Theology is vitally important. To listen to many progressively oriented voices these days you’d think that theology really doesn’t really matter, only love for our neighbors. Christians who are serious about the once-for-all revealed faith must understand that this is a false contrast. Both theology and love matter. Indeed, they matter profoundly. Good theology will actually help you to understand what love is and then how to properly love God and others. Good theology fuels the fire of true love in action.
I am inclined to believe that a major problem at this point is a false contrast between the word theology and the biblical idea of true love. Some believe that theology is not important because theology is, to their way of thinking, only about being right in one’s views regarding various truths. But sound theology is really about humbly submitting both our mind and heart to the living God. The living and true God has revealed himself in Jesus, who is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6). To reject theology altogether is a colossal mistake. Theology is not about mere human opinion regarding God, Scripture, sin and salvation. It is one of the important ways that the church has tried to love God with both the heart and mind uniquely engaged in considering and confessing God in the mystery of his revealed truth. Ultimately both theology and love are about obeying and following God’s will.
Because I serve the church as a minister of word and sacrament, and because I have a unique calling to serve the church widely across North America, I believe I have been given a unique responsibility to devote considerable amounts of time to thinking about theology, especially about the theology of the church. I am thus led to ask: What does a theology of the church look like when Christians take seriously the fact that North America is now itself a massive, growing mission field? Asked in a different way: “What does theology have to do with our mission, when all of that mission is rightly invested in those who are still outside the church of Jesus Christ?” These questions lie at the heart of my use of the word missional in the subtitle of this blog site where I refer to my words as: “The Reflections of a Missional-Ecumenist.” These same questions permeate the vision that I set forth through the ACT3 Network day-in and day-out.
North America’s increasingly secular culture is clearly apparent to anyone who is paying attention. I have come to believe that the question about how we should respond to rampant secularism may divide Christians more than any single issue in our time. Should we work politically and socially to reverse the huge cultural shifts that continue to gain massive momentum, especially among our youngest adults? Should the church, and especially the leaders of the churches, engage in ideological battles in the public ways that are specifically aimed at protecting, or (perhaps) restoring, Christendom culture? I addressed some of these questions a few weeks ago in writing about the Supreme Court’s two landmark decisions regarding same-sex marriage.
In the West religion has clearly been privatized. I have never argued that this is acceptable though some see my understanding of mission in these (incorrect) terms. Modernity has displaced churches from a prior role of importance and power. In the face of this challenge large numbers of churches, and Christian leaders, have over-accommodated the mystery of revealed faith to modern ways of life. This has happened on both the left and the right, politically and religiously.
Enter the idea of the missional church. This term, so despised by some because it has been overused or badly misused, and despised by others as a form of compromise with the spirit of the age, actually suggests that the real answer to our present crisis will not be found at the level of program, method or ideology. The real answer lies in clarifying the church’s true identity and then in calling us (together) to be missio Dei (the mission of God).
Related Posts
Comments
My Latest Book!
Use Promo code UNITY for 40% discount!
Though I increasingly find the “progressive” and “conservative” labels useless, I really find the “progressive” label to be the most deceptive in that so much called progressive is actually regressive, as in this example of false contrast with theology vs love.
Agree with Bruce that the labels are often useless, but for many of the original progressives, a progressive view tended to mean that truth was progressive, evolving, following a dialectic model of thesis, antitheses, and synthesis over and over. Early progressives tended to acknowledge this whereas conservatives stood on the ground that truth was unchanging. Of course popularly conservative/progressive appeals seldom follow these models. But perhaps remembering this will help us refine our approaches to get to actual issues rather than mere feelings of issues.
It would really be helpful if people would think past these labels instead of thinking they have someone pegged if they do certain things. If a man died and a stack of books by Mises and Thomas Sowell were found in his bedroom, he’d be assumed to be a conservative. If the books were by Noam Chomsky, progressive. In either case further thought would probably not be given to the fact that he only thought the books might sell well on EBay.
“Marriage rates are in decline across all races, and the number of white mother-headed households living in poverty has risen to the level of black ones.” John, I read this today in a Yahoo news article. I wonder about the implications for most of the American church in its worship and work. Any missional thoughts?
Good stuff John. I am convinced that the problem in the modern church stems from the fact that we no longer theologize in the church. Our practice stems from our faith.
I have Mao’s Little Red Book on my shelf, along with the Communist Manifesto, the Quran, and the Bible. What does that say about me? 🙂
Schizophrenia? Or a nice progression to the truth. 🙂
Oh I left out the incomparable radical from the South…John Armstrong. Actually, he brings “balance” to it all.
That guy is dangerous. I hear he’s trying to help (horror) Christians be more unified.
“The real answer lies in clarifying the church’s true identity and then in calling us(together) to be missio Dei (the mission of God).” Excellent as always John. There are several things eating away at the Church in our day. I see theology, as you define it, dismissed because there is such an anemic understanding of Bible content. I don’t think 30% of the American Church, including its leaders, could pass a basic Bible quiz based on some of the best catechisms. I am listening to sermons emptier than anything I ever hear from Robert Shuller.
RT @JohnA1949: Theology and Missional Church: How Shall We Respond to Our Seismic Culture Shifts?: Theology is vitally importan… http://t…
John, here’s the inversion though. From what I’ve anecdotally seen, it’s the deconverted, on average, who know theology much better than the faithful, on average. It’s the deconverted who try to have theologically and philosophically rich conversations with their friends, family, and even clergy. Most laity know how they feel about their religion but know little of their religion’s doctrines and tenets. Your more likely to get a theologically rich dialogue these days on an ex-Christian online forum than in a face-to-face Christian small group. Practically, I don’t see where what you can come from other than a very small, poorly funded minority in the midst of power structures that will do everything they can to retain what once was, or at least once was idealized to have been.
I hope to see a resurgence of expository preaching, and intentional discipleship within each local fellowship. A sound applied theology which empowers each and every believer to stand as a testimony of truth in all walks of life.
Bryan, while I’m all for more intentional discipleship, I’m not as enamored with expository preaching. Besides it not being as good pedagogically as teaching in an environment where multiple learning styles can be harnessed, I find that it can lead many in the congregation to put the preacher’s particular interpretation up on a pedestal of assumed superiority and authority without critical examination and questioning of the underlying assumptions of that interpretation; and, if the preaching is always given by the same pastor, it can contribute toward a top-down “authority over” model of leadership in the congregation rather than a bottom-up “shepherd the gifts of everyone in the congregation” model.
Now you are talking my language John. I’m open to innovation in the preaching. Multiple modalities can be engaged if the subject is coordinated. I just want to see scripture stay in context. Topical jumping is too easy to manipulate.
Don’t discount traditional preaching style to affect all learning styles. It depends on how you structure your delivery. It also depends on how you follow up the sermon. Small group discussion during the week, a pastor forum for direct feedback after the teaching, planned community outreach as an application of the theme, academic extensions, social media interaction, etc. and above all, the Holy Spirit did wonders through expository preaching down through church history before we were even aware of learning styles.
Topical jumping is only one way of manipulating scripture; focus on a particular passage with an assumed interpretation while ignoring both the textual context of its pericope and the historical context underlying it can be just as problematic, and both should be avoided. I guess that maybe you encounter more of the former, whereas the church circles I’ve been more troubled by tend more toward the latter.
Though it occurs to me maybe we are just talking about the same issue of “prooftexting” a particular predetermined interpretation under two different names.
I do certainly appreciate the various ways to expand the ability to critically interact with the sermon, though limitations on the ability of all in the congregation to be as aware of what’s said in this interaction as they are of the original sermon still bother me – if the preacher does say something that’s off-base, how many people will actually be aware of the concerns and how many will simply walk away taking it as gospel truth, because they weren’t part of the forum in which the issue was raised?
John, it seems you are pointing out poor training and spiritual development in a pastor. A pastor is to makes disciples of Jesus, not a loyal follower of himself. He is to teach/exegete the word of God, letting God speak for himself. At best, a pastor is a fellow learner/disciple.
You make a good case for educating the common member of the church. They must hold the pastor to the fidelity of the Word. The pastor has a significant role in teaching the church but not THE role. Each of us are accountable to God to be discerning and faithful to his Word.
Certainly no disagreement with you there.
I’m not intentionally overlooking your concern for multiple learning styles to be appealed to. We can do better these days now that we are much more aware of special needs and emphasis in visual learning for example.
Yes, to be honest, though I think it’s something good to think about, the pedagogical is the least serious of my concerns, in that it is, well, pedagogical, whereas the other two concerns, hermeneutical (uncritical assumption of authoritativeness of the pastor’s interpretation) and ecclesial (top-down leadership), are fundamentally theological concerns.
Yep…and good ones. I’m as “critical” as you. I’m not a pastor but I know my role, and I know the Bible.
To Jimmy McGuire’s good question – marriage cannot be restored by cultural shifts and laws but only one marriage at a time by mission that restores it to the status of something that is covenantal/sacramental. Only the church can do this and MOST are not even aware of the problem. But yes this does reveal how deep the hole is and why the church needs to be the church rather than work on implementing culture change via politics and pressure.
The Church, in obedience to the word of God, has been, and always will be the greatest change agent on the face of the earth.
Theology matters for missional church… http://t.co/ob5gjigjWU via @JohnA1949
Toni Soukup Muller liked this on Facebook.
David George liked this on Facebook.
Waldron Scott liked this on Facebook.
Anthony Velez liked this on Facebook.
David G. Dunbar liked this on Facebook.
Bryan Prosser liked this on Facebook.
Clay Knick liked this on Facebook.
Bruce Newman liked this on Facebook.