January 23, 2012

Sometimes You Have to be Impractical

Cats and theology

Ideas should be treated like cats

I hope I’m not one of those ivory tower guys who loves to play around with ideas that never touch down on the tarmac of life. In fact the entire reason I am interested in ideas is for the power they have to transform my experience.

Still, I feel like people these days might be a little too obsessive about their insistence on practicality. Like, unless sermons, books or teaching (“mind activities”) have an immediate payoff, they are disdainfully dismissed as “irrelevant for life.”  So allow me for a moment to speak, somewhat unsystematically,  in behalf of impracticality.

Doctrinal escapism?

One of my former pastors was fond of telling this story as way of cautioning people about being too intellectual: He once met another pastor who had fallen from grace through sexual sin and was in the middle of loosing his family. But rather than deal with his situation, all the the fallen pastor wanted to do was to “talk about the deity of Jesus Christ.” This is what happens, the lesson went, when we take an unhealthy interest in intellectual matters. And beware that doctrines and theological arguments or complicated textual questions do not become an escape from real life. Though this oft repeated anecdote did not make me feel very supported in my own intellectual quest (it was the oftenness of the telling, really), I basically agreed with it: intellectual escapism is no better than any other sort of escapism.

But I ruminated on this over the years and a while back I kind of changed my mind. I thought: is it really so bad retreat into theology when your personal life crumbles? What is wrong with turning ones mind to the big questions when nothing else works? Should we begrudge this fallen pastor his impractical interest? What if it gives him meaning where nothing else does? Why should that be seen as inappropriate or imbalanced? If he had turned to model making, or working on his car, or reading books on physics in order to cope we would arguably have approved.

Why does the life of the mind always have to bear the burden of proof?

Practical impracticality

Back in the day I worked in the trades – painting and carpentry mostly. Even though I wanted to be in Christian ministry I figured it was a good experience for me because it prepared me to identify with the work a day experience of most Christians. My leadership would thus be “more practical” once I got around to it.  I remember a friend who disagreed with me on this point, though. He said that it wasn’t actually so bad for a pastor to lack practical experience. I helped him be more objective about what the Christian life required; it could keep him from caving in to common excuses for avoiding serious discipleship.

Sometimes it’s more practical to not be practical?

Help from those who don’t care

Those of you who have plumbed the depths academic exegesis know what it’s like to read Bible commentators who treat Scripture as a mere ancient artifact: it’s not the Word of God; it’s just a collections of old manuscripts which are nevertheless very interesting from a historical point of view. It can be irritating and intimidating; like watching some very intelligent “swine” rolling in the mud with our precious pearls (with apologies for the implications of the analogy).

And yet, I have often been surprised at the clarity which non-believing exegetes can bring to the text. I remember quite vividly an exposition of Hebrews 6 that I felt cut through all the confusion our theologies have created about the question of  ”losing our salvation.” Yes, the author of Hebrews does envision the possibility of falling away from Christ. This is as “historical fact” we might say.

Those who have little invested in the meaning of the Bible are sometimes more objective about its meaning than those who depend on it for life and doctrine. They aren’t thinking with every question: “What does this mean for me? How does it affect my life? Where is God in this? Will I be condemned as a heretic if I interpret it like this?”

Disinterestedness can achieve a certain clarity.

Beware of theological nerds

People debate and obsess about ideas because they think they are important. Usually it is because they attach a great deal of significance to the implications of those ideas: what they imply about God, about what it means to be human, about the nature of the reality, about the meaning of goodness, and very often (after all is said and done) about how we ought to live. Not to sound elitist  or anything, but people often yawn at ideas because they don’t get where it is all going. If they did get it, they might find themselves suddenly alert. Not all pedantic discussion are so tame as they seem. Remember how the nerds took over the world with computers? Well, theological nerds can also do that while the rest of us are trying to stay awake. Many a revolution began between the carrels of a theological library.

So, while there are indeed some tedious, eye-rolling, and irrelevant debates between intellectuals, there are probably less of these than is commonly thought, and more of them are more important than is mostly realized. Take for example the famous debate about “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.” It turns out that this is not a reall debate anyone ever had, but a manufactured exaggeration to illustrate the perceived irrelevance of medieval scholastic conflicts. But where they that irrelevant? If you are an evangelical Christian there is a very good chance you believe some of the ideas that were forged during that period.

Might irrelevance be in the eye of the beholder?

Unscientific impractical postscript

We can be so heavy-handed with ideas. If they don’t perform immediate wonders we throw them out on the street. We are like abusive parents, overbearing, ungracious, always ready to disprove at the slightest sign of irrelevance. I suggest we treat ideas more like cats. Take them in, speak to them in soft kitty language, feed them and pet them. Soon they will begin to purr.

Sometimes ideas have to be impractical before they are practical.




7 Responses to Sometimes You Have to be Impractical

  • Gabriel says:

    Great post! Just one quibble:

    Though it is true that we can sometimes get “Help from those who don’t care,” it is also very important to remember that more often than not they can lead us astray. For a couple reasons. First (and biblically) they, are blind to the truth. They do not have the indwelling Holy Spirit to illuminate their minds to an understanding of the truth. This is especially true when critical methods are used to undermine the integrity and historicity of a text.

    The second reason is that those who don’t “care” aren’t trying to create a cohesive theology. So, for example, and unbelieving scholar don’t need to reconcile Paul and James’ ideas of the relationship of faith/works. Those who don’t care don’t have boundaries to reign in their interpretations from going off the deep end.

    But with that said, especially when it comes to textual issues, these scholars are helpful, and they *can* be helpful at other times, but great discernment is required in reading them.

    • robahas says:

      Thanks Gabe – I hear you. There is a lot of garbage that can come with the gains. For example, when exegetes make unwarranted assessments about the motivations of Biblical authors (“Matthew was embarrassed by Mark’s account, so he changed it” etc.) It’s good to do that level of exegetical study under a tutor. Ben Whitherington in his recent little book I mentioned in another post: He talks of how a former student of his PHP Advisor, CK Barrett, had “lost his faith” in NT studies. This made Barrett hold back with Ben to the point where his thesis suffered and had to be rewritten. Barrett didn’t want people to loose their faith! But I think that overall believing exegetes are tending more and more to outnumber non-believing, and they are going top level work. But also, I think that the vast majority of academic exegetes are believers; it’s just that some of them are willing to treat the text as a mere human artifact while at the same, in a separate compartment, also being faithful believers (perhaps of a more liberal stripe). Not a reasonable approach in my thinking.

  • Meela says:

    Great post!

    I am finding that “ideas” scare people in my circle of friends. How does one remain humble and yet continue intellectual pursuit? All the while not alienating one’s self?

    • robahas says:

      Here’s something I’ve been thinking about: our interest in the life of the mind ought to make us insightful people. Maybe that’s how we bless others and at the same time life out an apologetic for the importance of ideas. I guess we also have to earn trust so that we do not intimidate. But I guess with “insightful” I’m trying to capture something like “thinking as a service that benefits others.”

  • Meela says:

    Yes, that’s good. But can you explain your second sentence for me? And, do you perhaps have an example?

    So it seems I need to keep working on my own understanding in order to be able to better communicate without scaring people or causing defensiveness. Something about how the measure of how much you understand is in how well you can communicate it to others.

    I think silence is usually the best answer for me at the moment anyway.

  • robahas says:

    Hey Meela – Sorry, I lost track of this…. Maybe this illustration will clarify: You are a doctor, and you have a friend who does not believe in medicine. They just “hate doctors” and don’t need all that. One approach would be to try to convince them of the folly, nay peril, of their opinion. That might not go well. But what if your friend observes how your knowledge helps others. At a party someone chokes and you do the heimlich; another friend has epilepsy and has an attack – you are there, taking charge, assuring everyone, keeping him safe; later another friend cuts himself on a knife and your “I don’t need doctors” friend goes to clean it and you’re like “Woa! that’s blood; you have to be careful!” – turns out the wounded individual had hepatitis or whatever. By the end of the party everyone is a basket case! But if your friend has been watching he might conclude that all your supposedly useless knowledge is actually extremely helpful. Personally I think that a fully integrated intellectual life makes a great deal of difference and maybe there are ways in which we can work on showing that better. Is this making any sense?

  • Meela says:

    Yes, that makes sense, thank you. I think it is all not too much a problem for me because I still don’t know much more than anyone else. It’s just that I think I approach questions and doubt more openly than others and search with less fear.

  • Comment Form