Is Propositional Theology PassÉ?

in a cognitive manner.”⁸ Such revelation is not reducible to a personal encounter nor is it a mere witness to some revelatory experience. It is important to note, though, that the advocate of propositional revelation is not saying that written revelation must take a specific literary form.⁹ Propositional revelation is consistent with the viewpoint that emphasizes the importance of taking into account the diversity of literary genres in Scripture for theological formulation.

Closely related but conceptually distinct is the term “propositional theology.” The latter maintains that the revelation that God has given can be formulated in propositions, however imperfectly. Carl F. H. Henry emphasizes that despite the diversity of literary genres the content of Scripture can be “propositionally formulated.”¹⁰ To be committed to the project of propositional theology, as Douglas Groothuis points out, is to affirm that one of the main tasks of systematic theology is to “identify and articulate the revealed truths of Scripture in a logical, coherent and compelling manner.”¹¹

This presupposes that Scripture is propositional. However, it is worth re-emphasizing that in affirming the propositional nature of Scripture, I am not saying that Scripture is solely or exclusively propositional. One can affirm the legitimacy of PT while recognizing the diversity, value and importance of different literary genres in the Scriptures.

So why are some critical of propositional theology? In what follows I will consider three common criticisms. My aim is not to be exhaustive but to describe and evaluate representative arguments in the literature. I will maintain that none of the arguments are persuasive and do not entail giving up the notion of propositional theology.

Against Propositional Theology

The first argument against PT is the claim that it leads to a lack of spiritual vitality or to a theology that tends to be impersonal. Vanhoozer points out that some theologians worry that propositional theology “depersonalizes revelation by rendering it abstract and lifeless.”¹² The argument surfaces in a number of places. Alister McGrath, for example, states that the evangelical preoccupation with “propositional correctness of Christian doctrine” tends to destroy the vitality of the Christian faith. The reason is that such an emphasis views faith as “little more than intellectual assent to propositions, losing the vital and dynamic connection with the person of Jesus Christ, who, for Christians, alone is the truth.”¹³ In his survey of the rise of evangelicalism, Grenz claims that the “new evangelical theology,” which was formed in the fundamentalist battle with liberalism, “oriented itself to questions of propositional truth, in contrast to the issue of one’s relationship with God characteristic of classical evangelicalism.”¹⁴

The problem with this argument, though, is that it is characterized by reductionism and so presents a false dichotomy. Even if some theologians of the past could be charged with an overemphasis on the propositions of Scripture, it does not follow that a commitment to PT necessarily leads to a de-emphasis on the personal dimensions of the faith.¹⁵ Many authors could be cited who keep both emphases in balance, but I will make reference to only one. John W. Montgomery writes about the scientific, artistic and sacral aspects of theologizing. The “scientific” aspect consists in “forming and testing theories concerning the Divine.” That is, the scientific aspect is what one would normally refer to as propositional theology. Yet this aspect, though important, does not exhaust the theological task. There is also the “artistic element” which has to do with the “personal, inner involvement of the theologian with Holy Scripture.”¹⁶ The latter is just as important to the theological task as the former.

Furthermore, Scripture itself refuses to recognize a separation between the propositional and the personal, or between the doctrinal and the practical. Paul, for example, speaks of “doctrine conforming to godliness” (1 Tim. 6:3b). He instructs Timothy that the goal of his instruction is “love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (1 Tim. 1:5). In some cases an entire epistle, such as Ephesians, may be structured so as to emphasize the doctrinal component in one part and the practical in the other, but without divorcing doctrine from practice. There is no reason then, for claiming PT must be characterized by disjunctive thinking.

A second argument used by critics of PT is that it aims at a theology that is timeless and culture-free. The argument maintains that the theologian committed to PT has lost sight of the historical nature of theologizing. McGrath, for example, accuses Wayne Grudem of taking this approach in his Systematic Theology. He maintains that Grudem treats Scripture passages as “timeless and culture-free statements that can be assembled to yield a timeless and culture-free theology that stands over and above the shifting sands of our postmodern culture.”¹⁷ Similarly, Stanley Grenz and John Franke complain that because conservative theologians view the Bible as a “storehouse of theological facts,” the goal becomes that of compiling the “timeless body of right doctrines.”¹⁸

But notice that such concerns are not really a criticism of PT per se. They are rather a criticism of an inadequate view of PT. There is nothing about the claim that the truths of Scripture can be propositionally formulated that entails the conclusion that such a formulation leads to an exhaustive account of biblical truth. There are many examples of theologians committed to PT who recognize the fallible nature of theological systems. For example, Carl Henry, a strong proponent of PT, argues that there is a distinction between the “canonical content of revelation” and the “systems derived from it.” Furthermore, he maintains that we do not possess a “theology of glory” and that evangelical theology should be characterized by the virtue of humility.¹⁹ At its best, then, this argument reminds theologians of the fallible nature of theological construction, but it does not entail a rejection of PT properly construed.

A third criticism of propositional theology is one of the most popular The argument maintains that PT is a by-product of the rationalism of the Enlightenment or of modernity. The concern for coherence and summarization allegedly reflects the imposition of a structure on the theologian’s