Blogotional

...And it's about how to disagree and debate as Christians. Mark Roberts, writing at Theologica, posted some appropriate Scripture. Character and the Fruits of the Spirit are what really matter in a debate according to SmartChristian. All of this great and worthy posts, but I think my favorite was from Eternal Perspectives. Mike talks about how when the debate gets heavy, he usually ducks for cover

First, I just don?t have the time, and I don?t think I?m unique in this regard. I certainly enjoy theology - but not for the purpose of debating others of different convictions. I enjoy theology because it enables me to know God better: it gives me a glimpse not just into His attributes, but His character, His being. When I study theology, even as when I read and meditate upon Scripture, I feel closer to Him, as though I am seeing His heart a bit more clearly. For me, that is the highest good of theology.

Mike makes a similar, but finer point later in his post

Finally, I stay away from these fights because they are distractions and nuisances. These are not the battles we should be fighting: other believers who adhere to different nonessential doctrines are not the enemy. The time we spend fighting one another would be more wisely spent battling against truly dangerous doctrines and beliefs that are infiltrating our local churches. Or we could focus our energies on confronting our culture and endeavoring to demonstrate the viability - and necessity - of our common faith. Or even - perish the thought! - evangelize people instead of arguing with the redeemed.

I think this discussion has stepped into one of the great mudholes of blogging, and actually faith in general. That is what role the intellectual life in faith? Certainly, Christianity, salvation itself, is not available only to those capable of forming and grasping some personal theology? Blogging in particular, because it can really never be more than the conveyance of ideas, falls into this trap. Mike, who is a very good theologian, and one with whom I disagree rather routinely, has, I think the best possible perspective on theology -- it is an aid to personal faith and much of it is not worth fighting over.

Let me give you a little background. I am currently involved in a small group discussing how to move people, particularly people in the church, into genuine discipleship. We are using Willard's "Divine Conspiracy" as a starting point, but hope to draw on a lot of people in the process. The first bug-a-boo, of course, becomes the question of "What is genuine discipleship?" A first pass at that question usually results in a couple of answers -- depth of learning, or thinking theologically -- and exercising the "spiritual disciplines." And yet, any of us can readily name people steeped in either of those things that simply do not bear fruit.

I found this post from the Constructive Curmudgeon last week somewwhat interesting. He is responding to a NYTimes writers who has found Christianity intellectually vapid.

So, why should I write you, a stranger? I was moved by your article. I cringe over many of the same things that you cringe over (and describe so aptly): the Fred Phelps phenomenon, the errant enthusiasms of other ignoramuses (in the name of God), and most of mass-marketed evangelicalism. Yet I believe there is something better and truer at the heart of genuine biblical religion. Of course, there is no way I will attempt to make that argument here. Rather, I simply wanted to let you know that your story resonated with me.

I wonder if anyone ever asked you to read Francis Schaeffer when you were a young man. Thank God I read him not long after my conversion. I read The God Who is There (1968) and Schaeffer's convictions set me on a course to attempt to think and live well for God and before the watching world. Schaeffer was not a technical scholar (and I had to move far beyond him academically for my graduate degrees in philosophy), but his instincts were good, his basic theology was rich, and his heart was large.

He seems to imply that it was finding a decent level of intellectual activity in Chrsitianity that pushed him "over the edge" into a deep and abiding faith, but for others such simply is impossible, that lack the raw material to pursue intellectualism to that extent. This leads us to the other end of the spectrum, the wild-eyed charasmatics who somehow turn this corner in a miraculous experience commonly labeled "baptism in the Holy Spirit." I have dicussed on several occasions the very serious problems I have had with zealots of this later approach.

The problems arise when we hold our approach to God more important than God Himself. The problems arise when we choose to think about God rather than let HIm tranform us. The problems arise when we let our "experience" of God become more important than He who granted the experience.

That's why all the posts about theological debate were good, but why I liked Mike's best. Mike states it most plainly. As Christians we are not defined by our theology, we are defined by our Lord. Theology is but a means to knowing that Lord better. Many points of theology matter little, even nothing in comparison to the Lord Himself.

There is one place I come back to in all of this. God is, definitionally, incomprehensible. We can, and should, think about God. But I assure you of this -- none of us will get it right.

Think of someone you know really well, a spouse, a parent, a child. Do you really know them? Can you predict their behavior in every conceviable circumstance? Of course not! If we cannot have a complete understanding of someone we have lived our whole lives with, how can we possibly have a complete understanding of the Creator?

Theology is an aid, it is not our faith. Most importantly, reitereating Mike's final point, the great commission is not to make Arminians, or Calvinists, or...of the world -- it is to make DISCIPLES -- they are not made of theology. They are made of baptism and they are made of faith.