The shaping of things to come

I’ve finally got around to reading “The Shaping of Things to Come” – only just in time, because FocuSuisse is involved in organising the Forum Gemeindeinnovation, where Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, the book’s authors, are the headline speakers. Several people had recommended the book, so I was curious to find out what they had to say. It deals with the changes in society, and changes which the authors see as necessary if the church is to fulfill its commission.
The book starts off with a brief analysis of church history, examining how the current situation – “Christendom” – arose. The authors then ask what the church is supposed to be and do, in contrast to what it is and does. They constantly ask questions to make their readers think, and suggest new approaches, both methodical and conceptual. One major and very interesting part is an analysis of Greek and Hebrew spirituality.
It is our contention that by focusing on development of the speculative doctrines, the early church lost the vital focus on the historical and practical implications of the faith. Mission and discipleship as such became marginal to theological correctness. Orthopraxy gave way to orthodoxy… Many great theologians have “thought” rightly about Christian teaching, but their lives have not necessarily mirrored their beliefs… Seminarians’ minds are filled with propositional truth for up to four years and then they are sent to ministry in local churches. And while many have found that the shift from Christian living to Christian belief is a natural one, the opposite shift from belief to action isn’t quite so natural. (pp. 120-121, my emphasis)
I think we can all relate to the advantages of learning by doing. I generally find it easier to learn theory (or, in this case, theology) by doing something and discovering the relevant questions instead of first learning a load of theory, and then having to find some way to put it into practice.
One of the observations which particularly made me question my thinking was this:
The other main form of theological dualism was fought over the issue of whether Jesus was really a man or if he only seemed to be one… These doctrines seem strange to us, but they are still very much part of Christendom in various forms. Marcionite and Docetist assumptions abound in more subtle forms and in many ways. So many Christians struggle with the humanity of Jesus. For them Jesus was above humanity; he simply could not have had to go to the toilet and undergo the same humbling task of daily defecation. He couldn’t have any sexual stirrings at all, and therefore had never experienced sexual desires.
Although I’m certainly no Docetist, I still found these thoughts somewhat foreign. Does that reveal a difference between my intellectual and practical theology? It certainly made me pause for thought, and is something I need to beware of – perhaps something of which we all need to beware?
They mention that in Greek thinking, ‘truth’ is a concept, whereas in Hebraic thinking, it is an action. That links to Jesus’ words in John 14: I am the way and the truth and the life. That equates truth with a person, not action, but how do we assess people, if not on the evidence of their actions?
Is truth visible in our actions?

More on The shaping of things to come later.