by | Aug 23, 2024 | Uncategorized
A few years ago, a widow approached a church in Uganda to ask for help. After discussing her situation, the church council recommended they give her food. The pastor, however, encouraged the leaders to first find out about her family situation.
After speaking with her relatives, the council discovered that her children were well off, but refused to take care of the widow because of a family argument. So the pastor organized a reconciliation meeting. The children forgave their mother and decided to take care of her again.
If the church had rushed in to help without considering her family’s responsibility, the widow may have kept coming back to the church for ongoing support, and the family may never have been at peace.
As a missionary in Uganda, stories like this have deeply influenced my approach to helping those in need around me. I often struggle with these questions: “With requests for money coming every day, who should I give money to? When is it okay to say no?”
One obvious guiding priority is to give financially where there is the most need. To this, we all agree. But our world is increasingly interconnected. I can simply click a button to give financially to help people almost anywhere. If the only guiding principle is the need, I would get stuck in the paralysis of indecision.
But Scripture takes me beyond simply looking at the greatest needs to also seeing that God has given me greater responsibilities to help certain people. I propose looking at financial giving through a concept I call “circles of priority.” That is, when it comes to financial generosity, I should prioritize the people and communities closest to me.
I believe the New Testament reveals that my first concern should be to take care of my family or those I am relationally close to. As Paul writes in 1 Timothy 5:8, “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
Circles of Priority
Next, in Galatians 6:10, I learn that I am also to prioritize those who I am spiritually close to. Here, Paul writes, “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers,” affirming that, while I need to love all people, I have a special responsibility to help my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Finally, consider the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25–37. In this passage, three individuals see a man beaten up on the side of the road. The surprise is that the priest and the Levite do not stop to help, but the Samaritan does. Loving my neighbor does not mean loving only those people who are like me. The Samaritan is doing exactly what all people should do, helping the person he sees physically suffering right in front of him. Thus, there is also a priority of caring for people I am geographically proximate to, people I meet in my day-to-day life.
All Christians around the world should prioritize helping those relationally, spiritually, or geographically close to them, in addition to the clear priority of helping those with the greatest needs.
We have less responsibility the farther out the circles go. But as we have time and resources, we can, and indeed must, try to help people on the outer circles as well. For example, in the New Testament, Paul urges the churches to voluntarily raise money for the needy Christians far away in Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1-4).
The circles of priority have guided me to prioritize helping our friends, neighbors, and our local church while still occasionally helping people with dire needs far away from Uganda through giving to international organizations. This strategy has relieved me of a great burden. I am not tormented by guilt over the other 47 million Ugandans I am not helping. I am not God. I do not have unlimited resources or time. Rather, I can help with joy and generosity, knowing that God uses each one of us in small ways to together make a big impact.
For instance, when a person I have never met calls and says, “Pastor, please, I need you to pay for my children’s school fees,” I usually say no, because of my limitations. Per the circles of priority principles, I want to prioritize giving in the context of close relationship, which allows me to understand the person’s real needs and so I can walk with them over a long period of time, giving periodically and encouraging them as they make changes. This doesn’t stop me from giving money to organizations working with the poor, because many organizations also prioritize long-term relationships.
The circles also guide church ministry. Take the example of Covenant Reformed Church in Soroti, Uganda. This church receives about $3 a week in offerings and about $1 a week for their charity basket, which they use to help materially poor people in their church or people with disabilities. This church shouldn’t feel guilty that they are not helping orphans in other countries. God is using them to care for the people close to them.
A wealthy American church can probably help people in their own church while also financially supporting organizations who help the poor overseas. At the same time, this principle can also correct a church that has become focused only on giving to people in other countries while largely ignoring materially poor people who live in the same city or people struggling in their own congregation.
Following the circles does not take away all hard decision-making. Sometimes I will need to refrain from addressing lesser needs in my own family or community in order to help people far away in life-and-death situations. It takes wisdom to discern when a great need trumps relational, spiritual, or geographical proximity.
In following the circles of priority, care should be taken not to abuse them. It is easy for affluent Christians to justify to ourselves that we are doing enough because we are focusing on caring for the needs of our inner circles—our families, our local church, and our community. But remember, Jesus said in Luke 12:48, “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded.” For those of us from exorbitantly rich nations, we are more than able to give generously to help those in extreme poverty around the world while also taking care of people in our inner circles.
It’s also possible for affluent Christians to abuse the circles by controlling who is allowed to be in our inner circles. For instance, we can move to upscale neighborhoods where we won’t end up bumping into materially poor neighbors or take driving routes to work that will bypass where people are begging. We can choose to attend a local church that is full of materially rich Christians who make us feel comfortable in our wealth. Many of us wealthier Christians should consider how we can bring materially poor people into our closer circles, or how we can more intentionally choose which community we will live in and which church we will belong to.
The circles of priority not only guide us in discerning who to help but how. I should offer assistance in a way that will not destroy the responsibility, stewardship, or generosity of others. I should step in and offer help when the person in need is not able to be helped adequately by his or her closest circles. This is what the Ugandan pastor did in finding out first if the widow’s family was willing to care for her.
In a similar way, this principle also applies to the ministries of churches and organizations as they strive to alleviate poverty. They must consider the circles of the individual or community they want to help.
In Eastern Uganda, people from the Karamoja region used to violently raid and steal cattle from the Iteso tribe. Thankfully, peace was finally achieved after many years of government and church initiatives. Soon after, there was a famine in Karamoja. Some of the Iteso churches worked together to bring a truckload of food to Karamoja to show their forgiveness and love.
However, when they arrived, they were shocked to discover that the United States had already sent many tons of relief food. The local Ugandan church’s efforts became redundant and unnecessary, leaving these Christians incredibly disheartened.
While the Americans may have genuinely intended to help, they did not consider what the people closest to the area might have been able to do first. They unintentionally stole the blessing of giving from the Ugandan church and undermined this opportunity for furthering reconciliation between the two tribes.
Organizations should be careful to allow the circles that are closest to the individual or community that needs help to be the first ones to help. Most of the time, the people closest to the situation are the ones who know the most about which interventions will be appropriate. But an additional benefit of promoting the responsibility of a person’s closer circles is the improved capacity and stewardship of institutions in these circles—families, churches, schools, local organizations, and government structures. This will produce long-lasting impact in a community.
In my observation as a missionary working in Africa, ignoring this principle is one of the most common mistakes that churches and international organizations make. The result is dependency.
For example, consider how some organizations may rush to create an orphanage in a community without first considering whether or not the orphans’ relatives may be able to adopt the children and care for them with additional financial support. Or consider child sponsorship programs in which children have their school fees completely covered, in addition to receiving gifts like clothing or toothpaste. The result is that it is not uncommon in Uganda to hear parents come to an organization sponsoring their child and say, “Your child is sick, you need to treat your child.”
Instead, help should be given in a way that will enrich the parents’ responsibility of sending their own children to school. It would be better to help the parents improve their jobs and income earnings so that they can pay the fees themselves—or to first find out what little the parents are able to pay, in what way their local churches are also willing to help, and then to supplement their efforts. If this process results in the organization giving less money to each family, then they can use the extra funds to support an even greater number of families in even more communities. It’s not about giving or helping less. It’s about practicing wisdom in our generosity.
Before helping an individual or community, always begin by listening. What is the local government doing to respond to the need? Are other churches looking to offer help to the same people? Build upon the efforts of local institutions by partnering with them, rather than replacing them in their God-given roles. There is joy and blessing in giving; we should not keep all the blessing to ourselves!
To close, reflect on this story out of Niger. In 2010, nearly half of the population of the West African country struggled with food insecurity. An international Christian organization donated grain and worked with a local Christian group to sell that grain to people in need in several communities at a discounted price.
In the past, the international organization had provided grain to individuals with disabilities or chronic illnesses. But this time, the international staff challenged the local group to consider raising funds locally from their own churches to purchase the grain that would then be distributed freely.
At first, the group members were skeptical, not imagining that there was anything the poor churches could do on their own to help others. But the churches gave generously and were able to purchase grain for 98 people who had the most need in those communities. In the end, the local group thanked the organization for encouraging their churches to participate in the giving.
“It was such a privilege to help, to know that we weren’t just distributing somebody else’s gift but it was from our own pockets and from our own hearts,” said one community member. “Everyone in the village knew that it came from us.”
Anthony Sytsma works for Resonate Global Mission in Uganda, where he mentors and teaches pastors and facilitates Helping Without Hurting in Africa.
The post God Calls Me to Give. But to Everyone? appeared first on Christianity Today.
by | Aug 23, 2024 | Uncategorized
In the last two decades, over 400,000 South Africans have left their country to set up a new life abroad in the US, Europe, Canada, Australia, and the United Arab Emirates. They are mostly highly educated and highly skilled young families looking to escape crime and economic decay at home.
This exodus has prompted authorities to warn that South Africa’s tax base is at risk, with over 6,000 affluent earners emigrating yearly.
“I must be honest, it’s giving me sleepless nights,” said Landon Dube, a pastor for Tabernacle of Grace, a Pentecostal denomination in the middle-class suburb of Midrand, near Johannesburg.
Church leaders are worried about what the departures mean for their churches if they continue to lose families they rely on for tithes and financial support.
It’s an interesting dynamic: Some pastors may be legitimately worried about the future of their church and its ability to serve the community at a time of financial turmoil. But South Africa is also a place where fraudulent ministers and self-proclaimed prophets prey on desperate believers, so Christians may hear some leaders’ concerns about the departures as coming from selfish motivations and a desire to keep up extravagant lifestyles.
The majority Christian country has only become more religious in the past few years; while colonial denominations are shrinking, newer Pentecostal and African-initiated churches are growing. But financially, South Africa is in turmoil.
With rolling blackouts, high crime rates, and stark inequality, its economy is growing at a dire 1 percent per year against the ideal 7 percent threshold needed to put a dent in youth joblessness (now up to 59.7% for workers under 25), according to Steven Koch, the head of economics at the University of Pretoria.
The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs says 247,300 people of South African descent now live in the UK.
“Dozens are young Christians with young families. They have left behind South Africa and their churches,” said Dali Mapaile, 47, a dentist and Baptist church adherent who moved his family to London.
“I can’t sit around and see my children grow with zero prospects for a meaningful job in South Africa,” he said. “I love the country but I have had enough.”
The departure of families like Mapaile’s has impacted the churches that relied on their tithes and financial pledges to fill their coffers.
Shami Gcana leads a major Pentecostal prophetic ministry affiliated with the Enlightened Christian Gathering. He sees all Christians as the same before God but recognizes the disproportionate impact some have on the local church.
“We must be truthful, the upper class—lawyers, accountants, small business owners, pharmacists, doctors—these are the worshipers able to pay big monies that anchor the ministry’s successes,” Gcana said.
Enlightened Christian Gathering has been embroiled in controversy in South Africa, with its leader, Shepherd Bushiri, implicated in tax evasion and money laundering.
Last year, 20 of Gcana’s high net-worth congregation members left with their young families and relocated to Dubai, Netherlands, and Australia. His church meets in City Bowl, one of the affluent suburbs of Cape Town, and its monthly tithe pledges used to come in around 150,000 South African rand ($8,200 USD) a month. They have fallen to $5,200, he says.
“One particular worshiper, who was my deacon, took his young kids and wife to Australia. He was a senior bank executive—used to give my church lavish loans for just 1 percent interest rate for us to buy building materials,” said Gcana. “It’s all dried up. I feel his absence in a big way.”
Emigration of highly paid, generous Christians is also troubling Paseka Motsoeneng, known as Prophet Mboro, a televangelist who is head of the Incredible Happenings Foundation church.Along with Bushiri, Prophet Mboro’s church is criticized in South Africa for aggressively collecting money from congregants and doing little to establish sound theology, and Mboro was recently arrested on kidnapping charges in an incident involving his grandchildren.
Mboro had voiced worries about “church drain,” saying that if crime and economic decay are not addressed, South Africa will be left with financially poor worshipers. Last year alone, 33 of his highest-earning congregants moved away.
Mboro says his main concern is that their high tithes and financial pledges enabled the church to extend charity and food to poorer worshipers. If the rich leave for the US or Canada, the poor who are left behind will live in more poverty and hardship, he says.
In some communities, the situation is severe enough that some South African church leaders are following members of their flock abroad too, says Delight Pinto. An accountant and pastor from South Africa, Pinto has relocated to the UK, where her former congregants had been clamoring for her to join them.
“I was faced with a stark choice: remain in South Africa and see my standard of life as a pastor and professional deteriorate, or follow my congregants to London, minister to them as a pastor, and work as an accountant on weekdays,” she said.
Fifty members of her former congregation in South Africa now live across Greater London, she says. She has found a job as an auditor for a global shipping company, and she hopes to return to her role as a part-time pastor in 2025.
Pinto says she feels sorry for pastors back in South Africa, because congregants who have emigrated will likely stop sending tithes home; the cost-of-living crisis is sweeping the US and Europe, and most Christians who arrive in London, Atlanta, or Frankfurt won’t be able to stretch budgets to keep giving to their church. She also sees Christians switching churches when moving abroad or leaving the faith altogether.
Ed Bonolo, a retired reverend with the United Baptist Church in Johannesburg, says he has no pity for church leaders who have come to view members of their congregation as cash cows to fund their own lives rather than as souls to be nurtured.
The pastorship has become a big-money profession in South Africa, spurring an industry of fake theology degrees, a spate of financial misconduct, and a surge of fake miracles. In evangelical and Pentecostal circles, certain pastors and self-proclaimed prophets are in a scramble for high-worth worshipers who can donate cars, cover lavish rent costs, and pay for vacations.
“Money-hungry clerics have brought the church into sharp disrepute,” Bonolo said. “Perhaps the emigration of affluent worshipers should make all pastors and prophets slow down on material ambitions.”
The post South Africa’s Brain Drain Takes Wealthy Tithers from Churches appeared first on Christianity Today.
by | Aug 22, 2024 | Uncategorized
We need trained theologians to help us think through ideological and ethical questions in light of God’s Word and world.
It’s no secret that theological education is in a state of crisis today. In recent years, faculty layoffs and the downsizing of evangelical seminaries and Christian colleges in the make it hard to overstate the grimness of the prognosis.
Yet as a theologian myself, I find this troubling trend to be a symptom of a larger problem: There’s a growing sense, at least in some circles, that academic theology—along with its students and scholars—is practically irrelevant. While biblical illiteracy and anti-intellectualism are impacting the local church at every level, recent personal interactions have led me to wonder if some pastors take the formal study of theology all that seriously anymore.
One pastor I spoke with voiced a not-too-uncommon sentiment when he downplayed theology as impractical and out of touch with his congregation’s needs. “I don’t read much academic theology anymore,” he confessed, “as it comes out in my preaching in a way that fails to connect with the laity.” This sentiment has been echoed by other pastor friends of mine at various times, with one pastor’s wife suggesting such scholarly pursuits might benefit from a more “accessible” approach.
Such comments reveal a skepticism of rigorous theological inquiry in certain circles that is often paired with a preference for more easily digestible forms of spiritual discourse, untethered from academic institutions. It’s hard to compete with the volume—in both senses—of the spiritual sound bites by Christian celebrities and megachurch preachers churned out to broad audiences. And while some of this public theology at the popular level is good, much of it lacks the depth and …
Continue reading…
by | Aug 22, 2024 | Uncategorized
It’s no secret that theological education is in a state of crisis today. In recent years, faculty layoffs and the downsizing of evangelical seminaries and Christian colleges in the make it hard to overstate the grimness of the prognosis.
Yet as a theologian myself, I find this troubling trend to be a symptom of a larger problem: There’s a growing sense, at least in some circles, that academic theology—along with its students and scholars—is practically irrelevant. While biblical illiteracy and anti-intellectualism are impacting the local church at every level, recent personal interactions have led me to wonder if some pastors take the formal study of theology all that seriously anymore.
One pastor I spoke with voiced a not-too-uncommon sentiment when he downplayed theology as impractical and out of touch with his congregation’s needs. “I don’t read much academic theology anymore,” he confessed, “as it comes out in my preaching in a way that fails to connect with the laity.” This sentiment has been echoed by other pastor friends of mine at various times, with one pastor’s wife suggesting such scholarly pursuits might benefit from a more “accessible” approach.
Such comments reveal a skepticism of rigorous theological inquiry in certain circles that is often paired with a preference for more easily digestible forms of spiritual discourse, untethered from academic institutions. It’s hard to compete with the volume—in both senses—of the spiritual sound bites by Christian celebrities and megachurch preachers churned out to broad audiences. And while some of this public theology at the popular level is good, much of it lacks the depth and nuance that results from careful theological study.
In short, academic theology is not a waste, nor is it obsolete or irrelevant. As one of my mentors, Stephen Priest, says, “Philosophical questions demand theological answers. And everyone ponders philosophical questions.” Yet I propose we take this claim a step further: Questions in every field of human inquiry demand theological answers—and such answers require careful intellectual study. Not only is theology the most relevant of all disciplines, but it may also be the most meaningful. As R. C. Sproul once said:
Everything we learn—economics, philosophy, biology, mathematics—must be understood in light of the overarching reality of the character of God. That is why, in the Middle Ages, theology was called “the queen of the sciences” and philosophy “her handmaiden.” Today the queen has been deposed from her throne and, in many cases, driven into exile.
A negative or even ambivalent posture toward theology fails to realize the valuable contributions of its scholars and ultimately cultivates superficiality within the church and ignorance in our broader culture. But if theology is to play the same vital role it once did—both in the pulpit and the public square—we must first identify what factors led to its decline, and then how we must respond.
In 2020, Wesleyan theologian Roger E. Olson posed a stark question: “Does theology even matter anymore?” It seems this had been a point of discussion with his friend, the late Baptist theologian Stanley J. Grenz, who coauthored Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (1996).
Toward the end of his life, in the early 2000s, Grenz had privately shared his concern that Christianity was entering a “post-theological phase”—a new era that would see the “end of theology” altogether. In many ways, these concerns echoed the warning that Mark A. Noll issued in his famous work, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, published only a few years before.
Though Olson protested the prognosis at the time, he has since come to agree, based on anecdotal observations from his “forty years of experience as a theologian.” Olson recounts situations when he discussed theological topics, which he felt were rich in cultural relevance, only for them to be dismissed as mere “academic” exercises, what he notes is often a codeword for “irrelevant.”
Beyond obvious problems with today’s “American folk religion”—the democratization of a populist Christianity—Olson offers several reasons for why theology has lost its influence in our nation. First, he notes a growing perception that theologians only care to speak to each other, rather than to a broader audience, and that they no longer seek a unified voice. And if theologians can’t seem to agree on much, how can people trust that what any one of them has to say is true?
Olson also points to shifts in academic theology in the ’60s, when religious studies departments succumbed to the perception that no one knows or can say anything about God. Theologians moved from discussing God to discussing discussions about God, leading to a lack of consensus among theologians and an uncertainty about the role and relevance of theology in society. As one Time article put it, theology turned from “reflection on God—the proper object of theology —to the human religious consciousness.” Or as Sproul stated, “We have replaced theology with religion.”
Amid these shifts, the authority of theology as a discipline waned in the eyes of the public. For instance, Olson observes, ever since its famous “God Is Dead” issue ran in 1966, no theologian has graced the covers of Time magazine—as the likes of Karl Barth, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Paul Tillich (among others) had once done. This leads Olson to wonder whether the watching world concluded that since theologians declared God dead, theology itself must have also died.
At the same time, legal precedents further contributed to this perception. In a 1975 CT article, “Is Theology Dying?” evangelical legal scholar John Warwick Montgomery explained that the rise of independent theological seminaries was partially the result of the Supreme Court’s 1963 Abington School District v. Schempp decision to restrict the study of religion in secular educational institutions to literary and historical analysis—effectively distancing theology from mainstream intellectual discourse. (Contrast this with the European context, where Wolfhart Pannenberg successfully championed academic theology as a science suitable to be housed in secular universities, for which we have no parallel in our US context.)
Montgomery’s comments on the perception of theology in the US deserve repeating: “Theology today is superficial and faddish,” he wrote. “The important question is why, and the answer lies much deeper than the separation of theology from religion or the theological seminary from the university.” Indeed, “the central source of the problem,” he says, “is that theology is no longer sure of its data”: Scriptural study had been deconstructed to the point where the Bible no longer held enough authority to ground theology.
Taken together, the assertions of Olson and Montgomery offer two vital points for us to consider. To revive the study of theology, we must reclaim both its subject and its source.
First, the primary subject matter of theology is God. British theologian John Webster said, “The ontological principle of theology is God himself—not some proposed entity but the Lord who out of the unfathomable plenitude of his triune being lovingly extends towards creatures in Word and Spirit.” He also called for a revival of theology as it had been done in the past, where “God is not summoned into the presence of reason; reason is summoned before the presence of God.”
As C. S. Lewis once famously stated, “I believe in Christianity just as I believe the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” If all of life, including all educational disciplines, can only properly and fully be seen in light of God’s truth, then theology (especially as an academic, rigorous, and careful discipline) is pertinent to all aspects of life. In other words, if God exists and has created the universe, then theology matters universally.
Second, the source of theology’s data is none other than the Bible, which God ordained for his self-revelation. Webster urged for a return to “theological theology” by engaging with classic Christian texts and grounding claims with sound biblical exegesis. “Scripture is the place to which theology is directed to find its subject matter and the norm by which its representations are evaluated,” he said. And as Montgomery warned, “Either Scripture speaks univocally of God, or the death of theology is a dead certainty.”
Reclaiming these two elements—the subject and the source of theology—must remain top of mind if we are to see theology restored to the place it has historically held in our world. And, thankfully, I believe the winds might finally be shifting in this direction, as theologians today are bringing the truth of God to bear on contemporary concerns and using that lens to engage with many fields.
There have been recent developments in analytic theology and science-engaged theology, for example, which have received wide attention and spurred on a host of publications, conferences, events, and productive discussions. These expanding fields shore up the “scientific” nature of theology—both its language and conceptual content—so that it is better equipped to engage in dialogue with other academic disciplines. This movement, arguably, allows theology to shed light in sociological and scientific fields, providing confirmation on some issues or clarification on others.
One specific area in evangelical theology’s resourcing is on the doctrine of creation. Consider the Creation Project at the Carl F. H. Henry Center and the numerous volumes published in recent years demonstrating how the creation doctrine matters to all areas of scientific concern. Issues like the age of the earth, Adam and Eve, and evolution are still live discussions among theologians for good reason. In the words of theologian John Polkinghorne, “Science cannot tell theology how to construct a doctrine of creation, but you can’t construct a doctrine of creation without taking account of the age of the universe and the evolutionary character of cosmic history.”
Speaking of cosmology—the study of the universe and our place in it—some theologians are making a modern comeback for Christian intelligent design in their defense of theism. This sheds light on adjacent fields at the intersection of science and religion, like biology, physics, chemistry, creation care, and consciousness studies. Some theologians even have something to say about potential extraterrestrial life and its implications for the existence of God and theology at large.
There has also been a revival of theological exploration on the afterlife—a topic that many people, religious or otherwise, often wonder about—as evidenced by a slew of recently released books on heaven, hell, and the intermediate state. Christian theologians are showing they have something vital to say on near-death experiences, and they are also deepening our understanding of neglected doctrines like deification, transfiguration, as well as Christ’s resurrection and ascension.
Another area of revitalized investment is the doctrine of humanity and how it overlaps with almost every contemporary concern. As a previous piece for CT explains, “Evangelical theologians are taking topics that ‘we tend to think of as being more sociological’ … and showing they are, in fact, ‘deeply theological.’” Notable recent works bear out the importance of anthropology for other disciplines from theological and Christological perspectives.
For instance, advances in science, medicine, and technology have sparked a renewed interest in fields like psychology, disability, dementia, neuroscience, and the life ethics of reproductive and palliative health care. Likewise, the advent of artificial intelligence and transhumanism, or “techno-humanism”—which prioritizes technologically advanced human organisms over “mere” humanity—have prompted age-old inquiries into what defines human nature and what separates our consciousness from other creatures or technological entities.
“The more a society becomes technological,” said theologian Gabriel Vahanian, “the more it worries about spiritual questions.”
Such developments pose significant opportunities for theologians to assert an authoritative voice on today’s pressing existential and ethical questions—in everything from politics to public health. And thankfully, we are seeing signs that theological scholarship is indeed descending the ivory tower of academia to engage in vital discussions that impact every facet of our contemporary life.
Theology’s transcendence as an informing discipline for all others is what will continue to draw the minds and hearts of the young—as it once drew mine. Growing up, I longed to understand the mystery of the gospel and the richness of God’s creation, knowing that to truly understand the world, one must approach it in light of its creator and redeemer. As the psalmist states in Psalm 19, “The heavens declare the glory of God,” and Paul tells us that God’s attributes and his character are revealed in his creation (Rom. 1:20). All of creation is constantly pointing back to its creator.
As I studied in college and seminary, I realized theology is not merely a rich methodological approach to questions of vital importance; it is also a culture unto itself and, ultimately, a spiritually formative practice that can bring Christian community into godly maturity. Theology is the gradual process of allowing the word of Christ to dwell in us richly (Col. 3:16).
Because God has spoken and continues to speak, theology not only still matters—it is necessary. Without God’s voice, our understanding of the world is limited. While some secularists may suggest that the natural sciences can give us all that we need, they can never give us a coherent perspective on the world and our place in it, let alone tell us what is important and meaningful.
Today, we have good reason to be hopeful that theology may someday reclaim its rightful place as queen of the disciplines and be restored in its vital role of maintaining the health of our local churches. Theology, when done right, should propel the global church into cultivating a deeper community of faith, along with a public face that calls the world to a higher, better life.
Every time we engage in the work of theology, we echo the words of Francis Schaeffer, who proclaimed just six years after Time announced God’s death, “God is there and he is not silent.”
Joshua R. Farris is in the research faculty at Ruhr Universität Bochum in Germany and is the founder of Soul Science Ministries and Spiritually Driven Leadership. His most recent books are The Creation of Self, The Banquet of Souls: A Mirror to the Universe, and Humanizing AI Business.
The post It’s a Theological World After All appeared first on Christianity Today.
by | Aug 21, 2024 | Uncategorized
A viral video reminds us that God works through disciples, not edgelords.
This piece was adapted from Russell Moore’s newsletter. Subscribe here.
Sometimes, a viral video can explain a cultural moment better than a stack of sociology journals. This is one of those times. Standup comedian Josh Johnson expertly explained the ironies of the recent double-cancellation of a racist-talking TikTok “trad wife.” His larger point is one we need to hear right now.
Johnson explained in his set the background of all of this: the growing trend of women who bill themselves as “traditional wives,” instructing other women through cooking and other sorts of videos on how to be “better” at being women. One of these content creators enraged the internet with a use of the most notorious racial slur while seasoning some chicken. The comedian was intrigued not by that controversy but by what happened next.
The trad wife, he said, doubled down on the racist talk and, after being fired from her job, started dropping the slur repeatedly in her videos. She tried to affiliate herself with other alt-right white nationalist “influencers.” It did not go as she planned.
“She just doesn’t quite have the juice,” Johnson said. “Like, when you’re watching her, she’s saying bad things, and they’re annoying, but I’m not angry—she just doesn’t have the oomph to get me there.”
She kept using more and more slurs, Johnson recounted, more and more frantically, in the hopes of getting an audience with neo-Nazis and other bigots, “just trying to prove how terrible she is.”
“The neo-Nazis start rejecting her as a psyop,” Johnson said, “because they feel what I feel. They see the video and they’re …
Continue reading…
