"We Need 'Apostolic' Theologians"

I finished reading Robert Banks's Redeeming the Routines: Bringing Theology to Life last night. (OK, everything except the appendix.) As I noted last week, the premise of the book is that theology and theological education are in need of being reconceptualized so as to address the daily pressures, responsibilities, and activities that form the patterns of our lives. This is necessary to foster holistic living contrary to the inclination to divvy up our lives into two realms: the spiritually significant that consists of overtly "religious" activity and everything else with which most of our waking hours are spent but about which there is little theological reflection. Some of the things that fall into this category are sleep, work, leisure, popular attitudes and values, communicating and relating, and social rituals and activities.

I think that for many believers God only seems real when they are engaged in explicitly Christian pursuits (e.g., Bible study, devotions, worship, evangelism, etc.). The project Banks contends for is remedial. He is right to stress the necessity of vocation-specific discipleship. Each of us is called to follow Jesus in the midst of specific regularities of life and we need to help each other think about and live out what faithfulness looks like in those contexts.


For years I've had one foot in the world of academic theology and the other in pastoral ministry. Each has elements that delight and frustrate me. I've sat in lectures wondering what relevance the subject matter at hand had for people in my church and how I would begin to convey its importance and application to them. Banks, a theologian himself, says that he has found the work of systematic theologians to be as much frustrating as helpful because: "Once it ranges beyond central doctrinal concerns which, though they could be, are not frequently linked to everyday issues, it tends to focus on philosophical or broader social or cultural issues." Banks properly notes that such theorizing is often necessary and helpful for addressing everyday but laments that such connections are infrequently made.

If theological education and literature can err on the side of being too abstract and conceptual, pastoral and church ministry can make the opposite error of focusing so much on immediate practicality that critical reflection is considered a waste of time that stands in the way of the urgent work of the kingdom.

I would very much like to invest my life in being a small bridge between these two subcultures in the community of faith so I was encouraged and challenged by Banks's call for what he calls "apostolic" theologians:

We need "apostolic" theologians who will leave their desk and lectern for a more down-to-earth kind of life. While there are few theologians who do not practice what they preach in some measure, there are very few who are engaged in similar work, say, to someone like Paul. That is, in apologetic and evangelistic work, in church-planting and pastoring, in pioneering new models of education and training. The apostolic theologian, of which Paul was the first great exponent, places mission first and largely allows theological reflection to be generated by that. Learning goes on as people associate with him or her in that activity-observing, questioning, and imitating. There is no reason why many Christians cannot be involved with such a person and why many of their concerns cannot be dealt with in this setting. The trouble is that taking up the "apostolic" theological life entails a large drop in status and high degree of risk.

Reuniting Theology and Life

I recently started reading Redeeming the Routines: Bringing Theology to Life by Robert Banks. In it, he addresses the need to help Christians close the gap that frequently exists between their professed beliefs and their every day activities (e.g., homemaking, study, employment, leisure, etc.). We often hear about how the Christian faith is relevant to all dimensions of life but aside from admonitions to be morally upright in whatever we're doing, little of the church's disciple-making efforts is devoted to aiding believers to think Christianly about their specific stations in life. Banks illustrates this deficit with the following illustration:

Now if you ask a representative sample of Christians whether faith and life ought to be in harmony, they will answer a resounding "yes." The rub comes when you put the question in a specific way, in relation to a particular aspect of work or area of responsibility. For example, if you are a homemaker and I ask you whether your religious convictions should influence the way you bring up your family and relate to your neighbors, you will probably nod your head in agreement.

But then if I ask you whether those convictions have as clear and direct an influence on the kind of house you have, area you live in, and the means of commuting you use, you will probably pause to think. Unfortunately, we are unaware how much our decisions in these areas are molded by broader social attitudes and have little distinctively Christian about them.

I think Banks's observation is accurate. It is far easier for us to deal with general principles than it is to invest the time and mental energy required to ponder which biblical truths are pertinent to specific situations and how. I just finished a chapter called "The Credibility Gap" in which Banks offers ten theses, half of which explore the gap many Christians recognize between their faith and their routines. The other five deal with the gap between how theology is customarily written/taught and everyday life. It is this half that I found most interesting, especially what he has to say related to the following thesis: "Our everyday concerns receive little attention in the church."

After stating that many Christians regard sermons and church activities as "otherworldly" (in the negative sense) and unrelated to their mundane patterns of life, Banks says this:

Most Bible studies are of little help here. They tend to concentrate on the exposition of biblical books or on the discussion of theological themes. Obviously these are basic concerns, but why is so little attention paid to the proverbial passages in the Bible or to the lives of some of the ordinary figures who feature in it? Doctrinal topics or broader social and political questions, perfectly valid in themselves, tend to squeeze out more everyday concerns in study groups. Even work-based Bible studies and study groups rarely address the specific questions, dilemmas, pressures, and aspirations that arise in the employment situation. In fact, the concentration upon pure Bible study in some of these groups is often an escape from grappling with the real issues of life.

That last sentence really caught my attention. We can use even the Word of Truth to shield ourselves from facing reality. We can treat theology like a sanctified narcotic by which we seek to flee life's pain and discomfort - not only our own but that of others. Remaining at the level of abstraction can keep me at a safe distance from the particulars of another's misery.

In case anyone's wondering, here are all ten theses Banks presents in this chapter:

1. Few of us apply or know how to apply our belief to our work, or lack of work.
2. We make only minimal connections between our faith and our spare time activities
3. We have little sense of a Christian approach to regular activities.
4. Our everyday attitudes are partly shaped by the dominant values of our society.
5. Many of our spiritual difficulties stem from the daily pressures we experience.
6. Our everyday concerns receive little attention in the church.
7. Only occasionally do professional theologians address routine activities.
8. When addressed, everyday issues tend to be approached too theoretically.
9. Only a minority of Christians read religious books or attend theological courses.
10. Most churchgoers reject the idea of a gap between their beliefs and their ways of life.

Related Tags: Robert Banks, theology, doctrine, Christian living, church, discipleship, vocation

Out of the Fishbowl, Into the Ocean

"For a variety of reasons - perhaps a bits-and-pieces mentality, or an inability to make the theological connection between the Old and New Testaments, or a pernicious dualism that divides life into the airtight compartments of the sacred and secular - contemporary biblical understanding among average, everyday Christians is subject to extreme forms of reductionism. A comprehension of the overall biblical story and its constituent components is lost upon the minds of far too many evangelical believers. There is precious little understanding of the broader horizons of the Scriptures. For example, creation is merely a doctrine to be defended against evolution, sin only affects people, and redemption has exclusive application to the human soul. When it comes to the faith, many well-intended saints understand it in limited terms as a church view, or a Bible view, or a doctrine view, or a ministry view, or a spirituality view, or a religious view, or a God view, but not as a comprehensive, all-embracing, wholistic world and live view.

"But the notion of a worldview has a mysterious way of opening up the parameters of the Bible so that believers might be delivered from a fishbowl-sized Christianity into an oceanic perspective on the faith."   - David Naugle, Worldview: The History of a Concept (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 341-342.

What God Has Joined: More on Head and Heart

Well, I told you it wouldn't be easy letting go of the "18 inches between head and heart" thing. Two of my friends have weighed in on the matter in comments but I think the subject is so important I wanted to bring it to the surface here.

Byron said:

Allow me to protest a tad, Keith; I think that it all depends upon what you mean when you speak of a head/heart dichotomy. I use this analogy---hey, maybe I need to give it up---but I think that the way I intend it to be understood isn't necessarily at variance with your point. When I speak of "head", I'm speaking of mere intellectual assent, as opposed to "heart", signifying not so much an opposition to head as a trust in , a commitment to, an obedience in, those things which the "head" rightly understands. In my understanding, then, I wouldn't speak of a head/heart dichotomy, as though the two were opposed in some either/or scenario, so much as I'd think of "heart belief" involving a commitment to, a fulfillment of, those things to which the "head" mentally assents. 'Zat make sense?

Yes, that does make sense. What Byron wants to make clear is that knowledge, assent, and trust are essential to biblical faith. With that I'm in full agreement. I think, however, that there are more biblical ways of communicating that concern than by making a head/heart distinction. For example, James warns us against deceiving ourselves by only hearing the word and not doing it (James 1:22). 


The critical issue is, as Byron noted, one of obedience to that which I assent to and obedience originates in the heart. Paul, for example, is grateful to God that the Roman Christians became "obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which [they] were committed" (Romans 6:17). Throughout the Bible, belief and obedience are intertwined and, at times, used interchangeably. In John's gospel, believing in the Son is contrasted with disobeying Him (3:36). According to Psalm 78, the Israelites in the wilderness "did not believe in God and did not trust his saving power" (v. 22). Again, belief, trust, and obedience are in mind. What was the cause of their unbelief, lack of trust, and disobedience? The answer is given in verse 8. They were "a generation whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful to God." (I take this to be an instance of poetic parallelism demonstrating that heart and spirit are different ways of referring to the same thing.)

I'm a firm believer that we should allow the Scriptures to guide us in our use of biblical terms and concepts. It's much too easy to fall into using biblical vocabulary in unbiblical ways thereby changing its meaning.  A few days ago I picked up Marva Dawn's new book, Talking the Walk, in which she examines a number of key words in biblical faith whose meanings have become distorted or ignored. Dawn, who was an English literature major and teacher, writes in the introduction: "...I am solemnly concerned about the corruption of words in contemporary Christian faith. When we speak bad theology, we live badly theologically. When our theologians and pastors and communities reject or abuse significant words in the heritage of faith, our Christianity is reduced or decimated." Though "heart" is not one of the words she investigates, I think it has been corrupted by being torn from its canonical context.

As Jerry (read with open eyes) pointed out in his comment, the Bible does not ascribe intellectual activity to one part of a person while assigning trust to the heart. I understand that Byron doesn't intend to convey a dichotomy between the heart and head when he speaks of the 18 inches between them, but I think that such language, no matter how well-intended, distances people from a biblical perspective on the unity of the person. 


Another problem is that in our setting people are prone to associate "heart" primarily (if not exclusively) with the emotions. Distinguishing between "head knowledge" and "heart knowledge," and implying that the latter is superior to the former, can also serve to perpetuate and strengthen the misconception that reason, education, and intellectual rigor are inimical to Christian spirituality.

Head and Heart

Les Newsom at Common Grounds Online wonders if he's the only one who hated hearing at every youth retreat he attended that the 18 inches between his head and heart were what was keeping him from being a committed Christian. I didn't become a believer until I was 19 so I missed out on the youth retreats. But I hear that kind of thinking from adults (who may have been at the same retreats as Les) and I hate it now (see yesterday's post).

While I don't share Les's conviction that substance dualism (recognizing a distinction between soul and body) is ultimately to blame for the pitting of head and heart against each other, I'm in wholehearted agreement with his contention that the head/heart dichotomy has no biblical warrant. Les writes:

...any good exegete of Scripture will tell you that the Bible’s understanding of the “inner zones” of humanity centers on the conception of the “heart.” In Scripture, the “heart” houses not just the feelings, but all of life. My thinking, my feelings, my believing, my committing, my loving: it all proceeds from the heart. Proverbs 4:23 comes to mind, “Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.”

The head/heart dichotomy is so popular among Christians that it's unlikely that we'll let go of it easily. But Les points out the advantages of doing so:

Leaving the head/heart dichotomy as an apparatus to think about my inner life reorganizes the priorities of Christian self-discipline, helps keeps first things first, and gets me off the hopeless treadmill of trying to figure out if I feel like a Christian today.

Related Tags: Biblical anthropology, Christianity, Anti-intellectualism, Theology, Dualism

Wholly, wholly, wholly

God designed us to be integrated, whole beings, with emotion, mind, imagination, will, and body working together in complete harmony. Otherwise, why would he command us to love him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Deut. 6:5; Mark 12:30)? Inner unity, not fragmentation, is our heritage. Wholeness is our birthright, not an internal chaos where one capacity competes with the others for domination (Steve Shores, Minding Your Emotions, Colorado Springs, CO: Nav Press, 2002, p.79).


We were made like God and intended to worship, love and enjoy him. God did not make us to relate to him with one small part of our lives-the spiritual part. He made us to relate to him and express his likeness in all of life-body, mind, emotions, will....Spirituality involves the whole of human life; nothing is nonspiritual. But wherever Platonism has affected Christian teaching there has been a separation of the sacred and the secular. Thus, prayer, worship, evangelism and "the ministry" are thought to be sacred. All other activities are secular. The sacred is said to be more spiritual (Ranald Macaulay and Jerram Barrs, Being Human: The Nature of Spiritual Experience, Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1978, pp.36, 55).


Teach me your way, O LORD, that I may walk in your truth; unite my heart to fear your name (Psalm 86:11, ESV).