Core assumptions are closely held beliefs that we do not question that we use to develop all other beliefs. Theology happens to be a set of beliefs we have about God. So which should go B4 the other?
Maybe an example might help. Let's look at some core assumptions relative to a familiar passage from Scripture often used as seminal for people's theology (seminal means foundational or formative).
Look at Matt 25: 42-46
"For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Lets see how one's theology flows differently based on three different core assumptions. That is, in what way does theology depend on core assumptions? BTW, the several stories Jesus tells in Matt 25 are within the context of describing what the Kingdom of Heaven is like, not what we must do to get there. Its more of a quality control manual than a prescription for salvation.
There are at least 2 different theologies on the Christian life one can gain from this scripture (both are prevalent).
1. The Christian life is one of responsibility to show acts of mercy to the less fortunate in this world to reduce or eliminate physical needs of poverty and hunger.
2. The Christian life is to thankfully show mercy to the less fortunate in this world to point to the unmerited spiritual provisions and privileges God shows us in His Kingdom.
There are several dichotomous core assumptions that go with one or the other of these theologies on the Christian life. Each Christian has a core assumption about reality, satisfaction and justification.
First, you can view that reality refers to the material world or to the invisible world. When you assume that what happens in the natural world is real, then the outcome of alleviating poverty and hunger becomes the purpose of your actions. Your theology aligns with (1) above.
When you believe that things in the material world exists, but are not real, you view reality as eternal and existing in the super natural world. In this case the purpose of actions taken in the visible world simply point to what is real in the invisible world. In this view, your theology would align with (2) above.
There are several references in the NT that support the second theological position. These theological conclusions would be based on core assumption that what is real is eternal and invisible and what is temporal and visible exists, but is not real. Jesus says that eternal life (real life) is an intimate relationship with God. Paul says our body is a temporary dwelling place (tabernacle) for our eternal soul. Jesus asks us what good is it if we gain the whole world (physical benefit which is not real) and lose our soul (an eternal reality with Him)? The letter to the Hebrews are explaining to the Jews that the priest and sacrifices that they thought were real were not. They did exist but for the purpose of pointing to the real priest and the real sacrifice, Jesus. How you view reality in terms of what is going on in a visible, temporary state versus an invisible, eternal state is a critical core assumption from which your theology flows.
Another core assumption deals with how you get satisfied. If you have an exchange based view, then you will assume that what you receive from God expects something from you. In this case you need to act like Jesus in order to receive His benefits of the Kingdom. Showing mercy by meeting the needs of the less fortunate is seen as justice, a duty or obligation to give to others because you have received so much. If your core assumption is that your satisfaction is bestowed on you by the unmerited grace of God, then your actions flow from thanksgiving and not justice or duty.
Finally, there are two different core assumptions about justification. One is that we are OK or made right when our actions meet some moral standard or code of conduct. Coupled with the core assumption of exchange, your motive for meeting the needs of the less fortunate becomes an expectation to please God. However, your core assumption on justification may be that you are made OK or right by relying on faith in the redemptive work of the Cross. There is nothing you have to do in the visible world to be right eternally with God. He doesn't want you to be concerned about yourself, but show mercy to others in tangible ways. God desires that in faith you take His mercy to others in the physical world out of thanksgiving for what He has done for you in your spiritual poverty. In doing so, you are faithful to model His Kingdom and point others to the provisions of His redemptive work, which is eternal.
The differences in core assumptions on reality, satisfaction and justification produce a theology 1 or a theology 2. Those with theology 1 tend to advance a Social Gospel. Those with theology 2 advance a Gospel of grace. The theologies are different, but only because core assumptions are different and core assumptions come B4 theology.
Your b4worldview is our business too @ www.b4worldview.com
No comments:
Post a Comment