Saturday 13 February 2010

What sort of theology do you use?

Seems to me that there are two ways of functioning theologically (three if you include ignoring theological dialogue with your situation!). These are:
  • Let the way we seek to live define our theology (and excuse/permit our life choices), or
  • Let our theology define the way we live.
It is so very easy to make our life choices and then edit (or re-interpret or revise) that which we find in the Bible to support these choices. In so doing we can also introduce spin and confusion in equal measure into the equation such that we can ask questions that have little bearing or relevance on the topic before us such that they form a smokescreen which enables us to continue in our choices. A sort of ad hominem for Bible words!

It is so very difficult for us to make our life choices in the light of our theological understanding, especially if we would wish to have the garland of 'orthodoxy' adorning our existence and values. If we have a desire to engage in what the Bible tells us is sin then we would find this a tough choice - I know I do!

The problem is that I meet people who are engaged in what I would consider to be 'sin' and yet they tell me that they can prove that it is not with the aid of a convenient (contextually, textually and linguistically incorrect) prooftext. The hermeneutic is not fixed but is more fluid and the meaning is well and truly lost in the mix. That said, I meet others who offer equally incorrect and misappropriated prooftexts to display their righteousness and the errors of the naughty people.

I, like one of my commentators, strive to let my theology 'drive the answer' and I find that the answer I have differs from friends (and enemies) at times, yet they tell me that they are doing the same, which adds to the confusion and the debate! BUT I enjoy the debate and am aware that if we are patient with one another there is often knowledge to be gained, peace to be maintained and sometimes (only sometimes though) an outcome which is undeniable and which demands our compliance (however painful and self-denying it might be).

I hope I never try to 'gloss over existing opinions' but (always) engage openly and without guile or malice in the debate with truth and Biblical fidelity and authentic and honest Christian living as the result, This is my goal and the goal (and hope) I have for those whom I pastor. Sometimes the 'existing options' are easily sorted into right or wrong and sometimes we find the 'Perhaps' or 'whatever' (a more modern viewpoint ;)).

Where I find others in error, generally, I hope to embody Paul's words from Galatians in that I will seek to restore those caught in sin 'gently' and I hope that this is the treatment I will receive when I am obviously fallen and in need of love, forgiveness and restoration. This is not to gloss over or condone error. It is not to be afraid to say clearly that I believe their views and actions to be contrary to what Scripture demands. But I cannot condemn nor judge, for I am told (in Matt 7) that the manner in which I judge will set the standards by which I too am judged and that the specks in the eyes of others are outside the scope of my beam-filled eyes. Not only that, but this is the LORD's prerogative and, regardless of how right I might think I am, not mine.

That said, Ezekiel calls me to be a watchman and as Ps 127 tells me, the LORD builds the house and watches over the show too, without this reality how can I build church or function in my duties on watch? But I must not neglect my duties lest those who are engaged in something which is 'unto death' continue unabated because I fail to raise the alarm (now, there's the real reason for us to see to offer correction, isn't it? Well, that and the fact that if we fail to raise the alarm and offer correction we not only fail to save a life but forfeit our own - now there's a motivating thought for us all!).

I will tell whoever will listen that it is folly to condone that which God condemns and it is self-defeating to endeavour to make Church look like the world so that the world will see it as 'safe' and 'attractive' for in fact it merely becomes an object of distaste to God and a source of contempt and ridicule to the world. It does not add to our numbers but has the opposite effect.
 
I will call to those who portray themselves a champions for the Lord and yet fail to stand, running away, when the going get tough, and call them cowards and rebuke them for their duplicity and dishonesty.

So, which theology do you prefer - one that portrays you as right in this world or that which confers righteousness upon you for eternity?

Pax

5 comments:

Judah said...

Wow, Vic! So well said.

Helegant said...

Your stress on integrity and authenticity, in the forms in which we find and express it, is a good one, and we agree on that.
Where we differ, I think, is in the model that suggests there is one 'correct' reading of Scripture - which I find to be multi-layered and rounded.
To take one example: The story of Abraham and Isaac is usually explained from the perspective of the man with the weapon of destruction - Abraham. But there is another way of looking at the story - from the perspective of the bound and helpless child. And if we ask, "Where is the mother? What does God have to say to her?", we learn yet more - even from silence. Each view give us a different insight into the nature of God, and looking differently gives us a richer theological base.
After debating for at least 20 minutes in the bath this morning, I came to the conclusion that I agree with this, "If Christ's church is truly universal, it is obvious that many of those in the next pew, or across the debating chamber, will be un-like-minded - presumably to be improved by contact with us. There is just the possibility, however, that the lesson is meant to go in the other direction" Church Times Leader 12/2/2010

Vic Van Den Bergh said...

I think there is more than one interpretation of the Abraham and Isaac story and having never seen it purely as being 'explained from the perspective of the man with the weapon of destruction - Abraham' but from the God's perspective and a type of the sacrificial offering of His own Son.

I understand what you're saying but we have to be careful that in explaining the story from a different perspective that we do not engage in flights of fancy, extrapolation and sanctified error.

A 'for instance'. I once sat through a sermon where the person told the Prodigal son story from the perspective of the prodigal's Mother. It was a complete load of tosh (see I am getting redeemed!!) and yet the congregation went off with thoughts and perspectives which were not only extra-Biblical but misleading and diminishment of the original account.

We can't ask 'where is the mother' without inviting the opportunity to engage in fiction and misleading, self-generated (I've heard so many Mary and Martha sermons - the majority were self-indulgent fantasies based on twentieth century attitudes and personal niggles.

We don't have the right to do that, but we do have a duty to think around the passage -but we still do not have the right. This is one of the means by which I see so much error is being introduced.

I agree that we will always find difference, after all look at the Sadducees and Pharisees, can't get a bigger disagreement that over a bodily resurrection perhaps! I am of the opinion that wise men often disagree where fools seldom differ (or so my Mum used ti say) - differing is good, heresy and supporting error is not = this is why we preach and study and pray and teach and examine ourselves and keep on praying.

Thanks both

Helegant said...

Yes, ‘God's perspective and a type of the sacrificial offering of His own Son’ is the logical development of Abraham’s perspective, and most preachers get there at some stage in the sermon.
I’m definitely not advocating putting in words that are not there – it grates when I hear other people doing it, but often they don’t realise they are doing so because their life-spectacles are so firmly fixed. One example of this practice is the number of times preachers say that the Samaritan woman in John 4 was a prostitute (which is not in the text), completely missing the ‘well’ motif of earlier betrothal stories which are there in preceding texts. Might there just be a little cultural conditioning showing itself there?

If a ‘flight of fancy’ is the same as using our imagination to step experientially into the story then I think that’s valid as one means of preparation, and of challenging our assumptions. Therefore I do think I can ask, “Where is the mother?” because the absence of her, the silence, is part of the story. Music consists of the silences between the notes as well as the sounds.

So friend, long may we differ :-). Hope to see you next week, H.

Vic Van Den Bergh said...

I think it's essential to engage with the passage before us and 'stepping experientially' into it is an excellent practice (read Brueggeman - can't think differently :)).

The problem comes when our experiential and imaginative delving become the stuff we preach such that they subjugate the meaning and text of the passage on which we're preaching.

thanks - enjoy the week!