Dirt Philosophy

One of the things that stands out to me in my recent reading is from chapter four.  In discussing the less traveled path of our tradition, the path that Richardson and a few others traveled, the authors list several roadblocks, including (1) Rejection of Spiritual Experience (2) Intellectualism, and (3) Suppression of the Affections.  These suggest that many have emphasized a religion of mind over a religion of the heart. 

I don't know about others, but this is particularly a challenging section to one like me who has been trained the theology and the tools of good scholarship.  The authors refer to what Soren Kierkegaard called the "theoretical attitude."  Having read Kierkegaard, I am familiar with some of his rants against the theologians and religious scholars of his day.  He accused them of using scholarship and academia to distance themselves from God.  God had become an academic subject to study, dissect, and lecture on, rather than the loving Father to obey, have a relationship with, and love.

I think about my own experience both in church and in the classroom of both undergraduate and graduate ministry programs.  You could get straight A's, graduate at the top of the class, and still not have a healthy relationship with the Lord whom you are supposed to be training to serve.  Perhaps this is why there have been the scandals we have seen among ministers regarding impropriety, theft, and other such things. (Fortunately, some of our schools are working to change this trend by making "spiritual formation" a central part of the program to develop the heart as well as the mind.  I believe ACU and Harding School of Theology both have implemented this focus in their schools).

It is not limited to just liberal arts schools, preaching school often have the same academic orientation in their studies.  This makes me think of a book I read recently entitled Saint, Demons and Asses: Southern Preacher Anecdotes.  I was struck by the rudeness of some of the preachers in past years (not just Church of Christ preachers, but many many people).  Many loved to call their opponents donkeys in clever ways in debates, and resorted to various other types of name-calling that were very crass.  Many who listened cheered them on and took pride in their guy getting one over on the opponent by having a better insult.  There are some who have the same mentality today.  They seem to be oblivious that they do not display the fruit of the Spirit in their lives.  Could this be a sign of the "dirt philosophy" that this study talks about? 

I don't disparage good scholarship.  I wrote an essay a few months ago on the value of good scholarship.  It is posted here.  (I don't know if that link will work)

However, God is not reducible to a set of theological propositions.  God is not an artifact to be studied.  In fact, this type of orientation can be quite dangerous.  One could say the first theological discussion on God occurred in the garden between the serpent and Eve.  God is the living God with whom we can have a relationship.  His word is living and active because God himself is living and active.  Jesus himself, the Word that became flesh, demonstrates this.  Why reduce God to a set of propositions anyway?  If the motivation is to understand God, recognizing he is the living God, that doesn't seem to be a bad thing.  But if it is simply to make him easier to handle, then it amounts to idolatry.  Besides, God didn't reveal himself through propositions to mankind.  He revealed himself through his actions.  Much of the Bible is in narrative form, narrating the story of God as he reaches out to us.  Do we reach back, or analyze it?