Theologians have always struggled to come up with a definition of theology. Deriving the definition from its etymological root has led some to define it merely as the study of God--a definition, of course, that has nothing inherently wrong about it, but does lead to some degree of ambiguity. One of the more important questions that arises from this is, how do we approach this study of God?

Throughout his years of study, John Frame, professor of systematic theology here at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, has come to define theology as "the application of God's Word by persons to all areas of life." In his book, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, he says that in general theology refers to "study of, knowledge of, speaking of, teaching of, [and] learning about God" (77). However, that broad definition has led to different historical understandings of theology, from the radically subjective theology of Friedrich Schleiermacher to the overly objective idea of theology found in Charles Hodge.

While Frame would be much more comfortable aligning himself with a figure like Hodge, he does argue that Hodge goes too far. Hodge's thoroughly objective approach to theology led to him aligning theology with the other natural sciences. Hodge stated in his Systematic Theology that theology "is the exhibition of the facts of scripture in their proper order and relation, with the principles or general truths involved in the facts themselves, and which pervade and harmonize the whole" (Hodge, vol. I, 19). Theology in Hodge's understanding was to be the gathering of the facts of Scripture and to demonstrate the truth by arranging them in a proper order. He was making deliberate efforts to distance himself from the likes of Schleiermacher, and Frame is gracious toward him for doing so. But in the end, Hodge actually deprives the Word of God of some of its uniqueness and power and makes theology far too intellectual.

"The job of the theologian," says Frame, "cannot be to give the first or most definitive description of Scripture in human language. Why? Because Scripture has already done that" (78). If the Word of God is the speech of God, then no human language is sufficient to offer the definitive interpretation of that speech. The Bible is sufficient to do that for itself. Frame argues that we need to

recognize that Scripture is language, that it has its own rational order, that it gives a perfect, normative, rational description and analysis of the facts of the redemption. It is not the job of theology to supply such a normative description and analysis; that account has been given to theology by revelation. Theology, then, must be a secondary description, a reinterpretation and reproclamation of Scripture, both of its propositional and nonpropositional content. Why do we need such a reinterpretation? To meet human needs. The job of theology is to help people understand the Bible better, not to give some sort of abstractly perfect account of the truth as such, regardless of whether anyone understands it or not. Rather, the job of theology is to teach people the truth of God (79).

One of the reasons, then, that we need to be careful of how much stress we place on the task of theology is because we are human. Scripture can and must be used confidently by us, but we must also maintain a posture of humility and recognize that "our theologies are not even the best formulation of truth-for-people for all times and places; Scripture is that. Our theologies are merely attempts to help people, generally and in specific times and places, to use Scripture better" (80).

And herein lies Frame's conception of application: doing theology means teaching in the biblical sense. He notes that the idea of teaching in the New Testament is "coupled with an adjective like hugiainos (healthy), or kalos (good or beautiful), or with some other indication that the teaching is conducive to spiritual health...it is not a narrowly intellectualist or academic discipline" (81). This means that, in contrast to a lot of today's preaching, we do not need separate the idea of the meaning and application of a text, but instead recognize that

every request for 'meaning' is a request for an application because whenever we ask for the 'meaning' of a passage we are expressing a lack in ourselves, an ignorance, an inability to use the passage. Asking for 'meaning' is asking for an application of Scripture to a need; we are asking Scripture to remedy that lack, that ignorance, that inability. Similarly, every request for an 'application' is a request for meaning; the one who asks doesn't understand the passage well enough to use it for himself (83).

If we devote ourselves to the work of theology, we are not setting out to discover the truth, but we are serving the people of God with the truth that has already been revealed. That is why, Frame concludes, "it is best to say that the basis of theology is the Word of God. There is no other discipline or body of knowledge that mediates between the Word and the theologian" (88). Any conception of theology that is either too subjective or too objective ultimately undermines the authority of Scripture. Our theology is to help to renew, transform, and mold the hearts of those who seek to live their life in Christ and to bring them to a fuller understanding of and love for his Word. Nothing more, nothing less.