Friday, November 30th, 2012
HT: Dave Bish who first posted these videos on his blog
To be human is to be a theologian. For, as Barth put it, everyone has a god. Even the logical positivists, amidst their howls of disapproval, can be called theologians. It is simply that they worship and study a different logos to the Christian theologian. To understand this we are going to need to re-define theology for ourselves. We will need to rescue it from the idea that it is just about reading books and studying languages.
The word ‘theology’ includes the idea of the Logos, for theology is a logia, a logic or language about the theos (God) who determines it. Theology can be the study of any number of gods; but Christian theology is about knowing the true and living God as he reveals himself through his Logos, his Word, Jesus Christ. Since knowing God through his Word is the definition of being a Christian, we can see that all Christians are therefore Christian theologians. As for us, we can see that we are Christian theologians simply because we are Christians, not because we are enrolled on some particular course of study. It is therefore a complete misunderstanding of what theology is when you hear someone cheerfully (and perhaps also a bit scornfully) affirm: ‘I am not a theologian!’ As if theology could be left behind once the exam had been sat. All too often what that will mean is simply that they are a bad theologian, failing to test everything in the fire of God’s truth.
The question to ask any Christian is not, ‘Are you a theologian?’ We know they are. The question is whether the person is a good theologian or a bad theologian. We don’t mean whether they can remember the Chalcedonian definition or parse a word. Being a good theologian is not about intellectual ability. Christian theology is, as Anselm famously put it, faith seeking understanding, and therefore the only qualification for being a good theologian is faith in Jesus Christ, the revealing Word. To be a good theologian is to seek to know and rely upon the Word of God better. It is to be a faithful Christian.
Taken from Pursuing the Illogical Studies by Mike Reeves.
I remember sitting in a lecture on Christianity and world religions while a religious studies student at university, and the class being asked by the tutor to raise their hands in support of either exclusivism, inclusivism or universalism. Out of a class of around 50, only three others joined me in raising their hands for exclusivism (i.e. salvation only through Christ). The shocking thing was that the majority of people in the class were ministry candidates! As the weeks passed I discovered that several of these individuals did not believe in things like the virgin birth, the full deity and humanity of Christ, the necessity of the atonement, the bodily resurrection of Christ, or the final judgement, to name but a few.
I wish at the time I had read J. Gresham Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism. Gresham Machen wrote at a time when the West was still outwardly Christian, but what was taught and believed in the churches was increasingly estranged from historic Christianity. He makes a profound point: “the issue in the Church of the present day is not between two varieties of the same religion, but, at bottom, between two essentially different types of thought and life.” That is, historic Christian faith and liberalism are not two branches of the same religion, they are different religions. And we cannot honestly claim the name Christian, if we refuse to hold Christian beliefs.
Here’s the same point in Gresham Machen’s words:
But, it will be said, Christianity is a life, not a doctrine. The assertion is often made, and it has an appearance of godliness. But it is radically false, and to detect its falsity one does not even need to be a Christian. For to say that "Christianity is a life" is to make an assertion in the sphere of history. The assertion does not lie in the sphere of ideals; it is far different from saying that Christianity ought to be a life, or that the ideal religion is a life. The assertion that Christianity is a life is subject to historical investigation exactly as is the assertion that the Roman Empire under Nero was a free democracy. Possibly the Roman Empire under Nero would have been better if it had been a free democracy, but the historical question is simply whether as a matter of fact it was a free democracy or no. Christianity is an historical phenomenon, like the Roman Empire, or the Kingdom of Prussia, or the United States of America. And as an historical phenomenon it must be investigated on the basis of historical evidence.
Is it true, then, that Christianity is not a doctrine but a life? The question can be settled only by an examination of the beginnings of Christianity. Recognition of that fact does not involve any acceptance of Christian belief; it is merely a matter of common sense and common honesty. At the foundation of the life of every corporation is the incorporation paper, in which the objects of the corporation are set forth. Other objects may be vastly more desirable than those objects, but if the directors use the name and the resources of the corporation to pursue the other objects they are acting ultra vires ["beyond the powers"] of the corporation. So it is with Christianity. It is perfectly conceivable that the originators of the Christian movement had no right to legislate for subsequent generations; but at any rate they did have an inalienable right to legislate for all generations that should choose to bear the name of "Christian." It is conceivable that Christianity may now have to be abandoned, and another religion substituted for it; but at any rate the question what Christianity is can be determined only by an examination of the beginnings of Christianity.
The beginnings of Christianity constitute a fairly definite historical phenomenon. … The name originated after the death of Jesus, and the thing itself was also something new. … At that time is to be placed the beginning of the remarkable movement which spread out from Jerusalem into the Gentile world--the movement which is called Christianity.
About the early stages of this movement definite historical information has been preserved in the Epistles of Paul, which are regarded by all serious historians as genuine products of the first Christian generation. The writer of the Epistles had been in direct communication with those intimate friends of Jesus who had begun the Christian movement in Jerusalem, and in the Epistles he makes it abundantly plain what the fundamental character of the movement was.
So says Gresham Machen, Christianity is something, it is a message, a set of beliefs or doctrines based on the claim that at a certain point in history, God became a man and lived and died and rose again, and these acts mean something specific. We are free to deny these beliefs, but what we come up with in their place will not be Christian.
So how would this have helped me as a student surrounded by people who called themselves Christian but did not believe in Christianity? It may have given me confidence to challenge them, but ultimately, I think, it would have given me confidence to love them – confidence that in believing historic Christian faith based on the New Testament, I was being authentically Christian, and more able then to rely on God’s love for me, and so to love them as sheep still yet to come home to the Shepherd.
You can read the whole of Christianity and Liberalism here online.
Or listen to Mike Reeves and Carl Trueman discuss the importance of doctrine.
In an open-fire warmed English pub in January, I mused upon some spiritual and some more trivial matters with my mate and fellow theology student Jim. 'I'm not saying that truth isn't important' insisted Jim before taking a hearty swig of his pint of ale, his enthused eyes peering over the brim. 'But I want to focus on following Jesus rather than worry about what to believe about the bible, eternal life, salvation and all that'. The idea is instantly plausible and appealing to me. Who really finds the thought of ticking rigid doctrinal boxes more attractive than following the loving, wise and humble example of the greatest man who ever lived? Jesus Christ challenged social conventions, associated himself with outcasts and taught that everyone should love one another. Evangelical Christians seem more concerned with maintaining the theological status-quo, figuring out who is and isn’t ‘sound’ and teaching that everyone who isn’t a Christian is going to hell.
What does Jesus mean then, when he says ‘you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free’? That sounds different from what Jim was saying – he thinks that focusing on ‘knowing truth’ will be dry as a cream cracker and will shrivel his enthusiasm. But it’s different from the doctrinal box-ticking brigade whose frequency of using the word ‘sound’ as an adjective can rival that of any scouser. The truth that Jesus offers is an authentically liberating, mind and heart expanding, possibility opening powerhouse. That’s why we’re offering the Theology According to Jesus course to Theology Network groups. The aim being that we learn theology from Jesus and experience the liberating power of the truth he gives us. The five sessions are as follows:
1) Jesus according to Jesus – Did the historical Jesus really think he was the son of God?
2) The Bible according to Jesus – What did Jesus believe about the Bible?
3) Sin according to Jesus – What did Jesus say about sin?
4) Salvation according to Jesus – What did Jesus say he had come to do? What did he think he was achieving by dying and rising?
5) Heaven and Hell according to Jesus – What did Jesus believe about judgement and life after death?
Trinity matters for the way we pray - because it's about who we're praying to and how welcome we are. Mike Reeves explains:
Trinity was the hot topic in the life of the early church - and we need it today too as Mike Reeves shows here:
The confidence of the church is weak, Christian after Christian lacks assurance. Trinity is vital to overcoming this as Mike Reeves shows: