As I was writing yesterday’s post, I came upon a thought that I’d like to expand on a bit. Yesterday I said
People need to see that the Bible isn’t a reference book where we go to find information on this subject or that subject; the Bible defines the subject, then gives us the information.
The more I think about it, the more I see that this is one of our biggest problems with Bible study and with preaching. We’re driven by a need to make things relevant, to make the Bible speak about the subjects that people are wanting to hear about. People want something that they can take home and apply today.
It’s the complaint teachers deal with constantly in our schools. Why learn algebra? It’s not relevant. Why study Beethoven’s music when I’m more interested in what’s on the radio now? Why read Shakespeare, let alone Chaucer, when we can hardly recognize the words as being in our language? Give me something relevant to me today.
And we cave in to those complaints. We give people what they want. Ten steps to an affair-proof marriage. What the Bible says about stress and how to reduce it. Biblical principles for remaining debt free.
All of those are lessons are fine. But if a church is fed a steady diet of such lessons, there will be no depth in that church, no roots which will allow the church to mature.
People need God’s Word. All of it. They need to be shaped and transformed by the overarching story of the Bible, not prodded by a series of texts ripped from their context. Rather than platitudes on parenting, they need the reshaping of our characters that leads us to be the kind of people who can parent.
Let me clarify that I believe in doing what we can to make the message plain. Like the Levites in Nehemiah 8, we stand alongside people and help them not only understand God’s Word but to find the joy in it as well. But let’s not cut the Bible into bite-sized pieces to do it. Just as an understanding of mathematics and history and literature prepares us to face the problems of our world, so the breadth and depth of the Word of God will prepare our people for life in the Kingdom.
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God*may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16–17)
Tim,
These kinds of lessons can give the impression that basic Christian doctrine just has no connection with real life–the incarnation, resurrection, ascension–these are just oddities that have nothing to do with the ethical choices i make every day. So instead, let’s just spitfire some common sense talking points about finances or parenting.
That seems to me one manifestation of a fundamental tension between unity and truth in a religious body.
–guy
I wish I hadn’t been off the grid yesterday – this is excellent work. I wonder if the writer of Hebrews would add such things as affair-proof marriages, debt-free living, and stress management to the list of “milk” topics that we ought to have moved beyond by now.
None of those topics, you see, are at all mysterious. No one who reads through the Gospel of Matthew could miss Jesus’ clear teaching on all three topics. Christians keep asking for more preaching about them, not because of confusion, but because of obstinate disobedience (my own, included).
However, guy’s point is also well-made – CS Lewis raises it in a different form when he talks about how hard it is to convince schoolboys of the value of learning Latin and Greek – not so that they will get a star on their report card but so that they will one day be able to experience the joys of reading the great works of literature as they were originally written.
Theology is eminently practical in the same way – it is by eating and drinking good theology that believers will be able to appreciate “the joy set before” them enough to actually “endure the cross, despising the shame.”
Tim, I just finished reading most of E. Brooks Holifiled’s book, “Theology in America.” He begins one of the early sections by observing that, in America, there’s always been a strong connection assumed between theology and ethics. But he sets this American penchant in a broader context, tracing the history of a back-and-forth between emphasizing the knowledge of God versus living for God. Aquinas had leaned toward the knowing, while Duns Scotus argued that “revelation was given chiefly as a guide to salutary conduct.” Jacobus Arminius “defined theology as entirely practical.” Historically, most theologians have struck some sort of balance between the speculative and the practical. But, says Holifield, and as you’re pointing out, in America, the strong emphasis has landed on the practical. Some early American practical theologians drew on an ancient Christian tradition according to which “speculation” was used pejoratively. I think what you and I see is this tendency gone to seed.
I don’t think there’s any good or easy answer. I do think that in a Disciples/Restoration church, there’s more tolerance for teaching for the sake of learning (especially the Bible). But not so much anymore. I believe Randy Harris is a good model of how to engage people in thinking theologically without turning them off. In fact, he makes it look easy. I’m still working on it.