I read the entire book and found two chapters to be especially relevant to my life. Chapter One deals with theology -- embedded and deliberative. Chapter three deals with Christian resources - Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience. Ideas in these two chapters have been percolating in my mind since I read about them.
I bumped into the word "deliberative" about a year ago while reading Thoreau.
"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life." (Walden Pond, chapter 2)
The word "deliberate" has stayed with me as a word to guide my life. Like Thoreau, my desire is to "live deep and suck out all the marrow of life". Therefore the phrase "deliberative theology" jumped off the page at me when I read chapter 1. I think sometimes that my life, my ministry and my theology is accidental, "embedded" is the term used in the book. I look back on 50 years of life and it seems indeed that most of my theology has been acquired by accident -- a bit in Sunday School, a bit from my father - but precious little from a deliberate study and reflection. I can still remember an incident from Sunday School, maybe I was eight. The nice lady who gave us cookies was teaching us the Ten Commandments, beginning with one and running to ten. I waited and I waited and then I was stunned. I raised my hand and asked her "but where are the commandments against drinking and smoking and cussing?" I have grown up a little since then, but much of my theology is not the result of deliberate study and reflection but is half-right, half-wrong or half-baked. Here are two recent events in my life in which the distinction between embedded and deliberative came to the fore.
1. I was attending a meeting with Koreans to plan an upcoming missionary trip to Rwanda. One person told of an elder who left his church because the elder caught the pastor drinking beer at a Giants game. They all shook their heads and clicked their tongues. Someone asked me what I thought of drinking. I responded "people of faith should follow their own traditions, but I can find no specific injunction in the New Testament against drinking alcohol as a beverage." Some were shocked. We discussed the issue for several minutes. No minds were changed, but maybe thoughts about drinking moved from imbedded to deliberate.
2. As I sit in my Old Testament class I hear the professor use the word "Yahweh" as he reads through Exodus. Now this word makes me uncomfortable. I'm not sure why. Maybe I associate the word with liberal theology. My embedded bias still favors the authorized use of "THE LORD" as in the King James Version or even "Jehovah". After some reflection, I calm down and concede that the term "Yahweh" has its place in the classroom and in scholarly journals. Personally, during sermons and witnessing I will stick with THE LORD. I am a "work in progress" so maybe my position will change as I progress. I consider this process of moving from embedded theology to deliberate theology akin to the "consciousness raising" that was popular a few decades ago.
I was also intrigued by issues raised by the authors in Chapter 3. I attended an Ethics class this summer taught by Dr. Higgs. We learned that scholars divide their approach to ethics as either "deontological" or "teleological". The deontological approach is based on laws, rules, principles, or concepts. Ethics is pushing you. With a teleological approach you are being pulled toward a goal. If your ethic is aimed at imitating Christ, then you are being teleological. I had trouble placing myself into either category. Could I be a deontological teleologicalist?
My thoughts on this matter were clarified after reading chapter three of this book --developing a theological template. When I make theological decisions they are indeed based on 1. Scripture, 2. Tradition, 3. Experience and 4. Reason. In an interesting way, these four resources tie in with my earlier thoughts on embedded/deliberative theology. Upon which resource does a Southern Baptist really draw to determine that drinking alcohol is wrong? Perhaps, one would want to believe that Scripture is the major resource, but then how could 95% of Christianity accept drinking alcohol? I believe that tradition and then experience are the major factors. Why did I react negatively to the word "Yahweh"? Maybe at one point I thought the word unscriptural. The resource of reason points out to me that this bias reflects my experience growing up.
I have begun to approach ethical problems in light of the four resources. For example, with the issue of homosexuality I am trying to parse which part of my belief comes from scripture, which part from tradition, which part from experience, and which part from reason. I think that this exercise is healthy and brings clarity to mind.
Overall, I enjoyed How to Think Theologically.
|