The Unexamined Faith
Theology is, after a fashion, poetry; it is most itself in the doing, and doing theology is a necessary evil. Every person in every decision says something about his personal theology (and his anthropology). In doing Christian theology, or in doing theology rooted in any faith tradition that may be properly called theistic, there is a certain bifurcation between the sort of theology that is the queen of the sciences and the theology that is, for lack of a better way to put it, usefull. While I would posit that the study of theology is one of the most patently usefull things a man can do to grow in his faith, there is a common tendency to ascribe to "Theology" a certain academic functionality, and little else. Accepting this division as valid for the moment, I would like to backtrack to some of the first principles endemic to the two branches, and see if that produces any useful notions.
What I will term academic theology, specifically Christian theology, has several first principles but among the more significant are 1. The validity of theism over atheism (the word validity of course assumes several hierarchically sub-ordinate first principles in axiology and epistemology and half a dozen other philosophical disciplines) 2. the validity of theism over deism, and by extension the validity of religion 3. The validity of a particular religion, Christianity in this case, over other competing systems. In doing theology, one may assume any one of these premises with no ill effects, but they are underlying questions that must be grappled with at some stage. There is a question which more properly falls under the heading of apologetics, but does, I suggest, have profound implications for practical theology: the validity of one variety of Christianity over another.
This is important because once one leaves the pool of "mere" christianity, theology must very quickly become specialized into one particular Christian tradition or other. This specialization is unavoidable, because the areas of theology that address the actual problems people are actually worried about, tend to fall outside the realm of "mere" Christianity, and the traditions are widely varied as to how these problems are approached. How to get to heaven, how to please God, why we suffer, all of these things are answered differently, in some cases wildly differently, by different traditions within the churches, and those differences demand an answer. If Christianity is not something that we make up for ourselves, but is something that was given to us, we had best decide which Christianity is the right one. (If we can make it up for ourselves, it doesn't really matter.) Denominationalism, the wild child of the Reformation, is the greatest blow to the vision for His people that Christ expressed in His High Priestly prayer of John 17. The differences matter, and I think, must be addressed.
Hence the title of this post. I state unequivocally that the average Christian is ill-equipped to answer this question. We live in an age of unexamined faith. Most know what they believe on most things, but few know exactly why they believe much of anything. The result, their faith is not something they own, but something they borrow from whatever authority sounds good to them. To own one's faith, one must understand from a logical, exegetical, theological point of view why you believe what you do. Anything else is less than faith. It is opinion, even strongly held opinion, but I don't think it's faith.
This deficiency has two very practical results. 1. If our desire is to know God, to know Him better, what we believe about Him must be correct. The more accurate our knowledge at the intellectual level, the richer our knowledge at the experiential level. While a division of head and heart is popular in Christianity, God gave us both, and we are to love Him fully with both. 2. This lack of knowledge is a disservice to those we are called to bring into the kingdom. If we cannot give account, a reasonable account, for the hope that is within us, we are failing in the evangelistic mission given to us by Christ. I have stated that theology is the basis for answering the problems common to man, and we as the people of God proclaim that we have those answers, or to the point, the Answer. We must be able to adequately defend that Answer to a questioning world.
Socrates, the wisest man after Solomon, said "The unexamined life is not worth living." Neither perhaps is the unexamined faith.
What I will term academic theology, specifically Christian theology, has several first principles but among the more significant are 1. The validity of theism over atheism (the word validity of course assumes several hierarchically sub-ordinate first principles in axiology and epistemology and half a dozen other philosophical disciplines) 2. the validity of theism over deism, and by extension the validity of religion 3. The validity of a particular religion, Christianity in this case, over other competing systems. In doing theology, one may assume any one of these premises with no ill effects, but they are underlying questions that must be grappled with at some stage. There is a question which more properly falls under the heading of apologetics, but does, I suggest, have profound implications for practical theology: the validity of one variety of Christianity over another.
This is important because once one leaves the pool of "mere" christianity, theology must very quickly become specialized into one particular Christian tradition or other. This specialization is unavoidable, because the areas of theology that address the actual problems people are actually worried about, tend to fall outside the realm of "mere" Christianity, and the traditions are widely varied as to how these problems are approached. How to get to heaven, how to please God, why we suffer, all of these things are answered differently, in some cases wildly differently, by different traditions within the churches, and those differences demand an answer. If Christianity is not something that we make up for ourselves, but is something that was given to us, we had best decide which Christianity is the right one. (If we can make it up for ourselves, it doesn't really matter.) Denominationalism, the wild child of the Reformation, is the greatest blow to the vision for His people that Christ expressed in His High Priestly prayer of John 17. The differences matter, and I think, must be addressed.
Hence the title of this post. I state unequivocally that the average Christian is ill-equipped to answer this question. We live in an age of unexamined faith. Most know what they believe on most things, but few know exactly why they believe much of anything. The result, their faith is not something they own, but something they borrow from whatever authority sounds good to them. To own one's faith, one must understand from a logical, exegetical, theological point of view why you believe what you do. Anything else is less than faith. It is opinion, even strongly held opinion, but I don't think it's faith.
This deficiency has two very practical results. 1. If our desire is to know God, to know Him better, what we believe about Him must be correct. The more accurate our knowledge at the intellectual level, the richer our knowledge at the experiential level. While a division of head and heart is popular in Christianity, God gave us both, and we are to love Him fully with both. 2. This lack of knowledge is a disservice to those we are called to bring into the kingdom. If we cannot give account, a reasonable account, for the hope that is within us, we are failing in the evangelistic mission given to us by Christ. I have stated that theology is the basis for answering the problems common to man, and we as the people of God proclaim that we have those answers, or to the point, the Answer. We must be able to adequately defend that Answer to a questioning world.
Socrates, the wisest man after Solomon, said "The unexamined life is not worth living." Neither perhaps is the unexamined faith.
posted by Brother Makarias | 6:17 PM
2 Comments:
The last paragraph of this post is excellent. Christians' "unexamined faith" is such a deterrent to non-believers, but I must admit that I often have a hard time putting my beliefs into words (not for a lack of thinking though). Without close examination, I'm not sure I could have made the leap of faith that I did in believing and trusting in God.
I think a lack of intellectualism is almost celebrated in America, and this celebration of sorts, like many of the world's customs, has affected Christians too. The lack of curiosity about our faith (even to the point that many people can't tell you about the sermon at church the day before because they don't remember it/didn't pay attention/don't care) is a shame not only because it deters unbelievers but also because we're missing an opportunity to know God and grow closer in our relationship with Him.
Frank Sheed's "Theology and Sanity" is possibly the best exposition of this basic question ever written.
Post a Comment
<< Home