(There is usually a reason for the images I choose.)
(How theology matters)
Richard M. Wright
Evensong at University Baptist Church
Sunday August 01 2010
Colossians 1
“Spaceships? Our space fleet is the ships the Settlers came in from Urras nearly two centuries ago. To build just a ship to carry grain across the sea, it takes a year’s planning, a big effort of our economy”.
Oegeo nodded. “Well, we’ve got the goods, all right. But you know, you’re the man who can tell us when to scrap this whole job – throw it all away”.
“Throw it away? What do you mean?”
“Faster than light travel”, Oegeo said. “Transilience. The old physics says it isn’t possible. The Terrans say it isn’t possible. But the Hainish, who invented what we use now, say that it is possible, only they don’t now how to do it, because they’re just learning temporal physics from us. Evidently if it’s in anybody’s pocket, Dr. Shevek, it’s in yours”.
Shevek looked at him with a distancing stare. “I am a theoretician, Oegeo. Not a designer”.
“If you provide the theory, the unification of Sequency and Simulteneity in a general field theory of time, then we’ll design the ships”. (Ursula LeGuin, The Dispossessed, 86)
Theory and engineering. Perhaps theology and practice. What we believe and what we do.
Imagine that someone says, It does not matter what you believe about chemistry or physics or mathematics – what matters is how you drive your car. But of course it does matter. If someone does not understand chemistry or physics or mathematics it may not even be possible to build that car we drive.
And yet how often do we hear, It does not matter what we believe about Christ. What matters is that we follow Christ.
It sounds reasonable. And there is a lot of truth to that. We should follow Christ.
Consider the writings of the apostle Paul. Paul writes to churches that are having concrete problems. First Corinthians – divisions within the church. Galatians – do Gentiles need to follow Jewish law in order to be Christians? Ephesians – unity? Philippians – unity? Colossians – special holidays and dietary regulations. First Thessalonians – concern for those who have died before the Parousia. Second Timothy – idleness. First Timothy – life of the Christian community. And so on.
Problems with behavior. How people live. What people do. How does Paul respond to practical concerns? With “theory”. This is who God is. This is who Christ is. This is what God has done through Christ. Therefore. Paul offers theology to address practical issues of life within the Christian community.
But that itself raises another important point. For Paul all theology is practical. There is no theory for the sake of theory. Correct belief is not the goal. Life in Christ is the goal. Christianity is not a system of thought. It is a way of life.
Consider Friedrich Schleiermacher. In his book Christian Theology: An Introduction Alister McGrath describes fifteen theological movements of the modern period. Schleiermacher one of key figures of “liberal protestantism”. (The goal of which is to bridge the gap between Chrsitian faith and modern knowledge.) In his book Christian Faith (1821-1822) Scheliermacher argues Christian teaching/understanding must be consistent with the essence of Christianity. Which is God has redeemed humanity through Jesus Christ.
Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What has God done through Jesus Christ? What is the human condition? What is redemption? How do human beings live because God has redeemed us through Jesus Christ?
This is precisely how and why Schleiermacher defends the traditional teaching that Jesus Christ must be at one and the same time God and a human being. We cannot emphasize one over the other. Or deny one in favor of the other. Not simply because that is false belief versus true belief. But in order to uphold the possibility and the reality of our redemption.
Vladimir Lossky in his book Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church first helped me see this dynamic and essential relationship between theory and practice.
Far from being mutually opposed, theology and mysticism [? by which Lossky mans experiential knowledge of God] support and complete each other. If the mystical experience is a personal working out of the content of the common faith, theology is an expression, for the profit of all, of that which can be experienced by everyone…. There is no Christian mysticism without theology; but, above all, there is no theology without mysticism. (8-9)
Christian theology is always a means: a unity of knowledge subserving an end which transcends all knowledge. This ultimate end is union with God. Thus, we are finally led to a conclusion which may seem paradoxical enough: that Christian theory should have a practical significance”. (9 – edited for simplicity)
Scheiermacher and Lossky make similar points although they frame/express those points quite differently.
Schleiermacher: The essence of the Christian faith is God has redeemed humanity through Jesus Christ. Christian teaching must be consistent with this essence.
Lossky: The goal/purpose of the Christian faith is union with God. Our theology must be such that union with God is even possible.
How would Paul phrase the goal or essence of the Christian faith? Dare we ask how Jesus would frame the issue?
I am not advocating that we become obsessed with theory or theological reflection. Nor we should adopt some stringent statement of doctrine that everyone must sign and to which all Sunday school teachers must adhere or else. Or that we give up concern with Christian living with following Christ with Christianity as a way of life. Nor am I arguing for a particular theological agenda.
(Well okay maybe. Part of what prompted me to talk about this is a recent article by Diana Butler Bass that drove me up a tree.)
Simply this. What we believe matters. What we teach matters. Theology matters. Not because the goal of the Christian faith is correct beliefs. The goal is very practical: practice/experience. But as Schleiermacher and Lossky and many others show – theory theology teaching matter. Because otherwise the goal of the Christian faith – however we understand or express that – is not even possible.
Postscript: A few people asked questions or made comments afterwards.
My excellent colleague the minister of music invited me to answer my own question. How would Paul or Jesus frame the issue? I suggested Paul would emphasize reconciliation and/or life in Christ (Greek en Christo). Jesus might say the goal is to love God and love neighbor.
Which led to one of my favorite sisters in Christ to say everything I had said but much better and in just a couple sentences. Something to the effect of how we practice the Christian life (say love God and love neighbor) might not even be possible without the right theology. She said it better and unfortunately cannot recall her exact words.
I would add that when Christians of a more liberal persuasion say “correct doctrine does not matter the goal is love God and love neighbor” my response would be “but does your theology even make it possible for sinful broken human beings to love God and love neighbor?” When Christianity is reduced to “look – just be nice to other people will you?” then it is unclear how exactly that is good news.
Moreover it raises the question whether telling people that (1) sexual ethics do not matter or (2) male and female do not matter – if we are ignoring basic human realities such that the above examples harm human persons. And by extension we are not loving our neighbor when we tell them it does not matter (1′) who they have sexual relations with (2′) how men and women relate to each other within the Christian community.
Do not misunderstand me. Perhaps theological liberals are correct on all or some of these and other issues. But they need to do a much better job of dealing with the underlying theological issues. And yes that applies to theological conservatives as well. “Because God said so” may not always be an adequate answer to the tough questions people ask.
