Update: I changed the name of this post.
I made this surprising discovery today while searching Google for the theologer blog. The sponsored link had these helpful resources. (See image)
I especially like that line, “Theology is meaningless to the truly born-again Christians.” I would have expected the definite article to be omitted or for Christians to be singular but “the truly born-again Christians” must be quite a special little group.
And it’s pretty hard to resist clicking on “GOD speaking to the World.” I wonder what He’s talking about. Oh, the end of the world? Well, He already told me about that, as well as who the next Pope is (he will be the last one!).
I was toying with the idea of accepting the invitation to be a contributor at theologer but now I see that it is meaningless so never mind. There’s also a theologer forum out there. Interesting discussions. Too bad it’s meaningless.
Personally, until recently I too thought that theology was meaningless. But folks like Chris Tilling and Jim West have shown me that theologians are quite strange and wonderful. Although I’m a bit alarmed with their obsession with each other’s underpants.
Don’t study theology. Live theologically. Or rather, live theocentrically. Put God at the center of your life and allow his goodness to infuse your being and transform your immediate relationships accordingly. That is what is meant by incarnational living. When we allow the Spirit of Jesus to renew our spirit, theology becomes anthropology and our world is born again by love.
“Although I’m a bit alarmed with their obsession with each other’s underpants.”
I am NOT obssessed with his underpants! Ewwwww!
Did you read the statement of faith on the bjnewlife site? My oh my. Let’s say it was a mixed bag.
> When we allow the Spirit of Jesus to renew our spirit, theology becomes anthropology and our world is born again by love.
You know, you’re so danged smart I never know whether you’re kidding or what. Obviously, you’re kidding in this post, but I’m not sure about what?
You seem to be sarcastically saying that it’s silly to say theology is meaningless, but then you finish with this quote that essentially says theology is meaningless. You say it’s love that’s most meaningful.
Or in that sentence are you still mocking the site you’re not going to join?
I mean that last paragraph with all my heart. And I love you for being patient with my flapdoodle.
The fact is, without a proper theology, the ethic of love is unknowable and hence undoable. So – my dear thin Mozambiquean brother, you are wrong to say that theology is useless or meaningless.
You know? I think you’ve got a point. I’m going to read some theology this very minute. Where did I put my NT Wright?
Nooooo…. he’s not theology- he’s pure anthropology! Read Brunner.
first of all… i’m glad your still chewing on the idea of contributing….
second of all… absolutely awesome that searches for my blog bring up spectacularly weird stuff…
thirdly… clearly we aren’t doing theology. theologians dont misspell Galations.
finally,
chris and jim being your inspiration might be the reason behind your confusion. (haha, behind… like the one they put in their underpants)
oh… and as a P.S. the theologer forums are completely pointless and anyone who would be willing to post to such things can clearly not be classified as “truly born again”
Jim,
> The fact is, without a proper theology, the ethic of love is unknowable and hence undoable.
You cannot be serious, and yet I know you are. The moment you take a spiritual experience that requires we be like little children, and make it’s most elemental command – to love – subservient to an intellectual exercise of doctoral proportion, you have abandoned the building you’re defending.
It IS possible, demonstrable, and theologically defensible that one can love fully, richly, and acceptably without theological study. “In as much as you’ve done it unto the least of these, you’ve done it unto Me.”
> And I love you for being patient with my flapdoodle.
Ah shucks. You’re just so danged lovable.
Code poker-
No I am serious and anyone seriously engaged in explaining what Christian love is, is required to do it as a theologian and not as a warm and fuzzy feeling-er.
Sick ‘em, codepoke.
And yet it is not hearers (even understanders) of the word who are justified, but doers thereof.
Theology informs action, but you called action impossible without theology – undoable. I’m glad you’re growing more and more precise in your understanding of the intricacies of how you can love God and guest, but you err when you make love something undoable for a child.
It’s a big error.
That’s the very sort of logic that Yisrayl Hawkins uses to dispense with the bible and claim that it is love that drives his actions and beliefs. Don’t think theologically, think emotionally- and love like a child does: as though the whole universe revolved around them and if they don’t get what they want, the throw a fit.
And if Yisrayl Hawkins thinks a thing, I’m wrong because I believe something similar?
But you completely miss the point. A child loves imperfectly and sinfully and foolishly apart from the Spirit. As does a theologian think imperfectly and sinfully and foolishly apart from the Spirit. So it is neither the child nor the theologian who loves perfectly, but the person in whom the Spirit dwells. The necessary precondition is not youth, but neither is it theological accuracy. The necessary precondition is the Spirit, and He is available to even a child in the absence of theology.
Your specialty is valuable, but it is not the indispensable element without which love is undoable.
I assume when you’re not working at being hyperbolic, your theology teaches the same.