THEOLOGY:
A CONGREGATIONAL JOURNEY
Introduction
Aaron
and Susan are new to your church. They recently made a public profession of
faith and were baptized in a baptismal service. They are now attending the new believers’ discipleship
class each Sunday. Aaron
volunteers to help with service activities in the church and is building
friendships in the church with his outgoing personality. This past Sunday, after most of the
congregation left morning worship, Aaron hangs around in the lobby until he has
an opportunity to speak with you alone.
“Pastor,
I need your advice,” he says.
“Sure,
Aaron, what can I do for you?” you respond. “Let’s sit down.”
“I’m
not sure what I need to do, and I need your help. You need to know that Susan and I love this church, and we
are really growing spiritually in the discipleship class. But there is something that is
bothering me. Susan and I aren’t
married. We have been living
together for the last ten years.
But we are still married to other people. We haven’t seen our spouses in years. What should we do?”
What should we do? Aaron asked an important question for
his life. He is experiencing a
crisis and he has come to you, his pastor, for an answer. Aaron’s question forces the pastor into
a role that is part of the calling of pastoral ministry.
Before the pastor
can begin to address Aaron’s question, there are significant questions that
demand reflection. First, why does
Aaron come to you with his question? In other words, what expectations does
Aaron have of you, his pastor?
Second, is Aaron’s question a theological question? Why or why not? Third, how will you respond to
Aaron? Will you attempt to answer
his question? If so, by what
process will you reach your recommendation? Finally, on what authority will you rely to respond to
Aaron? In other words, why should
Aaron listen to you?
The
Minister as Theologian
Pastoral ministry
is filled with interactions in which the pastor and parishioner engage in
discussions such as these. Of the
many facets of pastoral ministry, theological reflection and proclamation holds
a significant place. In the early
church, the Apostle Paul insisted that leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ
fulfill a calling to instruct God’s people in all matters of faith. Of the many qualifications he describes
in 1 Timothy 3, he requires that the elder (i.e., church leadership) must be
able to teach God’s people. The
writer of Ephesians puts it this way:
It was he who gave some to be
apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, some to be pastors and
teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of
Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the
knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure
of the fullness of Christ. Then we
will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here
and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in
their deceitful scheming. Instead,
speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the
Head, that is, Christ. From him
the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows
and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work (Eph 4:11 – 16).[1]
The writer of Ephesians insists
that the goal of pastoral ministry, in concert with other ministries, is to
reach unity in faith, the knowledge of the Son of God, spiritual maturity, and
the fullness of Christ. Paul
reinforces this position in Col 1:9 – 10:
. . . [W]e have not stopped praying
for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all
spiritual wisdom and understanding.
And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord
and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the
knowledge of God . . .
It is typically
the parishioner’s perspective that the pastor is the first stop on the journey
in which serious questions concerning faith and practice arise and answers are
sought. They often lean on the
pastor’s study, understanding, and proclamation of God’s. Aaron is asking a theological question,
because he is seeking, through the pastor’s study and understanding, what God’s
will is in his situation. “This
life crisis is a theological crisis . . .”[2] Even though he may not be able to
articulate it as such, in Aaron’s mind, his situation has theological
implications.
The pastor, then,
needs to have a clear understanding of the nature of theology. There are countless definitions of
theology that emerge from various faith traditions. The etymology, however, gives clues to its definition.
Howard W. Stone and James O. Duke explain, “It comes to us as a compound word
from ancient Greek: theo-logia are logia (sayings, accounts, teachings,
theories) concerning theos (the
divine, gods and goddesses, God).
This root meaning carries over into the most traditional use of the
word: a belief, conception, or study of God.”[3] Across the spectrum of definitions, a
pattern emerges that is useful for the pastor: theology is simply humanity’s
attempt to know God and know God’s will.
This definition makes an essential implication: our faith insists that there is “ . . .
a message from God concerning God’s relationship to the world, to history, and
to all human life.”[4] The pastor is an essential part of
God’s plan to make that message clearly known to God’s people and to those
outside of the Christian faith.
Furthermore, the
nature of theology cannot be limited simply to abstract concepts, philosophical
propositions, and theories. Since
this message from God focuses on God’s relationship to the world, history, and
to all human life, Christian theology must address the reality of life in this
world and history. Theology must
engage and guide our experiences and the motivations behind and responses to
those experiences.
Traditionally,
theology has been divided into four major categories: biblical theology,
systematic theology, historical theology, and practical theology.[5] Although the pastor typically engages
in some respect in each of these theological disciples, the locus of pastoral
theology and ministry is placed in practical theology. Andrew Purves argues, however, that
“Practical theology is practical because it is theological: it has to do with
God. All theology, all knowledge
of God, by virtue of the subject matter – the acting God – is inherently a
practical knowledge of God.”[6] In other words, if theological reflections
do not affect our the totality of our lives, it is no longer theology.
The pastor and
scholar are not the only theologians.
Everyone is a theologian in one respect or another. Even those that are outside of the
Christian faith are theologians.
Not only are the pastor or scholar called to clearly articulate the
Christian faith in a way that is meaning-driven and transformative, every
Christian is a theologian. “It is a simple fact of life for Christians: their
faith makes them theologians.”[7]
Since theology is
shaped by the knowledge of God and God’s will, since all theology should shape
our understanding of God’s relationship to us and our lives, and since everyone
is a theologian, then the calling of the pastor is to be a guide in the process
of theological formation in the church to whom he or she is called. God calls the pastor to intentionally
reflect theologically and teach his or her congregations how to reflect
theologically, which is essential to understand God and God’s will.
Theological
reflection should not be isolated to the pastor. It is a congregational journey that should be shared as a
community of faith. Patricia
O’Connell Killen and John de Beer insist that ministers “ . . . must help those
with whom we work develop the practice of theological reflection. Assisting them to bring their life
experience into dynamic conversation with the wisdom of the Christian heritage
creates contexts for long-lasting insight and significant growth in faith.”[8] They identify five essential factors
that are necessary for theological reflection in groups.[9] First, pastors need to understand the people that they intend to guide through
theological reflection – their conceptual skills, thinking skills, openness to
group discussion, familiarity with the Christian tradition, and contextual
factors that would serve as boundaries for understanding. Second, the pastor must have a purpose in mind by clearly answering the
question: “Why are we facilitating theological reflection with these people?” Is there a specific contextual need
that necessitates a season of reflection?
Identifying clear purpose is critical because it guides the congregation
to identifiable theological goals.
Third, there need to be clear environmental parameters that guide the reflective processes. Fourth, the pastor must provide a
focused presence in the reflective
process. The pastor must be
willing to give considerable energy and focus to the process for it to bear
theological fruit. Finally, there
needs to be a clear process that the
congregation can see and follow.
Types
of Theology
Let us return to
Aaron’s situation above and the questions that arise from this interaction. Should the pastor choose to respond,
and, if so, on what grounds should he or she respond? The pastor could justify providing an authoritative response
to Aaron’s situation because he is a new follower of Christ. The pastor’s response, though, will be
guided by one of two types of theology.
Many times,
ministers guide a congregation and respond to theological questions based on a
type of theology of which they may be unaware. Stone and Duke identify a type of theology that is “ . . .
disseminated by the church and assimilated by its members in their daily lives
. . . called embedded theology.”[10] They assert, “Christians learn what
faith is all about from countless daily encounters with their Christianity –
formal and informal, planned and unplanned.”[11] Embedded theology is deeply rooted in
our lives and is the “implicit theology that Christians live out in their daily
lives.”[12] It is the underlying theology that
drives many of the methods of worship, practices, teachings, symbols, standards
of behavior, and boundaries in Christians’ lives. It is usually the “flash-point” of most of the theological,
moral, and social issues of our day.
“Christians rise up to defend their theological convictions or express
outrage when those convictions are threatened.”[13]
The theological response to Aaron’s situation may be driven by the embedded
theology of the pastor and the congregation.
One
should not immediately respond with criticism to embedded theology. There is significant value in the
embedded theology that guides the Christian in life. In fact, it is a person’s embedded theology that renders the
Christian able to make immediate theological decisions when time and distance
for reflection are unavailable.
When someone is faced with a significant choice in life and time to
reflect on the issue is simply unavailable, it is a person’s embedded theology
that can provide a theological “safety net.”
Instead of
providing an immediate, authoritative response, the pastor could chose to guide
Aaron on a theological journey that will develop his ability to reflect
theologically and provide continuous spiritual growth through a type of
theology that Stone and Duke call deliberative
theology:
Deliberative
theology is the understanding of faith that emerges from a process of
carefully reflecting upon embedded theological convictions. . . . It inspects a range of
alternative understandings in search of that which is most satisfactory and
seeks to formulate the meaning of faith as clearly and coherently as possible.[14]
Aaron has an embedded theology that
led him to ask the pastor for direction.
Deliberative theological reflection “ . . . carries us forward when our
embedded theology proves inadequate. Sincere or not, our embedded theology may
be ill-informed or even mistaken, sufficient only until a crisis, a
conversation, a controversy, or our own spiritual growth leads us to reflect again.”[15] His embedded theology has taken him
only so far and a deeper understanding of God and God’s will are necessary for
Aaron to grow in his faith.
A Congregational
Model for Deliberative Theological Reflection
What
Aaron and the pastor need is a tool for deliberative theological
reflection. They need a process
that seeks to understand God and determine God’s will within his situation.
This process focuses on the issue at hand and the faithful response to that
issue.
The
study of theological reflection and processes reveals a very diverse and,
sometimes, complex set of principles.
W. Paul Jones points out the division in the church between the liberal
and conservative theological camps:
. . . [T]here is a growing
chasm. Liberals, on the one hand,
advocate a broad relativism of options, encouraging openness as the mark of
tolerance. The result in practice,
however, is often an eroding of commitment through theological indifference. The result is a Christianity that
provides little more than supplemental activities and religious support for the
values generally implicit in modern culture. On the other hand, conservative
sectors have been growing in number and appeal, in part because they exhibit
faith as firm commitment and costly discipleship, providing a cultural
alternative. Yet the result, in
practice, is often allegiance to a historically conditioned dogmatism that
fails to engage the majority of persons involved in the central sectors of
contemporary life.[16]
Jones calls the Church to embrace
the contributions from both sides and take a posture that is “both
postconservative and postliberal.”[17]
First,
with Jones’ call taken to heart, a search for the contributions of both camps
yields a surprisingly consistent conceptual pattern that emerges when one
“takes a step back” and views theological reflection as a process with multiple
starting points for various disciplines.
Typically, within the liberal theological tradition, the starting point
is within the human condition and moves toward an engagement with
tradition. The goal within this
tradition is to interpret the human experience in light of the Christian faith
and discover “meaning.” Within the
conservative theological traditions, the typical starting point is to correctly
exegete scripture, discover eternal truth (doctrine), and moves toward
interpretation (i.e., the application of doctrine to everyday life).[18] This type of reflection is typically
referred to as applied theology. The reality is, depending on the type of
theological reflection, both of these are valid starting points for theological
reflection.
Second,
a review of works on practical theological reflection generally reveals four
essential elements for theological reflection: (1) the occasion, (2) reflection
on reality, (3) the source(s) for authority, and (4) the action. While they may be described by
different terms, the concepts remain generally constant.[19] Theologians typically offer these
concepts in a general process for reflection. The deliberative theological process offered here includes
each of these elements. I include,
however, an additional element: collaboration,
which will be explained below. Furthermore, the process offered here (see figure 1) is a
continuous process of theological reflection.
Figure 1
For
the various theological disciplines, the starting point will be different.[20] For example, the biblical theological
discipline will necessarily begin with the study of Scripture in its various
historical/grammatical contexts. For
the pastoral theologian, which finds his or her perspective in practical
theology, the beginning point will often be in the experience of the parishioner. There are times for theological
reflection beginning in the study and exposition of Scripture, which begins the
process of reflection toward collaboration, meaning, and so on. For much of pastoral care, it begins in
the occasion or experience of the parishioner and moves to reflection on
reality and so on.
The
Occasion
The
process for pastoral theological reflection begins in the occasion that gives
rise to theological questions or crises in the human experience. In the case of our friend Aaron, the
crisis emerges as a question of godly relationships and marriage. Within this stage of theological
development, it is important not to assign meaning. At this stage, the important task is to clearly describe the
experience, occasion, crisis, or problem to be addressed. Killen and de Beer suggest that during
this stage we enter into our experience and attempt to describe the occasion or
experience with simple concrete descriptors.[21] In other words, we are looking for
“just the facts.”
Reflection
on Reality
At
this stage in our journey, we are seeking to reflect on the real-world cause(s)
of our theological reflection and our emotive reactions to them. Michael Cowan describes it as
“interpreting the world as it is.”
It is the beginning of understanding the why behind our occasion for theological reflection. Furthermore, it is during this stage
that we begin to explore the emotive response to the theological occasion. Killen and de Beer insist that by
identifying and naming our feelings in our occasion, it joins our mind and
body, which leads to identifying the “heart of the matter . . . the significant
issue of an event brought for reflection.”[22]
Source(s)
Once
we have clearly identified the “heart of the matter,” we can now move to the
source(s) or resources for theological reflection. For different faith traditions, these sources may be
different. In the
conservative traditions, for example, Scripture will be placed as the source for insight. Stone and Duke identify four essential
sources that are used for insight.
The first source for insight is Scripture. “Christians seek to hear through these
writings a message from God – the Word of God. The Scriptures proclaim the Word that called for the faith
of Israel and the faith of the earliest Christians. That Word of God is still
heard today by the reading of Scripture.”[23]
It is within this phase, and with this source of insight into the knowledge of
God and God’s will, that we turn to the formal theological processes of
exegesis and biblical hermeneutics.
The second source of insight is engagement with tradition: “the sum total of what the church has passed down over
time. Not only the content of the
Christian message of God but also the teachings, writings, rituals, and customs
of the church are referred to as tradition.”[24]
A third source of insight is reason. This is the process of how we think
through our faith and is essential to our process of filtering what we accept as
essential to faith and what we reject.
Finally, experience itself plays a significant role in our theological
insights. Stone and Duke point out
that “All of life – and the life of faith – is a matter of experiencing.”[25] We grow in our understanding of God and
God’s will through our encounters with God in the context of community and
practice. Stone and Duke provide a
significant value to experience as an essential source of the knowledge of God:
“Experience often serves as a reality check against overblown and false
theological statements.”[26]
Meaning
From
the sources of insight, we draw meaning.
This is perhaps one of the most abstract and ambiguous terms used in
theological reflection. Drawn from
the existential and phenomenological traditions of theology, it focuses on the
understanding of being and life’s purpose. This statement needs a more concrete expression. When a Christian refers to meaning, it
should always mean what God means.
It should always reflect what God means for our insight to mean. In other words, meaning should never be
solely a subjective response to an occasion. The meaning should always be cast in light of the knowledge
of God and God’s will. At this
stage, then, should be a crystallization of lived principles drawn from the
insights in the reflective process.
There
is a further understanding of meaning that needs to be asserted. Meaning is never to be left in an
abstract concept. Meaning should
imply action. The process should
culminate in an approach to Christian life in which the insights about God and
God’s will lead to a life faithfully lived.
Collaboration
This
phase in the process of theological reflection is often assumed throughout the
process but rarely intentionally performed. I add this step as an essential in reflective process to be
more intentional about exposing our insights and principlized meaning to the
accountability of faithful and mature believers. Through this step, the
community of faith can rigorously test our exegesis of Scripture, our
interpretation and application of tradition, our reasoning processes and experiences
as sources of theological insight and meaning.
Theological
reflection cannot be done in isolation from the community of faith. Stone and Duke describe the work of
theology as “ . . . a matter of personalized conversational thinking about shared convictions” [emphasis added].[27] Furthermore, “Its aim is less to set
forth my understanding of my
Christian faith than to develop the best possible understanding of the faith
that our Christian church seeks to understand.”[28] In other words, the insights gained
through the deliberative process should be exposed to and for the community of faith. They insist that all theology is fashioned through
assessment and provide tests of the appropriateness of the insights from our
theological reflection that need to be done at this stage in the process:[29]
·
Christian
appropriateness evaluates a theology in light of its “Christianness,” that
is, its faithfulness to the Christian message.
·
Intelligibility
is the concern that a Christian theology makes sense to Christians even if to
no one else.
·
Moral integrity
is concerned with a theology’s ethical standards. Christian faith is, in addition to believing and heartfelt
feeling, a way of living guided by moral values.
·
Validity. The question of validity has to do with
the credibility, reality, and truth of the theological views.
Conclusion
Aaron
came to a pastor during an occasion that demanded a faithful, theological
answer. At this point in his life,
he did not need pat, simplistic, authoritative answers because the occasion was
a complex problem, which needed deliberative theological understanding. This process, this journey of
theological reflection, is a model whereby the pastor, the congregation, and
the individual follower of Jesus Christ can enter into a journey with a clear
set of goals and safeguards to know God and know God’s Will.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cowan, Michael. “Practical
Theology” (unpublished lecture, 2000). Available at:
http://www.loyno.edu/~mcowan/PracticalTheology.html, accessed June 26, 21012 at
12:13 AM.
Erikson, Millard.
Christian Theology. Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1998.
Jones, W. Paul. Theological Worlds: Understanding the
Alternative Rhythms of Christian Belief. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989.
O’Connell Killen,
Patricia, and John de Beer. The Art of
Theological Reflection. New York: Crossroad Publishers, 1994.
Osmer, Richard. Practical Theology: An Introduction.
Grand Rapids: William b. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008.
Purves, Andrew. Reconstructing Pastoral Theology: A
Christological Foundation. Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2004.
Segundo. Juan
Luis. The Liberation of Theology.
Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1976. In R. Daniel Shaw and Charles E. Van
Engen. Communicating God’s Word in a
Complex World: God’s Truth or Hocus Pocus? New York: Rowan and Littlefield,
2003.
Stone, Howard W.
and James O. Duke. How to Think
Theologically. 2nd Edition. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006.
Swinton, John and
Harriet Mowat. Practical Theology and
Qualitative Research. London: SCM, 2006.
[1]
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture citations will be from the New
International Version of the Holy Bible.
[2]
Howard W. Stone and James O. Duke, How to
Think Theologically, 2nd Ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2006), 17.
[3]
Ibid., 7.
[4]
Ibid., 8.
[5]
Ibid, 8; see also Millard J. Erickson, Christian
Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 24).
[6]
Andrew Purves, Reconstructing Pastoral
Theology: A Christological Foundation (Louisville and London: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2004), 7.
[7]
Stone and Duke, 1.
[8]
Patricia O’Connell Killen and John de Beer, The
Art of Theological Reflection (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1994), 112.
[9]
Ibid., 116 – 119.
[10]
Stone and Duke, 13.
[11]
Ibid.
[12]
Ibid.
[13]
Ibid., 15.
[14]
Ibid., 17.
[15]
Ibid., 18.
[16]
W. Paul Jones, Theological Worlds:
Understanding the Alternative Rhythms of Christian Belief (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1989), 11 – 12.
[17]
Ibid., 12.
[18]
Purves, xix – xx.
[19]
These four elements can be found in the following: Killen and de Beer,119
(e.g., [1] focusing on some aspect of experience, [2] describing that
experience to identify the heart of the matter, [3] putting the heart of the
matter into conversation with the wisdom of the Christian heritage, and [4]
identifying new meanings and truths to take back to daily living); Richard
Osmer, Practical Theology: An
Introduction (Grand Rapids: William b. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008),
4; (Osmer offers these concepts in the form of questions to be answered: [1]
“What is going on?” [occasion], [2] “Why is this going on?” [reflection on
reality], [3] “What ought to be going on?” [source], and [4] “How might we
respond?” [the action]; Michael Cowan, “Practical Theology” (unpublished
lecture, 2000), available at: http://www.loyno.edu/~mcowan/PracticalTheology.html,
accessed June 26, 21012 at 12:13 AM,
offers a four step model of practical theology, as well: (1) Articulate
concerns and identify issues, (2) interpret the world as it is, (3) interpret
the world as it should be, and (4) determine our contemporary obligations, act
accordingly, and evaluate our actions; Juan Luis Segundo, The Liberation of Theology (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books,
1976), in R. Daniel Shaw and Charles E. Van Engen, Communicating God’s Word in a Complex World: God’s Truth or Hocus
Pocus? (New York: Rowan and Littlefield, 2003), 73 – 75, has a four-step
model as well: (1) context, (2) ideology (suspicion), (3) God’s Word, and (4) a
new encounter with the context.
[20]
John Swinton and Harriet Mowat, Practical
Theology and Qualitative Research (London: SCM, 2006), 5.
[21]
Killen and de Beer, 25.
[22]
Ibid., 61.
[23]
Stone and Duke, 47.
[24]
Ibid., 50.
[25]
Ibid., 54.
[26]
Ibid., 55.
[27]
Ibid., 6.
[28]
Ibid., 7.
[29]
Ibid.,, 36 – 37.
No comments:
Post a Comment