Thanks to Halden for linking to this.

Seeing this picture and reading a recent article by a Princeton trained theologian prompted me to reflect…

If one stops to think about the past 50 years of theological scholarship, a lot has happened over the years. Just to list a few things that have impacted the scope of modern theology: Karl Barth passes away, the Second Vatican Council, and the Civil Rights Movement, etc. I’m sure the list could go on and on.

In the article, Dr. Cottrell gives a very telling portrayal of what he’s learned in the past 50 years of being a theologian. So it was with eagerness that I sat down to read this article by a veteran evangelical theologian to see how he sees the landscape. However, as I read, I became more and more disappointed. Basically, after receiving a PhD from Princeton and teaching theology for nearly 50 years, Dr. Cottrell says he has learned two things: 1) to distinguish what is a fad from what is fundamental and 2) the difference between right doctrine and wrong doctrine. More explicitly, Cottrell says,

“Both in my writing and in the classroom, I have never hesitated to take a position on any crucial issue, to defend it from Scripture, to declare opposing views to be false, and to identify those who teach falsely. But one thing I have learned in 50 years of “doing theology” in this way is that it makes one very unpopular in certain circles! It puts me in conflict with what some regard as a more sophisticated and scholarly teaching methodology, namely, that a teacher should simply present the various major views on any issue without stating and defending his own personal view. To do the latter is regarded as “spoon-feeding” the students, and is characterized as a sign of anti-intellectual fundamentalism.

I will not attempt to defend my methodology here. I will simply affirm that my teaching and writing will continue to be based on the presuppositions that truth is real and that it can be known. I cannot do otherwise without going against what I believe Scripture teaches about God, about itself, about the nature of human beings, about truth, about sound doctrine, and about false doctrine.”

He then goes on to list 13 of those “sound doctrines” with a “(to be continued)” tacked on at the end. How many more could he add? The list could go on forever…

But the list, as problematic as it is, was not what bothered me. What bothered me about his article was that after 50 years of teaching, the major thing he took away from this experience is that basically, he’s right and everyone else is wrong. I don’t think you can call this “theology”. I think it’s more appropriately labelled “ideology”.

I think that when someone studies theology, there are certain virtues that are fostered in the process. Thomas Aquinas was pretty big on this. He names the theological virtues as being faith, hope, and love. Before him, Augustine talked about how humility is such a key facet of moving towards God and understanding.

What was bothering me about Cottrell’s article was that after I finished reading it, he did not convey to me that these kinds of virtues were valued or fostered at the end of 50 years. Now, folks who may know this guy personally, may stick up for him and say he is a man of virtue. I’ll grant this and give Jack the benefit of the doubt.

However, I don’t think that the churches that mimic his stance can survive another 50 years in his footsteps. To be clear, if a church produces theologians that insulate themselves off from self-criticism, then that said church is in real trouble. It’s in trouble because it will continue to become more difficult to discern self-deception and self-absorption.