Wednesday, April 16, 2008

The Presence of the Word

I am working on an understanding of a philosophy of practical theology. In May, I have to answer that question during one of my comprehensive exams. It is a fundamental question for anyone in ministry, though I had never quite thought about it in the terms I do now after taking a seminar on the subject. During the seminar I was quite affected by the writing and teaching of Ray Anderson. He is a semi-retired professor here at Fuller. He is a prolific writer and quite a teacher. His PhD is in Systematic Theology but he has spent the majority of his academic life working in the area of Practical Theology.
What Dr. Anderson has developed is a rationale for a praxis-theory-praxis model for Practical Theology. If you are interested in his work, the book I am using is called, "The Shape of Practical Theology." In it, he makes the case that Practical Theology (indeed all theology) must be based on the concept of what he calls Christopraxis. Now, let me try and explain all of this in terms I can understand!
First, praxis means practice. So, all theology begins with practice. This is very different than how Systematic Theology (the king of theological studies in graduate school). Systematics begins with theory. All theology begins with theory, philosophy. Anderson says that all ministry begins with practice. In other words, if the Holy Spirit is active and leading in all of life and ministry and if Jesus Christ is really resurrected from the dead, then God is still at work in our lives and in our ministries. So far so good? It sounds like good, solid Church of God theology.
What Practical Theology then states is that we interpret the movement of God in the practice of ministry (Anderson does say that the praxis he is describing is more than just practice but it it theory laden praxis - by that he means that our praxis already has a theological, biblical rationale behind it). Here is where his theology gets interesting. If we find that what God is doing "on the ground" differs from our theology, we should then begin to look at our theology and see if it is wrong. At that point your praxis informs your theory. If your theory (theology) disagrees with the praxis, you must be willing to look hard at the theology to see if it is accurate. That means you have to be willing to look at some very entrenched theological ideas in a very different light. Maybe, you will have to change your theology to fit the practice. I know of few church groups, seminaries, or ministers that are prepared to change their theological framework because they see something different going on in a local ministry situation.
When I spoke with Dr. Anderson about his theology, I told him that I thought his book was powerful, intriguing, and dangerous. He agreed. But up until this week, I wasn't quite sure how dangerous and difficult it might be. When Anderson diagrams this out he puts Christopraxis (the praxis of what Christ is doing) in the middle of the diagram. Theological reflection and determination are moved from their usual place at the center to one of the outer rims. For Anderson, Christ is at the center of everything. He supports this with the idea that the praxis of Christ will never be in conflict with scripture. But if it is, we should be willing to change how we read and understand the scriptures.
The dangerous part of this comes from the Reformation (No, not Warner but Luther). When the Protestant Reformation took hold, Luther based his stance on two things: salvation by faith (alone) and "sola scriptura" (scripture alone). I still believe in the first. The second one is in question. The Wikipedia article on sola scriptura defines it thusly: "Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine." If one is to embrace the theology of Anderson then you must also be willing to take the doctrine of sola scriptura out of the center of the diagram. Let me be clear. This does not mean that you either disbelieve or devalue scripture. Quite the contrary. It just means that the bible is not the center of your theology - Christ is. Scripture is both the Word of God and the voice of God. God's voice in praxis disagrees with God's voice in the Word, one of them must be wrong.
In his book, Anderson talks about the issue of gender. He details his journey through the women in ministry debate and how, through what God was doing on the ground, he began to challenge the accepted doctrine that women couldn't be in ministry. The praxis they observed caused them to challenge the accepted exegesis of scripture that women could not be accepted in ministry. After finding numerous positive biblical examples and problems related to how those doctrinal positions were exegeted, Anderson helped change the position of Fuller to allow women to study for the pastoral ministry. He believed the praxis and changed the way he viewed scripture. In another chapter he takes on the issue of homosexuality. He talks about how many homosexuals claim that they can be believers in Christ and continue to live the gay lifestyle. Anderson found that there were no positive statements in scripture nor was there one single example of a positive homosexual person or act anywhere in scripture. At this point, he disagreed with the praxis principle.
One final thought. By moving the principle of scripture from the center to the outer layer of Anderson's diagram, I think I am moving closer to the principles of the early saints of the Church of God. Warner was someone who believed strongly in the leading and guidance of the Holy Spirit (certainly a form of Christopraxis). There are numerous stories of the pioneers of this Movement being led by the Spirit to act in certain ways that were contrary to the normally accepted theological idea. When we took things into our own hands (like when the brethren suggested that blacks might be better having their own camp meeting) we lose the movement of the Holy Spirit and get our eyes off of Christ.

6 comments:

rusty said...

hey brother! i didnt know you were on here. i am new to the blogspot world. i would love to keep in touch with you. always good to have some friends with much more experience than myself!

PJ said...

Thanks, Rusty, glad to hear from you. Hope things are well in Madera and in Central Cal.

Lloyd said...

I too have found Anderson's book to be helpful, and especially so for those of us in a praxis-oriented movement.

Anonymous said...

Something interesting to think about: Did Jesus think His workings in the world could do more to reach people's hearts than Scripture could? Luke 16:31

PJ said...

Though I don't typically respond to anonymous comments, your question is a valid one. Let me try to get at your idea by clarifying some of what I've come to understand. Jesus is the Word of God. He is now and always has been. When he was incarnated in human flesh, he remained the Word. When he spoke he taught the Word and his words were the Word of God. In the same sense, when he acted, his actions became the Word of God. Being the Word means that everything he does speaks of the will of God and is the revelation of God. Therefore, his actions are as much the Word as his sayings. Dr. Ray Anderson, whom I talk about in the post, has suggested that we might want to put the actions of Jesus in red instead of the words of Jesus. His fanciful suggestion is simply to highlight that what Jesus did with his life is as much the Word of God as the things he said. So, with that as background, I would say that the answer to your question is that your question does not take into account that there is no difference between what Jesus did (workings) and what Scripture (the Word of God) says. Both are the Word of God.

Anonymous said...

I agree completely. My concern, however, is that there is a big difference between the Word of God on the one hand and our perception of how He is working in the world today on the other. Our hearts are deceitful, and I do not trust myself to interpret scripture through the lens of what I see going on today. I've got to do it the other way around. I'm pretty sure that if I switch around which of those two is in the center, that there will be no end to me misleading myself.

Thanks for responding, even though I was anonymous!