I like the concept of a “false separation” as opposed to a “false distinction”. False separation indicates that true theology and true practice co-exist, and that without one, the other is not complete… much like two sides of a coin.

-Alan

I agree wholeheartedly. After a good night’s sleep and some morning pondering, I have changed my thinking here: the distinction is not a false one. Rather a false separation is at issue. The theoretical side of theology, as you have correctly noted, is critical to the mental transformation needed for a live that continues to more adequately reflect Jesus. Both theory and practice are inadequate when standing alone.

Jeff, you said: “In other words, if you don’t live it, you never really believed it. So I think we differentiate between theoretical and practical because that’s how lots of folks think; but at some point they need to be connected.”

Not only is that how most folks think, but I think the distinction is needed to shine corrective light on inadequacies in either. We must guard against the separation that is all too easy to do, whether tending toward theory or practice. However, reflective practice requires that we look carefully at both.

and: “It seems we just added a couple of -ologies to the arsenal.”

Alan, I join Jeff in thanking you for adding to the dialogue.

I agree. The church has become a source for education, but not an example of transformation in too many instances.

Aussie John,

Yes, that’s real worship. Its exactly what Paul was writing about in Romans 12:1-2, as James mentioned in the comment following yours.

James,

There are certainly valid academic reasons to study various theoretical aspects of theology, ecclesiology, etc. But I don’t think we should confuse those with discipleship. Education is not the same thing as discipleship. You paraphrased Paul as saying, “The renewing of your mind is essential to the life of God’s service.” I agree. But notice that the “renewed mind” leads to a life of service. The renewed mind never ends with the mind alone. Thus, I still maintain that for a follower of Jesus, the distinction between knowing God and living a life that demonstrates that knowledge is a false distinction – you can’t have one without the other. (And, yes, it would be wrong to say that you can live a life that honors God without knowing God as well.)

Jeff,

Thanks for kicking off this discussion, and thanks for pointing us to your original article. You said, “In other words, if you don’t live it, you never really believed it.” Yes, I agree that is the Scripture view of discipleship and following Jesus.

-Alan

Several points I want to make here, some of which are fairly trivial and just for the point of clarity, and some which I think are important to the discussion…first, the unimportant…

1. It needs to be said as a disclaimer that I wrote the “Practicology” article as a bi-weekly contributor to Communitas Collective, and excerpted on my on blog, href=”http:jmcq.blogspot.com”>Losing My Religion (there on your sidebar–yes, it’s me. Hi, Alan!). Your wording suggested to me that I am affiliated with “The Practicing Church” website, when in fact I am not, and can’t speak for them at all. This article was reposted there with permission.
2. I actually coined both terms, “practicology” and “practicclesiology”, both as a result of my tongue being in my cheek. Laura credits me for both in her article…and btw, I claim 25 cents royalty per use. So that’ll be $1.25. And James owes me a quarter. (See? Tongue in my cheek again. Gotta do something about that…)

Now for the more important…

3. I’m actually a bit concerned that people are starting to take these terms a little too seriously. “Practicology” was never intended to be a literal term, nor was “practicclesiology”. Both are parodies to make a point…not for scholars and theologians to analyze and prove whether they are or are not legitimate terms. Taking it that far risks missing the point entirely–or even worse, *proving* my point. They aren’t real words; have a sense of humor, people!

4. As to the content of the discussion itself…I think Alan is correct in his assessment overall, and Laura agreed. The difference between theory and practice is primarily a result of our way of thinking (patterned after Greek dualism). It’s very easy for people to learn a lot *about* God and the Bible, and discuss it fluently, as long as nothing is actually required of them. What Alan has put forth–that theory and practice are intertwined–follows *belief* more than actual knowledge. The Biblical (and Hebraic) view is that belief translates to action. In other words, if you don’t live it, you never really believed it. So I think we differentiate between theoretical and practical because that’s how lots of folks think; but at some point they need to be connected. So I think this is a very good point.

Finally, back to the not-so-important…

5. I find it amusing and ironic that I began the article poking a bit of fun at all the -ologies, -isms, and -eutics thrown around by scholars…and gauging from the discussions, it has caused these words to be thrown around all the more. It seems we just added a couple of -ologies to the arsenal.

You said,”Our theology is demonstrated in the way we live our lives, not in what we say or write.”

I would add,”That’s real worship! A life which not only gives lip service to God’s majesty, glory and worth, but which reveals in practical outworking that is true. Being SEEN to be what we SAY we are.”

Agreed! In writing about practicclesiology, I, like the apostle Paul, speak as a fool, for knowledge of God, to be true knowledge, is always lived out.

Behind my description of this false distinction is the observation that too many churches live a false ecclesiology. It is my hope that a bit of dissection–forcing a distinction between theory and practice–may shine the light of truth on a false practice that flows from a false theology.

Like you, I rarely speak of ecclesiology (or any other -ology) in my daily life with fellow believers, for ecclesiology, like all the other -ologies of theology, is best lived.