Theology and ‘practical’ theology: Both-and, not either-or
Monday, April 16th, 2012
“Theology” is a term that you are probably, at the very least, somewhat familiar with. You probably remember hearing, seeing or reading it at least once before in your life. And whether you are a Christian or not, if you are reading this paper it is very likely that you are in some way affiliated with Azusa Pacific University. APU is a Christian university, which I make clear just in case that fact had by some inexplicable means escaped you. And if you are in some way associated with APU, I would make the well-founded assumption that you cannot be around here for very long or be around Christians in general for very long without coming into contact with this term, this theology.
So, what is it? Apparently, it is something that is rather prevalent here on campus. After all, we have theologians as professors and we have a Department of Theology. It is mentioned in sermons, in chapel, in our daily reading and in our conversations with our friends. There is even an entire library devoted to theological books. This is significant in that while other fields have their share of books, they lack their own distinct libraries.
Thus it seems, from an empirical level, to be a very significant part of the academic and intellectual life here at APU. By extension, we can reason that it is a significant field of study for Christians as a whole body. It seems to me, therefore, that it is rather inescapable and we must come to terms with what it is, what it means, and how we practice it.
Now, you may know all of this quite well and I am sure that you do. I mean only in writing this way shows that it is from a logical standpoint very nearly impossible to think that theology has little place here at school or in our lives. I hope to show later that it has an even greater presence than we realize. At any rate, let us return to figuring out what exactly theology really is.
Literally, theology is the study (-ology) of God (theo-). However, I think it is important to arrive at a more specific and helpful definition. C.S. Lewis, whose writing and thinking has significantly shaped my own, defined theology as “the science of God.” I would agree with him on this definition. It is simple, straightforward, and to the point. But it is, to some degree, inadequate and so I want to qualify it and explain myself further.
The way that I see it, theology is the science of God insofar as that it is a systematic, logical and extensive field of study. It is based on data, the events of our lives and the occurrences of the natural world. But for all its conceptual similarities to science, it is not like science in a good many ways. It, on the one hand, studies what science cannot. Science, and any scientist worth his or her salt, would laugh at the idea that science can
be used to study God. It is simply not within the scope of science to study God the way that theologians do.
However, I still think this is a good word to use; I still think of theology as the science of God. Let me explain further.
Scientific experiments are carried out, by and large, with the use of certain instruments that can measure a certain quality or occurrence. This, I think, is true, too, of theology. We analyze experiences, texts and events with instruments and interpret the results. However, the instruments are far, far more complex than any microscope ever conceived. The primary instruments for conducting theological study are namely you and us. I say “you” to mean that your whole body, all that it encounters, reasons and feels, can be used to study God. It is the foremost and primary instrument in any study, really. I think the holistic nature of yourself, the fact that you are able to grapple with truth in a myriad of ways, is what is the key advantage.
Some people might argue that we ought to prop up reason as the only means of studying God. I think doing so leaves quite a lot out, however. In a strictly-reduced rationalistic system, where is there room for mystery, for joy? They seem to be rather important aspects of our lives and in understanding God. This is not to mention other fields of study wherein a strict rationalization would rob them of their meaning and efficacy: the humanities, the arts.
That notwithstanding, there is something better than yourself for studying God. It is, rather obviously, many “yous;” it is us. We, the Christian community, are the best instrument available to the history of the Church and all her members, is the best instrument for studying God.
This all leads me to what I think follows rather nicely from our present discourse. If theology is a prevalent field of study that has great importance for you as a Christian, and if you and I are the best means for performing this study, then several implications follow.
Firstly, we are, whether we like it or not, theologians. In fact, all people everywhere and at all times are theologians in some sense. We are all theologians in that we all engage and interact with God and formulate beliefs about Him. Even an atheistic stance is still a theological stance. But funnily enough, when you take God out of theology, you are left with just -ology, which makes just about as much sense as atheism does. Humor aside, we are all theologians, even if some of us are rather bad ones.
So, what is it? Apparently, it is something that is rather prevalent here on campus. After all, we have theologians as professors and we have a Department of Theology. It is mentioned in sermons, in chapel, in our daily reading and in our conversations with our friends. There is even an entire library devoted to theological books. This is significant in that while other fields have their share of books, they lack their own distinct libraries.
Thus it seems, from an empirical level, to be a very significant part of the academic and intellectual life here at APU. By extension, we can reason that it is a significant field of study for Christians as a whole body. It seems to me, therefore, that it is rather inescapable and we must come to terms with what it is, what it means, and how we practice it.
Now, you may know all of this quite well and I am sure that you do. I mean only in writing this way shows that it is from a logical standpoint very nearly impossible to think that theology has little place here at school or in our lives. I hope to show later that it has an even greater presence than we realize. At any rate, let us return to figuring out what exactly theology really is.
Literally, theology is the study (-ology) of God (theo-). However, I think it is important to arrive at a more specific and helpful definition. C.S. Lewis, whose writing and thinking has significantly shaped my own, defined theology as “the science of God.” I would agree with him on this definition. It is simple, straightforward, and to the point. But it is, to some degree, inadequate and so I want to qualify it and explain myself further.
The way that I see it, theology is the science of God insofar as that it is a systematic, logical and extensive field of study. It is based on data, the events of our lives and the occurrences of the natural world. But for all its conceptual similarities to science, it is not like science in a good many ways. It, on the one hand, studies what science cannot. Science, and any scientist worth his or her salt, would laugh at the idea that science can
be used to study God. It is simply not within the scope of science to study God the way that theologians do.
However, I still think this is a good word to use; I still think of theology as the science of God. Let me explain further.
Scientific experiments are carried out, by and large, with the use of certain instruments that can measure a certain quality or occurrence. This, I think, is true, too, of theology. We analyze experiences, texts and events with instruments and interpret the results. However, the instruments are far, far more complex than any microscope ever conceived. The primary instruments for conducting theological study are namely you and us. I say “you” to mean that your whole body, all that it encounters, reasons and feels, can be used to study God. It is the foremost and primary instrument in any study, really. I think the holistic nature of yourself, the fact that you are able to grapple with truth in a myriad of ways, is what is the key advantage.
Some people might argue that we ought to prop up reason as the only means of studying God. I think doing so leaves quite a lot out, however. In a strictly-reduced rationalistic system, where is there room for mystery, for joy? They seem to be rather important aspects of our lives and in understanding God. This is not to mention other fields of study wherein a strict rationalization would rob them of their meaning and efficacy: the humanities, the arts.
That notwithstanding, there is something better than yourself for studying God. It is, rather obviously, many “yous;” it is us. We, the Christian community, are the best instrument available to the history of the Church and all her members, is the best instrument for studying God.
This all leads me to what I think follows rather nicely from our present discourse. If theology is a prevalent field of study that has great importance for you as a Christian, and if you and I are the best means for performing this study, then several implications follow.
Firstly, we are, whether we like it or not, theologians. In fact, all people everywhere and at all times are theologians in some sense. We are all theologians in that we all engage and interact with God and formulate beliefs about Him. Even an atheistic stance is still a theological stance. But funnily enough, when you take God out of theology, you are left with just -ology, which makes just about as much sense as atheism does. Humor aside, we are all theologians, even if some of us are rather bad ones.
Secondly, I think this renders our popular and contemporary understanding of theology rather dull, boring and even no longer accurate. It is apparent to me that there is a widely-held belief that theology is not the most exciting discipline. Some of my friends and many students at APU would shrink away from doing theology. They think of it as a dry, tedious field of study entirely comprised of ancient manuscripts and Greek and Hebrew nonsense. How utterly false! If what we have seen about theology is true, if we are really the best tools to engage in this field of study, then how very exciting that must be! It means that, as Christians, we are in the business of doing theology in every aspect of our lives. It is freed from these connotations, or at the very least ought to be.
Finally, it means that there is a semantic problem with the distinction between theology and “practical theology.” Now, I want to be careful to tread lightly here. What I am not saying is that our Department of Practical Theology is in any way flawed in calling itself as such. Neither do I mean to any degree to insult or cast aspersions upon our Department of Theology.
What I do want to do, however, is perhaps correct a misconception. That misconception is namely that there is a disparity between theology and practical theology. If you have even been in a room with theologians and practical theologians, you will know that there is a marked difference in the demeanor and type of people that make up each group. Most people see theology and nonpractical theologians as being more academic and even theoretical than ‘practical’ theologians. Practical theologians, on the other hand, are generally understood to be more ministry-oriented, more involved in the outworking of theology.
I think there is a problem with this delineation. Firstly, there are the words themselves. In the strict linguistic interpretation of what it means to be a practical theologian there is the implication that “just theology” is somehow nonpractical. As we have seen this is entirely untrue. Every aspect of our lives is involved in theological study, even if we fail to acknowledge that. Additionally, there is the matter of what this distinction creates. It has the potential to create a gap between those who are involved in ministry and those who are more academically oriented. However, it is clear to me that we as Christians are to be both-and people. Academics who study theology ought to be that much more encouraged to serve and serve well. And those who are called to ministry ought to seek to think and understand deeply while serving lovingly. Both-and, not either-or.
In closing, I want to say that it is my hope that several things happen. Firstly that people realize that we are all theologians. We are all interacting with God, regardless of what it is that we think we are doing. There is not a single thing we do or think that is not in some way making us more or less like God. We always are interacting with Him and engaging in theology. It is my hope that we eliminate the distinction in our lives between practical and nonpractical theology.
Finally, it is my fervent hope that we become both-and Christians. I hope that we become pastors with Ph.D.s, missionaries with masters degrees. I hope that we become scholars who serve, theologians whose depth of knowledge is matched and exceeded by the degree to which we sacrificially give of ourselves in Christ-glorifying service. I want us — myself included — to think deeply, serve lovingly and in all of it give glory to the God who loved us so much that He sent His Son to be the end to all our sin. Jesus, the Lord, is worthy of both-and living and thinking; He is worthy of our all!
Finally, it means that there is a semantic problem with the distinction between theology and “practical theology.” Now, I want to be careful to tread lightly here. What I am not saying is that our Department of Practical Theology is in any way flawed in calling itself as such. Neither do I mean to any degree to insult or cast aspersions upon our Department of Theology.
What I do want to do, however, is perhaps correct a misconception. That misconception is namely that there is a disparity between theology and practical theology. If you have even been in a room with theologians and practical theologians, you will know that there is a marked difference in the demeanor and type of people that make up each group. Most people see theology and nonpractical theologians as being more academic and even theoretical than ‘practical’ theologians. Practical theologians, on the other hand, are generally understood to be more ministry-oriented, more involved in the outworking of theology.
I think there is a problem with this delineation. Firstly, there are the words themselves. In the strict linguistic interpretation of what it means to be a practical theologian there is the implication that “just theology” is somehow nonpractical. As we have seen this is entirely untrue. Every aspect of our lives is involved in theological study, even if we fail to acknowledge that. Additionally, there is the matter of what this distinction creates. It has the potential to create a gap between those who are involved in ministry and those who are more academically oriented. However, it is clear to me that we as Christians are to be both-and people. Academics who study theology ought to be that much more encouraged to serve and serve well. And those who are called to ministry ought to seek to think and understand deeply while serving lovingly. Both-and, not either-or.
In closing, I want to say that it is my hope that several things happen. Firstly that people realize that we are all theologians. We are all interacting with God, regardless of what it is that we think we are doing. There is not a single thing we do or think that is not in some way making us more or less like God. We always are interacting with Him and engaging in theology. It is my hope that we eliminate the distinction in our lives between practical and nonpractical theology.
Finally, it is my fervent hope that we become both-and Christians. I hope that we become pastors with Ph.D.s, missionaries with masters degrees. I hope that we become scholars who serve, theologians whose depth of knowledge is matched and exceeded by the degree to which we sacrificially give of ourselves in Christ-glorifying service. I want us — myself included — to think deeply, serve lovingly and in all of it give glory to the God who loved us so much that He sent His Son to be the end to all our sin. Jesus, the Lord, is worthy of both-and living and thinking; He is worthy of our all!
——
Mark Thomas is a junior English and economics double major from Burbank, Calif. He enjoys coffee a little too much (according to some people) and has a particular affinity for sloths. Follow the blog that he and Reed Woodyard run at www.rantifestos.org.
Mark Thomas is a junior English and economics double major from Burbank, Calif. He enjoys coffee a little too much (according to some people) and has a particular affinity for sloths. Follow the blog that he and Reed Woodyard run at www.rantifestos.org.
I appreciate your sentiment, but there is something drastically wrong with the statement, "The primary instruments for conducting theological study are namely you and us".
ReplyDeleteHaha ok, you're entitled to that thought.
ReplyDeleteBy that sentence I mean that we are the most basic and fundamental instrument in the study of theology—it is we who read, act, think, perceive, reason, feel. Furthermore, since we are Christians we have "inside knowledge" about God that others cannot possess aside from being in Christ. As a Christian body, those who exist today and who have lived in the past serve as the collective best means to conduct the study of God in our writing, thinking, study of scripture, interaction with each other, etc.
Yea, I understand what your saying but I think that characterizing it in that way defines theology in a very subjective way. If I am the primary instrument of conducting theological study, then the way that I think and feel about God ends up defining who God is. What do we do when our "inside knowledge" contradicts with each other, or with the word?
ReplyDeleteI don't think that as we go through our lives we get to experience who God is, and share that knowledge with one another. That seems like a very existentialist idea.
We can not know God as He is, but only as he reveals Himself to us. This is the traditional distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology. And if this is true, then we must ask the question not how can we experience God or interact with God, but how does God reveal Himself if we desire to know Him. That's the study of theology, the study of how God *reveals* himself.
This then leads to the classical answer that God reveals himself in two ways, general revelation, and special revelation. In the former God reveals himself through creation and providence, and in the latter he reveals himself in the pages of scripture. Those are the two instruments upon which we may conduct theological study. The book of nature, and the word of God.
I don't think that you would disagree with me here, but when you say something like "They think of it as a dry, tedious field of study entirely comprised of ancient manuscripts and Greek and Hebrew nonsense. How utterly false! If what we have seen about theology is true, if we really are the best tools to engage in this field of study, then how very exciting that must be! It means that, as Christians, we are in the business of doing theology in every aspect of our lives. It is freed from these connotations, or at the very least ought to be", you seem to be contrasting exactly what I'm saying with what your saying.
The solution to theological disinterest is not look at the Greek and Hebrew texts of scripture and acknowledge that they can be dull and dry. It isn't to say something like, "as you go about your daily lives you are experiencing, and learning about who God is". We do not need to be freed from the connotation that the primary place where God reveals himself is in His word.
The solution is to say that the deep, hard to understand truths of the scriptures actually are exciting! The hard to understand truths are not boring or dull, but invigorating, and joy giving! When we search the word, we discover wonderful truths about God that will deeply and profoundly change the way we live. When we understand God as He *truly* reveals himself to us, we will be like Moses, who preferred suffering with the people of God rather than enjoying the passing pleasures of sin (Heb. 11:25). We want to feel that, and know that, and experience that. And hence we do not lay aside His word, but pick it up daily searching it every the more deeply knowing that it is in it that eternal life and joy is found. We don't shy away from theology texts as academic and inconsequential, but devour them seeking to be changed and transformed by the truths contained in them.
When we think about the text that way, the Greek and Hebrew texts no longer appear nonsense. The arguments of theologians are no longer dry, or inconsequential. Those words become the key to our happiness, both in this life, and in the life to come.
I'm fairly certain that you agree with the gist of what I'm saying, and I'm not saying that you don't love the word, or value experience more. I know that you don't. I just want to encourage you to encourage others in that direction, and to be careful with the words that your choosing.
Greg, I appreciate your concern, but your comments and criticisms seem to indicate that you missed the main point of what I wrote and misconstrued some of what I said.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the title of my article was what I intended to convey: that theology is practical and that it is a part of our everyday lives. It does not seem that you gathered this from your comments, which I do not feel to be my fault or the fault of my argumentation.
Below you misunderstood the proper usage of the phrase 'inside knowledge.' The proper and common understanding of that phrase is 'knowledge which is only available to people in a particular position.' Much like might be true of someone who has insideR knowledge—they were meant in the same way. I nowhere argue for an explicitly or implicitly subjective approach to theology.
"What do we do when our "inside knowledge" contradicts with each other, or with the word?"
Secondly, my definition of theology is as follows: it is the 'science' of God; the systematic investigation and study thereof. I chose my words very carefully when I wrote this section (see more on that at the end)
The rhetorical and logical weight in these lines (see below) is not on the rejection of the study of ancient manuscripts. Rather, it is twofold: 1) that people misunderstand studying these things as 'dry, (and) tedious' and 2) that theology exists in a vacuum and has no practical implications and does not affect our lives.
"They think of it as a dry, tedious field of study entirely comprised of ancient manuscripts and Greek and Hebrew nonsense. How utterly false! If what we have seen about theology is true, if we are really the best tools to engage in this field of study, then how very exciting that must be! It means that, as Christians, we are in the business of doing theology in every aspect of our lives. It is freed from these connotations, or at the very least ought to be."
Finally, you misunderstand what I meant by that we are the best instruments for the study of theology. Your misunderstanding hinges on the word 'instrument.' You misconstrued it as meaning 'object of.' But that's not what an instrument is. It is something used to look through, not at. We are NOT the objects of study here; we use our basic senses and reason to study the ways that God has revealed himself to us: through Scripture and Creation. We read, we think, we see the words on the paper. Other Christians do the same and together we can better understand God; by looking at and attempting to understand Him and His word. Furthermore, as I already mentioned, we have 'inside knowledge'—God has indwelled us with His Holy spirit and draws us to Himself. Thusly, we are the only 'instruments' that are able to understand him to any degree; the only 'instrument's that can at all. The rest of creation, those not in Christ included, cannot understand God the same way we can.
I closed out by saying it was my fervent hope that Christians not shirk away from hard, difficult theological study. I don't think we disagree, but I think you misunderstood and misconstrued what I wrote in a way that is ungrounded with regards to either you knowing me or what I wrote.
I can't wait to see you and Amy this coming week!!! :D