As has been written before on this blog, I do some part time teaching in the areas of Christian Ethics and Theology, which I am beginning to think there is an artificial difference in those terms, for out of theology flows ethical thought, and the way we act, the people we are makes a statement about our theology.

Anyway, it looks like I have some good classes shaping up so far in this new semester. Neither is too large for interaction with the students, and so far I have had some good conversations with students in each class (I have one ethics and one theology, both introductions).

One such conversation was about the term Christianity. A gentleman in my theology class was not very fond of the term. He felt that it had been put on by others, and was not one that the early church had applied to itself, nor had God called them by that name. I found this to be an interesting point, and have thought some time about it.

What I took from that conversation, in good reader-response ideology, is not to utilize a term that is harmful or cuts off communication. So few want to have anything to do with "Christianity". From before the crusades, this negative vibe to the term has resonated. Even Constantines' time could be seen as giving Christianity a bad name. So instead of attempting to overcome these definitions or ideas of the term, don't use it at all. Find new ways in which to speak, new voices, new words.

This I have been thinking on since the class in which this idea was talked about. But is there a point in which you take on the task of revisioning, or providing a new referent to old terms. Could not new actions, new situations provide new ways in which to define old modes? I don't know if I am up to defending the term Christianity, but a few more peels of the onion might touch a nerve. It might bring to the surface words worth fighting for. Or better, the idea behind those words maybe.

But I don't know. The price of incarnation was pretty high for the one who modeled it. Perhaps laying down some ideology to enter in, to come among, might not be too high a price. Ideology might be another word for smugness anyway, at least in this case.

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.