I was thinking about that really hip book by that one famous preachy guy with the fabu hair. ("Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell). One of the premises put forward by fabu-haired guy was that theology ought to be more like springs than bricks. The idea, I think, was that if we treat all of our theological beliefs like bricks and use them to construct a big theological wall, we run the risk of becoming rigidly defensive about each brick in our wall. This, of course, is due to the fact that each brick is structurally necessariy for the long term viablity of our wall. And what kind of Christians would we be if we didn't have structurally sound walls?If we treat our theology like springs in a trampolene, then we are able to value the theology while allows it to flex. I like that idea, flexible theology - theology that moves with the times, changes as our understanding of the world changes. Afterall, as a professor of mine once said, theology is our way of explaining our view of God in culturally relevant ways.
So, given my recent fluxuations, I was wondering which springs in my theological trampolene I would keep, which I needed to flex a bit, and which I ought to replace. So I made a list (isn't that nice?).
Keepers:
1) Deity of Christ
2) Humanity of Christ
3) Substitutionary Attonement
4) Authority of the Bible
5) Redemptive work of God
6) The Kingdom is alive and well
7) Love God love People
8) Concept of Incarnation
Flexers:
1) Hell
2) Second Coming
3) Nature/activity of the Holy Spirit
4) Covenant relationship with God
5) Satan
6) Concept of the "Word of God"
7) Homosexuality
8) Authority of the Community
Replacers:
1) Inerrancy of Scripture
2) Cosmology
Note: List is not exhaistive and can be changed at any time and without notice. I'm going to eat lunch.
12 comments:
Although I generally like Rob Bell, I'm not a big fan of the trampuline illustration. I'm all for questioning and reevaluating, but I think Bell makes skepticism a virtue.
If you care to read about my thoughts on the tampouline, you can read them at http://awaitingredemption.blogspot.com/2007/02/brickworld-trampolines-and-communion-of.html.
King James only isn't one of the keepers? And you call yourself a Christian . . .
What do you mean about Cosmology? Creation vs. evolution?
I would encourage all list readers to check out Achristianandanatheist.com. The podcast and forum are great tools for reevaluating the supposed fundamentals of Christianity. Of particular interest is the show and comments on homosexuality (check out Christian group behavior).
My only complaint is that Pastor Scott's hair is not as cool as Rob Bell's.
Matt, True 'nough about Bell's illustration, like all metaphors I think it breaks down at some point. But I DO like the idea of theology that evolves as we (personally and culturally) evolve.
Regarding, cosmology... I am in the process of replacing my views of cosmology. I used to look at it as primarily a way to prove that evolutionists are stupid. I am now looking at it as an ancient piece of theological literature.
I'm not so concerned about the evolutionism vs. creationism thing. I mean what's the big deal? Evolutionists say we came from lower primates, and strict 6-dayers say we came from dirt. Either way, my ancestors weren't all that impressive before God came along.
I am not a fan of Bell and others' narrative theology. That doesn't seem to be what theologians throughout history have been doing. Sure, beliefs develop. Paul wasn't a Dispensationalist. He may not have understood God in Nicean terms. But that doesn't mean that "theology evolves" in the sense that animals evolve in Darwin's paradigm.
It seems to me that the great theological movements of history have sought to regain what was lost. Take Nicea, for instance. The issue wasn't, "How do we interpret Christ's deity in our modern age," it was "What did the Fathers believe about Christ. Was He coequal and coeternal with God, or just the first and greatest creation? Did they believe that there was a time when the Son was not?"
I highly recommend Philip Esler's book New Testament Theology: Communion and Community (if you have time to read anything else!). To Elser, "doing theology" is a form of communing with those who have gone before us in the faith. If we call ourselves "Christian," we owe it to the original Christians to try to retain the essentials of what that label means.
In fact, evolving theology can be a form of ethnocentricity. G.K. Chesterton said that democracy means that no one is denied a voice on accidence of his birth. Tradition means that no one is denied a voice on accidence of his death. Ours may the latest chapter in the story, but we have to be faithful to the plotline. Otherwise we have started a different story altogether.
In the Scriptures, we have a reflection of the faith of our Fathers. To me, "doing theology" is about trying to better understand this faith tradition of which we claim to be apart. I want to know what John believed, what Paul taught, how Jesus lived. And I want to follow in their footsteps.
While I recognize that I will get a lot of things wrong and I will continuously have to revise my system, the goal remains faithfulness to the tradition, not accomodation to my context.
BTW--This is off topic, but are there any examples of a first-century Jew or Christian condoning homosexuality? If not, what are the chances that either Jesus or Paul did?
I understand the point of the brick/trampoline analogy. I think the bricks are fine. What isn't fine is building with bricks and you don't put windows and doors and garag.....I've had to fix some of the walls I've built in my life to have doors and windows and some I just had to tear down and start over on.
Although, I'm not sure I could be flexible with going back to a piano and hymn church again, unless I need a nap.
Regarding first century Jew or Christian condoning homosexuality, I see your point but it's kinda arguing from silence. BTW, Matt, you should poke around the forums over at achristianandanatheist.com we could use another thinking Christian (they are scarce over in that neck of the woods).
I listened to one of the podcasts--the one in which you talked about why you are still a Christian.
I thought you had some very good points, but you may have let Emery off the hook too easily. You were honest about why you are still a Christian--has he ever been honest about why he's an atheist? I'm not talking about the intellectual justifications for his beliefs, but the REAL reasons he's an atheist.
I think you should call him out on that.
Who's the Christian host? All I see is Emery's name.
Matt,
Right now the Christian host is kind of a revolving position, me in 2 or 3 others.
You should hop on the boards at achristianandanatheist.com and ask Emery your question. This came up in one of the podcasts and his response was something like "I will believe in God when the evidence is there."
Im calling bs on that one :)
When does the podcast launch?
I would be more likely to comment early than I would when the thread reaches 90 comments.
I like this idea, Scott. But you know you aren't going to make any new fans in Christian circles with this, right?
-SB
SB,
Yup. Sometimes I feel like I should keep my yapper shut.
Post a Comment