Why Theology?

Shawn Warnsley has an excellent posting over at his blog entitled "Everything is Theology." Here is the list of reasons he gives for why theology is important:

So, what’s so great about theology? I’ll ditch the research paper format in favor of the homily, and let you have it in three parts like any good preacher would. If you behave, I’ll even throw in a poem and alliterate the points. Deal?

1) Theology Inspires Curiosity
Theology didn’t earn the moniker ”Queen of the Sciences,” because church leaders needed some impressive sounding nom de guerre for the culture wars. The title was bestowed upon her, because theology in its true form drives the curiosity of the human mind. In the Middle Church, theology inspired churchmen from all walks of life to pursue knowledge of God through His creation. Tony Hunt rightly points to the fact that, “Theology is uniquely equipped to speak to most academic and truth-seeking conversations in an infinitely inter-disciplinary way.” I would offer that this is so precisely because theology predicates most of these conversations, in at least intent. Many early breakthroughs in math, science, et al were had at the hands of men who studied their respective fields alongside theology. Theology properly derived and rightly practiced will fuel the human imagination and temper the ego of men in a way that lends to the discovery of truth in other academic fields. It offers peace in the fear of new and unknown discoveries, it offers creativity and inspiration in the midst of traditional worldviews, and it offers boldness in the face of disputation. In fact, I would say that theology demands we seek out truth through every means available. This quality, I believe, is precisely what some (again, both within and without) are trying to avoid in disavowing theology. Theology drives us to the heart of who God is and that “heart” is irrevocably tied to the nature of truth. However, it is truth that stands apart from humanity – a truth that extends from the transcendent God and encompasses humanity as a member of the very creation it seeks to understand.

2) Theology Initiates Response
I reject most complaints that theology is necessarily flawed, due to its reliance on human reasoning as an intellectual endeavor, because this view misunderstands genuine theology in a fundamental way. Theology, correctly conceived and accurately applied, will necessarily lead to action. In fact, everyone lives out a theology every day. Whether they can articulate that theology in a meaningful way is another issue entirely. This, I suspect, is the real issue behind those that want to attack theological inquiry from without. There seems to be a rampant assumption that an unrecognised or unsophisticated theology is no theology at all. Sadly, our world is full of examples that demonstrate how dangerous bad theology is to all of creation. Before I go into full rant, though, let me just back up and reiterate the important point: you are not really a theologian unless the theology you talk is the theology you walk. Unfortunately, many opponents of religious faith understand this dynamic better than many Christians. There is an inherent national interest at stake in any religious expression by people – namely, the Church of Jesus Christ is a theological entity that transcends nationality and crosses government borders. It demands allegiance from its adherents, and is united (or at least it should be) under one Lord and one agenda. It stands at once in favor of all life, virtue, and truth and against human vice of all varieties, especially those commonly perpetrated by governments. While this is a deep mine to explore, it will have to suffice to say that we should bother with theology, because theology directs the hearts and actions of people.

3) Theology Infers Necessity
The problem with rejecting Theology on the basis of its intellectual nature lies in the fact that such a rejection requires not only intellectual reasoning but also a clearly defined Theology. How deliciously ironic, no? And so, it seems, there exists no prospect to opt out of theology. There is no possibility for the absence of theology; there is only good theology and bad theology. Consequently, I am of the opinion that theology is a kind of self-perpetuating phenomenon. The burden, then, lies with those obtuse wizards of the Word that have hidden in libraries and universities for too long. If the Church has lost contact with theology, it is our fault. It is time for the incarnation to inform our theology again. God’s greatest expression of himself to humanity was in an embodied form. Does anything in life get any more beautiful or nuanced than the loving relationships we have with family and friends? What better way do we have than to live out, to participate in the Church’s theology with those friends and family?

When Does Debating Theology Become Wrong?

Arminian Today asks: "When Does Debating Theology Become Wrong?"

I believe his answer to this question is great and worth a look:

So when does debating theology become wrong or sinful?
1) When I lose my zeal for Jesus and become zealous for my theological positions.
2) When I forsake evangelism for debating other believers.
3) When I isolate myself from all others because I think I'm right and everyone else is wrong (Proverbs 18:1 NKJV).
4) When I begin to view the Bible as a textbook to be studied instead of God's inspired Word meant to transform me into His image (Romans 12:1-2).
5) When I fail to be a 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 disciple especially toward those of the household of faith.
6) When I would rather read a theologian above praying and seeking God's face.
7) When the Gospel becomes synonymous with my theological positions or with my favorite Bible teacher.
8) When I begin to filtrate what I see or read by the words of a preacher or Bible teacher instead of with Scripture itself.
9) When I know more quotes by a theologian or by a book I've read than from the Bible itself.
10) When 150,000 people die each day and that doesn't break my heart because I am too busy studying my theological positions.
11) When I treat people in the world with more respect than with my own fellow disciples even with whom I disagree.

Interesting Links

OutsideTheBox: John MacArthur: "The evolutionary lie ..."

http://drjimsthinkingshop.com/2009/10/23/whats-so-bad-about-the-conservative-bible-project/

Biblia Hebraica: Creation in Rabbinic Literature

A God-Sized Puzzle: Dr. Seuss Bible

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religionandtheology/1918/the_conservative_bible_project%3A_looking_for_conservative_diamonds_in_a_liberal_dung-hill/

http://juliamobrien.net/index.php/blog/the-sacrifice-of-isaac-in-visual-art-and-poetry.html

Sandwalk: Are You a Descedant of Charlemagne?

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/10/human-sexuality-and-the-image-of-god-text-and-context.html

Ponderings on a Faith Journey: The Early Preaching of Karl Barth -- Review

Abandon Image: Sometimes It's Easier to Worship at a U2 Concert Than At Church....

Thanks to Dr. McGrath for sharing these on his Google Reader.

Things Of Interest

See: Exploring Our Matrix: A Load Of Skubalon? What the Sheol?!.

A transgendered minister speaks out about revealing his secret to his congregation---see video: here.

New discovery made in the field of evolutionary science:

Earliest Human Ancestor Unveiled A Million Years Before 'Lucy,' There Was 'Ardi'
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP
posted: 1 HOUR 49 MINUTES AGOcomments: 112filed under: Animal News, Science News
PRINT|E-MAILMOREText SizeAAA

WASHINGTON (Oct. 1) -- The story of humankind is reaching back another million years as scientists learn more about "Ardi," a hominid who lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia.
The 110-pound, 4-foot female roamed forests a million years before the famous Lucy, long studied as the earliest skeleton of a human ancestor.
This older skeleton reverses the common wisdom of human evolution, said anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University.

(Read more: Here).

On Socialism and Capitalism and Theology

Here's part of an interesting post from Wes Ellis' Blog---Living In The Kingdom:

Both Capitalism and Socialism fail to dream theologically about work. Both views primarily relate work to money (wage-labor) and not to creation, thus we fail to see ourselves as co-creators with God and we deceive ourselves into understanding our work and ourselves as commodities for the production of wealth. I find it interesting that the second you criticize capitalism, People think you'd prefer socialism, people call you a socialist (or even a communist). I think this reality is a testimony to our apparent lack of imagination. Can't we do better, can't we try harder than both of these systemic options. Can't we come together in love and work together to give life and harmony for the sake of creation and not only for the sake of capital.

Too often we are alienated from the productivity of our work. It's just for money, so what we're actually producing, what we're contributing to the world becomes second (if that) when it should be of primary importance. Rather than finding ourselves alive in our work, offering life through our time and energy, we find ourselves experiencing a sort of death from which we can only escape in our "time off."

(Read On: Here).

Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

See also: TheoPoetic Musings: Flaws Of Communism And Capitalism.

New Doctor Who And Theology

Doctor Who and the Theology of Identity
By Abigail L. Sines

I admit it: I’m a sci-fi fan. I wouldn’t go so far as to call myself a sci-fi “geek;” I don’t think I’m technical enough for that. For me the realm of sci-fi is interesting and entertaining because it allows so much latitude to explore what it is to be human: We learn about ourselves when we encounter what is different. In the imaginary worlds of sci-fi there are infinite possibilities to explore human identity.
Plus, today’s CGI and special effects produce some spectacularly cool-looking aliens and interstellar shoot-em-ups! This is fun.



Star Trek has always been my sci-fi flavor of choice and it was always the conflicted characters that captured my fancy: Mr. Spock balancing his human and Vulcan halves; Lt. Worf, a Klingon, making his way through the ranks of Starfleet; Lt. Commander Data, an android, making forays into the world of human emotions; even the holographic doctor in the Voyager series coming “alive” through his increasingly complex and personal interactions with the rest of the crew.
Recently I’ve taken to watching the latest version of the BBC Doctor Who franchise, featuring David Tennant as the 10th Doctor. (If you care to watch the last couple of years of Doctor Who on DVD in the U.S., you're looking for sets labeled “Third Series” and “Fourth Series.”)
Tennant masterfully presents a quirky, boisterous, and witty Doctor. Who could resist the ongoing battle between good and evil in a universe still plagued by vintage Daleks and Cybermen? Like a bad penny, they just keep turning up. Those ‘70s era robotic designs and digitized “exterminate” and “delete” refrains seem clunky by today’s slick sci-fi standards, yet they still manage to embody evil. But, I'm most interested in the Doctor’s interaction with his human companions, all women: Rose Tyler, Martha Jones, and Donna Noble.
The Doctor is fascinated by humans. Yes, us. You see, the Doctor really is a lonely Time Lord with all of time and space at his doorstep thanks to his faithful TARDIS contraption (shaped like a telephone booth on the outside). The Doctor is so far advanced beyond humans that he almost seems omnipotent by comparison—yet, at times, he seems quite in awe of us. He remarks on the human inclination for curiosity, exploration and survival.

...

But this current version of Doctor Who is far more than a sci-fi action flick. Yes, there’s a lot of fun and high adventure in these episodes—but there are deeper questions as well.
In fact, when the human John Smith is confronted with giving up his life to resume the Doctor’s cosmic duties, he is not pleased. In one scene, he cries out: “I’m John Smith…that’s all I want to be…John Smith. With his life and his job and his love. Why can’t I be John Smith? Isn’t he a good man?”

The climax of the drama is remarkably gripping. One schoolboy looks to Smith as an important mentor in his life, describing his beloved teacher this way: “He’s like fire and ice and rage. He’s like a knight and a storm in the heart of the sun…. He’s ancient and forever and burns at the center of the universe…. And he’s wonderful.”
John Smith realizes that he is being asked to make the ultimate sacrifice: He is being asked to die so that the Doctor can resume his bodily existence and foil the plans of the Family. As he holds the watch in his hand, he pleads desperately for a way out, “I should have thought of it before, I can give them this, just the watch…. Then they can leave earth and I can stay as I am.”
I won’t spoil the plot by revealing more, but the script is pointing at larger theological reflections.

As I watched these scenes, I thought of Psalm 139: “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well” (vs. 14). The psalmist marvels that humans are the object of God’s attention, that God even takes note of us: “When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (vs. 14b–15). The psalmists reaches out to God: “How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand” (vs. 17–18).
These themes echo throughout the Bible. Read Ecclesiastes, 3:11: “He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” Or, think of Romans 11:33: “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!” These biblical writers are grappling with the mystery and perfection of divine love—and human limitation within that divine relationship. “For we know in part…but when perfection come, the imperfect disappears…. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (I Corinthians 13:9,12).

(If I wetted your appetite, read the full article: Here).

Originally caught from Peter Wallace's Blog.

Interesting Stuff 2

On Theological Distinctions: Emerging vs. Liberal/Conservative Theology.

On Baptist Diversity: Doing Diversity Baptist Style Documents for Faith and Witness by Albert W. Wardin, Jr.

On American Church History: Lectures for Religion 166.

On Progressive Christianity: A NORMATIVE VIEW OF PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIANITY By John B. Cobb, Jr.

What Can We Know Of The Truth?

This is the biggest question of our day. Here is what John Armstrong with my thoughts (in italics) has to say about the subject:

"Propostional" Truth, "Objective" Truth and the Debate About What We Know and How We Know It

God chose to reveal himself ultimately through Jesus Christ. (I agree.) This does not mean, however, that he did not also use words. Jesus is the ultimate "truth" but this does not mean there is no other truth source. We encounter Christ via revelation but this comes through the Holy Scriptures. (I have to add this revelation through the scriptures happens via the Holy Spirit as Jesus is God's self-revelation to man and we encounter this Spirit in the scriptures through an act of the Divine Mediating Agent of Grace.) This involves both our mind and our heart. (And spirit.) I have said the same over and over again but some still think I am saying something that I am not saying thus they regularly challenge my approach to theology and truth. Several comments that have appeared recently on the posts made on this site have chosen to hear me only with an epistemology that is modern and, in my judgment, very flawed. It would take a course in epistemology to sort all this out and this is not the place to teach such a course. I would suggest the following readings with which I have a great degree of sympathy:

1. Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? James K. A. Smith (Baker)

2. How Postmodernism Serves (My) Faith, Crystal L. Downing (IVP)

3. The Myth of Certainty, Daniel Taylor (IVP)

4. Longing to Know: The Philosophy of Knowledge for Ordinary People, Esther Lightcap Meek (Brazos)

5. The Drama of Doctrine, Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Westminster/John Knox)

These books will give you a very good insight into how I am using terms and why philosophy cannot be divorced (entirely) from these commonly used words that we all assume have a meaning we completely agree upon as Christians.

There are two elephants in the room: truth and proposition. Truth, fundamentally, comes only from the One who is Truth. It is rooted in revelation. Human ideas never perfectly conform to that Truth, never. Truth is grace, truth comes by grace, never by reason. This is basic to my epistemology.

....
This indeed is the emerging paradigm that the church finds itself in. Read on:

Some who post have asked me a number of questions. I have provided a framework for my thought process, but not explicit answers. Am I dodging the questions. The tone of these posts suggests that I am. We are back to the notion that I am hiding something and thus I am dangerous.

Do I believe in inspiration? Of course I do. Do I believe the Bible is trustworthy? Most certainly. And where does anyone ever get the idea that I am suggesting we cannot rely upon written Scripture? I never asserted anything of the kind, not even close. The reason I do not answer all of these suspicious questions is that they reveal the questioner doesn't understand what I am actually saying and wants to prove me wrong by using a check list of various "objective" truths. We have a different theological method but I doubt we disagree about the core truths of Christianity at all. So why bother? For one reason, we need a more humble approach to knowing if we are to be effective in the world we now find ourselves in. (I am not calling my opponents arrogant people! Read the statement clearly.)

We can know God in Jesus Christ with deep assurance. We can know this with our minds and our hearts both. What I deny is the kind of certitude that is associated with modernistic philosophy, which is in the background of a great deal of "evangelical" epistemology, thus my repeated statements about "we" and so forth.

Again, I am happy to say more, time permitting, but interested and fair-minded readers can see that I am not denying the truth of confessional Christianity in the least but rather denying some of the ways we argue for it and about it. I reject the method of many conservatives, and their epistemology, but not the faith in any meaningful sense.

Read The Full Post: Here or Here.