Darryl's Blog
The test of good theology
Last week I suggested that good theology is practical and belongs to normal people, not academics. Some people still complained that the theology they know is dry and argumentative - which means either my definition is wrong or they've only experienced bad theology.
Dallas Willard tells us how we can know if any theology is good or not:
The acid test for any theology is this: Is the God presented one that can be loved, heart, soul, and strength? If the thoughtful, honest answer is; "Not really," then we need to look elsewhere or deeper. It does not really matter how sophisticated intellectually or doctrinally our approach is. If it fails to set a lovable God - a radiant, happy, friendly, accessible, and totally competent being - before ordinary people, we have gone wrong. We should not keep going in the same direction, but turn around and take another road.
Categories
Theology0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The test of good theology.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.dashhouse.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1102
Interesting. I have that book sitting on my shelf, waiting to be read.
I wonder, though, if Willard's suggestion is dangerous. In what context do we decide that something can "loved, heart, soul, and strength"? It seems to me that in our culture if something doesn't sit well with us--e.g. something that limits our freedom, suggests that we can make wrong choices and that there are consequences to those choices, etc.--then it is generally discarded (or attempts are made to discard it) or disregarded. If this is indeed the case, then in some respects God may not be seen as all that loveable.
On whose terms do we decide if Theology X makes God loveable? Isn't "loveable" a rather relative notion? God as judge, for instance, isn't all that loveable, depending on your context, and yet that is one thing (among many) that he does. We can't just toss that theology aside because it doesn't make Him seem loveable, can we? Wouldn't this be defining God on our terms, forming him in our image? Do you know what I mean?
Does Willard expand on this paragraph? (He must, for the book is thick.)
(sorry for the verbal diarrhea, by the way. Just a bunch of questions that came to mind when I read the quote)
There are a few words I would have changed in the quote, but then again I'm not Willard. ;)
He's obviously referring to the great commandment as the goal of all theology, and I buy that. Everythiing should lead us to love the Lord with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind. I think his quote can be misunderstood, though, to say that God has to be made loveable on my terms or else the theology is no good. So I think you're right, his statement is good but only if it's understood in context.
Maybe a different way to say it is that theology for its own good, and that doesn't lead to greater love for God, is useless.
I think good theology should always drive us to good living. Orthodoxy (straight doctrine) should always drive orthypraxy (straight living).
That's why theology is so important, so relavant and so exciting!
I like how generally Paul's letters are sequenced with doctrine first then duty. It's like he won't tolerate a dichotomy. Theology bursts into theopraxis or belief behaved.