The importance of theology
By Sam Tomlin
A few years ago I came across a saying that excited me, I am sure many will have heard of:
Christians have bumper stickers and catch phrases.
Believers have creeds and promises.
Disciples have scars and stories.
It excited me primarily because I was in a place where analysing faith and life was what I loved to do and it was what I was studying. It showed that the dryness of academia could be replaced and contrasted with embodied truth and action. The doctrine of 'the word made flesh' (John 1.14) challenged an understanding of faith that remained primarily for analysis; the liberation theologians were right: how we act (orthopraxis) is more important than what we think (orthodoxy), and anyway, it is impossible to believe anything without being influenced by how we act and how we were brought up.
In many ways it was reflecting on this apparent contradiction that drew me to the Salvation Army, where this saying would barely bat an eyelid. The amazing scars and stories of discipleship (particularly in the early days) are essentially what the Army is built upon, urging the established church of the day to take seriously Christ's call to carry one's cross by getting messy and moving into the neighbourhood (or 'darkest England' as the Booths referred to it as).
In the last few weeks, however, we have ventured back into the theological classroom at the training college, looking at the Bible, church history and Salvationist doctrine. Debates and discussion have naturally flowed from this with a number of differing opinions on a variety of topics. I have been struck by two main thoughts or feelings in the light of these.
1) It is vital that we do say something. The temptation to simply accept given truths handed down by the church (and our own churches) and repeat them when we are asked to without really understanding them is not really good enough. Theology is loving God with our minds - we certainly don't all need to be theological professors, but it is important to strive to understand God's nature as it will impact how we respond and act. Sloppy and lazy theology can be disastrous as church history has proved time and again.
2) We must learn to disagree in love. Have 'humility and gentleness' Paul writes in Ephesians, 'bearing with one another in love, making every effort to to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace'. Justin Welby has led the charge on this front in the debate on gay marriage: "We need to understand reconciliation within the Church as the transformation of destructive conflict, not unanimity...It doesn't mean we all agree, it is that we find ways of disagreeing, perhaps very passionately but loving each other deeply at the same time, gracefully and deeply committed to each other." That does not mean issues like this aren't important and strong stands need to be taken. Unity can sometimes be used by those advocating the status quo as a proxy for shutting down debate. It does mean that even if you disagree with someone passionately it is still possible to be in community with them and love them, something we have not traditionally done very well.
I am still excited about the scars and stories I hope to have along the way - discipleship needs to be at the heart of the church. But it should not be at the expense of 'creeds' and 'promises', otherwise the scars and stories may turn into bumper stickers and catch phrases!
A few years ago I came across a saying that excited me, I am sure many will have heard of:
Christians have bumper stickers and catch phrases.
Believers have creeds and promises.
Disciples have scars and stories.
It excited me primarily because I was in a place where analysing faith and life was what I loved to do and it was what I was studying. It showed that the dryness of academia could be replaced and contrasted with embodied truth and action. The doctrine of 'the word made flesh' (John 1.14) challenged an understanding of faith that remained primarily for analysis; the liberation theologians were right: how we act (orthopraxis) is more important than what we think (orthodoxy), and anyway, it is impossible to believe anything without being influenced by how we act and how we were brought up.
In many ways it was reflecting on this apparent contradiction that drew me to the Salvation Army, where this saying would barely bat an eyelid. The amazing scars and stories of discipleship (particularly in the early days) are essentially what the Army is built upon, urging the established church of the day to take seriously Christ's call to carry one's cross by getting messy and moving into the neighbourhood (or 'darkest England' as the Booths referred to it as).
In the last few weeks, however, we have ventured back into the theological classroom at the training college, looking at the Bible, church history and Salvationist doctrine. Debates and discussion have naturally flowed from this with a number of differing opinions on a variety of topics. I have been struck by two main thoughts or feelings in the light of these.
1) It is vital that we do say something. The temptation to simply accept given truths handed down by the church (and our own churches) and repeat them when we are asked to without really understanding them is not really good enough. Theology is loving God with our minds - we certainly don't all need to be theological professors, but it is important to strive to understand God's nature as it will impact how we respond and act. Sloppy and lazy theology can be disastrous as church history has proved time and again.
2) We must learn to disagree in love. Have 'humility and gentleness' Paul writes in Ephesians, 'bearing with one another in love, making every effort to to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace'. Justin Welby has led the charge on this front in the debate on gay marriage: "We need to understand reconciliation within the Church as the transformation of destructive conflict, not unanimity...It doesn't mean we all agree, it is that we find ways of disagreeing, perhaps very passionately but loving each other deeply at the same time, gracefully and deeply committed to each other." That does not mean issues like this aren't important and strong stands need to be taken. Unity can sometimes be used by those advocating the status quo as a proxy for shutting down debate. It does mean that even if you disagree with someone passionately it is still possible to be in community with them and love them, something we have not traditionally done very well.
I am still excited about the scars and stories I hope to have along the way - discipleship needs to be at the heart of the church. But it should not be at the expense of 'creeds' and 'promises', otherwise the scars and stories may turn into bumper stickers and catch phrases!
"2) We must learn to disagree in love. Have 'humility and gentleness' Paul writes in Ephesians, 'bearing with one another in love, making every effort to to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace'. Justin Welby has led the charge on this front in the debate on gay marriage: "We need to understand reconciliation within the Church as the transformation of destructive conflict, not unanimity...It doesn't mean we all agree, it is that we find ways of disagreeing, perhaps very passionately but loving each other deeply at the same time, gracefully and deeply committed to each other." That does not mean issues like this aren't important and strong stands need to be taken. Unity can sometimes be used by those advocating the status quo as a proxy for shutting down debate. It does mean that even if you disagree with someone passionately it is still possible to be in community with them and love them, something we have not traditionally done very well."
ReplyDeleteI understand and completely agree with this concept on a personal level. Is it applicable for an institution though? At some point doesn't the church need to have 'a position' on things like gay marriage?
Thanks for commenting Hugo. I would say that institutions like churches do have a position on things like gay marriage: whether you agree with it or not, the CoE's current official position is against it, but it's clear that there is a debate currently going on about this. Just because an institution has a position doesn't mean there aren't many within that institution who disagree strongly with it and want it to change. The way we conduct the debate, however, is crucial - I don't think the end justifies the means, as the end should be present within the means.
ReplyDelete