Phil, who was at Blah… last night raises the question in a comment on the previous post:
“Previously theology has been at the centre of any discussion about church development but increasingly those engaged in the emerging church conversation seem to be listening more to cultural analysists, psychologists, philosophers and sociologists and less to theologians…”
This question has come up before – about whether the book is ‘doing theology’ or not.
To summarise: some people have taken the opinion that because it’s not ‘academic theology’ – and wouldn’t be classified as such in a library then it’s not theology at all. Jonny and I both feel that this is too strict a view of what theology is. Because no one has ‘seen’ God, then virtually everything is down to metaphor: “it’s like”. Of course, we can talk about the historic God-man of Jesus, but that is only showing us one aspect of God… who is so ‘Other’ and yet so imminent that language breaks down.
Personally, I see the metaphors that speak of God in many places, texts and images. Not just in academic theology books. So I’m happy to have plenty of entries in the bibliography that are not strictly ‘theological’ – for me they enrich my understanding of God.
And I think this is a valid way forward. If God has created this space we inhabit, then surely it’s viable for anyone exploring that space, whether they be artist, philosopher, anthropologist or sociologist, to discover some of the fingerprints of the creator, even if they don’t acknowledge them as such. This is one of the key emphases of the Emerging Church – there are rich seams of material to inspire worship, new thoughts, theological understanding…. whatever, way beyond the clean boundaries of what we’d like to call ‘Christian’. I think it’s part of a serious belief in creation and incarnation… and a robust faith that doesn’t need neatly packaged material that is comfortably, hermetically sealed, guaranteed 100% Christian™.
Comments
6 responses to “The Theology Question Again…”
thanks for this response kester. i see what you’re saying and (a couple of chapters in) i am enjoying the book and your use of metaphor is proving helpful.
i guess the important thing is that there are those in this conversation who specialise in ‘classic theology’ (mclaren, wright, maggi dawn etc) who are therefore able to call us to account if and when we stay from orthodoxy
Hmmm… I actually don’t consider anyone in that list to be ‘classic theologians’! Nor do I see Jesus talking a lot of theology. Orthodoxy is really ‘orthopraxis’ – it’s about doing the right thing. And that, I believe, should be a shared-responsibility thing, rather than ‘hey you, I’m a theologian, and I say you’re straying!’.
Glad you’re enjoying the book.
Hmmm… now this is getting interesting. I agree with what you’re saying about orthopraxis, but I also think that what we do is a product of what we know and therefore that which has been revealed to theologians past must surely be especially important. Many of the things that we are thinking about in the emergent movement are not as new as we might imagine and in that respect I think we have things to learn.
I cited McLaren, Wright and Dawn (and there are many others) because I think they are in a unique position of having an enormous knowledge of theology and similarly a depth of experience within (post)modern culture- incidentally, something which i think we need if this conversation is to hold weight in the wider church community.
P.s. still enjoying the book!
Interesting post and intersting debate. I think that we need to be careful in the emerging church not to trivialise academic theology. Orthodoxy isn’t orthopraxis, but orthodoxy definately leads us to orthopraxis; so you have a theologian like Dietrich Bonhoeffer in World War 2 whose theology is informing and shaping his response to Nazi Germany: orthodoxy then orthopraxis.
Also, i think your posts on leadership: being a body, releasing people in their giftings etc are spot on, but i would want to include in there the academic theologians that are going to shape the emerging church and spend time researching and thinking and guiding us.
PS. Not got the book yet!
Interesting post and intersting debate. I think that we need to be careful in the emerging church not to trivialise academic theology. Orthodoxy isn’t orthopraxis, but orthodoxy definately leads us to orthopraxis; so you have a theologian like Dietrich Bonhoeffer in World War 2 whose theology is informing and shaping his response to Nazi Germany: orthodoxy then orthopraxis.
Also, i think your posts on leadership: being a body, releasing people in their giftings etc are spot on, but i would want to include in there the academic theologians that are going to shape the emerging church and spend time researching and thinking and guiding us.
PS. Not got the book yet!
Is it just taking our Theology to where we ought to be?
We are told to be in the World, where God is! And so we find Jesus in and with the World as we Church it with them.
Such travelling requires a parrallel theology, one that looks for and recognises God in the writings, beliefs, faiths of the World.
Looking for the good (God) in all things, and actually finding!!!
K, an aside, I talk with my Atheist friends and agree with their views. Like I’m an Atheist who knows God!! Or, maybe I’m just God’s Heathen.