Theology is practical

Guy made an important point in the comments yesterday, when he noted:

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.

Bingo! It’s interesting to read Paul’s letters and see that he found theology to be very practical. When discussing the second coming in Thessalonians, he spends more time talking about how to live in light of Jesus’ return than he does talking about the return itself. When addressing the strife in the Philippian church, Paul uses the cross as key to resolving the conflict.

We need to think about what the Bible presents and why. Why is there so much narrative? Why aren’t there longer sections of “practical” teaching? At the same time, why aren’t there longer sections of pure theological reflection? The “practical” teaching is supposed to found in the theology, and the point of the theology is practical teaching. Instead of saying, “Let me tell you what to do” or “Let me discuss the nature of God,” the Bible says, “Let me tell you a story.”

Rather than boiling the Bible down to bullet points, I think we need to teach people how to hear God’s voice in the Bible. How to know more about living from hearing a story. How to let the image of what we are supposed to be shape the way we live. Rather than changing the Bible to fit the audience, I think we need to change the audience to be more in line with the Bible.

And that takes time. It gets back to what we talked about last week as far as process. Maybe one of the biggest things we need is the acceptance that maturity and growth take time. Reaching the point to where the teachings of the Bible really shape and guide our lives take time.

That’s not an easy lesson to hear in our Western world.

photo by Gracey Stinson

One thought on “Theology is practical

  1. Jerry

    When I was in my 20’s (a long time ago), I observed that Paul frequently used “Therefore” texts – and that the “therefore” always looked back to doctrinal teachings. Later, I noticed that the other epistles did much the same thing. It was a few more years before I noticed that the “doctrine” was almost always about what God had done (or is doing) for us.

    Finally, after a few more years went by, it occurred to me that if that is the way they wrote, perhaps I ought to teach and preach the same way.

    Now, why did it take me so long to “catch on”???????? Could it be that I had seldom heard preaching and teaching like that as I was in my formative years????

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.