Experimental Theology

by Joe Thorn on August 25, 2005

I have been writing a lot of my thoughts on the church in my journal lately, and began to organize them last night. There are five things that I would like to see be true of all churches, but especially those in the SBC. Let me begin with the foundation: theology. Before you get on this wagon, let me warn you of two things:

1. I am “Reformed” in theology and
2. I think the first in need of repenting theologically are the “Reformed.”

Many in Calvinistic circles see theology as an end in itself. Studying God, or the “discourse concerning God” is an “interest” many list in their blogger profiles. For some, this is a simple way of saying it is enjoyed, but for others (most?) that is all it is. A hobby. We have theology clubs, and theology pubs, we promote the reading of good books, teach and preach doctrine, but it seems that most of the time the truth exists merely to be gathered together, arranged neatly, and displayed in a tasteful shadow box. In truth, I believe it is worse than this. I believe in many cases we have replaced God with theology. Often our zeal is for doctrine over deity, and many of us are more about having the answers than having God. We delight in the beautiful system of thought more than the God that stands above it all. Let me put it this way; theology – even the right theology – can be the idol that subtly leads us away from God. Of course the problem is not the doctrine, we are. We have allowed pride and arrogance to smother our study so that much of it is more about us than God.

It should be different in the church. Theology must be prized, loved, and entered into as the means of knowing, experiencing and worshipping God. It must be more than an intellectual hobby or mental exercise. J.L. Dagg explains this in the beginning of his Manual of Theology,

The study of religious truth ought to be undertaken and prosecuted from a sense of duty, and with a view to the improvement of the heart. When learned, it ought not to be laid on the shelf, as an object of speculation; but it should be deposited deep in the heart, where its sanctifying power ought to be felt. To study theology, for the purpose of gratifying curiosity, or preparing for a profession, is an abuse and profanation of what ought to be regarded as most holy. To learn things pertaining to God, merely for the sake of amusement, or secular advantage, or to gratify the mere love of knowledge, is to treat the Most High with contempt.1

For Dagg (like the Puritans before him), doctrine was always tied to experience and response. His section on Theology Proper begins with its connection to loving God. In the third book on “The Will and Works of God” he shows how we ought to delight in such things. When dealing with The Fall and hamartiology he begins with the need for repentance. His section on Christology stresses the need to believe. When writing on heaven and the future state of man he is compelled to write on the need to prepare for such a future. Dagg got it; the end of theology is not amassing knowledge, but knowing and experiencing our God leading to worship. In the past this was called “experimental” theology. Experimental Calvinism was the theology of the Puritans. It was theology experienced and applied working within believers a real change. Instead of producing pride and arrogance it results in faith, meekness and humility before God, and a boldness and mercy before man.

The big problem in our Convention is neglecting theology. For this we have to repent, for without it we cannot know God and are crippled in our experience of him. We have no way of interpreting what he is doing in our lives, or how to approach him in prayer and worship. To the degree that there is a vacuum of, or error in, our theology, there will be corresponding trouble in our experience of God2. But those of us who love theology, who champion it, who call for a reformation in ecclesiology and evangelism, often fall into the trap of fashioning doctrine into a gold statue and then dance around it as if it is our God. For this we must repent, because when theology ends here it leaves us unchanged.

It is not enough to be right, it is not enough to know the truth. We must know the God of whom the truth speaks and be made good by it. Theology in the church should be the liveliest discussions because it is a conversation leading us to know God more intimately, obey him more fully and worship him more holistically. We need an experimental theology.

——————–
1. J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology, Pg. 13
2. Archibald Alexander, Thoughts on Religious Experience, pg. xix

About Joe Thorn

I am the Lead Pastor of Redeemer Fellowship in Saint Charles, IL, and author of Note to Self: The Discipline of Preaching to Yourself. Jen is my wife, and Katherine, Elias, Madeline and Kilian are my kids.

If you liked this post subscribe to the feed for more of the same.

  • http://justtodd.snowhill.org Todd

    joe, would love to dialogue about this very thing. i am reading John Franke’s, The Character of Theology. He has a piece I will try to e-mail you that forms something of the genesis for the book. The book is something of a prequel to he and Grenz’s, Beyond Foundationalism.. He comes from a Reformed tradition and likely would still refer to himself that way. He contends that theology is a second-order discipline/practice. As such, it is really an outgrowth of what Calvin describes as the experience of God revealing/unveiling himself to man and man discovering or knowing himself. The first order nautre of this human experience, he contends, does not come in the form of “theology proper.” Rather, it comes via the interior work of the Spirit appropriating the Scriptures. He further suggests the place for theology is precisely where you suggest is should be – the church. I could go on but this is a long enough comment. I will try to carry on via e-mail.

  • http://www.joethorn.net Joe Thorn

    I have seen Franke’s book and thought about reading it. Guess I will have to jump on it now. I look forward to the email.

  • http://spartan.blogs.com Thorny

    Joe,
    I’m curious, do you think that the idea of Theology being a hobby might stem from the fact that not many churches stress that in order to be “Missional” to your tribe, community, or group of people that you’re around that you must know first what you believe? I’ve found out that when asking most church going people what they believe they can tell me in God and the Bible, but that’s about the extent of it. What can we do as not just pastors but people to promote the healthy understanding of Gods Word and how it relates to us? I just truly believe that most people find it hard to pick up anything beyond books such as Purpose Driven Life or others that just don’t dig very deep. Your thoughts?

  • http://www.stevekmccoy.com/ Steve McCoy

    Joe, my fear is that some who love theology as an end in itself (I used to be there) will read this and agree with you because they don’t even see their own problem. They MUST agree with you because your point is so obvious, but don’t realize that their love for doctrine itself is really the desire of their heart.

  • http://www.joethorn.net Joe Thorn

    Thorny,

    Missional practice emerges from a theological framework. I think the way we invest doctrine into the lives of our people is by uncovering it and its relevance in preaching, conversation, and discipleship. That’s a whole conversation I guess.

    Steve,

    I know what you mean, and have the same thoughts. This is why it is important for us to confess this sin communally, and find out how this tendency still lingers on after we’ve begun to see the proper place of doctrine. Repentance and reformation continue until the resurrection.

  • http://archsap.com John Arnold

    Joe,
    Thanks for an insightful comment that pretty much affirms how I have been with respect to my reformed conversion. But as always our Lord doesn’t leave us in our arrogance any more than he leaves us in any sin. I guess I liken the whole reformed view to a massive inheritance that is difficult to manage, having been poor and destitute before it. I am presently studying and teaching on the Royal Law. You know …the other half of the Decalogue…which is kind of important!!!!!
    John

  • http://halloftyrannus.blogspot.com/ Brian Coffey

    Joe,
    Excellent, excellent thoughts.

    I wanted to tell you that I am linking to your post and have posted a few thoughts of my own related to the topic (http://halloftyrannus.blogspot.com/2005/08/thoughts-on-purpose-of-biblical.html).

    Thank you,
    BKC

  • http://blog.nelmezzo.net David Wright

    Very good post, Joe.

    As someone who struggles very much with getting hung up on thinking about faith instead of living out faith, it was a great reminder (now how to act on it?). A while back I started a series on the emergent church (http://blog.nelmezzo.net/index.php/archives/19), which I hope to soon continue (and edit down a bit, perhaps, nothing like blogging to show you how little you know about writing).

    The main thesis of the whole series will be that the emergent church (at least the purposefully postmodern brand of emergent) is a well-intentioned, but essentially wrong answer to the question of how to “fix” the problem of head/heart dichotomies in faith, or in other words, the EC is an answer to a question about the relationship between doctrine and practice. I think that the EC looks at “doctrine is what counts” people, decides that that’s no way to be and then swings over into an extreme of of “Christian practice is what counts”. I see a false dichotomy here. Your post points in the right direction: doctrine is to be encountered experimentally/experientially and not just for its own sake.

  • http://www.joethorn.net Joe Thorn

    Thanks guys.

    David, you and I are in agreement here, though my take on the ec is a bit different. Within the emerging church there is a wide variety of participants. While some jettison systematic theology (because of it’s “modern” origin), or downplay doctrine in general, reacting against the theology hounds, I do not think the whole can be categorized that way. It is simply too diverse a group of people. In fact, I don’t think the ec is the answer to any question. I view it as a response to problems in evangelical churches. The problems diagnosed are often dead on. Some of the answers are good, some are very wrong. ***But they have forced issues to the front for discussion, and for this I am grateful*** because many have been ignoring these issues.

    But I do agree with the idea – reactionary Christians (sometimes found in ec, fundies and Reformed circles) will often miss the target. In the ec, many attempt to put community before dogma (bad idea) because so many who have championed dogma have lost the community. I believe both must be recovered, and that the truth gives birth to the community.

    In the past I have always said let’s enter the conversation to help and to learn. That’s what I have tried to do. As the ec becomes more EC, organized, etc. I believe it will become something more unified and probably less interesting to me. Where the ec has done well is in dealing with the issue of “missional” Christianity. As THAT conversation is now beginning to bleed over into many groups outside of the ec, I think some great things are going to happen.

  • http://sbcoutpost.blogspot.com Marty Duren

    A well read, but applicable quote from JI Packer:
    “If we pursue theological knowledge for its own sake, it is bound to go bad on us. It will make us proud and conceited. The very greatness of the subject matter will intoxicate us, and we shall come to think of oursleves as a cut above other Christians because of our interest in it and grasp of it; and we shall look down on those whose theological ideas seem crude and inadequate and dismiss them as very poor specimens….To be preoccupied with getting theological knowledge as an end in itself, to approach Bible study with no higher a motive than a desire to know all the answers, is the direct route to a state of self-satisfied self-deception.”
    Knowing God, pages 22, 23.

  • http://www.joethorn.net Joe Thorn

    Great words from Packer (and a great book too). Thanks for putting them up Marty.

  • http://www.sbcoutpost.blogspot.com Marty Duren

    It’s also amazing to me how many conversations on theology take place in which the Bible is not even mentioned. It’s as if man’s thoughts about truth and systemizing of truth have supplanted Truth Himself. This, to me, is why it is so important to remain focused on following after God, not simply following after someone’s thoughts about God, no matter how impressive or persuasive those thoughts might be.

  • http://homepage.mac.com/byfarthersteps Tim

    Hey Joe, sorry for joining the game late. This was a fascinating read to me. I have had the exact same thoughts. We embrace the theology to the neglect of the Theos it is supposed to explain!

    This is one reason I loved Grudem’s Systematic Theology. Each chapter ended with a hymn and a memory verse. Grudem doesn’t think theology should sit on the shelf amongst the dusty old books.

    Preach it man, I’m with you.

    How do we guard our own hearts against such an insidious idolatry?

  • http://www.joethorn.net Joe Thorn

    Thanks Tim. The way I try to protect myself is by 1) giving time to reading the experimental calvinists (or people in that tradition) 2) searching for the application of theology in Scripture – it’s always there 3) Forcing myself to demonstrate the experience of doctrine in my preaching and 4) spending time with guys who think along the same lines. Journaling is also a big help to me, as it helps me flesh out the thoughts that are just beginning to take shape. And I think the best help is admitting that we all wrestle with it; that no matter how much progress we make, it still happens. We still islolate doctrine from God and experience.

  • http://www.pigeonriverchurch.org Toby

    I believe that the Jews always look at the text not primarly for “what does it say” (they did) but primarly for “how do we live it”. In other words they wanted to know what God said so they could live how God said. I get this from Rob Bell’s book, Velvet Elvis. I come from the fundy background, especially the sov. grace, reformed, landmark baptist-fundies. Within that “camp” the focus is on HAVING truth not KNOWING it (living it as an expression). None of them would ever say they don’t want to live the truth, but when it comes down to it having it is still more important.

    “We have the truth” “We have the right doctrine,etc” is their tagline. I have shifted to more of where you are at Joe, and others here. I hope to see some of my friends shift here as well. I believe it is a more consistent place to be – the discussion takes on more meaning!

  • Mike Shuman

    Joe I love your articles man. I’m reminded of a quote I read from P.T. Forsyth’s the work of Christ recently, “Doctrine and life are really two sides of one Christianity and they are equally indispensable, because Christianity is living truth. It is not merely truth; it is not simply life. It is living truth.” It is only as the living Word opens the written word that we recieve life. When reading and hearing the word become God centered i.e. with a focus on the three-Personal-God revealed there we come into communion with the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit. “This is eternal life that they may know Thee, the true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” John 17:3 I think we need to return to the focus of knowing and loving God through the word (and theological writings that enhance our understanding of the word) and letting that effect our all of life.

Previous post:

Next post: