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.

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.

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.

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.

In the recent convo resulting from my last Osteen post (Why is Joel Osteen Smiling?), it occurred to me that there was a disconnect occurring between what I (and others) meant by ?preaching the Gospel? and what some folks I was discussing with mean by …