Skip to main content

Theology in Action: Theology Builds Communities

Why did Paul write his letters? Surely it was not to dispense information solely for the purpose of the cognitive consumption of individuals in the communities he was writing to. That is to say, Paul had way more in mind than instructing us in doctrinal things that we must cognitively assent to, to be saved. Every part of every letter he wrote was written with the intention of constructing healthy Christian communities. That should cause us to ask, 'what roll does theology play in building community?'

One interesting proposal comes from chapter 3 ('Reading Paul: Myth, Ritual, Identity and Ethics') in Solidarity and Difference by David Horrell (which is backed up at length with arguments from the social sciences on group formation and identity - an excellent read that I highly recommend) where he argues that theological statements should be seen as identity-descriptors and group norms needing to be affirmed constantly, not indicative statements to be held as true or false (p. 94).

While I don't agree with Horrell completely, I think he's on to something. I would rephrase his conclusion to say that theological statements are not purely indicative statements to be held as true or false. They additionally function as identity descriptors and group norms which have massive implications on the way we live. This means that both what we believe and how we act defines who we are as a group. It controls who is considered inside and outside (conformity also impacts the rolls that one can take in the group as more important rolls require greater conformity to group norms).

I believe, though, that the relationship between boundary defining doctrine and boundary defining behavior is much closer than we might initially think. In addition to being facts to be believed, doctrines are ethical imperatives (I think this is in generally consistent with Horrell's point, although he may waver at extending it as baldly as I am). They are realities to be lived out. No doctrine can be said to be understood if it is not lived out. But what does that look like? What does it mean to live out a doctrine and how does it build community? We'll answer that in a post later this week when we look at an example of living out a specific doctrine, namely imputation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…