I wouldn't mind getting a few more comments on something I posted a couple days ago, which is kind of a litmus test for one direction I want to head with this blog, "creative theology."
I'd love to hear thoughts along the lines of, What turns you off about "theology?" Does it seem simple? Complex? How does my post (Good-Looking Theology) work? How does it not work? Don't feel like you need to restrict yourself to positive comments.
Thanks to John, Dustin and Will for kicking things off with some solid feedback.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Calling for Creative Theology Thoughts
Subscribe to:
or 
or
7 comments:
First off: I liked the "Good Looking Theology" post, and if that is what your "creative theology" looks like I'm all for more of it.
Now for some other (less positive) thoughts on theology:
I don’t generally like theology, and it probably has nothing to do with the ideal of theology but more of the vocabulary that surrounds it. Who is God? He’s indescribable, mighty, yet merciful, a bright blur, a roaring lion and a sacrificial lamb. Really, he is not anything my (or anyone else’s for that matter) vocabulary can encompass. In regard to that the idea of Theology itself, as a system or structure of beliefs/ideas, stands in inevitable contrast. For even though it may claim otherwise, theology seems inevitably to draw linguistic boundaries around things that cannot actually be known.
Now, I won’t go so far as to say that what theology does is wrong. I don’t think it is; it is needed, and with the right spirit (humility) theology is wonderful. Unfortunately theology is often ruined for me by men and women who interject their own beliefs/ideas into things and claim that they spring directly from God’s word (this is different than having a certain “take” on a matter that springs from your beliefs/conceptions, this is adding opinions to sacred text and failing to distinguish for people which is which). I’m going to take what may potentially be viewed as pot-shots here by naming a few names of guys who are guilty in this regard: Bill Gothard and Oswald Chambers. I’ll say it: I resent the way that these men approach theology, further more I think it is objectively wrong and it is tendencies such as theirs that make me dislike theology.
(there are all sorts of unwritten qualifications here, undoubtedly some of them will come out if I am criticized :)
I liked the "Good Looking Theology" post
Great, that was prototypical "creative theology," as far as I'm concerned.
theology seems inevitably to draw linguistic boundaries around things that cannot actually be known.
I guess we need to throw in some disclaimers at this point, in order to offset the postmodern paranoia about language in general. 1) Language, as a tool of flawed humans, is imperfect. 2) Nevertheless, God chooses to communicate truth about himself and the world using it. 3) We need to trust God's ability to communicate sufficient truth via language.
Now, I won’t go so far as to say that what theology does is wrong.
There are some semantic issues here. But I'd go so far as to say that Theology is inevitable, as long as people are thinking about God - so I'm glad it's not wrong. :) I don't feel as nervous about it as you do...but we agree on this:
with the right spirit (humility) theology is wonderful.
I'd go so far as to say that arrogant "theologizing" gives the lie to the very truth it claims to support. Too many people assert their own egos and call it "God's truth."
I think that we need to be transparent in the way we handle the Bible, pointing back to the text, and not expecting people to "take us at our word." When God's written revelation is a near & present standard, and referred to in a holistic way (instead of cut & paste), human prognostication takes its rightful back seat.
Every four years I prepare for a trip to Disneyworld by reading everything I possibly can about the place, planning ad infinitem every single meal, moment, and event of my 10 days at Disneyworld. The second I arrive there, I throw the plan out the window and just wing it. Theology, to me, is the first part. Walking with God is the second part. They are both equally important, but they both have their place and their time. If we dwell on one over the other, we will miss something. It is good to be prepared. It is better to be open to God's love and grace.
good words. I agree.
(with arie's comment--didn't see will's until after I posted [and not that I disagree with Will's it just isn't what my original comment was affirming:)]).
You might find these Peter Leithart quotes relevent. They are from Against Christianity:
"Theology tells us that God is eternal and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.
The Bible tells us that God relents because He is God (Joel 2:13-14), that God is "shrewd with the shrewd" (Ps. 18:25-29), that He rejoices over us with shouting (Zeph 3:14-20), and that He is an eternal whirlwind of triune communion and love."
Theology is a "Victorian enterprise, neoclassically bright and neat and clean, nothing out of place.
Whereas the Bible talks about hair, blood, sweat, entrails, menstruation and genital emissions."
Should be taken with a grain of salt.
It is good to be prepared. It is better to be open to God's love and grace.
I think I see what you're saying, Will. But I'm also uncomfortable with the dichotomy you seem to be creating between thought and action. Love and grace would be meaningless if we didn't know Who we were worshiping. And biblical knowledge would be a dry pursuit if there was no living God behind the words. See what I'm saying?
It's not like we stop thinking to worship, or stop worshiping to think. This is the kind of false dichotomy that can make church services (as well as seminary class rooms) very boring places that fail to correspond with reality.
Thanks for the Leithart quote, Stejahen. I actually have that book on my shelf and haven't got through it yet! That didn't stop me from commenting on the quote, though. :)
Post a Comment