Aquinas’s five philosophical arguments for God’s existence (i.e., the Five Ways) as philosophical theology.
d. Practical Theology
Interpretation and application of theology arrive at practical theology (Clark, 190). A subset of systematic theology applies what Scripture says about communicating the gospel (Frame, ST, 1127; Frame, DKG, 214). Practical theology involves activity, practice, concerns, and disciplines for the unity, scholarship, and life of the church.
e. Systematic Theology
Barth defined systematic theology as a mode or method of human thought. His horrific experiences with socialism, and liberal theology initiated by Schleiermacher, reinforced his view that theology connected to the Word of God must be viewed as Church Dogmatics that originate from divine and supernatural revelation. Barth viewed Systematic Theology as the science of dogma.
It is an approach to the Bible that seeks to bring scriptural themes into a self-coherent whole from strict adherence to the authorial intent of biblical authors. Systematic theology is distinct from biblical theology, which comes from theological themes within individual books of the Bible (across both the Old and New testaments). The scope of systematic theology is wider to include biblical studies, church history, philosophy, and pastoral application.
2. How do evangelicals find unity in the theological disciplines?
Develop theoretical models of reason and a solid strategy to develop a unity of perspectives based upon truth from Scripture and what the biblical authors intended. The integration of different perspectives will resolve questions of unity in a comprehensive way bring into harmony issues surrounding interpretation. There can be no compromise of truth as that would be a betrayal of Christ, but a pursuit of unity upon a foundation of Scripture is a necessary bedrock.
As commensurate interests are understood around non-critical doctrines, there is plenty of room for the minor variability of tradition. However, core doctrines that arise from biblical truth must be adopted as the basis of meaningful and sustainable theological disciplines. It is unacceptable to rest upon a lowest common denominator approach to the theological disciplines.
3. How do liberals find unity in the theological disciplines?
For liberalism, the traditional view of the unity of theology, rooted in a realist conception of God’s revelation in the authoritative Word of God, is simply not an option (Clark, 179). Schleiermacher, a 20th-century liberal pioneer at Union Theological Seminary, proposed two solutions to the “problems” of status, legitimacy, and unity of theology and the intellectual pressures of the Enlightenment. More specifically, concerning personal and spiritual concerns of Christians. Liberal theologians reject all authority-based methods, and they seek unity from elsewhere.
The first solution proposed was that Schleiermacher introduced the “clerical paradigm” where pastors serve ordinary believers’ needs through legitimate scholarly enterprise. The second was an “essence of Christianity” motif as it is grounded in religious experience. Both approaches to the problems of liberals are a rejection of authority (i.e., the authority of Scripture or doctrines). He advocated for a shift away from biblical authority to that of intellectual independence. From a liberal viewpoint, it is impossible to find a unity of the various theological sciences by looking to the unity of divine truth. Liberals reject the evangelical answer—the movement from knowledge of God’s revelation to the practical application of that knowledge (Clark, 181).
Chapter Six: Theology in the Academic World
1. What are the values of academic institutions? Are these values consistent with Christian theology?
Dominant values of the modern university do not allow Christians to accept theological ideas as relevant to scholarship. Academic institutions of higher learning value a neutral approach where the discovery of knowledge demands that the knower be uncommitted to the object of investigation. This is the DNA of public universities. They require a knower to set aside whatever is accepted on the basis of authority and to operate according to principles of critical reason.
These values are not consistent with Christian theology as it seeks to maintain intellectual integrity within any academic setting. Theological disciplines need to both perform critically and also recognize biblical authority. As theology departments left academic institutions, universities replaced them with religious studies where scholars are not permitted to endorse any faith stemming from their discipline. Christian scholars and academics within the various disciplines of theology cannot separate their pursuit of truth, research, and discovery from revelation. The whole human is not merely natural and physical, but natural, physical, and spiritual.
2. What caused the move in contemporary universities away from theology and toward the study of religions?
Universities began to change the object of study from theology to “religious studies.” To detach any commitment of its professors, students, or scholars from a profession of faith, or commitment to revelatory truth from the authority of Scripture, academic institutions isolated themselves. They narrowed their efforts to critical methods situated upon human reason alone.
From the perspective of universities, Christian theology was lumped together with all other religions as a single homogenous whole (together with Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and others). A single monolithic view of religions from liberal academics developed a view that Christian theology is fatally flawed because it cannot achieve the essential requirement of all scholarly work: freedom from all presuppositions.
Consequently, from a pluralistic perspective, universities embraced religion as the object of their study rather than God as the source of creation, natural order, physics, phenomena, hard sciences, and the like.
Theology is absent from public and secularized universities. Theology exists only in church-related universities, divinity schools, or seminaries. This institutional separation clearly reflects the common prejudices about these two areas of study and their relative value or validity (Clark, 203).
“According to George Marsden, the dearth of evangelicals in the secular university scene resulted as much from an evangelical exodus as from a secularist coup (Marsden, “The Collapse of American Evangelical Academia,” in Faith and Rationality, ed. Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff [Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983], 219–264).1
3 What are the values of academic institutions? Are these values consistent with Christian theology?
Evangelicals follow a Barthian approach to Christian faith and living from a sociological standpoint, not theological to a significant extent. As evangelical subculture produced a range of social institutions like seminaries, colleges, denominations, hospitals, charities, media enterprises, magazines, and publishing houses, evangelical theologies functioned within this social context with some exceptions.
As academic institutions influenced churches and their members, the shift from divinity in academic achievement to scholarship began to pervade even Christian institutions. According to academic values, these scholars became detached as objective research was sought and conducted—which explains the dominant education of pastors. Seminaries and their members became insular and less connected to fellow believers in the church. Consequently, theological work from Christian academic institutions rendered its scholars and graduates irrelevant to parish life. The skills around the research associated with theological studies did not comport well with pastors’ performance and weekly duties. Thus, a push to develop professional pastors emerged to develop skills for practical ministry to serve the church.
_______________________________ 1 David K. Clark and John S. Feinberg, To Know and Love God: Method for Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 203.
Chapter Seven: The Spiritual Purpose of Theology
1. Should orthodoxy be bounded-set orthodoxy or centered-set orthodoxy?
Christians who are anchored to biblical truth must hold to theological principles that are defined within bounded-set orthodoxy. Centered-set thinking and contextualization are useful models for purposes of outreach and missional functions. The rationale to operate a church from a centered-set model to suit cultural preferences and expectations represents a serious risk to error, heresy, and harm to people.
2. How does Clark make distinctions in theology as science and as wisdom?
Clark identifies the theology of science as scientia and the theology of Godly wisdom of sapientia. The distinction between these two forms of theology is critical. Scientia is limited where it informs the intellect about what beliefs and people are legitimately Christian and validate an orthodox position. Scientia plays a key role in determining if what a person believes is authentically Christian and orthodox.
Sapientia is the ultimate function of theology. Scientia serves sapientia as it informs believers what is true and accurate about theology to live out what God has revealed through scripture as aided by the Holy Spirit. The purpose of theology is to know God. Theology’s purpose as sapientia is conforming individual believers by the power of the Spirit to the image of Christ.
3. What should be the necessary relationship between theology as science and as wisdom?
Clark expresses the integration of theology as both science and wisdom through phases or moments (Clark, 232). There are five moments listed in sequential order as follows:
a. Engagement Through various means, a person encounters through a variety of media. By people, circumstances, analysis, hardships, scripture, and other means through language and experience, a person engages God as truth becomes revealed for further interest.
b. Discovery Imaginative thinking at an applicable scope is originated to form a working theoretical or conceptual model that comes from the creativity of a theologian. Biblical theology (revelatory witness) is conceptualized into a larger perspective from the creative imagination to theologically understand how biblical observations, theories, or doctrines emerge in a concrete or abstract way.
c. Testing Testing is taken together with discovery as they work together to form meaningful conceptual models that are validated through a methodology to originate theological proofs. As scientists, or theologians who apply scientia, originate hypotheses, they turn to test and experimentation. This is to prove theories, models, and predictions or demonstrate them as false or invalid. Data is canonically sound from scripture as a primary source, but secondary means include history, tradition, literary work, or science that have less weight. Divine revelation has the sole authority over any other area of contribution that might add weight to test theological concepts.
d. Integration This is the most important and crucial stage of processing a Christian’s relationship between theology as science and wisdom. At integration, scientia moves into the domain of sapientia. This is where theology moves beyond cognitive information to personal transformation as this phase of truth processing goes from intellectual to personal.
Just because someone is knowledgeable about theology or skilled in ministry, that doesn’t mean a religious professional is mature or growing in Christ. Without integration of truth, and only engagement, discovery, testing, a person is only accumulating knowledge. The intended outcome of scientia is to fulfill sapientia through the fulfillment of what to do in response. Theology is to change lives for the good through relationships and the transformation of people into Christlikeness. This fulfills theology’s proper role as sapientia.
e. Communication The fifth phase of working with truth involves all forms of ministry service and leadership. From both abstract (precision) and concrete (power) theology (Clark, 242), the proper outcome is to express by word and action God, His will, and His ways. Where Christians love people and communities through communication as it uses theological truth to influence affections, decisions, and character (Clark, 243).
Chapter Eight: Theology and the Sciences
1. Does science threaten theology? If so, how?
Clark points out that the Scopes monkey trial has significantly influenced society to the detriment of Christian credibility and intellectual standing (Clark, 265). Not just concerning the sciences, but overall, as there is within secularism a stigma often attached to simple people of faith. Historically, and now, fundamentalism is further stigmatized because of its ridiculous conduct. There is an ocean of people on the Internet and in public life who are making assertions about theological and scientific concepts and principles they are not qualified to make.
Furthermore, with figures such as Thomas Huxley (1825-1895), who fought creationism through his aggressive advocacy of evolution, or from people in academia who produced scientific theories proven through scientific and empirical methodology, society has come to accept presuppositionalism, methodological naturalism, and rationalism from the scientific community. Between faith and reason, reason prevails in society to produce naturalistic and material thinking and benefits to humanity, such as in medicine, quantum physics, engineering, technology, biochemistry, etc.
According to the modernist view, science has won the culture over theology when it comes to rationality (Clark, 263). Science doesn’t threaten theology. Science and theology performed correctly complement one another. Theology, and biblical interpretation in error by translation issues, inferior literary analysis, false historical assumptions, church traditions, and many other limited capabilities of religious leaders, the laity, and individuals who think Scripture describes scientific facts are mistaken. The Bible isn’t a scientific text. It’s a text of literary, historical, and theological truth. It doesn’t contradict science, but science is antagonistic to those who use Scripture and make unfounded assertions without data or a necessary background to suit personal opinions or interests. People of faith who do not have a well-developed capability of quantitative, qualitative, and capacity for analytical reason with the disciplines often really have very little to contribute.
2. In what ways can science and theology relate? Which is best and why?
The Clark text presents two major subsections under “The Rise of Science and Its Challenge to Theology.” These are with respect to how science challenges theology. To his words, “So how should we conceptualize the relation of science to theology?”
a. Science as a Rational Idea b. Science as Cultural Authority
From an objectively neutral perspective, “Science as a Rational Idea” is the best between these two approaches. Because observations, experiments, discoveries, and the scientific method take a dispassionate matter-of-fact objective approach to science. Large because there is no room for cultural and religious subjectivity. Including the world of theology among a wide range of academics, seminarians, theologians, and laymen, which is too often an unstable Wild West of meaning and coherent thought.
Scientists, engineers, and technologists who accept biblical truth can participate in scientific endeavors. While having a theologically centered rationale and worldview, but not to the extent that irrationality or incoherent thought is disruptive, harmful, or in betrayal of truth. God created logic, induction, deduction, and abduction for His purposes.
Clark goes on further to make comparisons using categories of the relationship between science and theology. Terms are given for these categories as follows:
a. Conflict b. Compartmentalism c. Complementarity
Among these, complementarity is best. There are various reasons to conclude that this approach is most suitable or productive. Within the various fields of science and theology, dedicated areas of focus are more attuned to the realities that exist to describe functions, properties, behaviors, and the like. Separately, there are more limited outcomes and benefits of understanding and application, but together they yield a synergy that produces a fuller cognitive use and thinking of a subject.
3. What are the positive and negative aspects of methodological naturalism?
Positive: Methodological naturalism is a legitimate assumption for the large majority of research programs (Clark, 280).
Negative: Methodological naturalism rules out all allusions to spiritual forces (Clark, 280).
4. From an evangelical perspective, what relationship should science and theology have?
Theistic science should be the context or framework by which science and theology relate. Science, as a human discipline of method and reason is incapable of overriding the authority of the Bible nor is it permitted to for its own purposes. While science is always subordinate to theology, it can supersede interpretation while scripture remains the authority of truth.
There should be an advocacy for dialog where both science and theology are able to communicate in an effort to attain open integration between the two. Theological claims and scientific models and naturally described realities are not in contradiction to one another when considering proper perspectives (Clark, 284). Various frames of reference on reality to get at unified truth is achievable in a post-modern world that is skeptical of both theology and science.
Christian theology explains why science matters. It doesn’t resort to a God-of-the-Gaps rationale, where “the absence of plausible naturalistic rationale of some phenomenon is always sufficient to conclude a that a particular natural event does not itself suggest, let along prove, the presence of personal agency” (Clark, 289). It is never acceptable for Christians to rely upon a God-of-the-gaps rationale to explain scientific reason or uncertainty. Any lack of scientific evidence is not explained by God-of-the-gaps.
Chapter Nine: Theology and Philosophy
1. Are there senses in which philosophy or human reason can aid theology?
A warning to beware of philosophy (Col 2:8; cf. Eph 5:6, Col 2:23, 1 Tim 6:20), or philosophical systems (sophos philos).
“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”– Col 2:8 NASB
BDAG: φιλοσοφία, ας, ἡ (Pla., Isocr. et al.; 4 Macc; EpArist 256; Philo; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 54, Ant. 18, 11 al.) —“philosophy, in our lit. only in one pass. and in a pejorative sense, w. κενὴ ἀπάτη, of erroneous teaching Col 2:8 (perhaps in an unfavorable sense also in the Herm. wr. Κόρη Κόσμου in Stob. I p. 407 W.=494, 7 Sc.=Κόρη Κόσμου 68 [vol. IV p. 22, 9 Nock-Festugière]. In 4 Macc 5:11 the tyrant Antiochus terms the Hebrews’ religion a φλύαρος φιλοσοφία).” 1
Students and scholars make use of philosophy in at least two ways. Both “philosophical theology” and “philosophy of religion” are together the study or disciplines of religious belief and life to include psychological, sociological, historical, or literary approaches. To use Clark’s words, “They focus on the meaning of and the truth states of religious beliefs” (Clark, 297). Philosophy is an instrument of thought or method of human reason to help understand or recognize the plausibility of religious beliefs and their truth claims. Clark further develops three senses of reason by the strict expression of the word with respect to divine revelation.
a. Autonomous Reason Intrinsic reasonableness is set as a critical stance against authority for prescribed autonomous judgment, critical reflection, and skepticism.
b. Knowledge Capacity Inherent ability to derive and produce knowledge. Simply the ability to think. “It is the divinely created capacity to understand God’s revelation both in the Bible and in the world” (Clark, 299).
c. Noetic Equipment God-given inferential equipping that each person is endowed by or hardwired to recognize by reason of God’s revelation.
2. How do presuppositions operate within a Christian worldview?
Presuppositions that stem from modernist sensibilities do not comport well with a biblical worldview. Inductivism is a traditional, erroneous, and implausible philosophy of the scientific method. It seeks to develop scientific theories and neutrally observe a domain or states to infer laws from examined cases—hence, inductive reasoning—to objectively discover the observed’s sole naturally “true” theory.
Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) was a neo-Calvinist theologian who established Reformed Churches who reasoned that inductivism is insufficiently aware of the controlling influence of presuppositionalism.
Van Til’s perspective informs us that a brute fact is a mute fact. This contradicts the inductive science view, where uninterpreted facts do not lead straight to authentic knowledge. Presuppositions are embedded into perspectives as knowing shares nothing or has no common ground between people with different worldviews. Clark further writes that the Christian worldview is the correct worldview centered on God and His revelation within Scripture.
Clark outlines the meaning of presuppositionalism as a belief as it correlates to a system of thought (Clark, 309) where knowledge is assumed true without justification or a process to give its explicit and true meaning.
3. Are there different worldviews and can they be warranted?
Different worldviews exist, but aside from Scripture, they’re unwarranted. The Bahnsen paper Clark references (pg. 309), “Inductivism, Inerrancy, and Presuppositionalism,”2 makes it clear that presuppositionless impartiality and neutral reasoning are impossible because Scripture informs us that all men know God, even if suppressing the truth (Rom 1). There are two philosophic outlooks, one according to worldly tradition and the other to Christ (Col 2). There is a knowledge that is erroneous to the faith (1 Tim 6), and that genuine knowledge is based on repentant faith (2 Tim 2). In contrast, some people (unbelievers) are enemies of God as they are hostile in their minds (Rom 8:7) while others (believers) are renewed in knowledge (Col 3:10).
Clark further stipulates that no one comes to warranted belief by simply observing facts because facts will always depend upon perspective.
The enemies of God are unable, who suppress the knowledge of the truth by an adopted presuppositional worldview stemming from the perspective of the world cannot be subject to God’s Word (Rom 8). They see it as utterly foolish and view it with contempt (1 Cor 1), while people who subject themselves to God’s Word take every thought to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor 10). Further, in the words of Bahnsen, “Presuppositionless neutrality is both impossible (epistemologically) and disobedient (morally): Christ says that a man is either with him or against him (Matt 12:30), for “no man can serve two masters” (6:24). Our every thought (even apologetical reasoning about inerrancy) must be made captive to Christ’s all-encompassing Lordship” (2 Cor 10:5; 1 Pet 3:15; Matt 22:37).
_______________________________ 1 William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1059. 2 Greg L. Bahnsen, “Inductivism, Inerrancy, and Presuppositionalism,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (1977): 300.
Chapter Ten: Christian Theology and the World Religions
1. How are the differences between descriptive and normative pluralism described?
Pluralism can be viewed as a sociological force as it is descriptive of various religions that exist within a region or population. By comparison, pluralism as a normative or prescriptive idea is an interpretation of religious diversity where all its expressions lead to God. The notion that all religions are true faiths that ultimately lead to God. It’s a theory that all methods and beliefs are on different paths to the same outcome.
2. How does the author make distinctions between altheic and soteriological issues?
Clark refers to Alvin Plantinga’s alethic question about the truth of religious doctrines. And whether religious teachings in question actually exist. “Alethic” is from the Greek aletheia, meaning “truth.”
By contrast, John Hick places interest upon the extent to which each religion actually experiences salvation or liberation. These are soteriological questions that ask questions and definitions concerning actual salvific merit and if they all are separate paths to God. “Soteriological” is from the Greek soteria, meaning “deliverance,” or “salvation.”
3. How does the author make distinctions between altheic and metaphysical realism in religion?
Metaphysical realism is a sub-category of alethic realism as alethic realists are certain that metaphysical reality exists. The distinction with the alethic realist concerns the doctrines that describe and point to ultimate spiritual existence.
Metaphysical realism corresponds to the view that an actual spiritual Reality exists independent of human thought and speech. There is a spiritual realm to affect religious or spiritual experience where such experience is caused by a mind-independent Reality external to thought or reason.
4. How does the author make arguments against realist pluralism and and nonrealist pluralism?
Clark presents two approaches to Realist and Nonrealist approaches to pluralism. He frames his discourse about pluralism, realism, and evangelical theology around John Hick (Realist) and Gordon Kaufman (Nonrealist). Both individuals support pluralism, which is untenable from an evangelical theology perspective, but Hick connects pluralism to metaphysical realism, and Kaufman makes the connection with metaphysical nonrealism.
With extended prose and tedious detail, Clark makes an intricately elaborate and lengthy effort to disassemble the views of both Hick and Kaufman. With various nested and interwoven thoughts, Clark precisely drills into numerous objections to the conceptual arguments against Hick as antithetical to fundamental theological truth. Namely, his Kantian theological agnosticism and alethic nonrealism (Clark, 333; (e), (f)). Attempting to make coherent sense of Hick’s views, Clark elaborates on his background to make connections between Schleiermacher, Kant, and others to form errant thinking about theological truth. That is a preference for an individual’s personal religious experience. Without reference to the Holy Spirit’s work, revelation through Scripture and His presence per se is therefore speculative and subjective to Hick without weight.
Within the Clark text, both Hick and Kaufman fail to accept the contradictory nature of the doctrinal claims of the major world religions. Their claims of salvific truth are opposed to one another. Each has its peculiarities where personal religious experiences are significantly different in terms of what is involved in setting about the right path toward God. As an impersonal or personal God among the numerous religions would have expectations toward Him in a Real way, those expectations would not be self-contradictory as implicit by Hick’s and Kaufman’s pluralism.
The further discourse about noumenon (Reality as it is in itself) and phenomenon (Reality as it is for us) again redirect interests and requirements of what is involved in a salvific or liberating return to God as centered upon the person. Not the true God of a metaphysical realism grounded in an explicitly inclusive set of circumstances, conditions, or epistemologically and biblically coherent worldviews. Schleiermacher is written all over the thinking of Hick and Kaufman.
As Clark more explicitly turns his attention to Kaufman’s nonrealism position. He outlines Kaufman’s position that humanity cannot experience God directly. Moreover, Kaufman states expressly that God and theology are constructs of human imagination. In contrast, it is only by human terms or referential understanding or comprehension that God exists. As if there is an obligation from somewhere or all religions to derive the Creator on human terms, not by what is posited as pluralistic nonrealism. In other words, religious people all desire to imagine a Being that isn’t real. Kaufman advocated ultimate humanity, where theology and thus pluralistic thought, through all forms of God and religious belief, were in service of a greater or better mankind or humanization.
5. How can Christians be exclusivists and still tolerant?
While Clark writes that, according to contemporary sensibilities, religious tolerance requires the adoption of pluralism (Clark, 349), there are a couple of ways in which authentic Christians are “tolerant.”
a. Among Christians, there is an expectation of openness toward others with whom one disagrees. It is possible to tolerate a naturalist perspective, but more importantly, as followers of Christ, Christians are expected to abide by His instructions to love even enemies. Not by ignoring another person as a position of tolerance, but by loving others actively regardless.
b. It isn’t always plausible to agree with those who have a naturalistic perspective contrary to Christian views. However, it is necessary to accept each person’s right to defend their views with respect in spite of any disagreement over belief or behavior.
Chapter Eleven: Reality, Truth, and Language
1. How would you describe truth?
The Clark text covers a lot of ground around the question of truth and its definition. On the one hand, he calls it “factual certainty” (pg. 373). On the other, he elaborates, “Truth is constituted by correspondence of linguistic utterances to mind-independent states of affairs: around the topic of correspondence theory (pg. 381).
More explicitly, Jesus said that He is the Truth (Jn 14:6), and by extension, all that He says and does is truth. When Pilate asked, “what is truth?” Jesus answered to generations who He is, what He has done, and what He is doing as a matter of reference that serves as an anchor. The absolute certainty of meaning, physical being, and alethic metaphysical reality has substantive concrete and abstract definition to the Creator God where truth and wisdom belongs.
2. What is the nature of truth-bearers? What kinds of things can be true?
Truth-bearers accept truth value as propositions and statements. They also accept and embrace personal truth as associated with the identity of persons (e.g., Christ).
Propositions, abbreviated propositions, statements, opposite truth values, mood, tone, and mind-independent reality from language or linguistic expressions are what things that can be true, and states of being that can be true from absolute revealed meaning and condition, or historical and cultural contexts. Truth is absolute and not relative to social or individual preferences or historical and cultural contexts.
3. Describe the differences between correspondence theory of truth and coherentist and pragmatic theories.
a. Correspondence Theory of Truth: This is the embodiment of core intuition “according to which the word ‘true’ modifies utterances that adequately connect to and depict aspects of a mind-independent world” (Clark, 363). It is a way of saying that the truth of statements or propositions matches the actual world.
There are conditions of metaphysical and justification propositions that exist and point to alternatives among philosophers to advocate coherentist and pragmatic theories. Clear ideas that correspond to reality define truth, and it answers metaphysical realism.
b. Coherentist Theory of Truth As one stated alternative to correspondence theory, it can be considered a denial of correspondence theory. It is the practical application of propositions that justifies and accounts for the definition of truth. This is not a theory of truth but a theory of warrant or justification (Clark, 366). This, as a theory of truth, is false.
c. Pragmatic Theory of Truth: As another stated alternative to correspondence theory, it attempts to redefine truth in terms of its usefulness. It is a theory that attempts to advocate metaphysical nonrealism by inference. It is a way to view the distinctions as true or useful. What is useful can be true, but not everything true is useful. It doesn’t capture intuition or instincts about the nature or properties of truth.
4. How does the hermeneutics of suspicion and finitude of post-structuralists and deconstructionists challenge truth claims?
Deconstruction involves hermeneutics of suspicion and finitude to disintegrate truth as having authoritative meaning and absolute value. Deconstructionists claim there is no such thing as reality itself, only interpretations of reality. They believe or think that certainty is not possible. They also think that binary classifications and categories such as part/whole, inside/outside, good/evil, nature/nurture, male/female, true/false do not capture objective reality.
Clark informs his readers that “deconstructive postmodernism overcomes the modern worldview through an anti-worldview. It denies the elements necessary to any worldview, including concepts like God, self, and truth” (Clark, 373). While poststructuralism is a weaker form of deconstruction, they both reject the Enlightenment’s views of neutral objectivity, absolute certainty, and straightforward answers. Deconstruction abhors truth, and it seeks to dismantle objective and authoritative reality from the roots of linguistics.
Neither of these strategies’ challenges to truth claims is valid because they rely upon definitions from language to achieve an order of understanding. They borrow on the purpose of intended meaning to achieve their objectives. They’re self-refuting, or self-referentially incoherent.
Chapter Twelve: Theological Language and Spiritual Life
1. Distinguish univocity, equivocity and analogy in religious language.
Clark opts for limited univocity, but he recognizes the need for Analogy and its use in Scripture. While he makes distinctions about the univocal and literal use of language, he elaborates upon numerous examples where both are applied and true during the use of language. While Clark agrees with Aquinas that equivocity leads to agnosticism, he also supports the assertion that Analogy has its suitable theological place up to a point. Clark is concerned about Aquinas’ Analogy of proper proportionality because of how words function as modes of being, action, thought, or language. Clark wrote that Analogy, according to Aristotle, is a form of equivocity (Clark, 390). More specifically, there are ambiguities about what we can understand about God. Theology, on its own, does not help us understand or know God.
Clark makes it clear that the difference between the meaning of terms between God and the creature is the distinction between univocal and analogical predication. The literal or univocal sense is the default meaning to us as a one-way frame of reference. So, the function of analogy isn’t to inform but to place restraints upon the proper use of language when it comes to “theistic systematic assumptions.”
Clark’s use of the term “infinity,” when set alongside transcendence, and corporeality, presupposes the presence of time, as God exists or operates within it without beginning or end. Such a distinction seems to reveal confusion about what transcendence is. Where time is a created construct of God outside of time or within it as He so chooses or intends. In Clark’s view, attribution in this univocal sense isn’t as helpful, but I overall agree with his position about the univocal use of language to understand and know God. Especially when it comes to the use of Scripture and God’s self-witness about what we can know about Him in a way that corresponds to what we can grasp or accept by alethic and metaphysical realism.
2. What values and distinctions of speech-act theory are referenced to the language of the Bible?
Types of spoken language, or utterances, and the use of words to express or describe something is different than what it is to do something by perlocutionary or illocutionary force. They’re together spiritually formative, so long as the objects of their intended use are actual. So, it is okay, and expected, within modern people and churches, to express worship, praise, instruction, exhortation, rebuke, encouragement, and so forth that comports with the language of the Bible. Figurative, metaphorical, and literal meanings that contribute to the working of sapientia in our lives are suitable to the extent precision or more descriptive, or reasoned accuracy is warranted.
There is explanatory value in expressions in the types and distinctions of speech-act theory as propositions and statements carry collaborative, informative, and cursory forms of meaning among creatures to accomplish what both the Creator and creatures want to relate and share experiences. Fellowship, shared witness, prayer, worship, instruction, with words conveyed to form communicative acts shape what people and their Creator say, hear, and do.
Therefore, language is intended to accomplish something. Verbal utterances do something other than merely informing people about sense and reference, according to scientia. It serves the purpose of sapientia to worship the triune God and transform Christian character (Clark, 417).
Conclusion
Clark offers numerous point-by-point instructions, admonishments, and areas of guidance as he brings his book to completion. Taken together, they serve as a formulaic way of executing a strategy toward developing a theologically well-grounded sapiential Church. He touches upon personal, interpersonal, and social relationships that extend to individual disciplines, visionary thinking, polemical engagement, rigorous theological discipline, relationships, biblical social justice, and outreach. His final words were about the essential and compelling urgency to know and love the true and living God.
From 2021, approaching two decades ago, Clark’s book To Know and Love God was published. While it dates back to a different time of evangelical thought and discourse, the methods and principles around theology still hold and are relevant today. By surveying the range of chapters that comprise the book, the reader sees a common thread where the author forms layers of sequential content. The material within the book isn’t organized as a mosaic of theoretically practical methods around the study of theology. It is written cohesively to bring predicated order and rationale to the study and application of theological methods and principles.
While the text is highly concentrated with the theological and philosophical subject matter, it carefully crafts a coherent message. Not just at the most granular level but structurally as well. The chapters, book sections, and subsections are interwoven and complementary to one another to reinforce and provide a full-bodied depth. The book’s organization is well thought out as it is apparent that the author wanted to offer God and His people the best of his work. The book is very technical, but it communicates to the reader personally with relatable stories and content to instill confidence and retention.
The book begins with general concepts around the topic of theology along with some of its history and key figures during its development in the 20th-century. The forms of study and discipline about theology are covered with substantial attention to detail to include key influential figures from traditional and liberal or socialist backgrounds. Themes and concerns among historical theologians toward the modern era were at length explained to give a greater sense of context about the reading ahead. The tension between a God-centered theological approach and anthropocentrism began as an outright situation to grasp, and it remained a constant subtext through the remainder of the book.
As Clark continues through more rudimentary principles to set a baseline, it was necessary to cover essential matters around the authority of scripture, culture, and a diversity of perspectives. The author relies heavily on philosophy, historical rationale, and contemporary issues to assert what theological propositions to value and hold in support of evangelicalism. He cites numerous academic and scholarly sources to support his conclusions and offer reinforced thoughts concerning premise after premise that gave order and clarity about where he guided the reader. Clark did not just give the details about perspectives from academic individuals, theologians, and philosophers. He reached into the nuts and bolts of theoretical approaches to the subject matter.
To match the depth of the book, Clark covered a wide span of topics about theological methodology as well. Along with the various epistemological and ontological concerns about interpretation and belief, the numerous forms of theological disciplines were presented for a reader to understand their place and unity as a body of material. Set adjacent to each other, the sciences, philosophy, and theology within the academic, secular, and religious worlds were illuminated to bring out the purpose, justification, and necessity of Christian belief. Not for apologetic reasons, per se. Rather to think well about Christian theology while people seek to live lives of loving and knowing God with their entire being.
In an effort to contrast Christianity to other world religions, Clark establishes the philosophical ground for new and existing theologians to understand and engage in discourse within the postmodern world. Specifically, contentious issues around pluralism, realism, subjectivism, exclusivism, inclusivism, and metaphysical epistemologies were compared and navigated to render sensible theological approaches to develop an “alethic truth” around a physical and spiritual realism that has a soteriological effect on humanity.
At the core of the text is the spiritual purpose of theology. This is the most substantive area of the entire book (chapter 7). The relationship between science and religion is explained in crucial detail as scientia and sapientia. The reader is given a step-by-step walkthrough of moments or phases of forming, applying, and communicating theological facts and principles to live transformed lives with others before God. Clark makes it abundantly clear that theology as purely an academic endeavor doesn’t reach its intended purpose or potential without internalizing what the theological method does (i.e., engagement, discovery, testing, integration, communication). The text does an exceptional job of explaining what theology is about and why it is of utmost necessity to live by what it produces within people.
Just as the text is titled and captioned, this is a book about knowing and loving God. It gets into significant technical and reasoned depth about what that specifically looks like. It is an important and necessary book to undergo and support continuing theological coursework.
