Relationally-driven theology

One of the strengths, I think, of the Presbyterian/Reformed tradition is the cultivation of theological discernment. P/R folks historically have been good at "guarding the flock" from dangerous/heretical dogma - ranging all the way from Socinianism to Open Theism - by clearly articulating the when's and why's of aberrant teaching.

But I wonder if this is sometimes overdone, to the point where the only theology that is done is negative. Instead of, say, "glorifying and enjoying God", all that happens is the demonstration of why so-and-so is, in fact, a damnable heretic. A couple of sites that I've stumbled across recently have been great examples of this, but I do wonder if that tendency isn't latent within the P/R tradition itself and, in fact, very much within my own theology.

And I wonder how solely doing critical theology shapes one's view of God. If all you ever do is demonstrate why people are theological crapheads, do you begin, at least subconsciously, to impute your role onto God? Do you view God solely as a cosmically vindictive force, getting all his kicks out of squashing any one who's theology is one iota off the mark?

February 1, 2005 03:34 PM
6 Comments

There is something scary about only being able to define your Christianity by what it _isn't_ , which is something I both see and struggle with.

Pondered by Joe at February 2, 2005 11:35 AM

That is an interesting thought which I have not considered before. I suppose I have been wrestling with the opposite end of the spectrum where coming from an E Free Church there is an acceptance of theologies as long as they agree with 13 basic principles.
I respect the PCA church which has a solid grounding in good systematic theology and sometimes I long for the more absolutes which you seem to have as opposed to the loose basic principles which we have. I feel that having a theology which the entire church must agree with helps to add to the identity of the community. In our church we sometimes have discussions over things which should be a basic fundamental belief and obviously with discussion comes this tension and mistrust and ect which we do not need to be facing will trying to reach out.
On the other hand, having a set of basic core principles has encouraged discussion which has been good. Since we do have quite a few people from different theological backgrounds we have had good disccussions and since we are part of the same community, we have had to learn to accept and still love one another.
Perhaps we are looking for a cozy median between an absolute across the board theology and a set of basic principles which you must agree to.
Good stuff!

Pondered by John B at February 4, 2005 01:45 PM

testing comments

Pondered by eebmore at February 6, 2005 03:45 PM

Nathan,
Very good thoughts. I've worked in two presbyterian churches and had similar thoughts. There is a fine line between being devoted to our faith and legalalistic/judgmental.

I think the important thing is to keep ourselves focused on the two greatest commandments.

Pondered by mo at February 7, 2005 01:05 PM

There are some great thoughts from the entire peanut gallery here. To add my own thoughts to the pile, I believe there is always a struggle to maintain a balance. We have to balance between “solid grounding” that leads to strict legalism and “loose basic principles” that leads to liberalism. Also, being focused on the two greatest commandments while not maintaining a balance can lead to either brow beating people with God’s law to show you love God more than them or not loving your neighbor properly by letting them get away with murder.

I struggle with this balance everyday and where I’m going err, and obviously I’m not the only one. We come dangerously close to becoming Pharisees by “solely doing critical theology” and dangerously close to ignoring the great commission by applying no critical theology. Ain’t the life of a Christian grand?!

Pondered by Jeff Price at February 8, 2005 09:33 AM

You might be suprised find that the "critical vs constructive" dichotomy exists in places other than Christianity. I can give two examples from my own personal expirience.

The first is music. any "movement" in music is generally considered to be at a dead end when a) dogmatic fealty to the critical principles are the only criteria for judging the and b) the "movement" produces more ctiticism that music.

Software engineering is another example, and it's actually closer to what's discussed above. We in SE constantly plagued by "false prohphets" - I prefer "snake-oil salesmen", but the effect is much the same - offering some new set of magical dogmas that will finally make developing software a snap. Those of us who tend to be highly critical of said dogmas - because they only ever enrich the people selling them, rather than further the state of the art - are always told that the snake-oil salesman are "at least trying to come up with something!"

Supringly, the SE community would be an interesting study for P/R folks. There are actually quite a few interesting paralells in the communities.

Pondered by jayinbmore at February 11, 2005 01:04 PM