We've been on a Christmas hiatus here at 4712 for the past little while, but it's about time we got back at it. I'm in the midst of discussing some mild format changes and topic possibilities with our contributors, but I thought I'd offer this post as a welcome back to our readers and an interim conversation.
One subject that seems to surround most of the posts and responses thus far is the difficulty of intersecting theoretical and practical concerns. This is not a problem unique to theological discussions, but one that I think has become very common throughout our culture. In extreme cases there are two polar opposite versions of snobbery.
At the one extreme is the intellectual snob, the elitist, who believes that nobody without at least a Master's degree is allowed to speak on a given subject, and that "ordinary" people are less than him/her. Less educated=less intelligent=less worthy.
At the other extreme is the "common" snob, the anti-elitist, who believes that it is better to be "plain-spoken" than educated. This person believes that theoretical discussions are pie-in-the-sky nonsense, and that any discussion that does not have immediate, practical applications is not a discussion worth having. More practical=more grounded and realistic=more worthy.
These are caricatures. I've only seldom met a person who remotely resembled either of these sketches. What I am demonstrating is just the extremes on a spectrum. There are lots of people who are elitist-ish, and lots of people who are anti-elitist-ish out there and I'm sure we've all met them (or are them). The problem that is immediately apparent when caricatures like this are sketched is that these extremes are unhelpful in this discussion. That's not always the case, but it is the case here. Just theory is ethereal nonsense. Just practice is ignorant drivel.
Theory and practice must coexist, therefore, but how? Is theory given dominence? Does all practice flow from theory? Or is practice given priority? Does all theory serve to illuminate and clarify practice? Perhaps an example will be helpful. Let's try the world of music.
There is an awfully large body of theoretical knowledge out there about music. Those of us who learned instruments in the classical fashion remember the arduous, tortuous experience of slogging through Grade 1 Theory workbooks (can you tell how much I love musical theory?). We identified eighth notes, counted rests, filled in scales and arpegios, etc, etc, etc. As Trev and Colleen well know, musical theory extends far beyond these basics into some rather complex territory. I imagine you could do a PhD in musical theory if you wanted. Would that, however, make you a better guitar player? Of course it would. You would have a more significant understanding of what it is that makes music work and would consequently be able to play a given instrument with more competence. But a deep knowledge of theory would not necessarily make you a great musician. Only one thing is sufficient for that. Practice. Music is a practical discipline and so disciplined practice is required. What of the opposite scenario, however? If one practices all the time without once thinking theoretically about music is it possible to become a good musician? Of course it is. But constant yet unreflective practice cannot make you a great musician. Great musicians always think about the nature of music. Does that mean taking classes in advanced classical theory? Not necessarily. A person can theorize deeply about music without even knowing how to read standard musical notation. That theory will simply take place using some other language. But careful thinking is necessary for any real virtuoso. As this example demonstrates, however, neither theory nor practice takes precedence. Different people may begin in different places or have different emphases, but I imagine this has more to do with personality and giftedness (and perhaps calling) than anything else. The theory/practice relationship is a chicken and egg thing if you ask me.
Theology is a discipline where the intersection of theory and practice is entirely necessary. Both uninformed and impractical theology are examples of poor theology. One of the reasons that I wanted to create this blog is for the purpose of encouraging discussion at this point of intersection. I hope that the very tension that's been remarked upon here is evidence of some success, and odd as it may sound I hope that we see more tension at this point of intersection. A well constructed yet eminently functional theology is something that North American evangelicalism needs desperately and I hope our tiny little corner can be a place where that point of intersection is taken seriously.
One subject that seems to surround most of the posts and responses thus far is the difficulty of intersecting theoretical and practical concerns. This is not a problem unique to theological discussions, but one that I think has become very common throughout our culture. In extreme cases there are two polar opposite versions of snobbery.
At the one extreme is the intellectual snob, the elitist, who believes that nobody without at least a Master's degree is allowed to speak on a given subject, and that "ordinary" people are less than him/her. Less educated=less intelligent=less worthy.
At the other extreme is the "common" snob, the anti-elitist, who believes that it is better to be "plain-spoken" than educated. This person believes that theoretical discussions are pie-in-the-sky nonsense, and that any discussion that does not have immediate, practical applications is not a discussion worth having. More practical=more grounded and realistic=more worthy.
These are caricatures. I've only seldom met a person who remotely resembled either of these sketches. What I am demonstrating is just the extremes on a spectrum. There are lots of people who are elitist-ish, and lots of people who are anti-elitist-ish out there and I'm sure we've all met them (or are them). The problem that is immediately apparent when caricatures like this are sketched is that these extremes are unhelpful in this discussion. That's not always the case, but it is the case here. Just theory is ethereal nonsense. Just practice is ignorant drivel.
Theory and practice must coexist, therefore, but how? Is theory given dominence? Does all practice flow from theory? Or is practice given priority? Does all theory serve to illuminate and clarify practice? Perhaps an example will be helpful. Let's try the world of music.
There is an awfully large body of theoretical knowledge out there about music. Those of us who learned instruments in the classical fashion remember the arduous, tortuous experience of slogging through Grade 1 Theory workbooks (can you tell how much I love musical theory?). We identified eighth notes, counted rests, filled in scales and arpegios, etc, etc, etc. As Trev and Colleen well know, musical theory extends far beyond these basics into some rather complex territory. I imagine you could do a PhD in musical theory if you wanted. Would that, however, make you a better guitar player? Of course it would. You would have a more significant understanding of what it is that makes music work and would consequently be able to play a given instrument with more competence. But a deep knowledge of theory would not necessarily make you a great musician. Only one thing is sufficient for that. Practice. Music is a practical discipline and so disciplined practice is required. What of the opposite scenario, however? If one practices all the time without once thinking theoretically about music is it possible to become a good musician? Of course it is. But constant yet unreflective practice cannot make you a great musician. Great musicians always think about the nature of music. Does that mean taking classes in advanced classical theory? Not necessarily. A person can theorize deeply about music without even knowing how to read standard musical notation. That theory will simply take place using some other language. But careful thinking is necessary for any real virtuoso. As this example demonstrates, however, neither theory nor practice takes precedence. Different people may begin in different places or have different emphases, but I imagine this has more to do with personality and giftedness (and perhaps calling) than anything else. The theory/practice relationship is a chicken and egg thing if you ask me.
Theology is a discipline where the intersection of theory and practice is entirely necessary. Both uninformed and impractical theology are examples of poor theology. One of the reasons that I wanted to create this blog is for the purpose of encouraging discussion at this point of intersection. I hope that the very tension that's been remarked upon here is evidence of some success, and odd as it may sound I hope that we see more tension at this point of intersection. A well constructed yet eminently functional theology is something that North American evangelicalism needs desperately and I hope our tiny little corner can be a place where that point of intersection is taken seriously.
13 comments:
I like it Colin - great example with music. Looking forward to more posts soon!
yeah. good example colin.
happy new year all.
for the sake of discussion i'll offer some early, perhaps raw, thoughts about this subject.
first of all, no doubt that theology which stops short of practical ramifications kind of stays in the air.
and on the flip side, discussions of how to act which evade theological reflection also evade any real meaning as particularly Christian acts.
some acts or approaches may seem self-evidently good, but at least as far as it concerns discussions such as we're having here, it still bears reflecting on what makes them good from a Christian perspective.
on both ends of the spectrum which Colin has presented i think there are some serious problems.
intellectuals think they've answered a question when they've given a sort of logical answer, and depending on the nature or purpose of the discussion at hand, perhaps that is all that is required. but raise a real-time situation and try to apply it, and if we don't ever want to bother going there then our theology sort of stays in a vaccuum. it loses any umph or sophistication it might have had.
that doesn't mean every theological discussion has to end in a "how to", but every theologian should be willing to hear the "so what" question and at least give it some thought, bringing nuance to the theology, and more importantly challenging the person to LIVE RIGHTLY.
i want to take the posture that is willing to hear the "so what" question. But what i can't stand is when the "so what" is asked almost as a way of diminishing the importance of the theological reflection that in my mind so often appropriately precedes.
"so what?" is a great question for moving forward, but a horrible cop-out from theological/biblical reflection.
and this is where i think evangelicalism has run into real trouble the last couple decades. theological positions are taken and situational objections or questions are shrugged off or categorized as "mystery". Furthermore, the practical ecclesiological and spiritual steps that are taken are so often done on the basis of very little theological consideration. instead, other priorities drive (and often they are basically capitalistic, consumeristic or individualistic). broad practical approaches are often taken up and made normative on the basis of a very narrow theological foundation.
so we get a whole stream of Christianity built on immediate shortcuts to "relevance." so we get a steady stream of 150-page softcover books about "relevant" christianity which often fall short of the sort of nuance that allows people to think outside of simple cultural trends.
even if the application-oriented material is basically sound, given time the whole faith gets weighted toward the "how-tos" and becomes quite separated from anything meaningfully or particularly Christian.
i feel like anti-intellectualism is prevalent in the evangelical church and is one of my main, if not my number one, struggles with it. how often have i heard that when a singing time (no matter how emotionally charged and content-shallow it is) goes long "the Spirit has moved"? but when the time of biblical reflection has dared transcend fluffy illustration it has merely been "interesting". the pastor gets a "good sermon" and a hand shake on the way out but the reflection so often dies right there.
i'm all for talking nitty-gritty real life application, but what makes church-talk, or even this blog for that matter, Christian in any meaningful sense if we are skipping to the most "sensible" how-tos or so-whats with an apparent allergy to theological discussion or debate? it might be very practical. But what, if anything, makes it Christian?
theory and practice need each other. some will be specialists and some will more naturally come at a discussion from one angle or the other. but when stressing one becomes a cop-out to avoid the other then we've got problems. a discussion needs grace in the give-and-take and the back-and-forth.
anyway, those are some raw thoughts from the guy who gets so annoyed with people in class who avoid the tough every-day life questions, and on the other hand gets annoyed when the every-day life stuff pushes too impatiently against the important work of theological reflection.
i don't know if the word verification is trying to tell me something, but my word is "dumscar".
Jon, great reflections, and I wholeheartedly agree. I think I should also emphasize that I don't think that both theoretical and practical reflection or interaction can happen simultaneously all the time or in every situation. Usually, in fact, there is a distinct preference for one or the other in any conversation or piece of writing or whatever. Most of my recent writing, for instance, has been spectacularly theoretical and has almost no immediately apparent practical application. What I will not accept, however, is that it is consequently worthless. I also take deep issue with the argument that because a book or a conversation deals exclusively with practical concerns that it is consequently theologically uninformed. What is problematic is what you've mentioned, Jon, when you write about people who are unwilling to address either the theoretical or the practical end of the spectrum, when one does not accept the validity and importance of the opposing polarity. There's nothing wrong with the fact that Scott's MA is primarily practical while mine is primarily theoretical. I can personally attest that his work influences me and my thinking influences him, and vice versa. That's what I think should happen.
Good comments, all.
I'll admit, I've been troubled by this post, Colin. On the one hand, I've taken the theory/practice distinction and their inter-relation as a given. I've often likened my role to that of a research biologist (theologian) who hopes to make discoveries that will one day be useful for family physicians (pastors and other doctors of the soul).
I'm questioning that distinction. While I'll need to do some more research on this, one thing I can tell you is that the distinction between "practical theology," "biblical studies," and "theology" is a relatively recent phenomenon. In the classical world, it was understood that theological reflection was an end in itself, and one that was indistinguishable from what we might now term "practical life." In Origen of Alexandria (and Augustine and Aquinas, in their own ways), theory (theoria) has to do with "seeing" or contemplating the divine being. There is nothing higher than this. It describes human activity in the eternal state. It is transformative, but also presupposes transformation to have occured. Our handy distinctions between theory, practice, theology, spirituality simply don't work in such a model. And, to apply such categories and distinctions to this view is to already do violence to it.
I wonder if perhaps our inclination to divide theory and practice has its impetus in the liberal egalitarianism in which we've been steeped. We want EVERYONE to have the same opportunity to be "good" Christians equally. And so, while we want to say that some theology is a good thing, theological activity cannot be too closely tied to Christian life. Not everyone can engage in it equally. Apart from the monks and the clergy, not a lot of Medieval peasants were contemplating God's existence in the way that Anselm was in his Proslogion. That they were not so able, was a symptom of the fall and the need for the kingdom of God. And so, in reaction to this apparent elitism, we move toward so-called practicality and make Christian living about doing rather than contemplating. And, add to that the fact that evangelicalism arose during the Enlightenment, with it's particular understanding of reason/rationality, we shouldn't be surprised to see such aversion to the intellect.
This isn't a solution to the difficulty. But I do think that the theory/practice distinction is a difficulty indeed.
Looking forward to some more thoughts on this from y'all to help me on this...
A line from John Calvin has come to mind. He writes that "the affairs of men have scarcely ever been so well regulated that the better things pleased the majority."
This is a huge problem for evangelicals, I think. So often it seems we take some broad vision statements (however biblically founded) and move from there to finding the best practical means t "success", perhaps not asking along the way whether the ends justify the means, or even if we've got our ends right.
To give an example. Is it right to alter our worship practices to be pleasing to a certain target group? Who decides what can be altered and how and by what criteria? Who decides who exactly is supposed to be pleased? Can we be trusted to be pleased by the right things? Shoul we be surprised if, in a society built on the consumer mindset and the principles of capitalism, our worship practices are bent toward the individual and are presented in the most palatable way possible to the group that makes up the most invested majority?
Perhaps we could do this and still be doing the best thing with our worship, butr is that a theological discussion or a practical one?
It is inevitably both. But which drives? Are we proof-texting our practices or practicing from the depths of faith in Christ?
My guess is it isn't cut and dry in any of our churches. In fact it is probably a mess. But my guess is that a little more "theory" is needed (to use the terminology which makes Dustin uncomfortable).
Good comments all. I just had an interesting reading experience as I re-read Dustin's comment. He wrote:
"And so, while we want to say that some theology is a good thing, theological activity cannot be too closely tied to Christian life."
What I first understood was: Theology must be married as closely as possible to the Christian life. That marriage cannot be too close.
Then I read the rest of the paragraph again and that didn't seem to fit. I reinterpreted the words to mean: Highly theoretical theology should not be tied too closely to the practical reality of being a Christian, as this creates elitism.
Then I re-read again and realized that he was making a rhetorical point that we often think in the second way, though mistakenly. Amusingly enough, then, I think I fell backwards into Dustin's point in my first reading. Am I right Dustin? In any case, if my first interpretation can be the reading we adopt, I love the idea that theology cannot be tied too closely to the Christian life.
A deeper melding of theology and practice is actually what I'm trying to argue for in the initial post. I do make a distinction, but that's an attempt at framing the discussion as much as anything. What I really mean to say in the post is that the distinction between theory and practice is fundamentally artificial. The highly practical person is doing theoretical theology. The esoteric, ivory-tower theologian is living in the world. The problem comes when either our practice or our theory is unexamined and unconscious. That's the real problem.
What I'm calling for here, more than anything, is a greater sense of self-awareness when it comes to the ways and the reasons we are Christians.
Oh drat. Colin, you caught me. I didn't have the words to express what I was trying to say and I ended up capitulating to the very distinction I was trying to challenge. Let me have at it again.
The typical approach in Evangelicalism to the relation between "theology" and "practice" is to view "theology" as "theory" and "ministry" as "practice." We go to our theology books to get an idea of what we should "do" and then we put "it" (the ideas?) into practice. This is a "top-down" approach.
I don't like this model. I don't like it because it makes theology something "abstract". Due to theology's subject matter, it shouldn't be abstract at all. As well, when we go to theology for guidance on "practice" we run dangerously close to allowing our perception of our "practical problem" to deterimine what we find in our "theology." If the subject matter of theology is the Word of God, and God's Word is free, then we cannot put such constraints on the task of theology.
The alternative solution popular in many mainline denominations is to allow "practice" to determine "theory." Our lived experience, and our ability to articulate/interpret our lived experience, becomes the grist of our "theoretical" speculation. Theory must be tailored explicitly to "practice". This is a "bottom-up" approach. In addition to the problems with the first approach, this view seems even more confident that revelation comes to us through the movement of history, and that we can actually grasp it confidently.
I'm saying that perhaps the problem is the "theory/practice" distinction altogether. This is why I have sympathies for the classical tradition because they view one's intellect and one's behaviour as oriented by the vision of God. Intellect and behaviour cannot be collapsed into "theory and practice" in this view because both intellect and practice are only (inseparable) facets of human existence and both are to be ordered by God. So, there isn't a marriage of two modes of being, but two facets of human being that are already one in the unity of the human being and ordered in the unity of the one God.
So, in short, what I am trying to do in a convoluted way, is get passed the temptation to treat theology as it has come to be in modernity: an exercise of speculative reason. Rather, it is a spiritual pursuit that is to be done precisely AS prayer. And, in the view I am trying to articulate, there is no independent Christian behaviour that does not involve orientation from God. Hmmm... even here my ability to subvert the distinction starts to break down because of my habit of speaking in which the distinction is so ingrained...
I'll take any help you all can offer :)
Isn’t this essentially more a conversation about the snobbery that Colin initially wrote about and less about theology/theory versus practice? There are all kinds of opposing tensions that exist in the church. These tensions are necessary to keep the balance because we tend to drift towards our own particular soapbox and try to defend it. We need our multi-gifted/perspectived community to correct the drift and we need to be a voice of correction also. No one has the monopoly on one definitive point of view. We all have been given different gifts and areas of interest and ability, and those gifts combined in community shine a brighter light combined than on their own. …I’m dangerously close to breaking into a musically challenged rendition of “Blessed Be the Ties that Bind” so I’ll conclude by saying that I think you who understand the importance of theology should reflect and write and do theology with everything you’ve got. I love the idea of a Theologian in Residence in church. There are issues in the church that are so nuanced and require thought before action. I am currently contemplating how much evangelism just becomes marketing and is not really about helping people…when “those” people become a means to building the kingdom of God and not the reason…but I digress. We all need to do what we do with a measure of humility and treat others with the respect that we would like to be treated with. And since I now am in full fledged ramble, I will conclude (again) with a Martin Luther King Jr. quote, not because it is particularly relevant to this conversation, but because it is his birthday today and, well, it’s just a good quote: “The Christian faith makes it possible for us nobly to accept that which cannot be changed, and to meet disappointments and sorrow with an inner poise, and to absorb the most intense pain without abandoning our sense of hope.” ~Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength to Love, 1963
Lola
Thanks for your points, Lola. I think you are wise to push us to consider some of the elitism that permeates the church... and, at least, my soul.
Those of us who have gone into "academic theology" as a professional choice can be some of the worst for elitism. In my experience, at least, I have found that much of the elitism comes from a deep insecurity over the worth of one's academic theological work. "What is the point of this?" "Does anyone care about my last paper, article, book?" "I've invested so much in education, how come no one seems to care?" When I have had thoughts like that (and I do quite regularly), I find myself tempted to retreat into an elitism that values letters behind one's name over spiritual insight. The problem is that there are always people who do better on their papers, publish with better known presses, or get their degrees from more prestigious schools. And so, one is left in a rather lonely position in which they blame the church for not "appreciating me" and despise the academy for its snobbery. It can make a mess of one's soul.
I would really like to hear someone who is rooted in congregational life comment on their view of theology and the academy. We hear a lot from disgruntled grad students about their perceived lack of appreciation, but what do actual people in the church think?
i was trying to think of a "so what" for colin and dustin (and myself) but lola beat me to it. good points lola.
any time anyone quotes MLK Jr i'm all ears! talk about someone for whom theology was practice; orthodoxy ran into orthopraxy! this spring i was at the Westminster Abbey and was pleased to see MLK up on the side of the building along with other saints going all the way back to athanasius (i think) and the like. beautiful.
i think one of the things we could talk about would be something i've noticed lola bring up a few times, and that is the idea of "balance".
although this word has some unhelpful connotations to it (which we should talk about sometime), i'm a something fan of it because i think there are so many paradoxes and tensions within the truth that to live accordingly needs a certain level of sophistication that goes beyond "law" or legalism.
this is incidentally something which has leaked into the evangelism/marketing of the church, as lola has pointed out. we let strategic lessons or devices crowd out the vital dynamic of walking in the Spirit.
and if you are following me (in turn following lola) this far, let me add that THIS is a huge huge problem in evangelicalism: boiling the story of joseph (for example) into a strategy for leadership or godliness based on certain points or examples rather than recognizing and following along in the LIFESTYLE of dependence upon God every step of the way as did Joseph, and Daniel, and so on.
This lifestyle of course takes into serious account their good examples (and bad) and pays close attention to their responses to certain situations (and more importantly, God's response to them), but does not turn the Bible into something that can just be learned and left on the shelf and lived without much further reflection.
no, i think everyday life is a constant back and forth between theological reflection and action. it think this is just as true of the elitist academician as the anti-intellectual. all are theologizing by their actions and all by their actions are betraying their theology. neither of them is in great shape by denying this.
question is how it all interacts. lola is right, we need to have a cooperative effort in the church.
this goes both ways. i don't know how many times as a pastor i preached a knock out sermon (or at least I thought i did) only to be "bested" by the quiet example of some servant in the church. ie the lady who came in and cleaned up someone else's mess after potluck without a word to anyone or any mention of it at all. the servants, the people living out the stuff we talk about in the workplace in startling and difficult ways. these people were walking sermons without saying so. they spoke into my theology in five minutes like a whole theological treatise might.
however, i might not have recognized it or appreciated it for what it was without the theology and biblical example with which to connect it.
i'm rambling now too, but i haven't even said what i came on here to say. i wanted to echo dustin's frustration. there are certainly times where i question the amount of my life and money i have given up in order to be theologically trained. it all seems a waste when i preach a sermon or teach a class (which came with hours and years of theological reflection) only to have it minimized into one of a thousand equal opinions immediately after.
i mean, yes, it IS one of a thousand, but what is the role of the preacher/teacher if their word is just one more blog post in the sequence of life: to be written off at earliest convenience?
or what about when you sit in someone else's sermon and you question everything being said? where do you go with that? where is the vital dynamic between Word and life really taking place? is it even welcome?
as dustin and lola have said: we need to pursue this as a community, else we end up cutting ourselves off from one another. one group retreating to its suspicion of the academy and the other to the elitism of the academy. both doing so out of self-protection.
i can understand both, i think, but would like to hear from others.
after all, you can only take so much theorizing and criticism from the academics before you look at your watch and say, "hey I gotta LIVE at some point here so when do we stop talking about all the shades of grey and decide what to actually DO?"
or: "if you can debate every single point like this, and you've investigated it to death already on our behalf, why do WE even bother at all? just let us know when you arrive at a solid guidance. until then i'll go with the last decisive word i heard, which was a sermon by John MacArthur on the radio last week."
nevermind that John MacArthur is ALWAYS decisive (whethe wron or right), the point is that theologians and pastors keep stuff in the air so much it can be frustrating.
but what we need to say is that to some extent THAT IS THE POINT. you shouldn't be able to move on with 7 points to guide you through every situation. you should move on INFORMED and yet still dependent on the SPIRIT and the interpretive community of CHRIST which centers life around the Word together.
THAT is what pastors should be paid to LEAD.
unless we get that sort of interaction going, i worry for the evangelical church.
okay, better bring this to a stop. would like to hea from others...
Just a few thoughts...I think that we all have our insecurities. It is just part of the human experience. The lady who is doing the post-potluck clean up is not aware that she is speaking theology through her actions and probably feels some level of insecurity. And the reflective pastor who preached the knock out sermon might not be aware that maybe his words inspired the lady who is doing the post-potluck clean up. That kind of communication just doesn’t usually happen.
There often just isn’t the opportunity to have conversations like that. For several years I have been involved in what you could probably call a satellite/house church. My pastor would have things to say and the rest of us would ask questions or disagree and a conversation usually followed that was probably helpful to all parties involved. When I went back to “Big Church” I found it so bizarre that one person stands in front of the crowd and does a monologue. I wanted to hold up my hand and ask some questions or have him clarify some points or challenge him when he misused (in my opinion) the biblical text. I wish there was a post-sermon discussion so this conversation could happen. Wouldn't that be helpful for everyone? Even with the elder’s board, I wish there was a more open discussion. Maybe it would be helpful if they even listed some of the books that they are reading...I hope they are reading...so that the rest of us could get a sense of where they are coming from...it would also be nice if one’s eligibility for the elder’s board was not dependant upon what equipment a person was born with, but that’s a discussion for another day...where was I again?...oh yes...
Another reason why theological discussions don’t happen is because some people are just not able to have those discussions. They just don’t get it. Just like I will never be a virtuoso violinist because I could not tell whether an “E” was on pitch or not, some people are just not wired that way. I had a friend who was a gifted artist and could remember who did what and said what and was related to whom (which I find intensely boring), but when I tried to engage him in a philosophical discussion he just felt stupid. It was just like that area of his brain got stuck. I realized that what was easy for me was difficult for him. I needed to affirm him in his abilities and not make him feel bad.
We all have our insecurities. I think it might be easy to think that someone with a bunch of academic credentials behind their name and a better-than-eighth-grade vocabulary might not have a messy soul, but apparently they do. Gentlemen, the time and money you have invested in reflection upon theological things is no more wasted than the time a musician spends practicing or a mother spends wiping noses and baby behinds. Maybe we all just need to try to understand, appreciate and affirm each other’s abilities. Here are a few more words from the great Martin Luther King Jr.: “If a man is called a streetsweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and Earth will pause to say, Here lived a great streetsweeper who did his job well.”
Lola
...And some after thoughts. I am regretting my previous comment. I feel like I've gone all Dr Phil and ran this discussion off the tracks. I really just wanted to make two points. 1)In my experience, there is not really a place to have meaningful theological discussions in church and 2)not everybody has the ability to think the way you all do. That's all...I can sleep now...
Lola
Great stuff all. I agree pretty much across the board, and any disagreements are probably a matter of semantics (not meaningless, but not interesting enough to argue about right now).
I just wanted to agree in the strongest possible terms with what Lola said in her last two comments. Doing what you're called to do is what counts, so if you're called to theology do theology and if you're called to do something else, do that. Amen. No, there is not enough space for real reflection in many churches...I think you should call your pastor, take him out for lunch, and challenge him to establish something. That was for all of us, btw.
As for the theory/practice question...I think what I wanted to underline with my post, and something we've definitely been talking about, is that we need to be reflective Christians. We need to reflect upon our faith, and be faithful regarding our reflection.
Post a Comment