Skip to main content

Neat, comfortable theology

At a conversation over dinner last week, a Christian friend of mine was critical of "academic theology" - as in theology that's very neat, but theoretical - not relevant, not applied. He said it very gently & apologetically - 'coz he knows I'm academically inclined. But I told him not to worry. I share his annoyance.
Why do we want theology to be so neat? I suspect it's a safety thing. If it's neat but abstract, I feel comfortable both ways. It's neat, so I can say "I know God", "I have all the answers". But it's abstract, it's not applied. So I don't have to do anything about it. Least of all repent.
The solution is not to have messy theology. Confusion has no value in itself. If God really speaks through the Bible, which points to Jesus and his work, then we can clearly know things about God - ie, we can have a clear theology.
The solution, I think, is to clearly think through how this theology impacts us. Theology must be personal and doxological. That is, it must engage the whole person of the theologian, bringing the theologian to glorify God. Our theology won't be abstract, but evangelistic, doxological - it'll praise God, and call people who hear us to praise God as well.
But that means we will be perpetually uncomfortable. 'Coz our theology itself will keep prodding us, challenging us, calling us to repent. And that's not comfortable.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...
Post a Comment
Read more

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...
Post a Comment
Read more