All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Warning: I realize I am writing this out of frustration, which means I should set it aside for a day or two before posting. Obviously I neglected to take my own advice.
Right now I am working my way through two different books on genetics, ethics, and faith. One was commissioned by a mainline Protestant denomination and includes representatives of that denomination who work in a variety of disciplines. The other includes representatives across denominational lines and disciplines, but generally people who have a Christian faith orientation.
The chapters by the professional theologians (seminary professors, pastors, denominational officers) run the highest risk of being the least interesting, least helpful, and most likely to leave me discouraged. When I see a seminary designation, I find myself getting ready for – nothing at all.
I hate that. One of the reasons I read is the anticipation of something happening!
I don’t mean to indict them all. But for some reason, theologians, particularly from mainline denominations, seem to have the least confidence in quoting their most important books and authors. The most egregious example thus far was a seminary professor who talked about God, about the Bible, about John Calvin and the Reformers, but never actually quoted any of them or even provided references or footnotes. And then he made all of them (God included) subordinate in authority to his understanding of evolution. And his understanding of evolution wasn’t that good, either, or at least not articulated in a way that I found worth entertaining. It was all very light and fluffy on a massively important subject.
So, I didn’t know how to engage his thinking on either his assertions about God or about evolution. And he teaches in a seminary (that was the discouraging part).
So far, the scientists in these books don’t seem to have that problem. For example, a department chair of Biology quoted scripture throughout her chapter, along with references to arguments from the science of genetics that she unpacked in a helpful way. It was interesting, had a point of view, referenced a variety of other authors, scientists and researchers, and concluded with a call to action. I didn’t agree with all of it, but it was worth the time to read and I learned something. She really cared about the subject matter.
Similarly, theologians who reference the Bible and actually quote it, present an argument, invite me to think about that argument, and actually seem to think the Bible is worth engaging are far more likely to hold my interest and receive my respect. Frequently I don’t agree – I freely and enthusiastically embrace the sovereignty of God, and that is a hard thing for most people. But if they care about and reference the Bible, even if they disagree with what God says about himself in it, they at least demonstrate that the book is worth engaging.
After all, they’ve spent a good part of their lives earning the credentials to write, speak and teach on matters of faith; shouldn’t there be something in the Bible that interests them enough to reference it specifically?
So, I am tempted to create a new rule for myself (which I will no doubt immediately break upon making it): when a theologian is writing a chapter or article or book that includes a discussion of faith or assertions about the nature and character of God, I am going to skim it to see if there is any direct reference to scripture, any scripture at all. If not, I’m not going to bother to read it.
God in his word says that “all scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching. . .” That seems like a pretty good reason to reference scripture!
Am I being unfair? What do you think?
The Works of God 
I think the point you make is good. Theologians (those who study God) should bleed Bible (the revelation of God). If they do not, then perhaps they are not studying God after all. Then we should refer to them a “me-ologians” instead of theologians.
I’m with you on this, John. But as you point out, it might be a nearly impossible rule to follow, just practically speaking – oh well. But the thinking is sound, from my vantage point, and I LOVE the passion with which you state your point, and I wholeheartedly agree!
I would put your point like this (if I may, in my own words): If a theologian has written a book about God (or a related systematic category of Christianity, which is inherently and necessarily also about God), then it is entirely reasonable to expect that he has engaged, and then quotes, and then obviously cites the Book from which we garner all such knowledge. If he doesn’t do these things, then it is completely reasonable for a reasonable Christian to simply put his book down and move on to someone who shows consistency in the simplest of things – i.e., a theologian who actually quotes and engages with the Book of the God about whom he claims to be writing.
Seems simple enough to me!