"Odd, when we hear the names of Paul, Athanasius, or Augustine, we tend to think of them as theologians, and they were. Yet these great thinkers spent most of their time being pastors, and most of their theology was thought in response to specific issues of pastoral care."
While certainly not a theology geek (okay- maybe a recovering one), I do tend towards opinion two. Yes- love is the most important thing, but it's not the only thing. Or maybe another way to put it is this- Love expressed in a multitude of ways, including theologically is the only thing. Love devoid of truth is less-than-love. How much do you have to hate someone to allow them to continue in harmful self-deception. And how does one speak both lovingly and carefully about our self-deception and sin without engaging in a bit of... theology? Of "scriptural minutia"?
For example- How satisfied with your doctor would you be if all she ever ever told you was "Eat right and exercise!"? I mean, that's great advice, and it certainly forms a basis for healthy living... but might there not be, for specific problems, more to say? "Eat right and exercise" is the answer to "five pounds overweight" but not to "broken arm" or "thyroid imbalance" or "prostate cancer."
"Love God, love others," as Jesus says, sums up all the Law and the Prophets, and while summaries are helpful, I can't help but wonder what you miss if you stop at the summary. Do we really NEED the Book of Romans? Not a whole lot on "Love God, Love others" in there, you know? Maybe we should just do a Dead Poets and rip it out?
No?
No. There's something needful in there. Ditto Galatians, Ephesians... heck, Joshua, Judges... Let's just say the whole thing. There's something we need to know about ourselves and about God that risks being lost when we stop at the very good summary of "Love God, love others." Something you'll never get without engaging in a bit of reading, study... "theology."
Yes- absolutely, taking theology too far abounds. Supralapsarianism vs infralapsarianism? Please. But to claim somehow to be atheological is to cede vast amounts of territory properly belonging to pastoral care, deep questions of life and death, of purpose and pain, of community and Christ to... "whatever!" Without theology I know precious little about the God I say I'm trying to love and I know little about how best to love those around me.
Endless wrangling about scripture minutia may be the great sport among some white, overeducated, upper middleclass males... but to be honest, I think its close competitor is oversimplification of deep truth. To paraphrase some common wisdom, to claim to have no theology is to have a theology. Just not a very good one.
And by "good one" I mean one that's really going to help people thru the complex realities of life in the way of Jesus that most of theology arose to answer.
What do you think?
While I don't really have the ability to hold a conversation with you about theology and why it's good/bad/etc, I wanted to write this: I think that the anonymous blogger's theology (or lack of it), while it may not be what certain church communities need, is exactly what the population of people he's serving NEED to hear and know and understand. It seems to me like what the anonymous blogger offers is something that a lot of these broken youth don't know -- that God loves them. Isn't this a good starting point to offer those who may not know God? I also really like how the anonymous blogger keeps it simple. Sometimes all of the heavier stuff can deter people who don't know God from entering into the Jesus conversation -- I know that it did for me, before I became a Christian. Now I'm able to hear about the tough stuff that Jesus wants me to know -- Romans, etc, but in the beginning -- the message Ken brings is all I would have been able to bear, and even that would have been tough.
Posted by: jeannie | June 05, 2009 at 03:15 PM
sorry, no way to edit, and i accidentally posted his name. can you edit on your end, Bob? not sure if it's really necessary.
Posted by: jeannie | June 05, 2009 at 03:17 PM
No- it's fine :)
I agree with you totally. What I'm saying is that the first is absolutely necessary, but incomplete without the second.
If the people I'm trying to reach need to hear about the love of God today, tomorrow they will need to hear about His forgiveness, why they need it, what God thinks about how we should live, how we should treat others, what the Kingdom of God means here and now, where this whole thing is going, etc.
And THAT... is theology :)
Posted by: bobhyatt | June 05, 2009 at 03:25 PM
I think it needs to be balanced. I used to accept the position that "right thinking leads to right living". But now I'm not certain that is often the case. But I would agree that wrong thinking can hinder right living.
Wrong thinking on many of the extra issues will not impact on right living. For example the impact on loving God and your neighbor shouldn't be impacted by your positions on pre-trib, post-trib, or whether you think it's OK to pray to saints, etc.
Wrong thinking about things that impact one's relationship to God and others do need to be worked on further. What all falls in this category I guess is key. What are the essentials to our shared faith? Some make their list of essentials pretty large. I believe unity is very essential. Anything with less Scriptural support than the topic of Unity of Christ's body needs to be approached with humility and love.
Good question.
Posted by: Jon | June 05, 2009 at 03:26 PM
By the way.. I think you WERE able to handle more... because you did! You found Jesus at Evergreen- where we talk about the loving God, loving others AND more...
Posted by: bobhyatt | June 05, 2009 at 03:29 PM
Yeah, I hear that. But honestly? Although that's what was/is taught at Evergreen, I'm not sure how much of the other stuff I initially absorbed or understood.
Posted by: jeannie | June 05, 2009 at 04:04 PM
EXACTLY... but in spite of it's presence, you were able to hear and absorb the love of God. And hearing and absorbing that readies you for more.
But if I say "There is no more" then I think I may have cut you off from something potentially needful...
I think this is an issue of semantics. An important one, but still.
Even to say "God is Love" or "God loves you" is a statement of theology. Which God? How has He shown that love? What does/can that love mean for/do for me? Do I have to earn it- how good do I have to be to keep it? All very practical theological questions... for anyone!
Posted by: bobhyatt | June 05, 2009 at 04:13 PM
I am thinking that I probably agree with you, that all of it is necessary in the long run. But I still think that Ken's view on things makes him uniquely equipped to care for his friends on the street, in a way that others probably wouldn't be as successful with a full-throttle theology. Just my humble opinion.
Posted by: jeannie | June 05, 2009 at 04:17 PM
And that's fine... I agree with you!- He has a pretty unique ministry- that's why we've been so supportive of him for the past 5 years.
I'm not saying he should teach classes on the book of Romans to street kids. I was just commenting on what I saw as a pretty widespread view- that all we need ever talk about is loving God and loving others. I just think it's incomplete and possibly harmful to talk as though theology isn't pastoral... even for really hurting people.
Posted by: bobhyatt | June 05, 2009 at 04:24 PM
"I'm not saying he should teach classes on the book of Romans to street kids. " whew. thank goodness. 'cause that would be really awkward.
Posted by: jeannie | June 05, 2009 at 04:27 PM
I think I'm with opinion one.
And that quote from your friend is great. Exactly what i've been thinking lately.
There is nothing worse than theology snobs, or more like theology sloths... who sit around in fancy chairs with fancy bibles and read the same words over and over, the same ideas from different people, and argue whether or not A is equal to B but not of the same substance as C and if person A is an antibaptist or more of a methodist, all the while they get excited and bloated on the feeling of being right (even if they admit to being wrong, they still love the feeling of being right) and who enjoy the verbal olympics of theology.
I'm not against the study of God (THEO-OLOGY) - everyone who has a soul is studying God by breathing, watching the world around them, looking up at the clouds and wondering what all this is about - but theological conversations (oh, Emergent...) where "scholarly" know it alls who are riding the wave of the latest theological trends, spout their "new" ideas just to feel important (if they could only admit it - but they can't) and maybe make some money doing what THEY claim is imprortant. Of course they are going to say Theology is important... they have to fan the flame of the theological conversation that sells their books, pays for the conferences, and creates followers who are dying to be the next big yoo-hoo.
Bob, I really disagree with you when you say "There's something we need to know about ourselves and about God that risks being lost when we stop at the very good summary of "Love God, love others."
Theology is a result of loving God and loving others. Experience begets wisdom and truth... experience breathes life into empty words... LOVING God IS studying God... LOVING others IS studying God - IS theology.
Not that all this will change your opinion... I just had a few words to say.
Thanks for writing again in your blog. it's fun to read.
Posted by: Jim Krill | June 05, 2009 at 08:54 PM
"LOVING God IS studying God... LOVING others IS studying God - IS theology."
My point exactly. So why make a silly statement like theology is non-essential?
And the ONLY thing worse than theology snobs who get excited and bloated on the feeling of being right?
Those anti-theology snobs who get excited and bloated on the feeling of scoffing at the very idea of anything deeper.
I mean, know it alls come in all kinds of flavors, huh?
Somewhere between denigrating the love of God that leads one to want to know more and more about He is and being a complete ass about theology is probably a healthy balance that is excited about loving God, loving people and actually discovering what God has revealed of Himself in Scripture and the person of Jesus.
Glad you enjoy reading!
Posted by: bobhyatt | June 05, 2009 at 09:12 PM
"I mean, know it alls come in all kinds of flavors, huh?"
Agreed.
And I agree that anti-theology snobs are just as bad when they get excited at scoffing at the very idea of anything deeper - but hopefully that is not what I am or was getting at.
Here's a question: if all you had to go off of was, Love God and Love Others - do you really think that you would be very far off course - theologically?
Of course, if what you mean by theology is more like love-ology, which it should be anyway since God is love, then it makes sense to study God if you are studying what love is and is not. THAT makes sense - but what I was getting at are a lot of the nitty-gritty details of organized religion and created doctrines and dogma that really just get in the way sometimes of allowing us to realize what love really looks like. Does that make sense?
Posted by: Jim Krill | June 06, 2009 at 06:46 AM
Yes- it makes sense, but no, I'm not sure it quite gets it.
In other words, we HAVE more to go off of than Love God, Love others. A lot more in fact. And that tells me something!
But let's take it from another angle.
Let's say I wanted to do a serious Thomas Jefferson on the Bible and I ended up with the Fortune Cookie edition: "Love God, Love others" and wanted to share that with people.
What very important questions might they have that I would now be unable to answer because of all I had left on the cutting room floor?
Which God?
What is He like?
How has He shown that love for me?
How can I best respond to that love?
I just did something really bad. I'm pretty sure He doesn't love me now, right?
So if He loves me anyway, I can do whatever I want?
I just experienced a tragedy- where was that loving God then??
If God is love, He must not be very powerful since there's so much evil in the world, right?
Does God care about justice?
And so on...
"Love God, Love others" is a great summary- a wonderful basis for living- and a great touchstone for making choices in life. But if you limit yourself to that, and refuse to discuss anything beyond it, you find yourself worshiping an amorphous Santa Claus god that does nothing but pat you on the head and says he loves you.
You'd know nothing of the original good creation, why the world is broken, God's plan for redemption, the person of Jesus, the salvation He provides that is free to us but very costly to Him, God's Kingdom, our role in His redemption story for the world.
I have no interest in "organized religion"- but sometimes I think that phrase is a smokescreen. The truth is, there actually ARE a lot nitty gritty details (Jesus- just a guy? A super-guy? an "ascended master"? or God-in-Flesh?) that actually matter.
And far from getting in the way of us realizing what love looks like, I think they actually serve to bring sharpness and clarity to the picture.
So no- I'm not defending the absurd end of the spectrum of theological nit-picking you drew. Not by any means- all someone has to do is hang around evergreen for awhile and they are going to get that. But it's not "no theology" either. Or even "Love is the only theology." There's more, And the "more" that there is is important, vital stuff- literally life or death for people- redemption and forgiveness, Jesus and Kingdom stuff.
Posted by: bobhyatt | June 06, 2009 at 09:11 AM
Ok.
Posted by: Jim Krill | June 06, 2009 at 10:36 AM
"If you are a theologian, you will truly pray. And if you pray truly, you are a theologian. " Evagrios the Solitary.
Posted by: Donovan | June 06, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Hey Bob -- Not trying to be a jerk, but do you think maybe you're over-analyzing what Ken wrote? I mean, do you honestly think that if his friends without houses asked any of the questions (literally or not) you mentioned above, that he would only answer with a response about how God loves them? I almost feel like you missed the point of what he wrote, or maybe even that you're proving his point.
Posted by: jeannie | June 06, 2009 at 12:10 PM
I wasn't making this about Ken at all (in fact, I was trying to avoid that out of respect for him). I was simply responding to something he said because it's something i've heard a lot, from many different people, and using it as an illustration.
But to answer your question: No, I don't think Ken would avoid answering those questions- which, again, is *my point*. As someone's pastor, you HAVE TO, especially some of the harder ones about how God's love works out in our pain.
And THAT's theology.
The whole reason I posted this was to say: as someone who is trying to love others (especially as a pastor), you can't discount or deride theology, because it's going to be integral to how you love, shepherd and care for people (back to the Willimon quote/Opinion Two.)
Posted by: bobhyatt | June 06, 2009 at 12:19 PM
I think it's nice to have you writing a long, thoughtful, new post. ;) The doctor analogy is great; I'm swiping it.
This reminds me of http://www.theforgottenways.org/blog/2007/05/23/the-issue-of-simplexity/ title="the forgotten ways">Alan Hirsch's stuff on simplicity vs. simplexity. Love God, love others is more valuable as it moves from being a simple statement to a simplex statement that truly encapsulates all the law and the prophets for the one who speaks it. For followers of Jesus, it's the beginning and the end, and it's important that it be both, and not merely one or the other.
Posted by: nick | June 06, 2009 at 08:53 PM
Bob,
Great post. I do think we run the risk of settling for an either/or when it comes to theology. Your post and comments that it is both and therefore there is no need for saying theology is un-important requires a nuance to the word most would dismiss.
Posted by: Todd Littleton | June 09, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Oops. That last sentence did not make sense. Here we go,
Your post and your comments that it is both undercuts the thought theology is not important. Those who suggest it is not important nuance the word "theology" in a way that most would dismiss.
apologies for the unintelligible gaff
Posted by: Todd Littleton | June 09, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Bob, interesting post. What I think is interesting,(and what you didn't seem to emphasize), was that with the second quote, (the one you were most in agreement with), stated that theology was engaged in the context of relationships.
"Yet these great thinkers spent most of their time being pastors, and most of their theology was thought in response to specific issues of pastoral care."
For those thinkers they only wrestled with issues as they came up with their flock. I may be off base here, but I wonder what our theological conversations would look like today if this was still the case today.
Posted by: bruce robertson | June 10, 2009 at 05:56 AM