Written by: gfesadmin on October 4, 2012

About my soul.

They thin my heart with little things

And my life with change

Oh in so many ways

I find more missing every day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el75UyYO554

Wilco in their song “Theologians” express the commonly held position from Christian folk thought to atheistic ambivalence about theology: it offers very little about the practical and complex issues and problems that real humans really face.  In short, theology and theologians face critique from all sides.  Those reared in the populist Christian traditions see theology as an enemy of faith.  Meanwhile, believers from a more postmodern perspective, see theology as dogmatic and repressive, something that interferes with experience and complexity.  Those on the cusp of secularization see theologians as engaging in pointless speculations at best, or being the pied piper leading and controlling the faithful into an increasingly primitive mentality, at worst.

Roger Olson and Stanley Grenz in Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God, ironically point out that all of these positions on theology are essentially theological statements made by people doing theology.  Theology is essential to human experience.  However, Olson and Grenz are not content to simply point out the inconsistent thought in critics of theology, instead, they want to help people understand what is good theology and how it is actually beneficial.

As a student of theology, I readily have to admit, that Wilco’s weariness of theologians often does ring true.  Theology can be used as sword to conquer and exclude.  More than once, I have read papers or books dealing with theology that have been soul sucking and dry, and not imbued with mystery, beauty, or an appreciation of how it can change and touch my life.  Also, I have known more than a few friends who have lost the faith completely because of their academic study of theology.  Maybe you have had similar experiences.  I have even the feeling that Jesus himself (who was of course a theologian without pretense) might agree, since he also went up against the theological elite of his time, people who thinned out people’s hearts with little things.

Conversely, when I have had those epiphany moments where I saw how an apparently abstract theological concept can actually speak into how I live my life and treat others, and change me throughout, then I have to wrestle with Wilco.  Theologians do know about my soul, and theology can touch it and transform it, and the world around me.

Still, as a Christian serious about his faith, and passionate about theology, I want to find that tension between experience, complexity, humanity, faith, reason, and theology.  Ultimately, in a world of shifting meaning and hyper subjectivity, we still need something to stand on, something to define the limits of what to believe and how to live.  Christian faith is predicated on the historic reality of the life of Jesus Christ, and the truth claims of witnesses to his resurrection.  We should not deny this.  Therefore, as Olson and Grenz point out, theology has its critical and defensive task. 

From here, Olson and Grenz make an essential and clear contribution to what constitutes good theology.  For them, theology must be contextual and constructive.  It must speak into the real life situations of those it proposes to address.  It must be like Jesus, who took on culture and language to communicate his love for the world.  Here I wonder, if the ambivalence towards theology would be so strong if we truly developed fully contextual, life giving and moving theologies?  Would the change affected in our passion for a theology that works, and creates real change even draw more people into relationship with Jesus?  I think so.  

Still, Olson and Grenz are careful to warn us against the trap of allowing our culture and context to fully alone inform our theology.  Here the authors suggest a “trialogue” or reflective conversation between Scripture, history, and culture. 

As a survey our churches and movements often caught between folk theology and pure rational fence building theology, I see the move to a greater constructive and contextual theology as the only way forward.  Theology must touch the heart of the people it is meant for.  It must provide practical solutions and reflections on our current cultural and philosophical milieu.  Theology must work.  Here I am reminded that we take a page from the playbook of such Christian anthropologists as Charles Kraft and Paul Hiebert, who urge the careful study, listening, and appreciation of culture, to find the connection points of the gospel to culture so that the message of Jesus can be best communicated.  To speak in the heart language of the receptive culture is the ultimate aim.  At the same time careful cultural exegesis must seek out the parts of the culture that are incongruent with the gospel, and seek to change them.  We must then become conversant with out culture and context.

As Christian leaders are we listening to the culture around us?  Are we seeking to make our theology practical and contextual?  Does our theology work, or even make a difference?  Are we in theological dialogue with the Bible, our culture, and tradition?

The church does not need less or more theology.  It needs good theology.

As Christian leaders let us commit to good theology.

About the Author

gfesadmin