I was just thinking, what are we going to be held accountable for when we get to heaven? What I mean is will we be held accountable for knowing what Karl Barth or T. F. Torrance said about the Gospel and the implications of the Incarnation, for example; or is it more simple than that?
Most die or meet the LORD with no knowledge of most of what “theologians” have to say. I think the LORD will hold Christians accountable for knowing scripture and what He has revealed to us therein; which creates somewhat of a dilemma of sorts — maybe — I mean what good are professional theologians, they mostly talk to eachother; create theories that they and a few can understand? I think this represents a serious problem for academic theologians, especially. The only category in scripture that I can think of that most represents many academic theologians, is the Pharisees.
PS. Realize, I am generalizing about academic theologians; but I think the parallel between Pharisees and Academic theologians, in general, can hold very true. In other words, if theologians do what they do to get the approval of their peers (which defines the discipline, just like any other academic discipline); then they fall under the condemnation of both Jesus (cf. Jn 5; etc.) and Paul (cf. Gal. 1).
The only category in scripture that I can think of that most represents many academic theologians, is the Pharisees.
That’s a little scary.
I think you may have a point, though. I often find myself wanting to tear out my hair over some of the stuff I come across…but the thought I keep getting is
“Are you managing well what you already know?”
the answer I give is usually “um. Not really.”
To which the “thought” replies…..
“Then, why do you want to be held responsible for that which you don’t comprehend?”
To whom much is given, much will be required, yes?
Heather,
This is a bit of a rant, isn’t it? I suppose I get highly frustrated with “theologians” who Martin Luther termed “theologians of glory;” those who seek the glory of men rather than God in their theologizing. And for the most part what I’ve seen of the theological enterprise is that the the theology of glory factory is thriving (and I think it’s a subtle thing that happens to guys and gals in that arena). It’s not just professsional theologians in danger here, it’s really all Christians; it’s just that being an academic theologian has certain built in parameters that can make this vocation even more prone to pharisaism if not careful.
This post is a huge generalization, though . . . a rant, and intended to be provocative — it’s a blog after all π .
In other words, if theology is not first driven by an attitude of love of God and worship; and then second in service of Christ’s church then it should be tossed.
Of course my post wasn’t all that coherent either, I have multiple issues under consideration with real no overarching thesis being engaged (like I start out by wondering what we’ll be accountable for as Christians in general, then I rabbit trail into a rant about academic theologians . . . there is a tacit thread of cohesion, but a little fragmented — oh well π ).
I’m pretty sure I got your meaning π
Itβs not just professsional theologians in danger here, itβs really all Christians; itβs just that being an academic theologian has certain built in parameters that can make this vocation even more prone to pharisaism if not careful.
I’m with you. That’s the realization that prompted my comment. We all have responsibilities to God and I believe He bases much of our “evaluation” upon what He’s personally revealed to each individual.
Really, any one of us can end up as a Pharisee. I don’t think it’s the amount of knowledge involved at all–but the smugly condescending attitude that I “know” something and somehow am more presentable before God because I behave better than another person. The Pharisees were great at comparing themselves to one another and to the “rabble”. But they refused to submit themselves before Christ to be examined. I don’t want to be harder on the professionals than I’m willing to be on myself…you know?
In other words, if theology is not first driven by an attitude of love of God and worship; and then second in service of Christβs church then it should be tossed.
Agreed.
You know, I’ve been working myself into a froth trying to understand some things. And it’s wonderful when I think I finally “get” something. But there really is no substitute for a humble, growing relationship with the Father. About a month ago, Craig said something that I thought was kind of weird at first. But now I can see the wisdom.
My paraphrase: “The pursuit of theology can do to our relationship with God what p*rn can do to a marriage.”
I think I may have strained my eyeballs with the look I gave him.
What he meant is that having head knowledge of the Lord and physical intimacy both have a purpose and are beneficial when kept in the proper context. But when we create artificial environments for these good things and self-centeredly seek fulfillment outside of the appropriate boundaries, both things become twisted and destructive and can actually interfere with the ability to truly get to know one’s spouse. On one side, the spouse would be would be Christ, the Bridegroom–on the other, our wife or husband.
It’s kind of an obscene comparison, I guess. But then, maybe not wholly inappropriate, considering the fact that the Lord seems to equate idolatry with spiritual adultery…
I think Craig’s analogy can be true. I don’t want to sound like I think doctrine or its articulation is a bad thing, God forbid. Instead, as you’ve picked up on it’s the attitudes of theologians and all Christians that needs to always be kept in check (I don’t think the “academy” necessarily has these checks in place — so there is a certain danger of always falling off into becoming a ‘theologian of glory’).
Hey Bobby – I’ve been enjoying your blog and agree with pretty much everything you say so please forgive me for making this the one comment I give and it’s a point of disagreement.
I looked at your profile to see about your educational background and I did notice that you went to Multnomah. Would you agree that what you said here applies to your profs there?
I’ve attended two theological institutions and taken classes and seminars at a couple of others and my experience with academic theologians is quite different. Yes it is true that because of their calling they live in a kind of ivory tower world and speak the technical of their own discipline, much the way that doctors, lawyers and specialists of any kind. And, like specialists of any kind, they often have trouble translating the terms they are so comfortable with and use so often amongst themselves into the language of non-specialists.
But my experience has been that those who are most astute theologically often tend to be far more humble than those who know less. I’ve seen a few academic theologians who come across as prima donnas but those are in a very small minority. Most have learned enough to know how much they don’t know. And what I have seen happen in their interactions with those of us who know so much less is that they are far less confident and dogmatic in their own knowledge than those who know far less. It’s the old syndrome where if you read one book on a subject you confirm your prejudices, read two you especially from your own tradition and you consider yourself an expert and read three and you are the smartest person who ever thought on that subject.
These guys who have read 300 on a particular subject from all perspectives tend to see all the holes in the arguments of those who have read 2 and 3 and they can come off as arrogant and liberal when they really are just seeing nuances that others don’t see.
True, they often fail in translating the language of their specialties to the common man and this makes us feel that they are aloof, but I tend to think that some of those feelings descend as much from the sin and lack of humility and unteachableness of the common man as it does from the sins of the scholar.
Hi David,
I’m really glad to hear from you here, I hope you’re feeling better (I’m still praying).
You know this was a bit of a rant (I don’t know if you read my interaction with Heather above); but I think my frustration is with “attitude,” more than training. I would have to agree with you, all of my profs at BC/seminary were all quite humble; nevertheless, the academy can tend to breed a certain ditch between regular Christians and themselves.
Also, there is also a methodological point. I think ‘scholasticism’ is alive and well in the “Christian academy,” which places a certain emphasis on the ‘mind’ (rationalism) anthropologically; which reinforces what is more “natural” to man vs. what is not.
So I can agree with you, in general; I also see, in particular, a “theology of glory” alive and well (which I know you know of given your points on a Luther’s “Theology of the Cross”).
P.S. I’ve served as ‘adjunct faculty’ myself — again my post was a bit of a rant.
David,
Let me point you to a post at another blog of mine that fleshes this out a little bit more clearly — less “rantishly”:
http://growbobby.blogspot.com/2009/05/theologian-versus-lay-christian.html
“Rantishly”?????
I’m gonna have to stick that one in my vocabulary folder π
It sounds so very scholarly!
Just wanted to agree out loud with the concept that learned men can certainly be humble and godly men.
Sounds good – I’ll look forward to reading that. And yes Heather, “rantibly” – a good new word for the dictionary.
Oh, I’d make room for “rantish”, definitely.
It would be important to have a standardized definition from which to work, should one find a subject to be rantishable. After behaving rantishly, he might decide he rantished a bit off topic and choose to explain his rantishness.
π
Hi Bobby, Heather and David!
We’ve all heard Christianity – the Gospel described as one beggar telling another where he can get free food. I suppose there is a competition for ideas, just as there is in sunday school class. My fellow pupils are very steeped in works righteousness, which I have been also in a more subtle sort of way. If theology can be used to smash those chains, and that is one of the theologian’s motives (as is this sometimes sunday school teacher), then that is good.
If the motive is to break down any pretense of what you call “anthropocentric” salvation, that too is good. (Ew! That tasted entirely too calvinistic coming out of my mouth :{) π
Yeah, Duane,
I should’ve been more clear in my original “rant,” I should’ve made a clear distinction between theologians of the cross vs. theologians of glory. π
Anthropocentric is just a general term for being “man-centered,” Calvinists don’t have claim to this word alone, use away, Duane π (esp. when talking about Arminianism, Roman Catholicism, or even Federal Calvinism).
Duane,
I can agree with you on the difference among types of theologians. It’s already been said–but if pride in intellect or good works or something other than love for Jesus is the motivating factor for study, then there can be serious problems.
I once heard Paul Washer say (my paraphrase) that Christ’s gift of forgiveness is to the believer what acing an impossibly hard test one has not actually taken is to a student who really loves the subject He is studying.
In a way, what Jesus has done is release us from the condemning chains of not knowing all the answers so we are able to explore the “lesson” material freely, and just be because we love Him.