The title of this post purposely draws on the late R. C. Sproul’s work and his general contention throughout the length of his ministry. Is everyone a theologian? Yes. We neither aim to disagree with the great theologian in this article nor in the project this website aims to develop. He is correct to say that everyone has some thoughts about God, and that everyone should have access to good theology. The real question is whether someone is a good theologian.
In these initial articles—from last week to the next month and a half or so—we want to interact with the task of theology/dogmatics itself. In some of these articles, including this one, we enlist the help of a theologian of the pre-Reformation church to consider the character of the theologian doing theology. In other articles, we enlist a theologian of the Reformation/Post-Reformation church to consider the task itself, such as the last one using Bavinck.
The Cappadocian Father, Gregory of Nazianzus (called “The Theologian”) provides pertinent guards for the one who hopes to engage in the task of theology in his Oration 27. Gregory seems to stand in contradiction to Sproul when the former says, “Not to every one, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to every one.” However, let’s consider the fullness of what Gregory means. It is important to see that Gregory makes the statement in thesis-like form, and then expounds on each point.
Not to every one, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to every one; the Subject is not so cheap and low; and I will add, not before every audience, nor at all times, nor on all points; but on certain occasions, and before certain persons, and within certain limits.[1]
He provides several limitations to the task of theology. First, it is not for everyone to “philosophize” about God, or do theology, or construct dogmatics. In this context, he strictly means those who aim at writing or teaching theology. A man should be examined and proven before he is allowed to teach others about it. A man should be purified before he is allowed to touch holy things. Thus, based on the relationship between those items and the qualifications we read in Scripture, we can say that Gregory believes it belongs to the teaching office of the church to teach theology. By way of condemnation of our day, Gregory says, “They to whom the subject is of real concern, and not they who make it a matter of pleasant gossip, like any other thing, after the races, or the theatre, or a concert, or a dinner, or still lower employments. To such men as these, idle jests and pretty contradictions about these subjects are a part of their amusement.” Doing the work of theology—in the sense of attempting to publish the truth—requires due diligence by those who have given their lives to that task.
Second, Gregory limits the extent of the task. A man may speculate about all sorts of things for all his waking hours. But Gregory says we should be careful here as well. There are several limitations we should observe in our theological production. First, we must only consider the things within our grasp. We can further subcategorize this in the objective and subjective. Objectively, God has given us only limited things to know (Deut. 29:29), and so we must be careful about going further than what he has provided. Subjectively, he has gifted each of us according to his own will. Some of us are more capable than others at grasping complex concepts. It is a dangerous thing when a man speaks beyond his ability. Second, we must consider our audience. Different audiences have different abilities, and a teacher that fails to recognize the capacity and limitations of his audience is one who overwhelms his hearers. Gregory compares it to excessive sound that injures the hearing, excessive food and excessive burdens that injure the body, and excessive rain that injures the earth.
There is another limitation one must consider for the audience. Gregory asks, “Why do we allow audiences hostile to our subject-matter to listen to discussion of the ‘generation’ and ‘creation’ of God, or of God’s ‘production from non-being,’ and such dissections, and distinctions, and analyses? Why do we put swords in our enemies’ hands?” (Popular Patristics translation). There are several aspects of the theological task that ought not to be included in the general and public discourse. They are simply truths that must be considered within the life of faith and not placed on the unbeliever’s chopping block by Christians.
Is Gregory arguing that we should refrain from contemplation of God “without ceasing?” No, he says, “I must not be misunderstood, or I shall be having these nimble and quick people down upon me again. For we ought to think of God even more often than we draw our breath.” Then what is he limiting? “It is not the continual remembrance of God that I would hinder, but only the talking about God; nor even that as in itself wrong, but only when unseasonable; nor all teaching, but only want of moderation.”
Having considered Gregory’s counsel, we will now examine three things. First, we must compare his counsel to Scripture. Second, we should compare his counsel to the current climate of discourse. Third, we should ask how his counsel instructs the aim of this website and our overall ministry.
First, does Gregory’s counsel comport with Scripture? We must remember that Gregory places his counsel specifically within the context of teaching theology, or “philosophizing about God.” As James says, not many should become teachers, for we know that those who teach will be judged with greater strictness. Paul says those who would be teachers should demonstrate their capability to teach and rebuke in accord with the truth. Paul also claims that God has given various gifts to the church, and he indicates that the function of teaching is among the particular gifts. Thus, capacity and recognition are prerequisites for official teaching.
As we noted before, Moses teaches us that there are limitations to what we have been given to know (Deut. 29:29). Jesus has revealed some things, but not all things (such as “the day and the hour”). A man must limit himself to what has been revealed. Further, the sheer difference between men who were professionally trained (e.g. Paul under Gamaliel) and those who were not (e.g. Peter and John “were uneducated,” Acts 4:13) helps us to recognize that there will be a difference of teaching capacity. Among the audiences, Paul was able to speak to the masses in the marketplace of Athens as well as the philosophers in the Areopagus (Acts 17:17, 22ff.). Not only that, the writer to the Hebrews says he should have been able to engage the people deeper (“by this time [they] ought to be teachers”) but their capacities required the teacher to limit himself.
Finally, Gregory warns about engaging deep truths with the mocking unregenerate. Jesus, likewise, warned about casting pearls before swine and then exemplified it. For instance, when asked by what authority he performed his actions, Jesus refused to respond (Matt. 21:27; Mk. 11:33; Lk. 20:8). Thus, it is permissible to refrain from dialogue with those who simply stand in judgment over the message, which is different than those who are honestly wanting to hear.
Second, how does Gregory’s counsel compare to the current climate of discourse? Plenty of space exists for complaint and concern here, but we name three. First, for many, Facebook and Twitter have become the de facto locale for theological discourse. Where do you learn theology? How have your views on one topic or another shifted? The reality is that these platforms have allowed people to thrust themselves into positions of teaching and moderating theological discourse, and/or they allow people to trust others who should not have their trust. Everyone has become a teacher. Further, these platforms have allowed for theological debate to occur before unbelievers, affording them opportunity to mock and scoff our most holy faith and our thrice Holy God. Second, the publishing industry has often undermined theological discourse. Authors are not qualified teachers, and the goal of contemplating God has often receded to the background. Publishers have determined what is taught, and they (necessarily) base some of that on the potential for sales, which will rarely coincide with depth of discourse. That is certainly a “broad brush” statement since there are publishers we appreciate that take seriously the content they produce. Third, as Gregory says, theology has become a matter of “gossip.” It is handled as a trivial thing, like a hobby where the opinions have no real bearing upon the important things of life.
Third, how do these notions inform what we are attempting on this site and in these articles? In raising the issues he does, Gregory wants his readers to view the theological task as something to be done with reverence. What we love about R. C. Sproul’s work is that he never diminished the truth as presented it in ways the masses could access. Indeed, the drum he beat throughout his ministry was the holiness of God. In theology, we aim to speak the truth of God to our day according to what he has given us to say. We are indeed vessels of clay, and we will stumble and misspeak, but we must nevertheless strive for accuracy and refrain from flippancy. On this website and in the project we are pursuing, we will strive to handle the things we treat with proper care. They are not toys to be played with and discarded but truths to be proclaimed and delighted in.
[1] Gregory Nazianzen, “Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 285. A good, accessible version is Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, Popular Patristics Series, Vol. 23 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002), 25–35.