How Practical Outworking Fits into Our Assessment of Theory

5/19/2009

As both Seth and Jim pointed out in the comments yesterday, the practical outworking of a theory is probably just as important as the idea itself.

I heard Brian McLaren mention something like this when he talked about how hard it is for atheists to buy into Christianity when they see the evils that the Church has perpetuated throughout the ages. They can't rationalize the teachings of Christ- even if they are correct- when the people who "practice" these beliefs are just as guilty of hate and violence as the rest of the world.

Add to that Jim's comment regarding the "fruit of the vine" which is a great reference to Jesus' own call that we should align our assumptions about who people are based on the practical outworking of their lives rather than the beliefs they claim as their own. In other words- an apple tree bears apples, and a pear tree bears pears. Even if the two look a lot alike when they're growing into maturity, the moment the fruit appears, you know what they're really made of. Likewise, the fruit of our labors and the outworking of our lives will tell what we're really made of.

Of course, this doesn't take into consideration whether or not the person really practiced what they preach.

For instance, a bankrupt individual might come up with a foolproof financial plan which could help millions get back on their feet- regardless of his own financial status. In order to really assess the merit of his ideas, we need to 1) ask him whether or not he's following his own financial plan. If he says yes, we write him off. If he says no, then we move to step 2) and get some further proof that his ideas could work if they were actually followed.

This is sort of a non-transferrable example because you'd hope that a person wouldn't proselytize a theory or belief they don't actually hold themselves- but there's probably something there.

What do you think?

Jim G

5/19/2009 05:37:46 am

The problem may be that we often judge things on two levels. Intellectually it is a fallacy to deny the message based on the messenger. But on the level of our survivial instincts we seek signs of danger or prosperity before we proceed. That's why the gospel appears foolish (1 Cor 1:22) to some and smells like death to others ( 2 Cor 2:16 )

Nathan link

5/19/2009 06:44:57 am

Beth always says that God gave us emotions AND intellect in order to solve problems. Solving them logically is equally as important as solving them emotionally. That's probably why it's so hard to take ideas or beliefs at face value. We want to see what's wrapped up in it. We want to know what sort of person is sharing this paradigm? And do I want to be like them?

Mr. Salk link

5/19/2009 07:10:47 am

I find it impossible to completely untwine Authors from their Craft; there is no vacuum for me to observe without taint. I’m sure certain writings of Ted Kaczynski or Charles Manson seem perfectly reasonable if removed form the context of their complete oeuvre and personal lives. It gets more complicated when only PART of the fruit is rotten or bruised..

Jim G

5/19/2009 07:45:09 am

Isn't separating the person's life from their thoughts the basis of all blogs?

Beth

5/19/2009 08:13:53 am

Careful quoting the wife on the blog. You know how particular she is about getting her quotes and ideas PRECISELY correct.

Nathan link

5/19/2009 08:33:56 am

@ Mr. Salk : You're so right. The evil some men do seem to taint everything around them.

But do you think the reverse is true, too? Could the piety of Mother Theresa cause me to treat everything she's done as saintly- even if there were a few sinful moments thrown in?

Mr. Salk link

5/19/2009 09:00:47 am

Yes, I would be inclined to treat Mo-Tare’s output as pious. But I’m not sure it would be philosophically interesting or artistically challenging. She may very well have been a dull blogger and dinner guest.

Jeff link

5/19/2009 10:28:31 am

One of the things worth thinking about is there really is a distinction here. Many artists and craft people don't claim to be masters of something which ought to make them a better person. For example, if my plumber was a jerk, I wouldn't think that his jerkiness implies he's a lousy plumber.
On the other hand, if somebody claimed mastery-- or even competence-- in something that claimed not just to tell them how to be a plumber, or painter, or whatever, if they claimed competence in a realm that purported to tell people how to live, I'd reasonably expect them to live well.
I think it's really important, in all this, to emphasize that Christianity isn't self-help. It's not a psychology. The point is not to make Christ followers happy or well adjusted. Some of these things happen as a side-effect. But if we claim to be a Christian, but we're really seeking these side effects, we're not following Jesus at all.

Jim G

5/19/2009 10:49:29 am

I'm with Jeff.

Nathan link

5/19/2009 11:53:56 am

Great thoughts, all!

@ Jeff, I like your point that when we're dealing with a thought process that's supposed to "make us better people" we should probably BE better people.

@ Mr. Salk, I bet Theresa would have been a bit too busy to blog or dine with the likes of me!

Comments are closed.

Don't Panic

How Practical Outworking Fits into Our Assessment of Theory

About Nathan