In The Cross
in Our Context: Jesus and the Suffering World (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2003), Douglas John Hall writes:
We are at the beginning
of a period in which many things will have to be tried. A few will work; many
will not. But the place where the courage to attempt something
different—something by way of participation in the worldly suffering of
God—begins is thinking critically about the theology that has accomplished
Christendom and asking for another
theology. Not just for a new strategy, or greater commitment to social
programs, or more exciting liturgies, or more sincere spirituality—no, for a
different theology. And I am comforted by the thought that we do not have to
invent such a theology. Unlike what passes for art today, theology does not thrive
on novelty! The theology that we need is already there, and indeed it is
impressively and profoundly there—from the Old Testament onwards! It is really
just a matter of letting go of some of our conditioned beliefs and assumptions
and allowing what is there to speak to us as we are, where we are, and when we
are. (p. 178)
We are always in the theology on the way, constantly
searching for a right model for contemporary churches. In the discussion of “the
crisis of Christendom” in the West, Douglas Hall points out that many people
(young people in particular) confess Christ and yet condemn the church. “Can
any apology for the church today realistically provide young people with a
positive way of thinking about the link between Christian faith and church
affiliation?” (p. 176) This kind of question can only be bridged by theological
integrity, sensitivity, and relevance.
I always believe that our theologizing task is locally
conditioned by who we are, where we are, and when we are. As long as we, as
pastors and leaders, pay enough attention to the experience of the congregation
and listen to their needs with great attentiveness, we are almost there to
develop another theology to
theologize the task of pastoral ministry. We tend to look for another strategy,
another program, another commitment, and another slogan to keep the church
going. I think that the reason why we want to do that is because we don’t want the
experience of a people of God to captivate the direction of ministry. In other
words, we, as pastors and leaders, do not want another theology, but our theology in order to make sense in
our religious thoughts. As leaders and pastors, we do have the responsibility to
discern the direction of the church. But it is theologically and pastorally irresponsible
to captivate it at the expense of the whole experience of a people of God. The
church is made up of redeemed souls who confess Christ as their Lord and
Savior. The experience of this redeemed community helps us discern the guidance
of the Holy Spirit in which we discern how to theologize the word of God in this
particular local context and integrate it in the congregational experience.
Moltmann said that “to know God is to suffer God…But
to suffer means to be changed and transformed.” [Theology of Hope (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), p. 118]. As long as
we remain in ourselves and pay little/no attention to a people of God, we live in
a closed system in which we remain unchanged and untransformed. We are called
to follow Christ, implying that we are called to suffer. We suffer in a sense
that our surrounding constantly exposes our idols and we are expected to be
confronted, changed, and transformed. Another
theology is not developed in our fervent prayer but in the midst of a prayerful
community.
