I was reading this very short article with this title
"All true theology should lead to doxology."
Quote
We study God's word -- that is, we have theology -- so that we can learn more about him; that knowledge should then lead to praise of God -- that is, doxology. The more we know about God, the more we are compelled to worship and praise him, awestruck at his greatness
Unquote
What do you think?
Hmmm, I suppose I would have trouble agreeing, and, now that I think of it, I would probably have trouble agreeing even if I considered myself a member of a devout religion. I guess when I think of the 'praise of God' (known as doxology), I think of preaching verses and singing hymns, yet, even if I had a pleasant-sounding voice, I would still feel no requirement to preach or sing.
The understanding, following, and adherence of teachings, one's faith, etc. seem the most important, in my opinion, and expression proceeds with desire. For example, only because I made some toast this morning, ate it, and enjoyed it does not contingently require me to announce to everyone that 'toast tastes wonderful,' especially if no one asked me.
I don't think it should, not necessarily, at least. For starters, theology as a subject may vary greatly depending the geographical location, local culture, and the particular view that dominates the way it is teached (i.e. focused on the implications of having a god(s), on why such thing is chosen, etc. vs. learning the holy books of a particular religion and limiting to them the area of study). Anyway, knowledge can be considered a purpose in itself, it doesn't necessarily involves applying it to practical matters in order to validate it. More to the point, I believe religion to be, when approached seriously, a personal matter. Of course, there are general guidelines that have to be followed, but that shouldn't mean that everyone should conduct their relationship to god in the same manner. The rites work for some, it may not be the same way for others, the examples are endless.
Also, the statement implies that without proper instruction (theology), the worship (doxology) is flawed, or incomplete. At first, it sounds kinda logical, because how can you worship a God you don't know nothing about, but at a second glance, it means that only the most devout students of theology can get close to really *know* god, which I think is inaccurate. God isn't something you get only out of a book, it's meaningless unless it has some bearing in your personal life, and it's usually in there where the connection takes root. Furthermore, it could be argued that something as subjective as a belief system, which deals heavily in feelings, emotions, and the like is lost somewhat when applied to severe academic study. The matter ceases to be of personal matter and becomes another subject of study, much like any other one.
In short, no, I don't think theology necessarily leads to doxology.
Ningún hombre llega a ser lo que es por lo que escribe, sino por lo que lee.
- Jorge Luis Borges
I could not have said it better, crisaor. Nice seeing you around, by the way - you ought to post most often.
True theology should lead to doxology. Theology that does not lead to doxology is not true theology. Doxology that is not built on true theology is not really a doxology.
OK - it has to be said - "Doxology leads to theology"
The more we find to praise and wonder at in the universe, the less we feel able to attribute it to mere accident, and the more we want to find out about the creator.
Voices mysterious far and near,
Sound of the wind and sound of the sea,
Are calling and whispering in my ear,
Whifflingpin! Why stayest thou here?
Thanks mono, it's nice to see you too. And it's the people such as Sub and you who motivate me to post.Originally Posted by mono
I could not have said it better, crisaor. Nice seeing you around, by the way - you ought to post most often.
Ningún hombre llega a ser lo que es por lo que escribe, sino por lo que lee.
- Jorge Luis Borges
True theology lead us to ourselves.
In the warmth of wisdom we bathe.
Right away I’ve already hit an impasse; what exactly is “true” theology? Is it the literal definition; if so, which one? The term “true theology” seems subjective.
Well, if Theology is merely the studying of the Christian Bible with the intention of learning more about God, then this changes things a bit. I suppose that the key word in the above selection is “should”. It “should” lead to doxology, though sometimes it does, and sometimes it does not. It sounds vague to me.
I don’t think that it has to do with requirements, mono. The verbiage is a little tricky, “should lead”. In that case it would be the natural outpouring of emotion and feeling associated with having some knowledge of and association with the Creator of all things.
Right. “Expression proceeds with desire”. Though, how do we consider which is “most important”? I think that it is an all inclusive subject . . . . perhaps that is what the author was trying to say.
Surely you aren't comparing theology to toast, mono. I don't think that we can illuminate this principle using such an analogy.
I agree. Otherwise, there would not be such a thing as atheistic theologians, would there? Atheists are, as often as not, proficient theologians (almost by definition, as are theists).
I’m not sure I agree with that, though I recognize and concur with most of your subsequent points, especially this one:
This again depends on the terminology. Perhaps it would be favourable to define “true theology”.
Are the two something of a determined set? They are possible apart from each other, yes?
“Theology”
almost requires books and academic procedures. An indigenous tribesman may be engaging in doxology alone on a riverbank somewhere, without any theological inquiries likely or possible (apart from the ones he configures himself).• The study of the nature of God and religious belief (OED)
An atheist would disagree with you. Atheists wonder at the Universe as much as anybody, and are perfectly fine with attributing it to anything other than a Creator.
“As Kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame . . .”
Why disqualify the rush? I'm tabled. I'm tabled.
" The more we find to praise and wonder at in the universe, the less we feel able to attribute it to mere accident, and the more we want to find out about the creator. "
" An atheist would disagree with you. Atheists wonder at the Universe as much as anybody, and are perfectly fine with attributing it to anything other than a Creator."
Of course, but the discussion was not, I think, about atheists.
My point was that starting from what we know leads to speculation about what we can't know.
We recognise that the universe exists before we can say "God created the universe."
We have to find the universe wonderful before we can say "She is therefore worthy of praise." (If, on the other hand we found the universe a hideous thing then we would consider its creator to be vile.)
It would be demeaning to God if we thought that she was merely the sum of such of her works that we can comprehend, and there comes a point where we have to speculate beyond what we can know. But we cannot start with speculation in the void and then try to fit our experience into a theory; we can only use what we experience as a basis for further speculation.
Hence, if we consider the universe to be a wonderful and praiseworthy thing, then we will try to discern the nature and purposes of its creator.
Voices mysterious far and near,
Sound of the wind and sound of the sea,
Are calling and whispering in my ear,
Whifflingpin! Why stayest thou here?
I apologize, ShoutGrace, I did not intend to write such a crude analogy as 'toast' in comparison to theology and doxology. Several people tend to dislike my odd analogies - perhaps I hint that I ought to merely 'get to the point,' so to speak.
Indeed, I entirely agree, in fact. A follower ought not to feel obligated to express his/her faith, especially if the desire appears absent, which it may depend greatly on the individual and his/her faith. Of course, the desire may come from some kind of understanding of a followed religion, religious text, and, in fact, discovering faith. If a follower feels the need to express a belief, by all means, I encourage it, and praise that an individual feels so passionate; with an absence of expression, however, forcing it seems very unnecessary and develops into feeling compelled in beliefs and forced expression. As you mentioned, however, this may appear dependent on a follower's understanding, yet also ethics.I don’t think that it has to do with requirements, mono. The verbiage is a little tricky, “should lead”. In that case it would be the natural outpouring of emotion and feeling associated with having some knowledge of and association with the Creator of all things.
As you stated in the above post I quoted, I thought you prioritized things very well and logically: belief before expression. Without the understanding of a belief system, it seems useless, redundant, and unnecessary to express faith, unless, however, it appears as the evolution of thought. The expression of developing faith, evolving thought, etc. seems necessary to meditate on, sometimes express (by speech, writing, or by other means), but doxology to its full definition, in my opinion, ought to proceed after some kind of understanding and comprehension of a belief system.Right. “Expression proceeds with desire”. Though, how do we consider which is “most important”? I think that it is an all inclusive subject . . . . perhaps that is what the author was trying to say.
Thanks for the thoughtful questions, nonetheless. I always love the exploring of others' thoughts and opinions.
And there are those of us who appreciate them
(and that also started writing on this subject before realizing that their argumentation was logically flawed)
"Everything between people is entangled, and nobody can be called neither entirely innocent nor entirely guilty." (Sabo's transl.)
Mesa Selimovic, The Fortress
i agree with that statement as I would with any other cause-effect idea. The more you study something, the more engraved it becomes in your psyche. If you study science, you become jsut as awestruck with science, and grow to, essentially, worship it. Or history, etc. Theology does lead to doxology. Any theologian is also, even if subconsciously, a doxologian.
I only wanted to live in accord with the promptings that came from my true self. Why was that so very difficult?
It depends, if the theology true and convincing ,it will lead to doxology and vice versa. So , yes a true theology should lead to doxology.
Yayyy...the cutey tiggy is back
Where have you been ol' friend?
I need to read everything reply before I can continue with a reply related to the thread topic...(darn work)
Last edited by subterranean; 08-07-2006 at 08:38 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote