In today's postmodern world, divisiveness is one of the few remaining cultural sins. This setting makes this question all the more important, because divisiveness is not received well. And Christians are frequently accused of just this divisiveness. So, to this question we now turn, as we look at if this particular "criticism" is valid, and further if it finds its basis in biblical theology. To lay out the answer to the question, I must begin by (somewhat dialectically) saying yes and no. We shall take both of these answers in turn. First, to the yes.
Yes, precise biblical theology is divisive. It is very divisive. In a fundamental sense, division lies at the center of the biblical message, because the worldview that permeates and comes from the Scripture is one of boundaries, one of right and wrong, one of chosenness and choosing. The gospel message runs throughout the Bible, from the first pages to the last, and it tells a story of an almighty Creator, who brought the world into being, but this world then fell away (division). The Bible then spends thousands of "chapters" chronicling God's redemption of just that fallen creation. God chooses Abraham, chooses Isaac, chooses Jacob. This is a God who chooses. The same thread runs all the way through the prophets, who remind Israel of their chosenness, of their vocation to live out this chosenness amid a world that doesn't know God. They are called to be a light to the nations, to embody God's love to the world; in short they are continually called to be a people set apart, a chosen people. This same call is embodied again in Jesus, the Prophet, who comes to inaugurate the kingdom of God, and who speaks so often of sheep and goats, weeds and wheat, wheat and chaff, heaven and sheol, God and the enemy. There is division! It is not possible to look through the Scripture and ignore divison. And this means divisiveness. This division wasn't only for the days of the prophets, or for the days of the kings, or for the days of the Messiah, but it runs throughout the story down to our day. For as Peter says, we are a chosen generation, a peculiar people. This "division" is part of our witness, to Jesus as the Way, Truth, and Life. This claim in our pluralistic setting is divisive, and is heard as divisive by a world attuned to just this division. We do not apologize for this division, because it is woven through the Scriptures, and is a fundamental part of the Christian worldview built upon this foundation.
Precise biblical theology is also divisive on a methodological level as well. Our precision is (and must be) always provisional. As we search for the original meaning of the text, the intent of the author, and the understanding of the first readers, we must rely on historical reconstructions, lexical research and comparison, and other inexact sciences. We also bring our own worldview, with our own questions and presuppositions, to our reading of the text, and no matter how much we try, we cannot eliminate this element from our reading. This is precisely the fallacy that comes out in so much of the Historical Jesus quest, which has attempted to find a purely historical Jesus. Their methodology and their assumptions (about, for instance, the possibility of miracles, or the possibility of special revelation) mostly ruled their conclusions. Thus, making precise biblical conclusion is often somewhat contentious, and making those claims as being precise will invite criticism.
But, also no. The division throughout Scripture is evident, as we have discussed above, but at a fundamental level, biblical theology, when it is precise, is supremely unifying. As mentioned above, God created the world. Everything is God's creation. We all exist in relation to God. Further, as we noted, we have all-all of creation-fallen away from God into sin. We are unified in our failure. Romans, especially, witnesses to this unity. The biblical message, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the good news of God's love and redemption to a fallen world, is for absolutely everybody. We are united in that we are all addressed by God. The cross is not a symbol of division, but of unity: it calls to all humanity, and further, it calls all humanity back into right relationship with God. So, we cannot but say that precise biblical theology is not divisive but unifying.
Methodological divisiveness, as we have mentioned above, is not ultimate either. Despite the necessity for methodological humility, and the acknowledgement of the provisional nature of our historical reconstructions, the core kerygma, the plain proclamation of the Scripture, the Word Jesus Christ, is crystal clear. Even acknowledging that we know in part, it is clear that we do know a part. We can and should claim certainty in Jesus Christ, and we can and should always seek certainty in our biblical theology, as we seek to return always to the text. This is a unifying endeavor, because it is always done in dialogue, with requisite humility but also with confident proclamation. Thus, even methodologically, biblical theology is unifying, if it is carried out rightly, as we should seek to do. |
