May 29, 2008
Applying theology: Don’t argue for something until your life shows you believe it.
If unapplied theology is worthless, we shouldn’t claim to believe truth with arguments, until we’ve proven we believe it with our lives.
Subscribe to 22 Words
Recent Comments
- Will on How to become a wine expert and other advice for inexperienced wine lovers
- Stephen May on It’s not a slide, it’s a proto-steampunk ghetto park bench for one.
- Stephen May on Who or whom? A clear, simple answer from a professional grammarian
- Stephen May on Elitists in Minnesota town Lino Lakes approve English-only resolution
- Will Adair on How to become a wine expert and other advice for inexperienced wine lovers
Sponsors
Categories
- Arts in General (24)
- Bible (66)
- Blogging (153)
- Brevity (25)
- Constructive Criticism (268)
- Faith (210)
- Food & Drink (54)
- Language (214)
- Literature (104)
- Love (86)
- Miscellanea (286)
- Movies (14)
- Music (155)
- parenting (153)
- Personal (182)
- Questions (255)
- Quotes (41)
- Recommendations (129)
- Sports (8)
- Uncategorized (8)
- Visual Art (27)
- Writing (56)
Archives
- July 2010 (107)
- June 2010 (79)
- May 2010 (89)
- April 2010 (62)
- March 2010 (21)
- February 2010 (25)
- January 2010 (32)
- December 2009 (47)
- November 2009 (63)
- October 2009 (45)
- September 2009 (40)
- August 2009 (40)
- July 2009 (40)
- June 2009 (37)
- May 2009 (47)
- April 2009 (51)
- March 2009 (40)
- February 2009 (31)
- January 2009 (44)
- December 2008 (47)
- November 2008 (54)
- October 2008 (50)
- September 2008 (41)
- August 2008 (45)
- July 2008 (51)
- June 2008 (51)
- May 2008 (66)
- April 2008 (74)
- March 2008 (71)
- February 2008 (19)
Reader Recommendations
Some of the books and music that you, the readers, have recommended here over time:
Twitter Recommendations
Theme based on Derek Punsalan's Grid Focus.
(Is this a re-post of the importance of doing right over having rights and being right?)
Unless we are prepared to submit/personally commit to truth ourselves, Nietzsche and Foucault were right: all truth claims are power plays – and dishonest ones at that.
On the other hand, successful application of the truth shouldn’t be a precondition for making a truth claim. AA members are committed to the truth that alcoholism is bad even if they haven’t fully succeeded in escaping it. Proof of belief is in seen in the effort made to submit it.
Do you think this is only for theological propositions, or also for moral claims? I think people can argue for morality even if they don’t live up to their standards.
For instance, an alcoholic has every right to tell his nephew to stay away from the bottle. It may even have more weight than a teetotaler.
As for theology, I also think someone could argue what they can’t live up to. For instance, if I believe God commands me to love others like I love myself, I think I can claim to believe it even if I regularly fail.
Maybe it depends what the threshold is for what qualifies for us “believ[ing] it with our lives.” Doing it 90% of the time? 51%? 10%? Or just trying as hard as we can?
Disagree. Truth is truth no matter what I do.
Josh,
I’ll go with your last line. Application isn’t success all the time. Our lives can prove we believe in things that we continually fail to achieve. At least, we better hope so.
Leslie,
Sure, no problem. But I’m talking about how we should interact with truth.
James doesn’t say, “Well faith without works is better than nothing.” He says it’s useless.
So, yes, truth is truth regardless of us, but there’s no ultimate value in us arguing for any truth that our lives don’t corroborate.
Okay you’ve got 22 words so you’re not going to be able to get every subtlety in.
However, I am never going to be able to get to a stage where I stop being a legalist and start living in light of the cross (and a lot of other things). When I preach should I forget teaching the sin of legalism and the truth of living in light of the cross? Of course not. I should preach it with all my heart.
Indeed Paul didn’t care when some evil people preached the gospel because at least it was being preached (Phil 1:15-18).
So always preach the truth, no matter whether you are inadequate or not.
However, here’s where I like your point, life will be better if you live truthful as well as act truthful for a number of reasons:
1) Your life will adorn the gospel much better, thus more people will see its truth.
2) You will be getting rid of sin in your life. That’s always good.
3) Most importantly: if you sanctified you’re got to be justified. You don’t want to be the guy who preaches the Gospel all his life and goes to hell. So you should sort out your own life first!
Personally I find that preaching the sovereignty of God (which I do) is much easier than believing in it via my attitudes and actions.
Lance, I think you’re getting right at the point. And I definitely agree with that.
It’s easier to preach it than live it.
I think I see where the problem lies here. There is a conflation of “faith” with “theology.” The terms are not interchanged in scripture, and the premise “unapplied theology is worthless” is not backed up by the passage cited in the link: James 2:18-20.
Jesus felt that the proclamation of theological truth was so important that he sent Judas out to do it. What is more, he gave him power and authority, and he went through the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. It therefore seems reasonable to differentiate faith, which Judas lacked, from theology, which he did not lack.
Whether or not someone applies the truths they know about God is a different thing to saying that faith apart from works is useless. Unapplied theology is not useless, because God does not let his word return void.
Isaiah 55:11
So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it…
—
SINCERE IGNORANCE AND CONSCIENTIOUS STUPIDITY
http://blog.myspace.com/CAUGHTNOTTAUGHT
Ed,
Scripture doesn’t have one use of the word “faith.”
In the passage I cited faith is what you believe (theology), which is how the demons can have faith.
Ed and Tim,
I agree with you that there are instances where theology seems to transcend the inadequacy of the preacher.
So then we need to take it up with James that he calls belief without holiness “useless.”
I didn’t say it; he did.
Faith without works is useless for what? for salvation or for effective preaching? (Try getting by on just ‘faith’ with your wife).
A gram of practice is worth a pound of belief.
I agree with Ed’s take on this issue. I would put it this way:
Faith ≠ Theology
Faith = Believing (in theological truth that is expressed in the biblical text and embodied in the person of Christ)
(Of course, “believing” is a power-packed word in and of itself that could be expounded upon, but I will not do that here)
“Faith apart from works” ≠ Unapplied theology
“Faith apart from works” = Unbelief in theological truth (i.e., no faith at all)
Faith is not what you believe. It is that you believe. Now, of course, who or what you have faith in is of ultimate importance. That who or what is theology. It is not faith. Faith is the result of teaching theological truth (Romans 10:14-17).
And therefore, with regard to demons, while they can (and do) have correct theological knowledge about Christ, they cannot have faith, certainly not saving faith in Christ. This is a very important distinction and something to really pause and think about. Demons do not have faith. Period.
I just think you are making a mistake by equating “faith” with “theology” (or, conversely, “lack of faith” with “unapplied theology”). As noted above, faith is the result of teaching. And knowledge (of theology) is an essential element in all faith. But the two are distinguished in this respect – faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is theological truth. (Regarding the demons again, this is why John Piper has said that Satan’s problem (and the demons’) is not their theology, it’s their desires. They know the truth (understand), but they hate it (and will not assent to it).)
Bottom line – I don’t think that anyone would argue that faith in Christ without some evidence thereof in terms of our actions/works is useless and calls into question whether or not you really do have faith. So, should someone stand out the street corner and shout out their beliefs if his/her life is totally at odds with them?? No. But should we all stop speaking truth just because we are not perfect? No. this gets back to Josh’s point (“Maybe it depends what the threshold is for what qualifies for us “believ[ing] it with our lives.” Doing it 90% of the time? 51%? 10%? Or just trying as hard as we can?”).
I say:
(1) Argue heatedly to yourself (preach to yourself) the truth you claim to believe;
(2) Argue humbly with others the truth you claim to believe; and
(3) Agree that proving what we believe with our lives is only possible to the extent Christ enables us to do so to the praise of his glory, not to the praise of our accomplishment in seemingly matching the reality of our lives with our rhetoric.
Tim: Paul cared – about his life’s testimony (1 Cor 9:19-27), and the testimony of those he sent/taught (2 Tim 2:15,19). Phil 1 is the edge case which God still used, not a model we should chose.
I think James is affirming the reality (and danger) of dead orthodoxy: the danger of merely giving intellectual assent to truth without embracing it. As he goes on to point out: even demons have good theology.
I am really challenged by the title for this blog, “Applying theology: Don’t argue for something until you life shows you believe it.”
Yes, I recognize that we’ll always be hypocrites in that we will never live our beliefs perfectly and we shouldn’t wait to proclaim the truth until we’re perfect at living it. I just wonder what if…
What if instead of arguing for people to more Christ-like we were more Christ like?!? What if instead of arguing for “In God We Trust” to be left on our money we actually lived lives that showed we trust God? What if instead of arguing for the 10 commandments to be allowed in public places we actually lived the 10 commandments? What if instead of arguing for the ban of gay marriages we actually treated our marriages like the God sanctified covenants they are? And…so…on…
i think that if we don’t try to live in light of the truth, we don’t really think that it is truth.
if we are alcoholics who believe alcohol is something that hurts, yet don’t even try to stop, do we really believe it hurts?
i think that if we believe something is truth we try to live in light of it. if we don’t live in light of it, do we really deep down believe its truth?
I truly believe I can not fly…asking me to prove it might be a bit harsh!
Moving past flippancy…this statement might work well for an older seasoned preacher…but, does that mean the younger ones should not preach the word????
wouldn’t that be a disbelief?
I just want to make sure I understand you, Abraham:
You’re saying that until I have no lustful thoughts in my head, thanks be to God for my sanctification, I shouldn;t teach anyone that if a man even looks upon a woman in lust, he is guilty of adultery?
I think I must have misunderstood you, and I’d like to get straightened out. :-)
Okay, I’ll clarify.
No one in the history of Christianese has ever used “application” to mean “becoming perfect.”
We all know we can apply our theology long before we’re fully sanctified.
A little clearer now?
[...] Quote: Abraham Piper at 22 Words If unapplied theology is worthless, we shouldn’t claim to believe truth with arguments, until [...]
Thanks again for the reply, Abraham.
I’m still not altogether sure that it is usual to synonymise the word “faith” with the word “theology” as you have done.
Perhaps it’s how you use it in America? The understandings I have about that word are these:
1. a. The study of theistic (esp. Christian) religion. b. a system of theistic (esp. Christian) religion. c. the rational analysis of a religious faith.
2. a. system of theoretical principles, esp. an impractical or rigid ideology.
Maybe sticking to the Greek meaning “Words about God” (the transmission is Greek, Latin, Old French, and Middle English as theo-, -logy) is a little restrictive, but I’ve never come across a definition of theology as “what you believe”. Is that how the word is used across the pond? “What you believe” is doctrine or dogma, but theology tends to mean more than that.
I suspect that if you had written “Unapplied faith is worthless” then we would not have had a confusion. I’d certainly agree with James that faith without works is dead, anyway, and I suppose that that’s what matters! (So long as I do something about it…) ;)
One of the many ways in which your father has impacted my life is his teaching on the first cause of sin: “the taproot of all sin is unbelief”. If our lives fail to consistently demonstrate our theology, then it just proves we don’t really believe. Frank’s and others concern is still valid because we will never behave perfectly or consistently until faith becomes sight in glory.
Steve
As someone who has to walk this line regularly, I will say that I think the best way to manage the difficult tension between preaching and practice it to faithfully acknowledge your own shortcomings in attaing to the ideal that you nonetheless refuse to let go of. For instance, when I have given public exhortations to the ideal of love everyone in their sin for who they are in God’s image, I have usually accompanied this exhoration with several examples of how difficult it is for me and how often I fail. But then I usually follow it up with one or two examples of gracious success that I would give my whole life of failures for.
Preach the ideal, acknowledge your own frailty, but make sure your life can testify to at least the possibility of faithful action.
If Rich were listening I would say that we should preach emergently.
“I’m still not altogether sure that it is usual to synonymise the word “faith” with the word “theology” as you have done.”
It is one definition of the word that is used sometimes in historical and theological circles. Consider “defender of the faith” or “a defense of the faith.” In that context it means the content or object of belief — or ‘theology.’
[...] 20. Quote: Abraham Piper at 22 Words [...]
Hi!may i know the further explanation about this phrase “you cannot argue to success”? hope to hear from u, GODBLESS to all!