When Theology Gets Practical
One of the bestselling books of the 1990s was Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. In it, author John Gray attempted to help couples better understand their differences so that their relationships might improve.
But by no means was this project original to Dr. Gray. We often gain understanding by comparison and contrast: men and women, darkness and light, the objective and the subjective, and countless other relationships. There is something in the way that rational thought and logic runs in the Western mind that causes us to think like this.
Yet there is one dichotomy that has been increasingly contested in recent decades: theology and practice. Some theological treatments describe it as separating theology from ethics [1]. For others, “theory” and “practice” is more accessible lingo. We could also say “beliefs” and “behaviors”. Even many denominational treatises and pamphlets utilize “Faith and Practice” terminology. This shows that we are more immersed in this discussion than we might initially perceive [2].
Typically theology, theory, or doctrine is associated with what is rational or cognitive. It comes in the form of ideas, concepts, or even relationships. Theology, it is often said, is reflective of beliefs. Behavior, habits, and ethics, on the other hand, pertain to our conduct. Theology, then, is about knowing, and ethics about doing.
But are these definitions correct? More importantly, does our dichotomy between theology and ethics foster Christian piety, or does it undermine it? Here we’ll consider why and how theology and practice are related and why it matters [3].
Belief & Behavior: An Untidy Marriage
In order to better understand how beliefs and behaviors relate, we might look to an unexpected place. The late twentieth century gave rise to an unprecedented amount of pornography. “Porne” (fornication) has always existed in various forms. But the rise of print and online pornography has been something of an epidemic. Gradually many researchers have published their findings, and the results have been astounding: men who frequently view pornography begin to demonstrate adverse behavior toward women. They are also generally more abusive toward women. The research further shows that pornography not only affects their attitude and actions, but their very beliefs. Their perspective of women’s worth and value is diminished as a result of their engagement with pornography [4].
Similarly, practices and habits reinforce beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions. But they also create them as well! The relationship is symbiotic (not strictly cause-effect). Like traditional Christian thought, this study shows that humans’ rational and moral capacities are tied to their bodies, and more specifically their behavior and affections. This then discredits the sharp distinction often drawn between beliefs and behavior, or from seeing the former as necessarily prior. It also challenges that paradigm that allows us to conveniently separate what we know from what we do.
Yet this is only a first step toward re-envisioning theology as ethical, and ethics as theological. As useful as general revelation is in the aforementioned example, special revelation is essential too.
Authenticity or Hypocrisy?
Scripture aims to introduce believers and unbelievers to the God who “discloses the purposes of the heart” (1 Cor. 4:5). For example, James explains the way that faith relates to works. His letter upends the hypocrite who would say, “I have faith,” or, “I believe in the Christian God,” while their life is absent of any visible, active faith. True faith only knows works that accompany it (Jas. 2:14-26). As ethicist Mark Liederbach puts it, “stated beliefs plus actual practice equals actual belief” [5].
The apostolic claims of James only further unsettle us when we recognize that he learned these from his Master—Jesus of Nazareth. In one stirring message, the Sermon on the Mount, Christ re-pictures for His audience the remarkable ways in which verbal and mental affirmations are enjoined to actions, intentions, and desires.
Consider Jesus’ words about adultery in Matthew 5:27-30. As He spoke (“you have heard it said”), His audience no doubt affirmed the truthfulness of the commandment, while others rested confidently in the fact that they had never broken it. Yet Jesus ups the ante: “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” The eye’s activity, coupled with the heart’s intent, proves to violate this seemingly external command. Jesus’ theology, in other words, deals with the intellect and the body. In other words, it is ethical in nature.
In sum, the legitimacy of convictions is measured against our works. Our real theological commitments are evidenced and measured by, and in some sense, coequal to our ethics. These claims are controversial—and rightfully so. Knowing that one’s works is representative of their beliefs is a threat to human pride. Yet it is consistent with the moral vision of the New Testament.
As a result of such conclusions, church practice then comes under scrutiny as theology and practice are brought into alignment.
Worship as Formation
Christian worship is a helpful place to evaluate the dialectic between theology and practice. Amid the “worship wars” waged in churches, much has been lost. While unity and witness are among them, the true purpose and nature of worship is often obscured. Due to our rhetoric (“praise and worship”), we instinctively know that worship is affective and doxological. And thanks to hymnody before and during the Reformation, we know that singing is instructive in nature too [6]. But worship in general is also formative.
Formation means that worship isn’t only something we do. It actually does something to us as well. And while it is important to acknowledge the affective dimensions of worship (emotions, experience), formation goes deeper still. It refers to the gradual, embodied acts experienced and inculcated in worship. Every time someone stands listening to a lengthy Scripture reading, writes a tithe-check, handles a hymnal, or prays publicly, they are undergoing subtle, but significant change. While boredom and apathy are temptations, weekly practices can reinforce theological convictions about praying, singing, and giving, whether we realize it or not.
Various worship practices also encourage or reinforce doctrine. The children of the church learn as much about God from what they hear adults praying and singing as they do in children’s church. While these beliefs exist on different levels of awareness, they eventually materialize in our behavior.
Worship is indeed adoration, as well as pedagogical. Yet it is a way of embodying, displaying, and appropriating the church’s theological claims. A psalm sung in a moment of anguish is our tongues way of saying that our “head-knowledge” of God’s attentive ear is inadequate by itself. No, our theology maps onto both body and mind.
A Free Will Baptist Case Study
While this argument may seem foreign to some ears, the Free Will Baptist tradition has always entailed a meaning-infused practice in which theology is embodied: the washing of the saints’ feet.
The Free Will Baptist Treatise of Faith and Practices states the following: “This is a sacred ordinance, which teaches humility and reminds the believers of the necessity of a daily cleansing from all sin” [7]. This statement strikes at the heart of wedding theology to practice. Feet washing teaches and reminds, apart from words even. While the Scriptures entail “words of institution” in connection to the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23-26), John 13 is absent from such a formula. The practice does the work itself, though certainly couching it in Scriptural teaching is appropriate and helpful.
Feet washing makes humility intelligible in a unique way. And while it is no sure-fire guarantee of humility, it is a more plausible candidate for cultivating it than the simple intellectual affirmation: “Sure, humility is biblical. Sanctification matters.”
Conclusion
Reframing the relationship between theology and practice certainly warrants the attention it is receiving in academic circles. Yet it unquestionably deserves more attention in the local church—a crucial hub for the cultivation of Christian practices. As Dorothy Bass contends, practices are “patterns of cooperative human activity in and through which life together takes shape over time in response to and in the light of God as known in Jesus Christ” [8] If this is true, then this means that focusing on practices invites “theological reflection on the ordinary, concrete activities of actual people—and also on the knowledge of God that shapes, infuses, and arises from these activities” [9]. Christians of every walk of life must then take all of life seriously.
Affirming a theological truth or signing a creed apart from immediate action does not, of course, make someone a hypocrite. Certainly there are occasions when distinguishing between “theology as beliefs” and “ethics as practices” is helpful. However, affirmations must be demonstrated. First, this serves a formative, discipleship task as it enables believers to live more consistent, obedient lives. Second, it is consistent with our constitution as moral, rational, embodied beings. And third, it serves an evangelistic end as well. Actions point to commitments, and those commitments entail the Gospel [10].
In my next essay, I will attempt to further show how the relationship between theology and practice is manifested in our everyday life.
_______________________________________
[1] Theologian Stanley Hauerwas has arguably been the most influential voice in the last 25-30 years rejecting this dichotomy. See especially The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics (Notre Dame: The University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), 50-55.
[2] We implicitly adopt this dichotomy when signing a church doctrinal statement, which entails factual propositions that we affirm, and then agreeing to a church covenant which entails practices that we will embrace.
[3] Practicing Theology: Beliefs and Practices in Christian Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) well captures the thought that motivated and informed this essay initially. It was only late in the writing process that I actually came to this title I have known of for some time. It is essential reading for those wanting to further pursue this subject. This volume is edited by Miroslav Volf and Dorothy Bass.
[4] Judith K. Balswick & Jack O. Balswick, Authentic Human Sexuality (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 282-286. These authors provide an expanded summary of the research associated with these conclusions.
[5] Mark Liederbach is the Vice President of Student Services and professor of Christian Ethics at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. This quotation comes from course notes for his introductory ethics course; “Ethics as Worship” (Fall, 2006), 13.
[6] There have been two essays on the Forum in the last several months which better enhance my brief presentation on worship, particularly singing. Matt Bracey’s “Christian Worship: Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs,” and Phillip Morgan’s “Musical Thought in the Early Church.”
[7] Treatise of the Faith and Practices of the National Association of Free Will Baptists, Inc. (Nashville: The Executive Office, 2010), Chapter XVIII, Section 3, p. 15. I do realize the irony in the title of this document seemingly perpetuating the distinction I am cautioning against in this essay.
[8] Dorothy Bass, “Introduction,” in Practicing Theology, 3.
[9] Ibid.
[10] F. Leroy Forlines, Morals and Orthodoxy (Nashville: Commission on Theological Liberalism, 1974). Forlines thought in this short pamphlet capture the basic intent of this essay with a uniquely Free Will Baptist voice.
_______________________________________
Further Reading:
David Clark, To Know and Love God: Method for Theology. Wheaton: IL, Crossway, 2010.
Adam C. English, Theology Remixed: Christianity as Story, Game, Language, Culture. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010.
Reinhard Hütter, Suffering Divine Things: Theology as Church Practice. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical Linguistic Approach to Christian Doctrine. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005.
Recent Comments