Lewis and Demarest, Integrative Theology

In their book Integrative Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest present a method of doing theology that integrates historical, biblical, systematic, apologetic, and practical perspectives. Their approach is thoroughly evangelical, and offers a comprehensive approach to doing evangelical theology.

Lewis and Demarest explained

Lewis and Demarest (1996) provide a vision of integrative theology. Their approach is akin to systematic theology, but based on a methodology that draws several disciplines together. They begin by defining theology as the ‘organized study (logos) of God (theos)’ (23). However, since we can only know God through his self-disclosure ‘in nature and in Scripture … theology is the topical and logical study of God’s revealed nature and purposes’ (23). They distinguish theology from doctrinal studies in that doctrinal studies seek to describe individual doctrines, but ‘systematic theology not only derives coherent doctrines but also systematically relates them to each other in developing a comprehensive world view and way of life’ (23).

They accept some of the prevailing criticisms of systematic theology. In particular, they concur that much systematic theology has failed to do justice to the full scope of the biblical data in its context. It has also failed to give enough attention to the history of doctrine. They believe that much systematic theology is guilty of premature systematising, and that all too often systematic theology has failed to demonstrate the relevance of its conclusions for life and ministry. They reject, however, the modern philosophers and theologians who deny that it is possible to develop a coherent and comprehensive worldview by systematising the teachings of scripture and integrating other sources of knowledge.

They applaud Millard Erickson (Christian Theology, 1983; 2^nd ed., 1998) for paying more attention to the biblical data, to the history of doctrine, and to contemporary relevance is his theological methodology. In these respects, his methodology is more rigorous and integrative than earlier theologies. But they criticise him for not being explicit about how he makes his decisions or draws his conclusions. They argue that a more developed methodology is needed for relating elements together and making interpretive decisions.

Lewis and Demarest propose that integrative theology requires a six-step process:

1. Problem definition. The first task is to identify one specific topic of inquiry and state the problem clearly and succinctly. We must limit the scope of each doctrinal inquiry, and make sure that we appreciate the significance of the problem.

2. Historical hypotheses. The second task is to review the solutions (hypotheses) that have been proposed by Spirit-filled scholars in the history of the church. This is where historical and contemporary theology fit into the process. We must review the manner in which other scholars, both past and present, have grappled with the problem. Their conclusions represent hypotheses that merit testing as possible solutions to the problem. This step always involves a literature review, and may also include interviewing theologians. It considers the way theologians have contextualised the doctrine. Lewis and Demarest argue that ‘an objective survey of varied perspectives helps students become aware of their own presuppositions’ (38).

3. Biblical teaching. The third task includes the twin disciplines of biblical exegesis and biblical theology. This task requires ‘discovering and formulating from both Old and New Testament a coherent summary of relevant biblical teaching by making use of sound principles of hermeneutics, worthy commentaries, and biblical theologies’ (26). This task thus has two steps. First, we must exegete each text in its context, making use of sound principles of hermeneutics and drawing on the best commentaries available. Second, we must organise all the biblical materials chronologically in the form of a biblical theology. ‘Biblical theology interprets passages relevant to a given topic and abstracts the teaching of those passages for a given writer or period of Old Testament or New Testament history’ (45). The synopsis of the teaching of the Bible organised by book, author, or period (biblical theology) lays the groundwork for a summary of the entire Bible’s teaching on the subject (systematic theology). Lewis and Demarest explain, ‘Having summed up the teaching for different periods of biblical history, some may abstract further to the teaching of all the biblical materials in progressive revelation on a given topic in a logical manner’ (45).

4. Systematic formulation. The fourth task involves ‘formulating on the basis of the relevant data a cohesive doctrine and relating it without contradiction to other biblically founded doctrines and other knowledge’ (26). Here we evaluate the historical hypotheses in the light of the biblical data, examine any additional sources of knowledge that might be relevant, try to resolve all the issues, and finally ‘to formulate the overall conclusion to the issue under inquiry’ (38).

5. Apologetic interaction. After we have formulated a comprehensive conclusion (hypothesis), we must defend it against competing theories. In the fifth task we engage in ‘defending [our] formulation of revealed truth in interaction with contradictory options in theology, philosophy, science, religion, and cults’ (26). We respond to potential objections to our proposed conclusions. Lewis and Demarest are deeply concerned to ensure that integrated theology follows a rigorous process of verifying its conclusions or hypotheses, thereby justifying its claim to being a science (25). Therefore, ‘like other sciences, integrative theology works with interrelated criteria of truth (logical non-contradiction, empirical adequacy, and existential viability), accepting only those hypotheses that upon testing are discovered to be (1) non-contradictory, (2) supported by adequate evidence, and (3) affirmable without hypocrisy’ (25).

6. Practical relevance. The sixth and final task of integrative theology is ‘applying these convictions to Christian life and ministry in the present generation’ (26). The ultimate task of theology is to explicate a worldview and way of life that flows from a full and faithful understanding of God’s revealed nature and purposes. This explication should address people both individually and collectively. Exploring the relevance of truth for life and ministry is of great concern to integrated theology, and the task is not complete until it is properly done.

These then are the six tasks of Lewis and Demarest’s integrative theology. They summarise their approach as follows:

Integrative theology utilizes a distinctive verificational method of decision making as it defines a major topic, surveys influential alternative answers in the church, amasses relevant biblical data in their chronological development, formulates a comprehensive conclusion, defends it against competing alternatives, and exhibits its relevance for life and ministry (25).

In their description of how they do theology, Lewis and Demarest include some helpful discussions of the role that certain disciplines play in their vision of theology, and how they use those disciplines. In completing this description of their method, it would be helpful to summarise what they say about certain fields of study.

Apologetics. Apologetics establishes criteria for testing truth claims. As mentioned above, every hypothesis should be subjected to three tests before being accepted. It must be logically non-contradictory, factually adequate, and true to experience. These are the logical, empirical, and existential criteria.

Biblical studies. The Bible ‘provides the primary source material for theological formulation’ (29). Integrative theology must draw on the best available studies of the biblical text, although it does not treat exegesis as an end in itself.

Hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the antidote to subjectivism, and we should embrace principles of interpretation that minimise the risk of eisegesis. They endorse eight foundational principles (30-31):

1. The meaning of a biblical statement is the ordinary, or normal, meaning of the statement (usually literal with some figures of speech) in terms of its context and the author’s purpose.
2. The meaning of a biblical statement fits the historical and cultural setting of the writer and the first readers.
3. The meaning of a sentence is the one most coherent with the writer’s own context.
4. The meaning of any single biblical statement is not contradictory to any teaching of other Scripture on the subject.
5. The intended meaning is the one literal, historical, grammatical, contextual meaning, not a “deeper” or “secret” meaning.
6. Extensive passages on a subject take priority for theological purposes over brief allusions.
7. Doctrinal passages have initially a greater importance than historical narratives that may report ideas and practices not normative for others.
8. What is central in scriptural teaching should be central in our theologies and ministries.

Logic. Logic is a tool to sharpen theological thinking. Theologians need to understand the essentials of logic so that they can frame their arguments in keeping with the canons of logic. First, many misunderstandings could be avoided if theologians would give due attention to defining their terms; the ability to define terms clearly and precisely is part of clear thinking and writing. Second, through logical analysis theologians can draw out truths that the Bible does not state directly, but which are presupposed by what it does state. Third, in formulating arguments scholars should know enough about logic to avoid logical fallacies; they need to apply the principles of logical argumentation.

Previous theologies. Although we are not bound to follow the conclusions of past theologians, we are not wise to ignore them either. Previous theologies are ‘secondary sources with provisional authority’ (33). We must stand on the shoulders of the giants who have gone before us; in doing so, we may see further than they could see. These secondary sources include doctrinal studies, OT theologies, NT theologies, systematic theologies, and the creeds and confessions.

Research methodology. Lewis and Demarest are deeply concerned that theological research follows a rigorous methodology. They view an explicit and appropriate methodology as the ‘key to responsible theological decision making’ (34). They acknowledge, as do almost all modern scholars, the impact of the researcher’s preunderstanding on his research, but they argue strongly that the theologian must make every effort to adhere to a clearly stated research method so as to make the most responsible and objective decisions possible.

On the subject of objectivity in research method, Lewis and Demarest argue that God has given ‘absolute truth in Scripture’ (35). However, it was given to people whose situations and beliefs were very different from ours. They then offer six guidelines for identifying timeless and normative principles in the biblical writings. All six are rooted in the reason for the culturally-conditioned teaching of scripture.

1. Is the reason for the principle rooted in the unchanging nature of God?
2. Is the reason for the principle rooted in the uniform nature of creation, mankind, or moral law?
3. Is the principle rooted in the unchanging redemptive principles of God’s plan of salvation?
4. Is the principle rooted in character traits of Jesus Christ and produced by the Holy Spirit?
5. Are Old Testament principles reiterated in the New Testament?
6. Even culturally specific principles may apply to others because a culture may be similar to other cultures in many respects.

In summary, this is Lewis and Demarest’s vision of integrative theology. There are six steps in the process. First, define a bite-sized theological problem. Second, review historical hypotheses—solutions proposed by scholars past and present. Third, amass the biblical data in chronological order (from exegesis to biblical theology). Fourth, formulate a comprehensive solution to the problem, adopting the hypothesis that best accounts for the biblical data and other sources of relevant scientific knowledge. Fifth, defend the preferred solution using three criteria for accepting truth claims; argue that the preferred hypothesis logically non-contradictory, supported by adequate factual evidence, and resonates with real-life experience. Sixth, demonstrate the significance and relevance of the solution for contemporary life and ministry.

 

Figure 1 illustrates the six steps, showing that the fourth step, systematic theological formulation, is central to the process. The first three steps lead to the theological formulation, while the last two steps defend and apply it.

Lewis and Demarest Employed

A thesis based on Lewis and Demarest’s vision of integrative theology would probably follow this outline:

• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Historical Hypotheses
• Chapter 2: Biblical Teaching
• Chapter 3: Systematic Formulation
• Chapter 4: Apologetic Interaction
• Chapter 5: Practical Relevance
• Conclusion

Let us consider what kind of analysis would belong in each of these chapters.

Introduction

• The introduction covers the definition and significance of the problem.

Chapter 1: Historical Hypotheses

• This step surveys the way that Spirit-filled Christian leaders and thinkers have grappled with the same problem in the past and present.
• By means of a literature study, it presents each of the major historical hypotheses that other scholars have formulated. It endeavours to present them fairly and accurately, and to contextualise them within their historical-cultural setting.

Chapter 2: Biblical Teaching

• This step begins by identifying the relevant passages of scripture, and exegeting each one in sufficient detail to understand its contribution to and implications for the topic. In doing this, the researcher must follow established hermeneutical principles and interact with scholarly commentaries.
• This step concludes by organising the materials into a biblical theology. Lewis and Demarest do it by synthesising the teachings of biblical corpi (e.g. Pentateuch, Historical Books, Gospels, etc.) in chronological order.

Chapter 3: Systematic Formulation

• This is the hub of the wheel, the key step around which the others turn. Steps 1-2 lead up to it, and Steps 4-5 expand on it.
• This step consists of presenting a comprehensive theological answer to the problem one is trying to solve. The formulation of the proposed solution must weigh the historical hypotheses in the light of the biblical data, and offer a synthesis of the biblical teaching on the topic.
• The ultimate objective of theological study is to develop a worldview that is true to God’s revelation in scripture, but which also takes note of scientific knowledge. Therefore, in developing a systematic theology, the researcher must also interact where appropriate with knowledge and theories from the human, social, and natural sciences.

Chapter 4: Apologetic Interaction

• In this step, the researcher defends his theological formulation against likely objections and argues that his interpretation is superior to alternative hypotheses. He does this by attempting to establish that his hypothesis is logically non-contradictory, factually adequate, and existentially viable.

Chapter 5: Practical Relevance

• The final step explores, in a substantive way, how the theological position taken is relevant for Christians and churches, for life and ministry. It should explore how the incorporation of the proposed hypothesis would affect a biblical worldview and way of life, that is, how it might impact upon faith and practice for individual Christians as well as for Christian communities.
• This process may be enriched by empirical research into the current beliefs and practices of believers and churches, but it does not necessarily involve this.

Conclusion

The thesis concludes by reviewing the objectives of the research, and summarising the process and findings.

Lewis and Demarest evaluated

Lewis and Demarest have developed an outstanding model of integrative theology—and from an evangelical perspective too! They have integrated a wide range of important theological disciplines into their method. In following their process, first we engage with historical theology (which requires appropriate knowledge of church history, that is, the historical situations in which doctrines were contextualised) and contemporary theologies. Second we exegete biblical texts responsibly and thoroughly, and synthesise the findings into a chronological biblical theology. Next we must formulate a systematic theology for our context that evaluates the historical hypotheses, weighs the biblical data, and takes note of relevant knowledge and theories from the human, social, and natural sciences. Fourth we defend our conclusions and argue that they are logically coherent, they are supported by factual evidence, and they are true to life (existentially viable). Fifth we remember that the goal of all theology is to formulate a world view and way of life that is faithful to God’s self-disclosure in nature and scripture. We therefore explore the implications of our theological conclusions for Christian life and ministry, both individually and corporately.

The missing element in Lewis and Demarest’s integrative theology is practical theology. Theirs is primarily a model for systematic theology. It does not analyse current praxis or present situations. It does include applied theology, but does so within a theory-to-practice design, not a practice-theory-practice design. This is not a criticism of their approach, since it is hardly an established fact that all theology must follow a practice-theory-practice design. Indeed, almost all evangelical theology through ages has followed a theory-to-practice approach. It recognises that it is addressing questions raised by its context and praxis, but its point of departure is a broad, general statement of the practical questions rather than a detailed analysis of present praxis.

In conclusion, Lewis and Demarest’s integrative theology is one of the best models for doing evangelical theology.