I've been spending some time reading quite a bit of an emerging blog I'd not come across before. I know, I've been black-listed by many of you now.. ;-)
Mark Berry has graciously let me comment there, and one of the things that came up in conversation is my disdain for the emerging approach to theology, which will come as no surprise to regular readers.
I said that I found much of it incoherent and that if you couldn't explain theolgy to my dad, it was just elitist bobbins. Let me explain that a little, lest you think I am an anti-intellectual book-burner.
I believe it is entirely right and proper to go to seminary and learn deep and important theology. But if you could not, upon leaving seminary, explain those concepts to my father, were he a member of your congregation, then what on earth good would it do to have your head stuffed full of incomprehensible blobble?
Scholarship, in and of itself, right down to 'I've-written-a-bookism' has no higher claim to understand the things of God than my grandmother who prayed everyday for my father's soul.
I've explained a solid concept like salvation to my father before now. He has, so far, rejected it. If I were to start talking to him about journeys and paradigm shifts, he'd think I was now not only 'religious' but also 'out-of-my-gourd-mad'. He attended our wedding at our old church, which was, by any stretch of the imagination, a fairly good example of an emerging church. He thought it was a cult, bless him.
I have great, great respect for those of my brothers and sisters who have and are studying theology. I believe they are vital to the continued health of the church as a whole. But the deepest of theology only requires a good communicator to unlock it to a different mind - else I fear you have created a new gnosticism of 'hidden' knowledge for the few.
9/26/2006
Theology is rubbish
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 joining in the spirit of things:
I think the truly gifted theologian will be able to take deep truths and make them understandable to those who are not trained.
I want to suggest a 'yes' and a 'no' to the need for theology to be presentable to the layperson. Any theology that gets preached from the pulpit clearly should be understandable - that's what pulpits are for.
As for scholastic theology, I'm a bit waffling. You're right - theology that is incomprehenisble is useless. But, then again, so is any pure science. I mean face it, does anyone really understand the complexities of quantum physics? That said, *even if proved wrong* the task of approaching the theology can provide leaping off points for scholars that are, in the end of much more use. C.S. Lewis' 'The Abolition of Man,' for instance, starts off from some downright pernicious theological reflection. In highlighting the flaws of their so-called logic, Lewis makes some truly profound (and frankly more comprehenisble) points about 'men without chests' that has helped me understand Christ better.
So, while I'll admit that esoteric theology isn't something you'd want to show your dad, I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say it's useless. It's useless to 99% of the population, to be sure, but it may be just the foil the truly brilliant theologian needs to bring something to the rest of us.
God has revealed Himself in Christ. He has presented the good news in all it's simplicity. 2 Cor 11:3
I agree, that an theologian must be able to express the simplicity of Christ crucified (1 Cor. 1:23) and risen. And it should come forth from a heart of passion and humility.
There are deep things that children may not be able to drink, but all Scripture is to be read, studied, and meditated upon.
The milk of the Word is always good, even for the most mature saint.
The gospel is the power.
Yes... and going even further in just explaining it... theology is far more worthless if we fail to live out what we know is true. To know it, one must also seek, by the grace of God alone, to live it. To live it for His glory is to truly understand it. Even the grandest theologian must be teachable... when he stops being a humble student of the Word, he fails to understand.
We do need to be careful of intellectual elitism.
Sometimes in the rarified air of scholarship there isn't enough oxygen, and the lungs cannot breath out what the head has stored in...
There's probably a difference between theologians who reverently study the truth, who might learn more than the average believer, compared to theologians who're only in the business for intellectual stimulation (or whatever!)
I'm thinking of eg Samuel Rutherford and Hugh Martin as examples of the first category [Scottish theologians, 1600s and 1800s respectively] - even if/when they couldn't explain things clearly they presumably grew in grace themselves, but in fact the reason why they're still known and read is cos they did explain things for the average believer. I would agree tho that it's not much use storing up knowledge for its own sake (even knowledge of the truth), because the biggest danger of all is that 'knowledge puffeth up!' -- knowledge has to be translated into practice, if it's to do anyone any good ... the crucial 18 inches from your head to your heart...
Maybe on the other hand, those 'theologians' who specialise in unscriptural theology really depend on their obscure theories and pomo extravagancies, cos if they did say straight out what they believed and made the implications of it plain for the man on the street, it would only refute itself and make them look a bit silly ...
... my 2p anyway
within the context you supplied, I agree. Eccentric Expositors comment is excellent. It is to read you again. I am...
...grateful for grace.
I meant to say it is "GOOD" to read you again!#:<)
Post a Comment