Comments in the text : message dated 9/29/2011 7:41:16 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
This was an attempt started whn you first posted this. I wanted to think on it some more. Your annotations take a lot of stuff away. I'm not sure that's to the benefit of theology. I removed the unannotated article. More below. David "Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine."--P. J. O’Rourke On 9/25/2011 1:46 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: First, the essay as originally published. Then my comments in BF in an annotated version which follows. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Annotated Version _The Christian Post_ (http://www.christianpost.com/) > _Opinion_ (http://www.christianpost.com/opinion/) |Sat, Sep. 24 2011 Why You Should Take Theology Seriously By _S. Michael Craven_ (http://www.christianpost.com/author/s-michael-craven/) | Christian Post In J. I. Packer’s 1973 classic Knowing God, he points out that “ignorance of God --ignorance both of his ways and of the practice of communion with him-- lies at the root of much of the church’s weakness today.” And just how sure can anyone be that he or she "knows God" ? While it can be maintained that the Bible is a prime source of revelation, it cannot be maintained that it is only Pure Revelation since, clearly, the text was written by fallible human beings. The various mistakes in the text in various places --for instance historical inaccuracies in Daniel or the inconsistent lists of disciples in the Gospels-- also tell us that flaws of the writers are often in play. And then there are conceptual issues. Clearly, for example, there are at least two very different strands in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament, between the worldview of books like Ecclesiastes and Esther and Jonah, for example, and Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. Moreover, beliefs notwithstanding, we are given conceptions of God in the Bible. The reality of God, or your choice in characterizing the nature of the divine however you think of him or her or the Unknowable Ultimate, is another matter, and maybe the best the Bible can give us, even if it really is the best available, necessarily won't be the final word. That is, it is simplistic to the point of arrogance to claim that "you" --anyone-- knows God in an "all-questions-answered" sense. That is not possible for any of us. Hence the problem is one of the inescapable need to muddle through , somehow, despite large areas of ignorance in our understanding. Far from being a side issue, the agnostic critique of religious faith is absolutely fundamental. The ignorance to which Packer refers is first and foremost theological. To some, the term theology evokes images of scholasticism and ivory tower elitism with little practical use. However, the science What "science" ? Where are the testable hypotheses ? Where is the empirical evidence as the word "empirical" is understood by scientists ? As close to a science as we can find is in the writings of Thomas Aquinas, but even that is more of a philosophy based on deductive logic that anything else. This kind of loose use of an important word with serious meaning really compromises language, and does so in a dishonest way. Theology is a form of philosophy if you want a more-or-less valid comparison. of _theology_ (http://www.christianpost.com/topics/theology/) is simply the organized and systematic study of God. Every Christian is called to know God and if we deny that responsibility then we deny what it means to be Christian. Therefore every Christian is to be a theologian in the strictest sense of the word. Utterly pretentious. DRB: You are tempting me to fire up the soft-copy version of The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, When Skeptics Ask, and When Critics Ask. With these annotations, do you ascribe to Christianity at all? If so, why? Do I ascribe WHAT to Christianity ? I don't understand the question. What is it that I am or am not ascribing ? Can you clarify ? Thanks I don't really like asking those questions. I struggle to maintain status at amateur theologian. Professional Theologians from various seminaries vary in quality, so I'm not going to guess what Packer (or this author) means. Yes, it does sound pretentious. I think many in the American church know God in the same way they know the president --they know some facts about him, where he lives, what he does, and so on --but they do not have a relational knowledge of the actual person who is president. This could be described as a cultural theology. A bi blical theology is more akin to the relationship between a child and a good parent. The child in this sense has a much more intimate knowledge that, through time and maturation, transmits the character and expectations of the parent. Experience only confirms this knowledge, producing trust, which in turn fosters obedience. This may well be one way to look at the issue, but what says this is the only way to do so ? Nothing. After all, the Bible itself sometimes says that it is best to regard God as a friend. And that is not the same as a parent-child relationship. Sometimes it says that what we should be doing, which is emphasized by Paul, is thinking deeply and as objectively-- as truthfully-- as possible about higher things and hard questions, which, of course, is also a message in the book of Job. Then there is Song of Songs in which the love between a man and woman is how we should think about "theology." To base one's understanding of theology on a parent-child metaphor to the presumed exclusion of other ways of thinking is, quite simply, absurd. Others may take seriously the study of the president and his office, its history, legal powers, and so forth, but this is only theoretical since this knowledge exists apart from any relationship with the person who is president. For many, this is their approach to theology; it is only theoretical knowledge that often serves to “puff up” and make people intellectually proud. In the end, they may be more enamored with the office of the president than they are the person of the presidency. DRB: Well, if one puts any stock into the Lord's Prayer, it starts out with "Our Father." So why not a parent? I don't know why you are allergic to the term. Here is the quote, first sentence : This may well be one way to look at the issue, but what says this is the only way to do so ? The point isn't that a parent metaphor is b-a-d but that to make this the de facto ONLY metaphor is to ignore all the other metaphors in the Bible. Not a good idea. A proper biblical theology that every follower of Christ should pursue is one that seeks to know the character, nature, and will of God as revealed in Scripture so that they may live in a way that pleases him. Are we to believe that this is a simple matter ? That this is an open-and-shut case ?It would be nice if it was, but how can anyone who is realistic take that kind of outlook ? The world is a complicated place and life is hardly a walk in the park. There are trials and tribulations everywhere even if, now and then, islands of peace and tranquility may exist somehow. Besides, try as anyone might, the testimony of "the" Bible is sometimes difficult to discern. This is because, or partly because, the book is a library of texts by different writers. How do you reconcile the view of God in Ezra or Nehemiah with the views in Proverbs or the Gospel of John or the Apocalypse ? A simple assertion that they all say the same thing is an evasion when you get down to it. There are consistencies to be found, but they may require a good deal of serious questioning to discover and, even then, some major problem may remain that defy solution --at least if you are honest about where you may have gotten to in your spiritual journey. There is a practicality to theology that produces relevant wisdom for living in the real world. Some refer to this as the Christian worldview, which is really only another way of referring to a coherent biblical theology ; it functions less as a set of academic facts than as an analytical framework for living properly. How can one successfully live in the world without knowing about the one who made and continues to govern that world? DRB: Packer, while Church of England all the way, is also a Calvinist. Don't know about Craven. (Never heard of him before this article.) If one follows Calvin, for instance, certain texts are often bent beyond recognition as the Calvinist tries mightily (in some instances) to justify limited atonement or irresistible grace. This seems to be the majority view with lots of Baptists and Presbyterian evangelicals holding to it. I think that they are building their theology backwards, but they tend not to listen to me. The battle is always about Biblical interpretation. While the Calvinists build a "sound" biblical system, if some of their fundamental assumptions are wrong, then the whole thing collapses. They can't have that, so they make up for their lack of clear statements from the Bible of their tenets with condescension and derision. In John 17 : 3, Jesus provides the best definition of theology --he equates knowledge of God with eternal life. Here, eternal life is not merely a reference to our experience after death, but a life lived now that is qualitatively different from our former lives and the lives of those around us. In other words, the greater our knowledge of God, the more abundant is our experience of life in Christ. This is an unobjectionable and even inspirational statement. Yet this is not to say that it is definitive. After all, John 17 : 3 is followed by 17 : 4, and there are many other related texts in the Bible. Verse 4, for instance, tells us that the work we do, presumably our chosen profession, is important in our understanding of spiritual things. Or, in an alternative reading, God gives each of us a mission on Earth and we derive deep meaning from all the tasks that a mission requires, not as hurdles to jump over but as opportunities to learn and grow. Maybe think of this as each of us having our own "labors of Hercules" to accomplish, including --at least by way of metaphor-- cleaning piles of horse manure in the Augian stables. Another perspective is found in Wisdom of Solomon where it is the story of the Shekinah that is crucial, she who was with the Lord from the beginning, his companion and the source of wisdom for all mankind. In other words, personally I sometimes get rather annoyed by a tendency among a class of Evangelicals who insist that everything must be reduced to the most simplistic understanding anyone can think of, and that --and nothing else-- is the essence of Christian faith. DRB: If you are going to decry simplicity, then I suppose that you are in favor of complexity. No? I think that people have been adding their own restrictions to the requirements for being or becoming a Christian in order to make it difficult to get their "badge of approval." The point is : What is the best way to think about any of this ? Best may mean most realistic, most accurate, most to the point, most persuasive, and so forth. It can mean simplest, easiest to understand, most "on point." The complaint wasn't about simplicity, but about reduction of all ( to exaggerate ) issues or beliefs to their most simple form. At times that is the worst thing to do even if, at other times, it is the best. Very complex to puzzle through many mysteries in the Bible. But each part of the Sermon on the Mount is simple yet ( mostly ) is profound. It should be easy enough to figure out when to get your thinking cap on and when you don't really need to worry about levels of meaning or parabolic concepts. Remember, Jesus did speak in parables and none have surface meaning. You need to think them through to get the point. Then there is Ephesians 5 which is all about the need for being critical-minded, and Paul, in chapters 10 and 13 in II Corinthians, makes much of examining facts carefully, etc, My favorite verse on this subject is from Hebrews 6 : 1 -- "Let us stop discussing the rudiments of Christianity. We ought not to be laying over again the foundations of faith..." In recent weeks I have tried to offer critical analysis and a thoughtful response to Christendom’s collapse and the lingering influence of the Const antinian system. Many were challenged and responded with recognition that these are relevant and serious questions that must be considered if we seek to recover a biblical understanding of the gospel and the mission of the church. Others however responded in ways that reveal a lack of reliance upon proper theology A "proper theology" as defined Craven is not serious theology at all. It is a species of apologetics, a sub-field of rhetoric. And this is extolled as good "theology" ? What a mischaracterization. and instead rely on emotional impulse or culturally induced ways of thinking, which they attempt to validate by use of selected proof texts.The proof text approach is nowhere more evident than in Craven's writing. DRB: Well, that's what a Calvinist DOES. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
