If, . . . Then! Theology

Fritz Guy, Thinking Theologically: Adventist Christianity and the Interpretation of Faith. Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1999.

Reviewed by Glen Greenwalt
(From Spectrum magazine, summer 2001)

The first time I remember hearing Guy in a discussion, I was coming down a narrow flight of steps from some hidden-away restaurant in New York City that tourists had not yet discovered. He was in an animated conversation with John Brunt and Harold Weiss, our guide on this excursion. This moment was one of epiphany for me; I have never forgotten it. I believed at that time I was seeing Socrates revivified. What has impressed me even more in subsequent years is Guy’s Christ-like compassion, not only for the "Church," but also for members of the body of Christ who hold positions that often differ radically from his own. So I choose as my models to explicate Guy’s theology Socrates of Athens and Jesus of Nazareth.

Guy’s theological method, whether intentional or not, is Socratic. Like Socrates, Guy seeks to engage us ordinary believers in a process of thinking carefully about what we believe, so that our beliefs stand still and don’t move about like the statues of Delphi, or in theological language, are not blown about by every wind of doctrine.

The first step toward ordering any set of beliefs is to define the elements clearly. Socrates taught us that the exercise of giving many examples about something is not the same as defining the thing itself. Beauty is not identical with women nor is strength identical with horses, however rare homely women or weak horses might be. Likewise, Guy teaches us that theological thinking is not identical with collecting proof texts, counting votes of popular opinion, or even fostering archeological research and doing sound biblical exegesis--which are mainstays of the theological enterprise. Rather, thinking theologically is a process of "thinking as carefully, comprehensively, and creatively as possible about the content, adequacy, and implications of one’s own religious life" (4).

In the language of Socrates, theological thinking is a therapeutic of the soul. Theological thinking is not ordered--at least in the first place--toward knowing a great deal or of mastering the skills of persuading others. It is directed first and always toward aligning one’s own self with what is genuine, proper, and true. As such, theological thinking is more a quest than an outcome. To care for one’s soul is to ask questions about the truth, its validity, and its implications for our own personal beliefs, not to gain any sort of external reward, but so that our own lives can be whole and healthy. Far from being impractical or dangerous, then, theological thinking is essential to the life of the Church, for the Church, like the polis, is the soul writ large.

Second, Socrates encouraged his interlocutors to draw careful distinctions. The work of good thinking is akin to that of a butcher. A good thinker needs to cut clear, sharp distinctions at the natural joints of things. No one cleaves ideas better than Fritz Guy. Guy’s book is worth buying just for the memorable distinctions he draws.

As we know from church history, theologians have long been associated with conflict within the church, either as agents of heresy or as the guardians called upon in time of crisis to defend what has always been believed. However, seldom has the rank and file of the church or the church’s administrators appreciated the creative importance of theological thinking in transferring faith from one generation to another. It is in his role as creative thinker that Guy makes his greatest contribution to the Church.

By his insightful distinctions among "orthodoxy," "heterodoxy," and "heresy," Guy offers one of the most profound ways that I have ever read to describe the boundaries of a religious tradition. Like poetry, the sum of the power in Guy’s distinctions is lost in translation, so let me quote at length just one of the truly memorable distinctions that fill Guy’s book. This passages help refine what Guy means by thinking theologically.

It is important to note that the words "orthodoxy," "heterodoxy," and "heresy" are not very helpfully used as normative or evaluative terms; they function better as historical, descriptive, and (most importantly) relative terms. Their proper meanings are all determined by the consensus of a particular community of faith, and a community consensus is not identical with ultimate truth. In a theological struggle between orthodoxy and heresy, it is always the case that orthodoxy wins and heresy loses, for the simple reason that it is the winners who decide what is "orthodox" and what is "heretical." Performing the historical task of identifying the "orthodox" view does not accomplish the theological task of identifying truth. (24)

As orthodoxy is essential to the theological identity of a community of faith, heterodoxy is essential to its continuing theological development. (Ibid.)