Archived Blog Entry
4 Comments
Apr
29
Transforming Christian Theology II
I complete my brief review of highlights from Philip Clayton's book. And I propose my own ideas about theology's role in transformation.
Telling our Stories
Testimony is an essential part of the Christian transformation we need today, says Philip Clayton in his recent book, Transforming Christian Theology. Clayton spends a great deal of time talking about the central role theology must play if transformation can occur. “We have to learn to tell our story, as individuals and as communities,” he says, “together with Jesus’ story.”
Formulating theologies involves creating a powerful statement of what we believe, says Clayton. This statement can guide and motivate the transformative action God seeks in us and in the world.
Telling our own stories lifts our implicit beliefs about God into consciousness. Doing so helps us become explicit about the beliefs we affirm. This process also makes it possible for us to compare our beliefs with other ways of thinking about God. And this comparison, in turn, helps in our quest to affirm a more adequate theology.
A personal theological testimony doesn’t require us to formulate a sophisticated theological treatise. “At the end of the day, don’t you just have to work out the best answer you can give,” Clayton asks rhetorically, “whether the others like it or not, and tell people honestly what you think?”
When we tell our own stories, we also need not think our story reduces theology itself. Christian theology is much greater than we are! But we cannot own our beliefs until we find our story in the grand Christian story.
Leadership
Christian leadership plays a key role in the transformation God wants to accomplish. Leaders today have been given a rare opportunity to be catalysts for change.
Unfortunately, many Christians in leadership roles see a decline in church and denominational membership. Clayton observes many in the highest echelons of Christian leadership determined that their denominations not collapse on their watch. He urges leaders to be out in front of change, rather than trying to manage change after the fact.
Christian leaders should think of themselves as hosting others, rather than controlling them. Good hosts build and maintain networks. And good leaders create positive links with other networks. Perhaps we could call the ministry now needed from many Christian leaders, “networks theology.”
A Big Tent
At the heart of the postmodern spirit is the quest to find common ground with others, while simultaneously voicing the distinctive features of our own faith story.
Clayton is particularly interested in a big tent view of contemporary Christianity. This approach emphasizes the gospel of hope all Christians share. It deemphasizes without denying the historical differences that have divided Christians over the centuries.
Of course, some claim not to identify with a particular theological tradition. Many people claim to be spiritual but not religious. They distrust institutions and traditions. Yet these same people often end together in new communities of like-minded people. Part of a leader’s ministry today is to deal effectively and appreciatively with this phenomenon.
As important as institutions are, they are not what motivate people to seek transformation. Genuine transformation requires stoking the fires that fuel the passions of many who seek change. “The kingdom of God would be a lot better off,” says Clayton, “if people went hunting for the kinds of conversations and actions that brought the sparkle of excitement to their eyes.”
Where I Go From Here
After reading Clayton’s book and a few others, I’ve identified a contribution I might make to this conversation. I want to identify the kinds of theologies that typically foster transformation.
I don’t think every theology I hear expressed is of the same value. Some theological visions are better than others are. But a variety of theologies can foster creative transformation today. We don’t have to agree with one another on all issues of importance. A big tent of diverse theologies is possible. Only those who think they know all theological truth inerrantly should think otherwise.
Here is my first attempt at a list of theologies of transformation. Perhaps one could construct a “meta-theology” to account for this list. But for now, I focus upon some particulars theologies that seem important for emphasis:
- Theologies acknowledging brokenness and experiencing healing
- Theologies helping us deeply experience and affirm God’s relentless love for others and us
- Theologies that advocate triumph over addictions
- Theologies that foster creative/artistic expression
- Theologies urging passion for social justice, activism, and compassion for the poor
- Theologies of personal spiritual formation
I believe placing theology at the center of a movement seeking transformation keeps the focus where it belongs:on God. This focus must remain on God, not because it sounds pious to do so. It must remain on God, because all other motivations cannot sustain our passion and compassion.
I think robust theologies of transformation must speak about our decisions and action. But I’m convinced theologies focused primarily upon creatures undermine cravings for transformation. Only God can satisfy as our ultimate concern.
I’m also thinking that we should emphasize God as Holy Spirit when thinking about transformational theology today. An emphasis upon the Holy Spirit fosters freshness, vitality, and power for change. Transformation requires this.
Of course, I don’t mean to deemphasize the role of the other persons in the Trinity. We must also speak of the Father and Son. But there’s something invigorating about the way we typically think of the Holy Spirit that ignites cries and action for genuine transformation.
Finally, I can’t imagine genuine transformation in the Christian tradition without love at the fore. Above all, God is love. And the greatest commands center on love.
But part of what it means to keep love at the fore is that we must explain love takes a myriad of forms. Love is diversity friendly.
And the emphasis upon love must be much more than talk. Talk is important. But actions often speak louder than words. Transformation requires love in action!
Well, that's what I'm thinking at the moment. I’d like to hear about other theological emphases you think might help as avenues for seeking transformation today…
Posted in 2010 under ...and the Kitchen Sink
About this website
You’ve reached the online home of Thomas Jay Oord, a professor, author, and theologian from the Pacific Northwest. Read more
Blog categories
- Love and Altruism
- Open and Relational Theology
- Postmodern Philosophy, Theology, and Culture
- Theology and Science
- John Wesley, Holiness, and the Church of the Nazarene
- ...and the Kitchen Sink

Add comment
Comments
Patrick Oden
04.29.2010
11:14am
Very nice. And seems to hit on so much of what Wesley’s own theology was about.
I definitely agree about an emphasis of the Spirit. This is not a matter of de-emphasizing the other two persons, but rather going beyond the functional binarianism of so much theology. Emphasizing and better understanding the particular work of the Spirit empowers, shapes, and broadens theology.
With this, I think theology should have an empowering role for inspiring all those in the church to better understand the work of the Spirit in their life, to feel more confident in participating in theological conversations. I’m so often struck how deep so many Christians are, while at the same time feeling entirely inadequate in comparison to a “professional”.
Theology should empower and enlighten, not condemn, dismiss, or alienate.
John Grant
04.29.2010
11:40am
I like the idea of “networks theology.” It emphasizes the connectedness that theology needs if it is to be transforming. One thing I thought of as I read some of your thoughts on theologies that need emphasis is the communal nature of what Clayton seems to be getting at. From reading your two blogs, it seems that for theology to be transformational it is a community endeavor where multiple voices are brought to the table. It is in the conversation that transformation occurs not in the conclusions. Anyway, I’m not quite sure how to say all that, but that’s kind of what I’m thinking.
Jo Ann W. Goodson
04.30.2010
4:03pm
WOW !!!!! What a fantastic article. I must say that I agree with everything that you have said. Do not know of one thing that I could add to it that would make any difference. Have always known my call to be in working in peacemaking-reconciliation-transformation and have worked my entire life to help by working with God in these arenas. It has been interesting, diverse and challenging to say the least.
“I think robust theologies of transformation must speak about our decisions and action. But I’m convinced theologies focused primarily upon creatures undermine cravings for transformation. Only God can satisfy as our ultimate concern.”
“I’m also thinking that we should emphasize God as Holy Spirit when thinking about transformational theology today. An emphasis upon the Holy Spirit fosters freshness, vitality, and power for change. Transformation requires this.” These two statements for me are critical ones. Thanks for this posting.
Denny Clark
05.24.2010
11:03am
“Telling our own stories lifts our implicit beliefs about God into consciousness.”
I have serious misgivings about the notion of “implicit beliefs” which Clayton uses (69-70). Certainly all of us have values, attitudes, experiences and actions which have not previously been linguistically formulated and reflected upon – but that’s a far cry from viewing those things as expressions of “implicit beliefs” (as though the “beliefs” were somehow already formulated and already having “causal” significance, just needing to be brought “into consciousness”). Such an “idealist” formulation (that “ideas”/”beliefs” are the chief causal agents in life) does not take into sufficient account the multiple ways any particular value, attitude, experience or action can be formulated in “belief” form. The beliefs are not “already there” in some sort of “implicit” form; we need to take responsibility for the way we formulate them – and the way we re-formulate them in interaction with others.