If we Google the term theology, we find that term defined as "the study of the nature of God and religious belief" or "religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed." Of course, when we speak of the study of God and religious beliefs, we would all hope for objectivity and the unbiased pursuit of transcendental truth (how realistic those expectations might be is another matter). However, when we speak of theology in terms of a system of beliefs, we would all do well to be very careful in our use of the terms true and false.
For Herbert Armstrong and his followers, theology was/is an exercise in mathematical precision. Everything is based on proofs, direct or indirect. For these folks, everything (or at least the fundamentals) is clear. There is truth, and there is falsehood or error.
Hence, it is no surprise to find a minister among the Armstrong Churches of God speaking of "True Theology" see http://cgi.org/audio-archives/2014/3/17/wayne-hendrix-true-theology?rq=true%20theology To these folks, the Sabbath is a feature of TRUE theology, while Sunday is a feature of FALSE theology. Likewise, the Feast of Tabernacles stands in stark contrast to the observance of Christmas. Binitarianism is TRUE theology, while trinitarianism represents error.
Then, along comes Pope Francis, who proclaims: "This is the novelty that grace ignites in the heart of those who open themselves to the mystery of Jesus: the non-mathematical certainty, but even stronger, interior, of having met the Source of Life, the life itself made flesh, visible and tangible in the midst of us." see https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/belief-in-christ-cannot-be-reduced-to-a-formula-pope-francis-says-95860 Of course, there are a great many Catholics who would agree with the ACOG view of theology (the truth vs. error aspect, not the particulars).
Who is correct? For Christians, should our pursuit be one of mathematical certainty or one of reinforcing our conviction that Jesus is the Way to Life? And, Is the pursuit of absolutes even reconcilable with a Faith-based approach? Hasn't the pursuit of mathematical precision only led to confusion, embarrassment and disillusion? And, doesn't certainty short circuit our study of God and religious beliefs? What do you think?
For Herbert Armstrong and his followers, theology was/is an exercise in mathematical precision. Everything is based on proofs, direct or indirect. For these folks, everything (or at least the fundamentals) is clear. There is truth, and there is falsehood or error.
Hence, it is no surprise to find a minister among the Armstrong Churches of God speaking of "True Theology" see http://cgi.org/audio-archives/2014/3/17/wayne-hendrix-true-theology?rq=true%20theology To these folks, the Sabbath is a feature of TRUE theology, while Sunday is a feature of FALSE theology. Likewise, the Feast of Tabernacles stands in stark contrast to the observance of Christmas. Binitarianism is TRUE theology, while trinitarianism represents error.
Then, along comes Pope Francis, who proclaims: "This is the novelty that grace ignites in the heart of those who open themselves to the mystery of Jesus: the non-mathematical certainty, but even stronger, interior, of having met the Source of Life, the life itself made flesh, visible and tangible in the midst of us." see https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/belief-in-christ-cannot-be-reduced-to-a-formula-pope-francis-says-95860 Of course, there are a great many Catholics who would agree with the ACOG view of theology (the truth vs. error aspect, not the particulars).
Who is correct? For Christians, should our pursuit be one of mathematical certainty or one of reinforcing our conviction that Jesus is the Way to Life? And, Is the pursuit of absolutes even reconcilable with a Faith-based approach? Hasn't the pursuit of mathematical precision only led to confusion, embarrassment and disillusion? And, doesn't certainty short circuit our study of God and religious beliefs? What do you think?
Miller. They all go together. The questions you pose are like asking what personality type a person "should" be. The fact is people can be categorized in a set of dominating types, "regardless". God says I AM when he identifies himself. NOT I am personality type INTJ and am going to wipe out all others. NO. IAM.
ReplyDeleteMy point.
Armstrongism can be categorized among the "action oriented".
ONLY after the demise of Armstrongism defectors or scholars have tried to label the movement from the perspective of theology, while at the time non was too interested in the scholarly "theological" merit of its tenets.
Both JUDAISM and especially ISLAM are religions of ACTION.....OR "A WAY of life" based on "revelation" as Armstrongism labeled its tenets.
The intelectual and theological systematic approach did not so much apply and was merited by DOES IT WORK OR DOES IT NOT WORK And if it worked it was of God. There are literally hundreds of examples when HWA tries something like establish Ambassador College in Northern Italy, but then withdraws since GOD HAD OTHER PLANS, like establishing a college in California.
We see this hundreds of times. News stand programs, "open doors" trial and error. Succes means it is of God, failure means it was "human interpretation." HOWEVER THE DEFINING CHARACTERisTIC is not to "theologize' about it but to ACT.
A study of Islam "or practiced" religion would make that concept even clearer for you or others. Since Armstrongism comes from the same roots.
In the end although fundamentalists SPEAK in terms of light and dark, good and evil what they actually believe is not in terms of good and evil but COURAGE AND COWARDICE.
And someone who is "courageous" is someone who ACTS upon what Gods requires of him and a coward is someone who "theologizes" without handing the "zakkath" or third tithe to the needy.
nck
nck,
ReplyDeleteI've written extensively on the subject of success being used as a measure of God's presence/pleasure/approval. And, while I'm confident that HWA (and most of his followers) would not have viewed what they were doing as a theological system, it certainly has all the hallmarks of such. I would say that the Pope's approach is action oriented, and that Armstrong's approach was closer to play acting.
Miller
ReplyDeleteIt is the old protestant versus catholic viewpoint I see.
It is not very interesting to point at the current pope. He is highly controversial and "the princes of the church" are silent for the moment. The pope is often incorrect on "catholic dogma" from a "structural catholic theological" perspective.
Although I agree, through his actions the pope shows that is aware of the fallibility of mans strife.
nck
btw
ReplyDeleteThere is reason why HWA NEVER approved of the STP. His leadership role was not to be systemized. Again I agree, to the detriment of the organization he built.
nck