Theoretical vs. Practical
The age old discussion/debate involving the relationship between the theoretical and practical is no more pronounced than in the theological and ministry world. As I consider this issue, cliches like “cart before the horse” and “did the chicken come before the egg” seem appropriate comparisons as points of discussion. This discussion is prevalent in almost all fields of academic endeavor. Sometimes, the debate is in the arena of pure vs. applied. For example, what is the relationship between pure science and applied science? What is the relationship between fact and application? In many fields of endeavor, the two arenas are just segregated into their separate worlds. Sometimes, the pure theorist has an attitude of superiority. For example does(do) the scientist(s) who discovered nuclear energy take responsibility for the development of the nuclear bomb? Many purists would not.
I propose that in the theological and ministry world that the theoretical and practical are intricately related, and that there is biblical and logical sequence. We have clear answers in our theological and ministry world to the “cart before the horse” and “chicken before the egg” examples. Paul’s model in many of his writings is the theological and biblical first, thus the theoretical, then the practical. The practical is based on and rooted in the theological. No clearer example of this model is found anywhere than in the book of Romans. Romans chapters 1-11 deal with human sin, justification by faith, sanctification, and Israel. Romans chapters 12-16 deal with practical and Christian living issues. Paul argues that based on these theological issues and truth, then one should practice or live accordingly.
I see false and very devastating approaches to this issue in our current theological world. I contend that practical or praxis must be based on and rooted in the plain statement and meaning of Scripture. It is apparent to me that we should be concerned about what God has to say. How do we determine what God has said? It is His inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word. In this dispensation we do not expect a vision or new revelation. A passage does not have multiple meanings nor do we have the right to approach Scripture from an allegorical perspective. God’s Word is our sole authority. Tradition, the church fathers, the church, and culture, while provide valuable insights are not on the same par as God’s Word. Should not a person in ministry or even a lay person be given over to determining “what God has to say” which means applying the literal, grammatical, historical, and contextual approach to the interpretation of Scripture. This is absolutely foundational and essential. Again, “what is God saying and what has He said?”
However, I do not see in the New Testament the model of accumulating truth and knowledge without the application of truth. We must practice truth. The fact is that we have a world that is lost and needs salvation. In many countries in the world, less than 1% of the population is Christian. The reality is that anyone without Jesus Christ will face an eternity in Hell. I would say “Live the Book.”
Nice Blog site. This article is right on the money. I fear that the application of man-made methods are only effective for as long as the methods remains popular. (And we all know how long fads remain popular today)The Hyles model, Evangelism Explosion, Purpose Driven, and Seeker Friendly methods are all falling into disfavor having burnt themselves out. God's Word remains true and when applied (read, preached)it is the preferred tool of the Holy Spirit of God. Paul did not tell Timothy to preach the latest method, stories, or such; he said "Preach the Word."
Reply to this
Isn't it pleasantly surprising to see such wisdom coming from someone from NJ. Kuhar must have had some great teaching!
Reply to this
Great article. In Phil 1:9-11 Paul tells the believers that in the Christian life both academic knowledge and practical experience are needed in the Christian life. It is not enough to just learn and never do i.e liberal scholars, just as it is wrong to do and never learn i.e. Liberation Theology. The Christian life needs both.
Daniel
Reply to this
It's not the liberals that bother me. It is the professed conservative evangelicals who say they believe and have a fundamental doctrinal statement but in practice they don't adhere to it. A liberal professes to be what he is. The dangerous ones are those within the ranks who say one thing and live another. Ezekiel 33:30-33 adresses this very issue.
Reply to this
The gentleman who led me to Christ pointed out this blog to me via his email journal. If I say Woodchuck you will know what I mean.
Commenter Kuhar, as an aside, I was taught the Hyles method while a student at Hyles-Anderson. I can honestly say that I learned far more about how NOT to be a Christian than anything else while attending school and church there. But that is still learning, yes?
Plaudits for defining in part the proper way to study, apply and teach the Bible. Too many people decide that there is a secular and a sacred application of scripture and that the Bible is accurate only on theological matters while not being meant as a scientific textbook nor a historical narrative.
However, if every bit of scripture is inspired, it is all true. Historical narrative must be correct. Therefore the genealogical line from Adam on down is true and reliable. The Noahic Flood did happen, as did the Tower of Babel. The Red Sea actually parted. These are not figures of speech, they are not metaphors, they are history.
Scientific observations such as the description of creation must be valid. Mentions of various animals in context, such as Leviathan or Behemoth must be descriptions of actual creatures. The manner and order of creation must be correct.
I am not saying there is no idiomatic language, no metaphor, no analogies, for that would be foolish and wrong. Even an astrophysicist uses the phrase "sunrise" so if God uses such terminology we can understand in context that He is not teaching an Earth-centric solar system.
We have to understand that there is prophetic/poetic language in scripture and to read it in context as well. Bible students understand this, but atheistic commenters will come with a very biased and limited understanding of scripture and make ridiculous claims should your blog become popular.
I truly get some genuine troll activity on my blog but I allow everyone to speak their piece as long as they avoid profane language. I believe the dialogue is a force for bringing readers to Christ or reinforcement of their faith.
My experience after a few years of blogging is that most of your readers will not comment. So if you have few comments that does not necessarily mean you are not having an impact.
If you do ever visit my blog and believe that you see me apply scripture incorrectly I will welcome your comments. I am trying to keep a worldview blog going that deals with the Bible and science and also with world events and politics to a lesser degree. Currently I am blogging verse-by-verse through Genesis chapter one.
So glad to welcome another Christian blogger into the fold!
Kimbal aka radaractive
Reply to this