Defending Theology

This week i have been reviewing an article by Grenz & Olsen called "Defending Theology" for MA Lead. The article was powerful and convicting on my conceptions of theology and in particular "Professional Theologians".. The following was my review..

“Don’t let that professor destroy your faith!”

It has been a real privilege to observe the reflections, observations and critical analyses of the students in my Master's Cohort with respect to their chosen article for the discussion forum. And it was no surprise to me that the article on defending theology has yet to receive any responses. For me personally, and if your anything like me, I’m sure the very thought of theology and its complexities sends cold shivers up your spine.

The above quote was a statement made by a member of the congregation whilst Grenz was preparing to leave for graduate studies. Whilst the comment to some may seem a bit extreme I think the statement represents a very real paradigm that I believe exists between Christians and their response to theology. I think back to my personal experiences of a handful of preachers and who have made offhand comments about theology, its purpose and its impact on a Christians ‘zeal’ for serving God.

One thing I admire in this article by Grenz & Olsen is that, whilst they defend theology, on numerous occasions throughout their response they recognise that theology has the ‘ability’ to be the enemy of faith. I couldn’t agree more with their response that the antidote to bad theology is not “no” theology but “good” theology. The article discusses there are no simple believers who remain untainted by theology and form this statement Grenz & Olsen make the suggestion that we are all theologians, therefore the question is not “will we be theologians” but “will we be good theologians”. I never really considered myself a theologian before. This certainly got me thinking about my attitude towards them.

Whilst my initial mindset was that this article was in response to ministerial or lay theology, the article progressed to defend formal, professional theology and its value for the development of lay & ministerial theology.

Grenz & Olsen defined Christian theology as reflecting on and articulating the God-Centered life and beliefs that we share as followers of Jesus Christ. The issue that arose in this discussion is “what after all is truly involved with ‘reflecting’ and ‘articulating’ fundamental beliefs about God and the world?” The authors argue that the concept of reflecting and articulating must require preexisting beliefs of which we can articulate and reflect anew. Expanding from this Grenz & Olsen defend some of the attacks that have been made against professional theology. They defended four main objections to theology.

1. The Killjoy Objection- I personally have heard these a million times. “Isn’t God and his word meant to be enjoyed?” “ And doesn’t theology just examine them to death and take all of the life out of a Christians relationship with God?” In this objection Grenz & Olsen explore the misconception that objectivity to truth is at best secondary to certain good feelings. I think they sum it up best when they say

“If the main benefit of Christianity is feeling good, and if anything that detracts from that joy or comfort is automatically suspected of being unspiritual, then how does Christianity differ from a cult or from drugs or psychotherapy?”

While I agree that the reality of God’s truth is always first, I don’t think the complete elimination of feelings is the solution so long as the integrity of the word of God is maintained and not contradicted or comprimised. In this circumstance I support Grenz’s argument that feelings should adjust to reality not the other way around.

2. The Divisive-ness Charge- The general concept behind this is the idea that “Jesus unites; theology divides”. The illustrations given in the article depict the potential for theology to both draw together and separate Christians. As was discussed earlier in this response I apply the same principal that the antidote to theology that divides is not “no theology” but “good theology”. The downside in applying this however is the ability to articulate what is divisive theology. In the illustration of the cult masquerading under a Christian banner the theology was “good theology” but to the passerby this was articulated as divisive. I think it would be unreasonable to expect that no attack would come against any righteous stand for God. If I had no opposition I would probably worry more.

3. Speculation Accusation- Olsen explains the impression that Christians have about theologians with their interpretation that they are out of touch with practical everyday reality, yet on the other hand spend too much time delving into the unknowable. While the comment was made that “we should not want to know too much about the furniture of heaven or the temperature of hell!” I agree with Olsen that when we do take the time and trouble to explore the processes and products of theological reflection we do find our Christian faith strengthened with mental conviction. After our initial class in Brisbane in September i felt convicted about ensuring that what i was preaching was not simply regurgitated information but rather this theological reflection. As a result of this my faith has strengthened and my messages i believe now have more substance.

4. Stalemate Indictment- This objection raises the issue some Christians believe that theology has reached a point where it cannot progress anymore. Again like most of the issues that arose in the article this depends on the articulation of the word ‘progress’. The authors argue the importance that one doesn’t define progress as universal agreement on a new solution to an old problem.

After delving just a little bit deeper into this article I began to understand the paradigm that exists between Christian and theologian a little bit clearer and this once daunting article has encouraged me to not simply rely on my own personal articulation of the word but to carefully consider and reflect upon the words of professional theologians. And whilst I do not in anyway support the actions or reflections of ‘all’ professional theologians, I do now recognise the significant part that these people play in lay and ministerial theology. While I may never know the theology of how many angels can dance upon the head of a pin (Constantinople) my antipathy to theology and complete mindset has definitely been challenged, i hope your has too.

Reference
Grenz, S.J.,Olson, R.L. (1996). Who needs theology? An invitation to the study of God. Downers Grove, IL, Intervarsity Press

Be Blessed!!