Reading tonight has prompted me to start a series on my blog that I’ve wanted to start for some time, and that is a series on reasons for reading. Why read? What do we get out of it and what is the fruit of our labor from spending so much time as we do on harvesting the ripe books, letters, works, etc. we set to read? These posts will, of course, be in no special order, but will be added as reasons come to mind.

#1
Confirm what you’ve already been thinking.

Reading can confirm what you been thinking. Now, of course, reading also challenges what you’ve been thinking, and rightfully so, but that is the reason of another, separate post. The confirming that I am talking about is best illustrated by the reading I was doing tonight that both prompted this series and the confirming of one of my thinks; namely, that in our minds, there are “little systems.”

The work I was reading tonight, Robert Reymond’s A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, forefronted this thought of mine that has been on the backburner for some time, that of systems. Quite unexpectedly did Reymond lead me to this confirming of my thought. I was very pleasantly reading along on the nature of biblical truth (univocal vs. analogical)–I love reading on subjects of which I’ve not read anything before–and BOOM! There it was: a short quotation and footnote with Alfred, Lord Tennyson as the referant.

Here’s where I was reading:

“Every time [one] rejects a proposition as false because it ‘contradicts’ the teaching of Scripture or because it is in some other way illogical, the proposition’s sponsor only needs to contend that it only appears to contradict Scripture or to be illogical, and that his proposition is simply one of the terms…of one more of those paradoxes which we have acknowledged have a legitimately place in our ‘little systems,’ to borrow a phrase from Alfred, Lord Tennyson.”

Footnote 30, placed after “Tennyson,” then reads:

Tennyson writes:

Our little systems have their day,
They have their day and cease to be.
They are but broken lights of Thee,
And Thou , O Lord, are more than they.

In Memoriam.

A smile broke out on my face like a 14 year-old’s acne! “This is why I read!” Here, my friends and faithful readers, is the first reason that I would like to point to you why I read: to get confirmation. Right here is a double dose. Not only has Tennyson written my thinks 150+ years before me, but Dr. Robert Reymond has written them in his work as well. This little Tennyson poem (if you can call it that–I’m not good with poetic categorization) has instantly become one of my favorites. Why? Because it has confirmed what I was thinking. We read to get new ideas, yes, but what fun it is to have ideas confirmed when reading. Are you as excited as I am? Who cares!

Thank you, Tennyson. Thank you, Reymond.

My “little system” in my mind is having its day–this post is one example. But my little system will cease to be! It’s but a broken light trying to imitate the bright, glowing sun that is God!

2 responses to “Reasons to Read: #1 Confirm What You’ve Been Thinking”

  1. SND Avatar
    SND

    Drew,
    This snippet is very interesting and prompts me to do the Oliver Twist (viz. ask for more). please expound upon this idea of “little systems” so that I do not labour under the grinding toil of misunderstanding. I am induced to compare your “little systems” to the notion of a “conceptual web” which is developed out out individual thought and experience to give an empirical understanding of the world and its machinations. Am I a million miles from the truth?

    SND

  2. Drew Maust Avatar

    SND,
    I’m really grateful for your comment for two reasons. 1) If a man with your towering intellect is asking for more, than it’s clear I’ve been unclear and the cookies are still on the top shelf for us intellectual midgets, and 2) I need to clarify in my own mind what I mean by “little systems.”

    Perhaps I should also do a series entitled “Reasons to Write.” The first reason would be: writing helps the author clarify in their own mind what they are thinking. This has especially been the case with The Maust Letters, where writing those posts has caused me to really think and try to organize what I think and believe. I’ve recently added a quote to this site by St. Augustine which sums up this paragraph: “I count myself as one of the number of those who write as they learn and learn as they write.”

    After reading the above post afresh this morning, I do realize that I haven’t said everything I wanted to and it’s a bit “fast and loose.” I guess I got excited and the maxim of writing has proved true: you can’t say everything at the same time. Nonetheless, and this last phrase will be ironic, my goal should be perspicuity. =)

    What do I mean by “little systems”
    First, when I consider the concept of little systems in our minds, I think mainly of them as they relate to theology and biblical interpretation, because it is in these fields where I most frequently encounter them influencing one’s thoughts.

    Secondly, I would define a “little system” as: the combined network of thoughts, beliefs, and experiences that form the lens through which one understands and interprets the world (writings, thoughts, people, events, experiences) around them. I would venture to guess that others have written more extensively with more clarity on the idea of “little systems” and “conceptual webs.” I just need to search them out. But Reymond and Tennyson were the first for me. I suppose, furthermore, that one might call what I defined “culture.” But culture helps form one’s “little system” (“LS” onward) and is not the LS itself, for one’s LS is idiosyncratic, or couture if you will, and more than just culture.

    How then does this combined network of thoughts, beliefs, and experiences influence theology and biblical interpretation?
    When most read the Bible, they do so as they would read a yearbook: flip threw and look for the places where I show up. Where are the pictures of me. Reading the Bible like this evinces that “me” is at the center of the person’s LS; this is egocentricism (me-centeredness) and, more generally, anthropocentricism (man-centeredness).

    I read the Bible this way until I realized that I shouldn’t be trying to fit God into my “little system” but I should be trying to have my LS shaped by the Scriptures and only after this, see where I fit in in God’s BIG system.

    Notice that the first commandment commands that God be first. Jesus said seek the kingdom of God first and everything else will fall into place after this. But we get the cart (us) before the horse (God). There is a new children’s book entitled The Jesus Storybook Bible: Every Story Whispers His Name, and as my Greek professor would say, “the title of this book preaches better than most sermons.” In the book the author “tells 43 Bible stories from the book of Genesis through Revelation. Each story in some way relates to Jesus and who he is, giving children the big picture of what God is all about” (taken from Amazon.com review). Never mind “children’s book”, sign me up! =)

    It is beneficial to note here why I like the phrase “little system” and not just “system.” “Little system” gets at the concept the best because it emphasizes the theocentricity (God-centeredness) of the universe. God is the big system. A perfect example of this is the trinity: one essence three persons; a tri-unity. This is a perfect big system. My LS is not perfect because in it lies a mixture of true and falsehoods, conceptions and misconceptions, and compatibilities and contradictions.

    An example in biblical interpretation: When I read the Bible do I try to fit every verse into my “little system”? If so, then this is incorrect and anthropocentric. Tennyson rightly points out that the system in my mind is merely a broken light of God for he is “more than they.”

    Earlier Christians far more intelligent and adept at the Word of God than I have pointed out the idea of analogia scriptura…the analogy of Scripture…Scripture interprets Scripture…NOT my “little System” interprets Scripture. The main reason is: my LS will lead me astray, but the Scriptures, consonant with the infallible and inerrant God that inspired them, are trustworthy and will not lead anyone astray, but to salvation and enjoyment of God forever! Secondly, it’s idolatrous to be searching for “me” in the Scriptures, before/ahead of God, when Luke 24:27 shows Jesus interpreting “all” the Scriptures as concerning him.

    Hopefully, this should explain more what I mean and some of my thoughts. Thank you for prompting me to write this!

CommentsOnToast

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from MaustsOnToast

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading