Re: [RC] What theology is NOT
Title: ORourke1 Signature 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] wrote: First, the essay as originally published. Then my comments in BF in an annotated version which follows. -- Annotated Version The Christian Post > Opinion|Sat, Sep. 24 2011 Why You Should Take Theology Seriously By 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 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? 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.
Re: [RC] What theology is NOT
Sent from my iPhone On Sep 25, 2011, at 22:02, [email protected] wrote: > Now it means inductive reasoning, tests of evidence, > formulating hypotheses, and all the rest. That definitely is not the sense > that Craven used. Perhaps it should be. For too long theology has in practice been a type of philosophy. What if theology really took the empirical approach seriously -- ie, accepting revelation as -a- source of evidence. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
Re: [RC] What theology is NOT
Valid point. Trouble is that the word "science," back then, did not mean what it does today. If someone wants to use the word in a no-longer-current sense, OK, but tell the reader that this is what you are doing. Otherwise the default definition --the current definition-- is always assumed. 500 years ago, even 300 years or 250 years ago, the old view still prevailed. But it was on the way out no later than 1650 or 1700, and by 1800 it was just about obsolete everywhere. It had meant something like the modern word --in academia-- "discipline." Any field of study. Now it means inductive reasoning, tests of evidence, formulating hypotheses, and all the rest. That definitely is not the sense that Craven used. Billy - message dated 9/25/2011 9:28:30 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Back in the day of Calvin, Arminius, and Luther, et al., Theology was called "The queen of the sciences." Why? Sorry, I don't know that answer. 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. --- _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.” 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 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. 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 biblical 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. In recent weeks I have tried to offer critical analysis and a thoughtful response to Christendom’s collapse and the lingering influence of the Constantinian system. Many were challenged and responded with recognition that these are relevant and serio
Re: [RC] What theology is NOT
Title: ORourke1 Signature Back in the day of Calvin, Arminius, and Luther, et al., Theology was called "The queen of the sciences." Why? Sorry, I don't know that answer. 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] wrote: First, the essay as originally published. Then my comments in BF in an annotated version which follows. --- The Christian Post > Opinion|Sat, Sep. 24 2011 Why You Should Take Theology Seriously By 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.” 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 of 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. 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 biblical 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. In recent weeks I have tried to offer critical analysis and a thoughtful response to Christendom’s collapse and the lingering influence of the Constantinian 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 and instead rely on emotional impulse or culturally induced ways
