“do not read your Bibles as theologians do….”
November 28th, 2007
Kar Yong, New Testament lecturer and blogger, was stirred to respond to something the preacher said in his sermon one Sunday. Read the interesting conversation going on about how both preacher and members should read their Bibles HERE.
Entry Filed under: Blogging
Agree with the offending Pastor - FRESH, INSIGHTFUL and TRANSFORMING reading of the Bible.
Only professionals get righteous indignation - amateurs take life as it happens.
Some Bible study sheets and sermon notes are like recycled lecture notes boring and irrelevant to contemprorary stresses and challenges.
Try to respect opnions as my neighbour is entitled to make, the same as little me.
Is theology (presume only christian, not other religions) necessary to being a Christian?
Will simple praying in faith and child like reading of the Bible suffice?
Theology seems like an improbable discipline - an attempt to ’study” perfection through an imprefect interface.
Better to be approximately right than to be absolute wrong!
Theology is not mindless speculation. It’s primary source is the Bible. The secondary sources are church history, contemporary issues, church tradition, study of missions, study of pastoral care and to some extent the sciences etc..
We do theology because God has revealed himself in scriptures and creation. His revelation is too overpowering for us not to do theology.
Theology is disciplined study. It does not save us but provides us with a clearer and deeper understanding of our salvation.
In a sense reading the bible and praying is doing theology. We bring the incidents and needs of our lives within a rational framework before Almighty God. No one reads their bibles or prays in a vacuum. A believer in the 18th century meets God differently from a 20th century believer in that his needs and challenges are different. The answers maybe the same but the historical context is different and this may force us to hear the same answer is refreshingly new ways.
Hi BBeat,
Agree Theology is not mindless speculation but if this is a God of INFINITY then the question raised would be:
Can we do some a semblence of justice trying first to define infinity and then to evolve a system for future comprehension.
Is this an exercise in futility?
Like all Man derived systems, there are inherent flaws that limits future scalability - the most systematic study we have ever done as a species is the empirical art of science - all physical laws hit their limits eg Newton explains most earthly stuff, einstein some of the universe (known) and atomic particles but STILL the elusive universally law of everything.
My personal thought is that Theology as a discipline is a hindrance to trying for a glimmer of the invisible God of Infinity and of all things.
The Einstein universe is being challenged by a surfer and snowboarder!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2889309.ece
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10170958
Is this the reason why we are still wandering around along the same path as Moses whilst the universe is still expanding??
We need fresh insights, not same same.
10 marks to the offending pastor for courage to challange a flawed orthodoxy.
Welcome to a journey of infinite possibilites!
I pray that before I shut my eyes to have but a tiny glimpse into the mind of God and not go mad from the ultra broadband multiformat input
Thanks for the link, Blogpastor.
Dear Journeyman,
Theology is not a social science like sociology or psychology. The latter is based on research and empirical observations. The former, theology, is based however on REVEALED KNOWLEDGE. There is a big difference between the latter and the former.
Yes God is infinite BUT he has chosen to REVEAL himself fully in his Son Jesus Christ within a historical situation. We have revealed data to assess. The gospel writers were doing theology. Don’t forget that God did not reveal himself in infinite terms but in a very relational sense - Father, Son & Holy Spirit. John’s gospel is highly relational and does not use “infinite” as a category to describe God.
The “offense” of theology is its objective character and its discomfort with personal experiences. I don’t see a chasm between doing theology and having personal experiences. Personal experiences are part and parcel of the theological enterprise. John Wesley was a first rate theologian who managed to incorporate personal experience into his theology.
Dear BBeat,
Thanks for effort in putting your focused discourse on Jesus and the Bible. It is a familiar interface for Man - no burning issues or disagreement from me.
I will agree wiith these assertions and statements if you were just describing Bible Scholarship but not if this applies to Theology
Theology (broadlydefined) is to the study of God (in a Christian totality, the Holy Trinity.
Though intellectual inconvenient the very nature of God emcompasses All things and Infinity. This has to be included, otherwise it is like Newtonian Laws and concepts trying to describe a major cosmic event 5 Billion light years from our Crab Nebulla. At this vista level, Earth would be insignificant in terms of mass or size.
Science like you surmized is record of an insightful and accurate observation (not the passicve nature - we are merely describing God’s work in a format that is adequate and communicable to like minded people).
Good science must be entirely compatible with “theology” but may not be with portions of the Bible (at least not yet until somebody has a fresh viewpoint.
Alpha and Omega (early Genisis and Revelations) are difficult concepts in current scientific terms but they do define where we came from and where we are going to and eternity.
I think it is gross misuse of the term Theology, if only a very small, narrow facet of the nature God is being studied and not the totality! Hence my personal judgement and comment.
Dear Journeyman,
I guess if we broadly define theology as a study of God then you are right. The greeks were masters at this.
But if we refer to the Trinity, then we are speaking of Christian Theology. The revelation of the Trinitarian God is as clear as daylight in the Bible from a relational perspective. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit relate in clear and dynamic ways. Re read the scriptures thru this grid and you’ll find a wealth of Trinitarian material.
People get caught up in knots when they try and explain it thru rational categories at the expense of the relational (which is the primary scriptural category by the way).
The biblical revelation may impinge on philosophical issues/questions but it, biblical revelation, is not designed to deal with these issues thru a philosophical grid.
The biblical revelation addresses philosophical, psychological and sociological issues in terms of man’s salvation and final redemption.
Dear BBeat,
Rationality defines our Natural world and unless we have a solid definition, then we are unable to recognize the
“Supernatural.” The supernatural miracles in the Bible are the basis of our faith despite the lack of first party experience.
Unless and until theology as a disciple can bridge these two (perspective) realities, (rational and relational) then my orginal hypothesis will stand.
The current form of “Relational” perspective of the Christian faith makes it one dimensional and completely artifical to our existence in a 4D (Length, breath, width, time) reality within a multidimensional cosmic space.
The findings of the Willowcreek survey show the irrelevance current “theology and church practice.” - after 5-6 years lukewarm, nominal followers result.
Thank God for the pastor and his theolical comment. .
Christ has bridged the rational and the relational.
John’s gospel is full of Christ’s relational encounters with all sorts of people e. g Nicodemus, Woman at Samaria. The gospel however begins with a declaration that Christ is the Logos i.e. the rational scientific philosophical structure which holds the universe together. The writer of the gospel of John is doing theology. He bridges the relational and the rational in Christ.
When we study John’s gospel we are learning John’s theology of Christ.
Dear BBeat,
Christ have bridged the gap in the past but despite our fervent desires, current practise does not reflect that reality.
I think current mainstream “Theology” has hit a brickwall - witness the creationism and itelligent design offshoots and the silly comments made by some respected “theologists,” in the past justifying anti semantism, slavery and all sorts of dubious human desires.
The inability to bridge this “reality” is the greatest challenge to the accepted orthodoxy. Gratified that even the stodgy Catholic Chruch is facing current reality, see url:-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece
The charismatic pastor and an independent board of governors(elders) seem to be like the entrepreneurial startups in modern (chruch) business. Not all have have gained the traction of the more established sects and longterm acceptance will detrmine survival.
Some have even flamed out in spectacular (social, financial) scandals and outrageous claims (doomsday, miracle purveyors) .
Until and unless relational rationality becomes the most intimate fabric of modern Christian people, then I think we are condemmned to walking like Israelites in Exodus in circles, ever widening but not any closer.
My thanks to the ‘rogue” pastor for his breakthrough comments - MERDEKA from non functional othodoxy!