I have long been fascinated by the ways we do theology. During the past week I have been “sitting” with a particular aspect of this, debating whether or not to post on it, and if so, how. Rev. Tom’s post the other day sort of tipped the balance in favor of posting.

The way in which we do theology is not as black and white as one might first think; for the moment, my question “seems” simple enough – but the answer . . . .

Does our theology shape our perspective on issues, OR do our issues shape our theology?

I’ve recently become more intensely aware of how in our OC/IC venues it is the issues that shape our theology rather than the other way around: ordination of women, LGBT ordinations, liberal/conservative political issues, abortion, and psychology. These are important issues – and that must be said. Moreover this is not an exhaustive list. But one thing I have noticed is that when the issues overwhelmingly shape the theology – theology, and the experience of God we gain through the dialogue of theology, is severely narrowed.

What I have observed, in our OC/IC context (but also farther afield in “other Christian places”) is how issue based theology is very exclusive. This exclusivity opens the door to a raft of awkward realizations regarding our own personal openness, and the openness of our local worshiping community.

Here are two examples that spring quickly to mind. Firstly is a community that is firmly against the ordination of LGBT persons. Through discussion, preaching, advertising, and presence on the net, these communities effectively exclude not only LGBT persons, but family members, and friends. What is more, it builds barriers between people, set “X” is “holy” “pure” “faithful” “orthodox” because they reject the decadence, and sinfulness of set “Z”. Members of “Z” are “them” and are therefore less than human. Secondly, those communities which, in an honest effort to be inclusive, have adopted “inclusive language” often become just as exclusive as the communities they criticize. One way they do this is by attempting to force their issue – their language formulae on others in order to share fellowship; another, is more subtle, quiet, the exclusion of members, visitors, “others” through the alien imagery and often contorted language. It is also worth pointing out the fact that many examples of “inclusive” language – especially those renditions of Scripture texts, alter and change the meaning of the original text. Thereby “excluding” true understanding of the teachings of our faith.

Communities built on single-issue theology (where the issue has overwhelmingly shaped the theology of that community) are faced with more than the exclusiveness of the corner they find themselves in. I have mentioned in a previous post that when the issue shifts, or dissipates, the community collapses, or is forced to re-invent itself because the foundation – the cause of “being” community, no longer exists, or has the same shape.

Communities and individuals whose issues shape their theology often seem locked into a rigid world-view which is incapable, or unwilling to step beyond the clear boundaries of that issue. The number of times I have witnessed a dialogue (both in person and online) descend into bitter chaos, and venomous personal attacks because one or more participants principle point of reference was their particular “issue” is astounding – and to my mind at least – seems to prove the point.

Thus, it appears to me that issue based theology is . . . .problematic.