theology

In "Shoes of the Fisherman" a book and later movie set in the cold war and the Vatican, the author, Morris L. West (who for some reason dropped the "l" later) has his papal candidate's sometimes antagonist Cardinal Leone say, "Theologians! We are necessary but a lot less important than we think."

That quote has been with me this weekend as I think about Dr. Williams's deliberately dodging a frank question about his personal preferences regarding the ordination of lesbian and gay clergy and a series of conversations on another blog. In that conversation I suggested to a self-identified "Heritage Anglican" that Benedict 16 is a Christian and that I stop asking questions about who is in or out at the Nicene Creed. In response I read among other things this sentence, "B16's soteriology and sacramentology eviscerates his Christology."¹

If you are like most people you will need to look up "soteriology" to even begin thinking about this sentence. While I disagree with the sentence I do not think that is the problem.

Jesus preached a very simple creed: the kingdom of God is at hand, you should act as though it is here and be concerned for the poor, for justice and love your neighbor. He never enunciated any systematic theology. He did participate in the baptism John preached and institute what we now call Eucharist. (He did not call it anything and the disciples seem to have settled for, "breaking of the bread.") When asked how to be saved he did not say, "adopt the correct soteriology" nor did he say treat the scriptures (which largely did not exist) as "inerrant." He said, "sell all you have, give it to the poor and follow me."

I do not want to disagree with West's cardinal. Theologians and historians (even amateurs like myself) are necessary. But I also agree that we are less important than we sometimes think. In my view, anything we do in the way of historical thinking or theology (no they are not the same) is valuable to the extent it takes us closer to what Jesus had in mind. Big ideas are good, big words to describe relatively simple ideas are not. Taking the view that whether a person's views of various academic subjects defines their standing as Christians is simply wrong.

Take "soteriology." This is from Wikipedia, "Soteriology (Greek sōtērion "salvation" from sōtēr "savior, preserver" + logos "study" or "word"[1]) is the study of religious doctrines of salvation, which are a feature of various religions." while this is from Miriam-Webster "... theology dealing with salvation especially as effected by Jesus Christ." The real issue is not whether a Christian has the correct theory of salvation. I could be dead wrong. Presumably God does not what I think God should do but rather what God thinks should be done. God's acts or thoughts about salvation matter to me, but probably mine do not matter to God.

If by thinking about and writing about soteriology a theologian empowers a preacher to make a sermon that leads someone to the point of affirming the basic creed, it is worth while. But the affirmation, "I believe that Jesus is Lord" the Nicene formula, those things are what need to be the focus.

Which is why I find myself unable to be excited about various things Calvinists in the Anglican Communion consider so important they justify schism.

FWIW