My approach to so-called theological academia is in an attempt to evangelize it; to redeem it; to frame it within the doxological. Left to itself it only turns inward, and worships its own heights and depths; worships its own theses and notions, as ends in themselves; as a way to promote the self among the other selves within the guild. The reality remains, though, that it is indeed there. There is a body of work produced in the theological guild, that despite itself, has the capacity for being commandeered by the Holy Spirit, in such a way that its veritable witness might point beyond itself; beyond its procrustean boundaries (indeed, as those are provided for, in liminal ways, by the theologian’s own mind); and unto the Reality of all realities, as that terminates in the face of Jesus Christ in the triune life.

I think this is the mistake: I am not an academic, nor ever have been; or aspired to be one. I have done what some might consider to be “academic” work, to a certain extent, but that is not my motivation. My motivation has been and always will be as one of the ‘beggars all.’ I am a bruised reed in need of the Savior of heaven and earth. This is why I end up reading “academic theological” works: it is because in spite of the culture that produces them, the Lord can take what is presented there and still evangelically nourish the body in ways, with depths, that other writings and teachings, cannot really offer. But again, I think it is all about approach and attitude as we seek to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ; that is in deeper ways. The trick is to not fall prey to the attitude and the theology of glory that often attends the production of these various works. Indeed, this isn’t the only motivation; but after looking at CVs, and how these works are used to populate and promote said authors, it is hard to not come to the conclusion that there aren’t some ulterior things afoot in the souls of those who do such work. Even so, there are parables, even ‘secular parables,’ or ‘social co-efficients’ present in all the works of God; even as those are presented in the malformed motives and self-promotions we are all prone to (as we wander around).

There will never be, of course!, a purely presented theological offering, since ALL of its presenters are indeed simul justus et peccator (‘simultaneously justified and sinner’). Even so, we must still be vigilant as we attempt to consume such offerings; we must bring them as offerings before the Lord, and allow Him to in-break upon our readings and appropriations of the various thoughts and notions we expose ourselves to in these respective works of theology and biblical studies. Our approach ought to spring from a confessional and warm-hearted love of the risen Christ. For me, this is about the only guard I know of when engaging with a theological world who sees its virtue in being dispassionate, abstract, speculative, and discursive. It is the ‘love of Christ that constrains us.’ If not, it is probably better not to engage with the academic theological works; it will only serve to make us “intellectual giants” in our own minds, leading us into an inward turn that only God in Christ, in His mercy, can in-break and save us from (over and again). It is possible to do and read theology in a way that does the opposite of what it is supposed to do: it can create a hardened interior to the things of the Spirit, leading its practitioners into a numbed world of insensitivity and callousness that will be self-interpreted as simply being rigorous thinkers for God.

We can have all knowledge; but without the love of Christ it means nothing.