{"id":613,"date":"2013-10-18T06:15:03","date_gmt":"2013-10-18T06:15:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/beta.dminlgp.com\/?p=613"},"modified":"2014-08-13T21:59:27","modified_gmt":"2014-08-13T21:59:27","slug":"engaging-theology-as-theology-engages-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/engaging-theology-as-theology-engages-us\/","title":{"rendered":"Engaging Theology As Theology Engages Us"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reading David F. Ford\u2019s Theology: A Very Short Introduction<\/em> is at the same time compelling, in the sense of wanting to read more deeply and daunting, if ever so slightly, because he does not back away from asking the challenging questions one must ask in the study of theology.\u00a0 It is these questions in every chapter and in each and every section that reveal the true heart of theology.\u00a0 \u201cTheology flourishes best when it can learn from and contribute to various disciplines, faith communities, and debates on matters of public importance.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

It is compelling because Ford models for the reader the task of theology. Even as he approaches theology from the viewpoint of academic theology, his explorations though systematic to a point demonstrate the interrelatedness within any attempt to understand and know God.<\/p>\n

After putting this book down several things continue to strongly resonate.\u00a0 Questions are essential.\u00a0 We cannot and should not back away from or shy away from asking difficult questions.\u00a0 In a very clear sense some of the questions that will be asked may not be quickly known or discerned. Reflecting upon the laborious, challenging and long process of articulating and understanding the nature of the Trinity Olson writes, \u201cTheological conclusions are not just deductions from authoritative statements, but are worked out by worshippers responsibly engaged with God, each other, scripture, the surrounding culture, everyday life, and all the complexities, ups and downs of history.\u201d[2]<\/a>\u00a0 As we discussed last week theological study happens not in an ivory tower but in community.<\/p>\n

It is Olson\u2019s ability to present questions that propel the reader to turn the page.\u00a0 Rather than see questions as an end in themselves he offers the possibility \u201cthat questioning, seeking meaning and exploring intellectually might be an occasion for awakening trust and challenging to a decision.\u201d[3]<\/a>\u00a0 Among the things that I have been challenged by in recent years was my own bias, things I had been taught, but not questioned or investigated.\u00a0 The freedom to ask questions, to explore different avenues of thought have deepened and enriched by own understanding of God and my relationship to God while recognizing that I know in part though I am known fully.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

What exactly are we invited to study?\u00a0 As we seek to know and understand God we also seek to understand our humanity including our desires, responsibility and capability for good and for evil.\u00a0 How we worship and what we worship?\u00a0 How do our actions and beliefs reflect our desire?\u00a0 Olson asks, \u201cWhat are the moral implications of living before a God who creates and sustains everything; who is deeply involved in all human history, as seen especially in Jesus Christ; and who is present to all creation in many ways through the Holy Spirit?\u201d[5]<\/a> Responding to this question causes one to consider how we know God and are firstly known by God, how do you understand freedom from God\u2019s perspective and how we do understand personal freedom and responsibility? We simply cannot attempt such a task apart from inquiry, study and reflection upon scripture, history and culture.<\/p>\n

While I would expect a book on theology, even a very short introduction to address core aspects of Christian faith such as God, salvation, and Jesus Christ, I am most appreciative that Olson devoted a chapter to \u201cFacing Evil.\u201d\u00a0 We live in a violent world; the question of evil and our response brings us into the tension of understanding human freedom, dignity, rights, and responsibility.[6]<\/a>\u00a0 Those of us that have been touched by evil know both the seductive nature of power and control, systematic forces affecting economics and political structures as well as the possibility for redemptive grace and action.\u00a0 Olson reminds us in this chapter that we cannot know all things and we cannot be quick to assume that we know what God is doing.\u00a0 It isn\u2019t about winning a theological debate or losing an argument.\u00a0 What we are reminded of is the mysteries of evil and goodness, dark contrasted by goodness.[7]<\/a> \u201cThe drama of good and evil is focused through the history of one person.\u201d[8]<\/a> Jesus Christ.\u00a0 In light of this Olson proposes that if we theologically understand evil as whatever contradicts God (acknowledging that God is good), then a basic way of exploring what evil is and does is by the dynamic of idolatry.[9]<\/a>\u00a0 He suggests, \u201cSociety\u2019s idols may be more visible from the margins, where the normality is under strain or contradicted.\u00a0 Idols are usually supported by falsehoods and by ignoring major truths, and it is easier to discern these too from the margins.\u201d[10]<\/a> Interesting, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n

There was something else I realized as I read this \u201cvery short\u201d book when we study theology we are engaging in sensory ethnography.\u00a0 In sensory ethnography knowing comes about by participating in the world.\u00a0 It requires active participation and knowledge of processes.[11]<\/a> In Sensory Ethnography\u201d the research method serves the research question.\u201d [12]<\/a> As Olson demonstrated our methods and approach vary, we need to have at our disposal a variety of tools and skills developed to appropriately interpret and respond to the relevant questions being presented.\u00a0 \u201cThe interface between present and future is where experiencing, understanding, and judging interact with deciding.\u201d[13]<\/a><\/p>\n

Two things stood out to me at the book\u2019s conclusion.\u00a0 They are lasting words for me.\u00a0 Much of the focus in theology rests in knowledge and understanding.\u00a0 Olson reminds the reader that wisdom holds these together.\u00a0 Wisdom applies knowledge and understanding, it responds to and deals with pain, suffering, joy and living.[14]<\/a> The last thing is the reminder that God does theology.[15]<\/a>\u00a0 Olson is right, affirming this does change the landscape, it realigns theological responsibility; it defines the focus.\u00a0 While I may be studying and seeking to understand God, in reality God is asking questions of me, searching me, judging my motives; I am being known and affirmed by God.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

[1]<\/a> \u00a0David. F. Ford, Theology: A Very Short Introduction. <\/em>(Oxford, England: Oxford Press, 1999), 20.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2] \u00a0Ibid., p. 37-38.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3]\u00a0 Ibid., p. 43.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[4] \u00a0I Corinthians 13: 9, 12.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[5] \u00a0Ford, p. 56.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[6]<\/a> \u00a0Ibid., p. 69.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[7] Ibid., p. 76, 77.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[8] Ibid., p. 77.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[9] Ibid., p. 78.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[10] Ibid., p. 79.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[11] Sarah Pink, Doing Sensory Ethnography. <\/em>(London: Sage Publications, 2009), 40 & 41.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[12] Ibid., p. 49.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[13] Ford, p. 153.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[14]<\/a> Ibid., p. 165<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[15] Ibid., p. 175.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reading David F. Ford\u2019s Theology: A Very Short Introduction is at the same time compelling, in the sense of wanting to read more deeply and daunting, if ever so slightly, because he does not back away from asking the challenging questions one must ask in the study of theology.\u00a0 It is these questions in every […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":26,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[2,197],"class_list":["post-613","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-dminlgp","tag-ford","cohort-lgp3"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/613","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/26"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=613"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/613\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1948,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/613\/revisions\/1948"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=613"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=613"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=613"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}