1S8-11: What A Hamburger Can Teach You About Systematic Theology

Yesterday I shared the example of how modern systematic theology is a like a long high wall that attempts to neatly divide orthodoxy from heresy but how that model ultimately FAILS.

Today, using a hamburger, I wanna give you another example to further demonstrate modern systematic theology’s weaknesses.

So how would a systematic theologian attempt to establish orthodoxy for a hamburger?

Well, the first thing he would do is come up with a series of questions…maybe something like follows:

QUESTION: What is a hamburger made out of?

ANSWER: A cooked beef patty and a round bun.

So we have our first doctrine.

Doctrine #1 is that a hamburger must have a cooked beef patty and a round bun.

QUESTION: What is a hamburger eaten together with?

ANSWER: Well depending on the person, a hamburger can be eaten together with French fries, onion rings, coleslaw, salad, potato chips, mozzarella sticks and tater tots.  However, since most of the evidence is that hamburgers are eaten with French fries and since Systematic orthodoxy demands only one answer, we come to our second doctrine.

Doctrine # 2 is that a hamburger is served with French fries.

QUESTION: Where are hamburgers served?

ANSWER: Hamburgers are served at fast food restaurants, diners, food trucks, sports bars, pubs and even in some cafés and bistros. However, since most of the evidence is that hamburgers are eaten at fast food restaurants and since Systematic orthodoxy demands only one answer, we come to our third doctrine.

Doctrine # 3 is that a hamburger is served at a fast food restaurant.

QUESTION: What toppings are put on hamburgers?

ANSWER: Hamburgers are topped with lettuce, tomato, onions, pickles, cheese and the condiments ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise.  So now we have our fourth doctrine.

Doctrine # 4 is that hamburgers are topped with lettuce, tomato, onions, pickles, cheese and the condiments ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise.

So let’s stop here and put together our systematic theological definition of a hamburger based on what we’ve got so far.

It would go something like this:

“A hamburger is a cooked beef patty placed inside a bun seasoned with lettuce, tomato, onions, pickles, cheese and condiments such as ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise and eaten together with French fries at a fast food restaurant.”

Now let’s a imagine a conversation between a systematic theologian and a friend he met up with.

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGIAN: So what’d you have for lunch today?

FRIEND: I had a hamburger.

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGIAN: That sounds delicious!

FRIEND: It was.  The avocado was so tasty…

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGIAN: Avocado?  Burgers don’t have avocados in them.  How were the fries?

FRIEND: I wanted to go light on the carbs so I had a side salad instead.

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGIAN: What?!  You can’t do that!!!  Hamburgers are ALWAYS eaten together with French fries!!!  ALWAYS!  And hamburgers don’t have avocados in them.  You’re a hamburger heretic man!  A heretic!

FRIEND: Calm down homie.  I’ll eat whatever I want.

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGIAN: Fine!  Just don’t call what you ate a hamburger otherwise you’re attacking the deity of a hamburger.

Alrighty, so humor aside, this little hamburger analogy is actually quite representative of how Systematic Theology operates.

I’m serious.

Once the definitional parameters are set up (like at gatherings called the Nicene Council), there’s zero room for flexibility.

Based on our little concocted systematic theological definition of a hamburger, a burger with an avocado in it can’t be considered a hamburger.

What about if we decided to season our burger with salsa instead of ketchup and mustard?

No man, you can’t do that.

That’s heresy.

See what I mean about the weaknesses of modern Systematic Theology?

Now here’s what you’ve gots to understand.

This mindset was not…and I repeat was NOT how the ancient Hebrews nor how Judaism operated during Yeshua’s time when it came to discerning and establishing God’s truth as revealed in Scripture.

They recognized you couldn’t fit God and His Word into some predetermined box or categories.

They understood that for pretty much any topic presented to us in the Scriptures, there’s multiple aspects to it.

They didn’t choose only ONE of several aspects on a topic and discard the other aspects as being irrelevant because they didn’t agree with the main one choice.

Another problem is that after you’ve settled on the answers to let’s say the first 4 or 5 categorical questions, it limits your choices later on because an answer that doesn’t take the earlier conclusions into account will easily result in doctrines conflicting with each other.

This is total chaos…which is what we got in the Christian world anyway with their over 3000 different denominations each claiming to be the sole possessors of God’s Scriptural truth and each pointing fingers at each other as heretics.

It kind of reminds me of a conversation I had with someone about the so-called deity of Christ.

This guy shared a bunch of verses (his interpretation of those verses anyway) that he believed proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Yeshua was literally God the Father in human flesh.

Then when I wanted to share other Scriptures that I believe demonstrated otherwise, he said to me “Since Jesus is God, there ain’t no point in examining Scriptures that seem to say otherwise homie, because it’ll just lead to an incorrect interpretation”.