What is Theology?

After I had posted my previous message regarding the BYU Maxwell Institute podcast which I had commented on, I was searching the Internet on another subject, and stumbled across the following comments made by Louis Midgley, in response to the question: “What is theology?” His answer to that question was as follows:

“Louis Midgley: The Greek word for our English word “theology” was first used by Plato to describe the stories told by poets in a well-ordered city—that is, stories that would charm people into behaving properly. He saw stories about the Gods and divine retribution as Noble Lies, since they tended to put fear of punishments for wrongdoing into the hearts of juveniles and less-than-wise adults. That is, almost everyone.

“With this in mind, it is also proper to note that the word “theology” doesn’t appear in our scriptures. Along with Hugh Nibley, I detest it, since theology is a merely human concoction and hence not what God has revealed to humans.

“Instead, theology is what humans have to say about divine things, much of which is at least bunk.

“Despite much mushy talk about “Mormon theology” (either dogmatic or more or less systematic), the Saints actually live by the stories found in our scriptures, which are then confirmed by their own encounters with the divine. No one has become a truly faithful disciple of Jesus Christ by reading creeds or confessions, or proofs, or schemes fashioned by theologians. This is even true of those determined to set out dogmatic or fashion presumably systematic theologies.” Link

I had previously commented on Louis Midgley’s views on theological issues in an earlier blog post. In responding to the above comments, I want to be a bit careful here, because I don’t want to come across as somehow disparaging, or being critical of Louis Midgley, who by all accounts has been a faithful Latter-day Saint all his life, and has had a long career of faithful service to the Church. Erring in doctrine does not lose anyone’s salvation. Nobody will be condemned for making an honest mistake in doctrine. But errors are still errors, and they need to be corrected. I would like to briefly note the following points regarding the above statement:

1. It is not strictly accurate to say that “the word ‘theology’ doesn’t appear in our scriptures”. The Lectures on Faith, which formed part of the scriptural canon of the Church for nearly a century before they were removed, were originally called “lectures on theology,” and the word theology occurs several times in those lectures. The prophet Joseph Smith makes the following references to those lectures in his journal (emphasis added):

“December 1, 1834—Our school for the Elders was now well attended, and with the lectures on theology, which were regularly delivered, absorbed for the time being everything else of a temporal nature. The classes, being mostly Elders, gave the most studious attention to the all-important object of qualifying themselves as messengers of Jesus Christ, to be ready to do His will in carrying glad tidings to all that would open their eyes, ears, and hearts.” (HC II 175–176)

“January, 1835—During the month of January I was engaged in the school of the Elders, and in preparing the lectures on theology for publication in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, which the committee appointed last September were now compiling.” (HC II 180)

So it looks like Joseph Smith had no issues with the word “theology”. If it was okay for him, I have no problem with it either.

The School of the Prophets, before which the Lectures were originally delivered, was set up by the specific commandment of the Lord (D&C 88:127, 136-137; 90:7; 95:10); and Joseph Smith would not have been permitted by the Lord to allow anything to be taught in it which did not have his approval. I personally believe that the Lectures on Faith (or “lectures on theology” as they were originally known) are divinely inspired, and constitute true scripture, and that Joseph Smith was indeed the true author of them; and therefore they will someday be recanonized, and reinstated in the standard works of the Church.

2. His assertion that “theology is a merely human concoction and hence not what God has revealed to humans,” likewise can be challenged. In the Lectures on Faith, out of a bewildering array of different “definitions” of the word “theology” that has been given by various theologians, lexicographers, and dictionaries, Joseph Smith chose the one given in Buck’s Theological Dictionary, as follows:

“It is that revealed science which treats of the being and attributes of God, his relations to us, the dispensations of his providence, his will with respect to our actions, and his purpose with respect to our end.”

This definition of the word “theology” is not identical to Buck’s original definition. It contains one variation: the word “revealed” did not exist in Buck’s original definition, but was added by Joseph Smith. The addition of this word by Joseph Smith is significant. It is indicative not only of how he views the “science of theology” (that it is a revealed science), but also of what he considers to be the source and origin of his own theological exposition: the Lectures on Faith. It is a revelation from God, not the product of his own (or somebody else’s) imagination. Charles Buck’s Theological Dictionary is available online, and can be seen here (and other sources).

3. His assertion that “theology is what humans have to say about divine things,” is something that no respectable theologian, of any school or tradition, would recognize. Christian theologians generally claim that their theology is derived from the Bible. They may not have always understood all of the biblical passages correctly, that is possible; but that is not the same as saying that it is not scripture based at all—when they all claim that it is. Making such sweeping and unsubstantiated assertions is not the right way of engaging in a respectful dialogue with people with whom one might have a legitimate disagreement. When they claim that their theology is scripture based (and provide evidence to support it), we owe them the courtesy of giving them the benefit of the doubt, and examining their claims carefully before voicing any disagreements.

4. His statement that “the Saints actually live by the stories found in our scriptures, which are then confirmed by their own encounters with the divine” is likewise questionable. The scriptures don’t just tell stories. They also contain commandments, and also teach doctrines. The Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:2–17; Deut. 5:6–21); or the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. Ch. 5–7); are not “stories,” they are commandments. Similarly, Deut. 6:4–5; Mark 12:29–34; are not “stories”. They teach doctrine—theology if you like—that is another way to describe it.

When the Savior appeared among the Nephites, he came to give them commandments, not just tell them stories:

3 Nephi 18:

14 Therefore blessed are ye if ye shall keep my commandments, which the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you.

He also came to teach them doctrines:

3 Nephi 11:

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost. • • • 39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this [doctrine] buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

We “build” upon his doctrines, not stories (unless the stories contain doctrine). That is the same as theology. That in essence what theology is.

How many “stories” are there in the book of Doctrine and Covenants? The name speaks for itself. It contains doctrines and commandments. Is he really willing to throw the book of Doctrine and Covenants under the bus, in which God himself speaks, by his own voice, in person? That again is what theology is. The Doctrine and Covenants is the most theologically driven book of scripture of any that there is. Sections 84, 88, or 93 contain pure theology, nothing else. There is nothing strange or mysterious about theology.

5. And his last quote is, “No one has become a truly faithful disciple of Jesus Christ by reading creeds or confessions, or proofs, or schemes fashioned by theologians.” Does that include the Articles of Faith? The Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a creed—like it or not! The word “creed” is derived from the Latin credo, which means “I believe”—which is what the Articles of Faith is! It is a declaration of what Latter-day Saints believe. It is a fully fledged “creed”—but without being called such.

People become “faithful disciples of Jesus Christ” by believing in him, exercising faith, committing themselves to his service, studying his word, learning his true doctrines, teachings, and commandments, and striving to live by them—and when they do those things, they are doing theology—whether they know it or not. That is what theology is. There is nothing mysterious about doing theology.