Prosperity

Category: By Robb
I was leading a discussion in class this evening (intro to theology) about the loss of theology as teaching or pastoral in the life of the church and merely an academic enterprise. I discussed enlightenment epistmology's pedastalizing of reason to the detriment of more holistic interpretations of truth. Surprisingly enough several of them were into it. Of course by November they had heard me say such things a few times, as well as the need for theology to be relevant and plugged into the vitality of the church.

All of a sudden, one of the women in the class asked if there would be time in the semester to discuss prosperity gospel issues. She mentioned how in one of her classes a foreign (South American) professor had pointed out that prosperity preaching would not fly in his homeland (I don't think he used the word "fly"). So she wanted to talk about prosperity and the roots of the theology in our culture.

This sparked more conversation in the class about what it means to be North American and be aware of other contexts. What does it mean to be part of a culture that is so affluent? How do we rectify that with what we see to be true with the Church throughout the world? I am looking forward to further dialogue with my students even as the semester is wanes. They are coming to see that a proper definition of theology does have something to say about who they are in this world and what they are becoming. That it is not just right statements, but theology is right hearts, right faiths, right action all rolled up into one- something about integration.

This is not to say I have had anything to do with this. I have muddied the waters as much as anything. Its as much a desire to live right on their part as anything.
 

7 comments so far.

  1. ndfugate 9:11 AM
    i find it amusing that you undercut enilightenment's reliance on truth propositions, and then say that you are glad that have have come to realize the "proper definition" of theology.

    anyways glad they are having these discussions, could lead to some fruit, or rebellious action. which i always love.
  2. m.d. mcmullin 10:27 AM
    orthodoxy - orthopraxy - orthopathy

    I see where Nic is going. Is there a "proper definition" of theology? Would nailing down a definition, no matter how 'correct' it might be, not just be the same thing as making the mistakes of the enlightenment.

    But then again I think we can know absolute truth. Not in a definition or thought but through our relationship with God. In my journey through this transition (postmodernity) I think the Church must believe in truth and stand firm where it counts.

    I believe there are some places in our theology we need to remove dogmatism and in some places we need to reinforce it. Strip away the trappings that don't belong in the core and hold tight to the heart of the divine revelation.

    Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. This is truth. The truth is not contained in the words I have typed, nor in the thought that exists in my head but it is in my heart. Thoughts and words must be used as the medium for Truth to be expressed. They are lousy translators but they are what we have. The Spirit of Truth (Jn 17)chooses to fill our hearts and minds.

    Despite how inadequate our thoughts and refelctions (theology) on God might be. Despite how inadequate our definitions and doctrines are. We can not give up because of inadequacy. We do what we can and correct when we have to.

    So I'll receive your term "proper definition" as long as you realize it is only as proper as you can get right now and you reserve the right to change as words become available.
  3. Robb 9:25 PM
    I hear what y'all are saying about my use of the "proper definition," but I think its context in the post says something about the kind of fluidness y'all want to move in. But I have never been one for precison, so thanks for the cue here. I imagine I am still meandering around in modernity at times.

    I am with you, Mike, on the truth assertion thing, and how it has to be so pervasive.
  4. joel w. clackum 11:11 PM
    Well, I don't want to way in against the theologians, but I will say that I think you are right in your discussion of the need to be "relevant" and "plugged in" with our theology. I also wouldn't want to assert that we have the real truth, nor would I want to ignore the reality that I have serious concerns/conflicts with much enlightenment theology. Isn't the term holistic is by definition saying complete (or more complete in Robb's context). Certainly there is a point at which we recognize there is our truth and there is, as mike said, ultimate truth found through relationship with God. But we shouldn't have to shy away from saying that we believe we have a more complete view of theology...... It is good that they are thinking about this at that stage in their development...
  5. joel w. clackum 11:12 PM
    and sometimes I spell weigh "way"... there is no reason to waste letters. You are now all forewarned.
  6. Peter Zefo 11:22 AM
    Alright Slackaby, get back on the blog bandwagon. You're letting your readership down.
  7. m.d. mcmullin 10:56 PM
    Time for a new post. It's been over a month. Your readership is waiting.

Something to say?