(This post is a little .. blunt … but it should not be taken as a criticism of Darren or anyone who works to present a “practical theology”. I intend it as a criticism only of those who demand a practical theology, and will not pay attention to anything that is not immediately applicable to their daily lives. Darren says a lot of the things that I repeat here, so this should absolutely not be construed as a criticism of him!)
Darren at Nicene Theology discusses how to teach theology proper so as to make it relevant. He writes
While the groundwork that has been laid so far is still largely theoretical, this foray into practical theology is challenging. How does our theology inform our day-to-day lives, including our behavior and our relationships? When you teach a doctrine like God’s triune nature to a Christian (let alone a non-Christian), how do you show them that these historical, biblical ideas are important to them? How do we teach doctrine in a manner that is relevant, rather than strictly an intellectual exercise?
I’ve had the same sort of questions about my own attempts at teaching theology. I’m supposed to show people how various truths are “applicable”. To some extent, I do that. I explain how the doctrine of election is a source of comfort to Christians, especially when it comes to things like evangelism. I try to show how it’s only because God is sovereign and omnipotent that He is absolutely trustworthy. These fit naturally in the flow of the lesson. And there is plenty of Biblical precedent for this. Romans 8:29-30 teach predestination, and Romans 8:31-39 apply it. “Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate” is followed by “if God be for us, who can be against us?”
But in general, I don’t think we ought to go out of our way to make individual doctrines seem “practical”. Theology is important because it is from God, and about God. He makes it important, not whether or not I can “use” it in my daily life.
Unfortunately, I don’t have this book with me, because it addresses this question. Essentially, we demand that theology “be relevant” because we are selfish. It’s all about me. We do not evaluate messages based on what they say about God, but on how they apply to me. Preaching becomes psychology, and God is therapeutic.
When I teach on the Trinity (as in Darren’s example), I teach how it is essential to the doctrine that God is perfect in and of Himself. He does not need His creation. The Godhead can communicate, command, submit, love, honor, and glorify one another. Otherwise you wind up with a God who can’t be obeyed and glorified unless His creation is willing to do it. This doctrine exalts God. A more exalted view of God should evoke certain responses from us, and so to this extent it is “practical”. But not in the same way as we usually mean “practical”. As Darren writes, people expect us to “show them that these historical, biblical ideas are important to them,” where “important” is defined as the extent to which biblical ideas “inform our day-to-day lives”.
Theology tells me who God is, who I am, and how God and I relate to one another. That information should cause me to behave in certain ways. For example, Romans 11:33-36 says “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord/ or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him,and it shall be recompensed to him again For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen”. The very next verse is Romans 12:1 “I beseech ye therefore brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God which is your reasonable service.” (emphasis added). Because all those things in chapter 11 are true of God, therefore we should respond to God in certain ways. But the significance of Romans 11:33-36 is not predicated on the existence of Romans 12:1-2. It’s the other way around!
Truth stands on its own two legs. It is important because it is true, and because it is the truth about God, His creation, and the relationship between the creation to the Creator. Our job is come to grips with the truth, then shape our lives accordingly. We, on the other hand, tend to think that truth is only important to the extent that it is directly applicable to me. We want truth to conform to our perceived needs, rather than conforming our lives to the truth.
It’s one thing to teach people the truth, then tell them how it out to work itself out in their lives. God is great (Rom 11:33-36), therefore serve Him (Rom 12:1-2). God is in control (Rom 8:29-30), therefore be at peace (Rom 8:31-39). This is the Biblical pattern. It tells us the truth about God, His creation, and our relationship, and then helps us see how we ought to respond to that. It is honoring to God. It assumes the importance of the truth and calls us to respond.
It’s entirely different to feel like we need to justify telling people about God. As though we must justify teaching ecclesiology because understanding the relationship of Christ to the church will help us have happier marriages. This is insulting to God. It’s prideful. It makes people into little idols. It assumes that we are so important that we can’t be bothered with banal trivialities about frivolous topics such as the very nature of God. We don’t have time, unless it’s immediately useful to us. (The fault here does not lie with those who are trying do whatever they need to do to get people to learn. Instead, the fault lies with those who demand such justifications for learning theology.)
If people don’t think it’s important to learn about God simply because He is God, then I’m not going to bother giving them other reasons. All that would do is puff them up. They need a lower view of themselves, and a much higher view of God. I will try to show them how we ought to live in response to various doctrines (when there are clear ramifications) but I do not think we ought to try to justify teaching theology. Our energy would be better spent addressing the arrogance that demands such justification to begin with.
Good stuff. I’ve come with the phrase “the cult of application” to describe this “Yes, but what does it mean to ME?” approach to theology/doctrine. I’m tired of it, frankly.
But I’m equally disappointed that I have to continually fight against it in my own study. It occurs to me most often lately when reading N.T. Wright. So much of his claims are about seeing the things Jesus said and did in the context with which Jesus’ initial audience heard and saw them. I find myself thinking, “Okay, but how does that help ME?”
It’s ingrained, even if people like me who otherwise eschew the cult of application.
It’s like knowing Jesus “cleansed” the temple as a symbolic act of judgment upon the temple cult is less meaningful or less relevant because I now can’t authentically apply it to my disdain for Jesus junk in Christian bookstores. But the event bears little to no meaning for people selling things in church.
Reading Wright (just as an example) has been an eye-opening exercise for me in discovering just how ingrained the desperate and a priori need for application is in my own mind.
Again: good post.
Good book. Welles makes a very clear call for a new reformation, and points out that this reformation must be based in knowing God. A Reformation must always be theological before it can produce changes in practice (though, I suppose, this pits me against Brad Hightower at 21st Century Reformation who says that the next reformation must be only in practice.)
Nevertheless, I don’t know that pragmatism is necessarily all bad. It can’t be the key to all truth and knowledge, but it might be a good indicator that you’re barking up the wrong tree in your studies. I’m currently reading some books debating between Dispensationalism and Covenant theology, which sounds like really dry reading, but it becomes important to the point of being urgent when you consider that the debate bends over the question of whether God saves us (or ever has) by works or if it has always been by grace alone. Very practical. On the other hand, I understand that midieval scholastics literally used to debate the number of angels who could fit on the head of a pin. The fact that there is no practical use for any answer to the question is a good indicator that it is an inappropriate subject to bother with.
A Reformation must always be theological before it can produce changes in practice
I believe we generally have good theology “on paper”; the problem is we have bad theology in our hearts and that manifests itself as bad practice.
it might be a good indicator that you?re barking up the wrong tree in your studies
If God has revealed it in the Bible or in Creation, then I do not think we can dismiss it. Martin Luther argued with Erasmus about this issue in the Bondage of the Will. Luther’s point was that Erasmus’s attitude turned God almost into an inane babbler who was desperately in need of editors and censors to filter out all the “useless” stuff.
question of whether God saves us (or ever has) by works or if it has always been by grace alone
Few dispensationalists would contend that God ever saved us by works, aside from in the Garden (which even covenant theologians agree with). But that’s beside the point.
midieval scholastics literally used to debate the number of angels who could fit on the head of a pin
Not exactly. See Straight Dope on this. This was actually Thomas Aquinas’s discussion on whether multiple angels could be in the same place at the same time – how corporeal were they?
The fact that there is no practical use for any answer to the question is a good indicator that it is an inappropriate subject to bother with.
I disagree. “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever”. The question of whether it is an appropriate subject hinges solely on whether or not God has seen fit to reveal it. Otherwise it becomes idle speculation and vain disputation. But if God has revealed it or enabled us to discover it, He must have done so for a reason.
Good post, Robert.
My growing concern with practical theology is along these same lines — not answering the constant “cult of application” questions of “What does this me for me?” and “How can I apply this to my daily life?” but rather coming to understand the manner in which abstract theology does impact practical reality, and to be able to address these laymen’s questions to that end.
As we are active in the church, in other words, people will continue to ask such questions from a self-centered mindset. Our challenge is to speak to the utter importance of the Gospel, and its usually Christians who need to hear that at least as much as nonbelievers.
Pingback: Thinklings Weblog