Senior 34: Theology
About a month ago, I mentioned "angst" and "anxiety" and the "knight of faith." I've continued to reflect about related issues. Here are some of my thoughts and conclusions (if you have the patience to read through them). Thank you to those who have helped me to puzzle through these things so far.
A number of different lines of thought have converged recently with interesting results:
(1) Heidegger, in his essay on Metaphysics, articulates the idea that philosophy, properly conducted, does not only consist in asking the proper questions, but is characterized by a kind of disposition. Broadly speaking, that disposition is one in which the relevance and consequence of the questions being asked is keenly felt and becomes a part of the process of answering it.
(2) Kierkegaard says something similar with regard to questions about God. He contrasts the objective and subjective approaches. To ask the question, "Does God exist?" as if in the context of an academic discussion, where the questioner is insulated from the consequences of his/her response to that question, that is the objective approach and false. The true way of asking the question, for Kierkegaard, is from the subjective perspective wherein the questioner is acutely aware of the import of the answer and every moment of uncertainty, before the issue is resolved, is agony because to die in uncertainty or falsehood is damnation.
(3) During a Paper Discussion on Open Theism (25 October 2006), a great deal of attention was given to the issue of biblical interpretation. Dr. Keen made a very interesting comment that has remained with me since then; he pointed out the importance of keeping in mind that the Scriptures were written in the context of a "worshipping people."
(4) He (Dr. Keen) is also, I think, fairly well-known for saying interesting things like, "Make your papers a prayer to God." (loose paraphrase)
(5) Dr. LeRon Shults spoke on 13 & 14 November 2006 as part of the Faith Integration Lecture Series. One of the recurring themes in his writing and speaking is what he refers to as "the delightful and terrifying task of theology."
(6) Dallas Willard, in his book, Hearing God, seeks to lead people into an interactive, personal, dynamic relationship with God.
(7) Dr. Baloian has emphasized in our class, Life and Teachings of Jesus (Synoptic Gospels), that Jesus was a masterful teacher and demonstrated this by His uncanny ability to speak directly to the condition and situations of His audience. He did not get distracted by theological, speculative diversions; the praise of people, the crowds' expectations, or threats to His life. Instead, He spoke to people's hearts, spoke to their immediate felt and unfelt needs, He reached into the most sensitive parts of people's lives, touched nerves, challenged assumptions and conventions, and generally astonished people with His remarkable discernment and insight.
(8) The absolute indispensability of the Holy Spirit for effective ministry is another recurring theme in Dr. Baloian's lectures.
(9) If memory serves (and, in this case, it may not) Barth describes certain ways of speaking of God (viz. theology) as blasphemy. (I need to review my readings on Contemporary Christian Thought.)
(10) Much of contemporary and post-modern theology seems to be characterized by a general disillusionment with traditional systematic theology.
(11) Critical minds are quick to point out, not altogether-illegitimately, that the scribes, Pharisees, priests, and Sadducees--the religious leadership of first-century Israel--failed to recognize the messiah, God-incarnate, Jesus Christ. For all their study of the Scriptures and religious devotion, they missed the most important event in the history of the world unfolding in their midst.
What conclusions are to (or can) be drawn from this? (I realize that the connections between these various elements may not be, at all, clear to anyone but me. But a full explanation would be prohibitively lengthy.)
Some of my initial reactions included:
(1) A renewed appreciation for the need to make Christ the center of my life and ministry, and a renewed commitment to prayer, Bible study, and the properly-motivated exercise of spiritual disciplines.
(2) Questions about my career path--whether I should go into religious studies, Biblical studies, or, possibly, some form of Christian ministry.
(3) A greater openness to relational and post-modern forms of theology that attempt to take seriously God's personal nature.
(4) A deep questioning about my ability to do theology or philosophy in any coherent, meaningful, consistent way.
(5) Wondering about whether anything like broad, blanket, overarching, umbrella, universal, or all-inclusive defining statements about God and His character are appropriate.
(6) Uncertainty about how human beings can talk about, think about, or, in any substantial sense, understand a God who is wholly Other and cannot be confined to human categories.
(By the way, not all the preceding are bad in and of themselves, though their roots may be suspect.)
Then I listened to part of a lecture on Western Civilization by John Mark Reynolds of Biola University and talked to my dad for a bit. And this is what I concluded.
(1) The critique of theology (we'll deal with theology specifically for the moment) that is summed up in the preceding seems to amount to a criticism of theology-as-a-game. It represents a dissatisfaction with a treatment of the most important questions and issues and entities of reality that reduces them all to expressions in an equation that are manipulable by anyone--even an atheist. There is a suspicion in today, that the doctrines, prescriptions, proscriptions, and tenets of traditional theology amount to nothing more than these dry, academic, irrelevant-to-and-for-real-life conclusions. Systematic theology is perceived as an attempt to put God in a box and define His attributes so rigorously that, pretty soon, "Theology defines God," rather than, "God defines theology."
(2) But as thorough and even perceptive, as its critique may be, the dissolution of systematic theology is not the solution. Neither is the abandonment of traditional Christian doctrines, disciplines, or practices. God is bigger than our ideas of Him--this is true, but that does not mean that we should attempt to cease having ideas of Him. Instead, we should be open to His constantly revising and expanding our ideas of Him. We must allow Scripture to read and work in and transform us. We must entreat the Holy Spirit, at all times and in all things, to guide us. We must follow God in obedience whenever we hear His calling. We must act on our faith and beliefs and convictions.
God's desire, after all, is that we should know Him.
-----
Well, that's more than enough for now. Happy Thanksgiving everyone! God bless!
-----
God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.
A number of different lines of thought have converged recently with interesting results:
(1) Heidegger, in his essay on Metaphysics, articulates the idea that philosophy, properly conducted, does not only consist in asking the proper questions, but is characterized by a kind of disposition. Broadly speaking, that disposition is one in which the relevance and consequence of the questions being asked is keenly felt and becomes a part of the process of answering it.
(2) Kierkegaard says something similar with regard to questions about God. He contrasts the objective and subjective approaches. To ask the question, "Does God exist?" as if in the context of an academic discussion, where the questioner is insulated from the consequences of his/her response to that question, that is the objective approach and false. The true way of asking the question, for Kierkegaard, is from the subjective perspective wherein the questioner is acutely aware of the import of the answer and every moment of uncertainty, before the issue is resolved, is agony because to die in uncertainty or falsehood is damnation.
(3) During a Paper Discussion on Open Theism (25 October 2006), a great deal of attention was given to the issue of biblical interpretation. Dr. Keen made a very interesting comment that has remained with me since then; he pointed out the importance of keeping in mind that the Scriptures were written in the context of a "worshipping people."
(4) He (Dr. Keen) is also, I think, fairly well-known for saying interesting things like, "Make your papers a prayer to God." (loose paraphrase)
(5) Dr. LeRon Shults spoke on 13 & 14 November 2006 as part of the Faith Integration Lecture Series. One of the recurring themes in his writing and speaking is what he refers to as "the delightful and terrifying task of theology."
(6) Dallas Willard, in his book, Hearing God, seeks to lead people into an interactive, personal, dynamic relationship with God.
(7) Dr. Baloian has emphasized in our class, Life and Teachings of Jesus (Synoptic Gospels), that Jesus was a masterful teacher and demonstrated this by His uncanny ability to speak directly to the condition and situations of His audience. He did not get distracted by theological, speculative diversions; the praise of people, the crowds' expectations, or threats to His life. Instead, He spoke to people's hearts, spoke to their immediate felt and unfelt needs, He reached into the most sensitive parts of people's lives, touched nerves, challenged assumptions and conventions, and generally astonished people with His remarkable discernment and insight.
(8) The absolute indispensability of the Holy Spirit for effective ministry is another recurring theme in Dr. Baloian's lectures.
(9) If memory serves (and, in this case, it may not) Barth describes certain ways of speaking of God (viz. theology) as blasphemy. (I need to review my readings on Contemporary Christian Thought.)
(10) Much of contemporary and post-modern theology seems to be characterized by a general disillusionment with traditional systematic theology.
(11) Critical minds are quick to point out, not altogether-illegitimately, that the scribes, Pharisees, priests, and Sadducees--the religious leadership of first-century Israel--failed to recognize the messiah, God-incarnate, Jesus Christ. For all their study of the Scriptures and religious devotion, they missed the most important event in the history of the world unfolding in their midst.
What conclusions are to (or can) be drawn from this? (I realize that the connections between these various elements may not be, at all, clear to anyone but me. But a full explanation would be prohibitively lengthy.)
Some of my initial reactions included:
(1) A renewed appreciation for the need to make Christ the center of my life and ministry, and a renewed commitment to prayer, Bible study, and the properly-motivated exercise of spiritual disciplines.
(2) Questions about my career path--whether I should go into religious studies, Biblical studies, or, possibly, some form of Christian ministry.
(3) A greater openness to relational and post-modern forms of theology that attempt to take seriously God's personal nature.
(4) A deep questioning about my ability to do theology or philosophy in any coherent, meaningful, consistent way.
(5) Wondering about whether anything like broad, blanket, overarching, umbrella, universal, or all-inclusive defining statements about God and His character are appropriate.
(6) Uncertainty about how human beings can talk about, think about, or, in any substantial sense, understand a God who is wholly Other and cannot be confined to human categories.
(By the way, not all the preceding are bad in and of themselves, though their roots may be suspect.)
Then I listened to part of a lecture on Western Civilization by John Mark Reynolds of Biola University and talked to my dad for a bit. And this is what I concluded.
(1) The critique of theology (we'll deal with theology specifically for the moment) that is summed up in the preceding seems to amount to a criticism of theology-as-a-game. It represents a dissatisfaction with a treatment of the most important questions and issues and entities of reality that reduces them all to expressions in an equation that are manipulable by anyone--even an atheist. There is a suspicion in today, that the doctrines, prescriptions, proscriptions, and tenets of traditional theology amount to nothing more than these dry, academic, irrelevant-to-and-for-real-life conclusions. Systematic theology is perceived as an attempt to put God in a box and define His attributes so rigorously that, pretty soon, "Theology defines God," rather than, "God defines theology."
(2) But as thorough and even perceptive, as its critique may be, the dissolution of systematic theology is not the solution. Neither is the abandonment of traditional Christian doctrines, disciplines, or practices. God is bigger than our ideas of Him--this is true, but that does not mean that we should attempt to cease having ideas of Him. Instead, we should be open to His constantly revising and expanding our ideas of Him. We must allow Scripture to read and work in and transform us. We must entreat the Holy Spirit, at all times and in all things, to guide us. We must follow God in obedience whenever we hear His calling. We must act on our faith and beliefs and convictions.
God's desire, after all, is that we should know Him.
-----
Well, that's more than enough for now. Happy Thanksgiving everyone! God bless!
-----
God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.
posted by Metaphysician_delta | 9:19 PM
|
0 comments
