Theology Avoidance Disorder

Another ball out of the park post, CMP. The spirit of the ostrich – let’s just bury our heads in the sand and not discuss issues – is so prevalent in our culture.

Great post CMP.

As I was reading this post, my mind drifted back to a sermon I preached in which I pointed out that the Hebrew word “yada” means to know in an intimate way (I’m not just talking about sex here). With this knowledge comes the risk of great joy or great disappointment and hurt. But without this knowledge, a relationship remains stagnant.

Michael, I could not agree more but I don’ think the avoidance of knowledge is necessarily the case in all instances. What about those that desire to know God but have a different epistomology? I am specifically thinking of those that seek the knowledge of God beyond Biblical means, especially looking to modern day prophecies and such. This group would deny indifference towards knowledge of God but would reject theological discourse on the basis of it being impossible to lead to a knowledge of God, citing wrangling about man’s doctrine as opposed to God’s word, as unnecessary. Hope that makes sense.

Everyone who forms opinions and beliefs about God is practicing theology. Theology that is well done will engage the one practicing it and most certainly shape their actions. Even those who object to dissecting God still have their theological lines in the sand.

Craig, all I could think of after your post was the Yada episode of Seinfeld. “We went back to my place, yada yada yada, I never heard from him again.”

It is interesting, however, that the more advanced theologians seem to know things about God that even God doesn’t know. At what point does what we “know” about a friend become what we read into their actions and comments. And at what point do our reports about them and their opinions become gossip? Not necessarily slanderous gossip or ill intentioned, just “unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true” (Oxford Dict on “gossip”).

In our culture, belief in one God and salvation coming only through Christ is divisive. Why not study and be ready to defend the truth? Jesus is the most divisive person in history. Even 2,000 years later!

Michael wrote, “The Bible is filled with knowledge of our God. A little knowledge of him is dangerous . . . so is a lot.”

In what way is a lot of knowledge of God dangerous? I can’t see it. Our abuse of knowledge might be dangerous but I struggle to see how knowing God more intimately can be dangerous. If so, then heaven is going to be a terrifyingly dangerous place.

At the same time, I’ve never understood how “ignorance is bliss.” Ignorance is, well, uh, ignorance, and anyone who is content to be ignorance is an ignoramus. What is blissful about being oblivious to the reality of existence?

I think whoever said “ignorance is bliss” was ignorant of the consequences and thus an ignoramus. Unless, of course, I’m ignorant about ignorance.

Dr_Mike,
I’ll use myself as an example of why a lot of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I think “a lot” is a relative term. How much is a lot of knowledge? How many years of school does one need to have before they have a lot of knowledge? I’m seminary educated. I have an MDiv, the only one in my family to have that degree. So to some, I have a lot of knowledge. I think it’s safe to say that I have more knowledge than the average person in the pews. Because I have a working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and Biblical Studies, I can come of as very condescending when talking to the average person in the pew. I have also been known to start heated discussion with my family over doctrinal differences. Because of the knowledge I have, I can be a stumbling block to someone either new to the faith or coming back to the faith. So I have to be real careful about what I say and how I say it when it comes to passing on my knowledge to others.

Craig:

I would counter that knowledge is not the problem; you – or pride or whatever – are the problem.

Again, if knowledge of God is dangerous then heaven will be a precarious place, indeed. If you say that in heaven we will have new bodies fit for our new life, then the problem is not knowledge but us.

Dr_Mike,
I would not dispute that I am the problem. And I would agree that knowledge is not the problem. In and of itself, knowledge is neutral, its neither good or bad, safe or dangerous. It’s how we use that knowledge that makes it safe or dangerous. At least that’s how I interpret the quote from Einstein.

Not every part of the body needs to understand “ology” words to function. There is nothing wrong with “ology” words. I don’t think it is the thoughts behind the words that are being balked at, but the very words themselves. People don’t want to waste their time learning words and names of systems that, really, just represent the same struggle they are already up against…Understanding the word of God and growing and getting to know God deeper. They don’t want to learn a theological word of the day, not that there is anything wrong with a theological word of the day 🙂 Dorcas , Acts 9:39, I’m sure understood sound doctrine but what got her through endless days of monotonous sewing was probably a good teacher of the word and psalms and praise. Doubtful that lapsarianism was of intrest to Dorcas ( I can proove that 🙂 ). Not that some Dorcas’ aren’t sewing and memorizing the word of the day,for some that keeps them going too. I thought the purpose of a teacher was to equip the saints so that they could function as a whole unit and not necessarily to make more teachers. Although I think some teachers are placed for the sole purpose of bringing up other teachers but not all teachers.
And Yet I disagree with the gentleman friend with whom Michael has had discussions. There is no doubt people who don’t want to know about God are uninterested in “Theology” They won’t read thier bibles either and generally they sleep through the sermon too. Did I manage to dance around the whole issue?

Theological knowledge is a good thing. It is good to understand what we believe, and to be able to articulately communicate the reasons why.

The risk we run is in allowing our knowledge to prohibit us from receiving the kingdom with the faith of a child. Sometimes in the process of learning theological specifics, we limit ourselves to analyzing the word, rather than allowing it to nourish us.

I like the story that Corrie ten Boom told:

“Several years ago I spoke to a group of Germans who prided themselves as intellectuals. They would not receive me because they felt that they were more profound in their theology than I. So, the last time with them I brought them all some Dutch chocolate. Since chocolate was very rare after the war, they eagerly accepted my gift. Later, when I stood to speak to them, I told them, ‘No one has said anything to me about the chocolate.’

“They disagreed, saying that they had all thanked me for it.”

“‘I did not mean that,’ I said. ‘I mean that no one questioned me about it. No one asked whether it had been manufactured in Holland or Germany, what quantities it contained of cocoa, sugar, milk, or vitamins. Instead of analyzing it, you just ate it.’

“Then I picked up my Bible and said, ‘It is the same with this Book. If you try to analyze it as a book of science or even a book of theology, you cannot be nourished by it. Like chocolate, it is to be eaten and enjoyed, not picked apart bit by bit.'”

One only has to read Paul’s letters to understand that CMP is on the right track (rats, its way more fun to disagree with you, Michael!). In 1 Corinthians 3:2 Paul writes, “I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able” (NASB). What is that solid food except further knowledge and doctrine? Can women talk in church?

Paul does address in his letters things his parishioners were asking about, issues of knowledge: what happens to our bodies when we die? Is Jesus coming again? when? What are the historical evidences for Jesus’ resurrection? What do we do about celebrating different days of the week and different yearly events? Is the new moon a big deal? Can we eat idol meat? Do we need to tithe?

We still argue about some of these issues today (sabbatarianism or tithing, roles of women, etc.), and clearly they are not necessary for salvation, or evangelization, or for displaying the fruit of the Spirit or true religion.

Regards,
#John

I agree that there is a balance that we need to realize between little knowlegde and much knowledge. We need to be sensitive to those coming into the Kingdom and where they may be at with their knowledge of God. In 1 cor 8:11 it says by our knowledge this weak person is destroyed,the brother whom Christ died.
I think we can and should be able to relate to others no matter where they are at. Paul said he became under the law to those under the law, even though he was not under the law. In short… we must be real with ourselves and with others.
On the other hand… Knowledge needs to be encouraged .Prv 15:14 The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge
In Hosea 4:6
God rebukes Israel…My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge;because you have rejected knowledge.
How many today are being destroyed for a lack of knowledge? Most of us know the answer to this question. Many start drinking the milk of the word and never move into the meat. Then they even lose their desire for the milk.
1 Peter 1:6 says that we should….make every effort to supplement our faith with virtue and virtue with knowledge and knowledge with self control…for if these qualites are yours and are increasing they keep you from being ineffective and unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sin.
Where we need to be careful is that we who treasure knowledge and desire to gain more do not end up like the Pharisees. They refused to have any relationship with God because their confidence and dependence was on their knowledge and their interpretation of scripture. Any true knowledge of Him that is given to us has only come from the Person of God to cause us to know Him better.

[…] you have Theology Avoidance Disorder […]

As it’s already been pointed out, theology in itself is something all Christians espouse whether they understand it or not. The issue gets more complicated when theology becomes systematic. Basic theology does not usually divide orthodox Christians unless you’re talking to a Mormon or JW. But the systematic that thrives on –isms and –ologies carries a scent of intellectual aloofness with it which is unfortunate. My experience and observation has been this: (don’t shoot, I said ‘MY observation’). Christians who indulge in sophisticated arguments and possess an extensive vocabulary of –isms and –ologies are the most unlikely (in a statistical probability sense) to get their hands dirty with anything practical, like say, volunteering in a soup kitchen or homeless shelter. I dared suggest this last year on the ‘Extreme Theology’ blog and it produced a violent reaction (I actually mentioned something simpler, just buying a homeless guy a burger). Predictably, I was accused of propagating works-based salvation. The idea seemed so repulsive to some that I considered the reaction would have been less-aggressive if I suggested attending a Hare Krishna convention. The ones who combine intellectual and practical are the exception not the rule – again according to MY observation -. I am NOT suggesting that if you have deep theological knowledge you MUST ‘get your hands dirty’, I am simply highlighting the attitude one tends to produce against the other. The problem is neither deep theology nor knowledge, but what it does to people who possess it. I would say people with ‘a lot of knowledge’ face a greater challenge to stay humble and use it for the edification of the church at large. By contrast, a prima facie understanding of the New Testament shows that Jesus, the Apostles and the early church were more hands-on and less academic (don’t throw Romans in the mix, please). One has to wonder how the early church thrived before systematic theology gained a footprint. I’m sure there’s a blog about this somewhere. On the flip side, there are those who ‘just love Jesus’ that would not enter anything theological within a 100 mile radius. They are equally condescending (and intolerably frustrating). As a friend recently told me that he attends a ‘worship only’ meeting because as he put it ‘it’s all about passion for Jesus’. Oh goody, how did I miss that? As Lisa-PaleoCharismatic-Robinson put it, there’s the charismaniac tribe (my words not hers) whose definition of furthering knowledge is underpinned by the visceral not the intellectual. (As a Pentecostal refugee I can jibe, guilt-free). Unless I’m alone, I have noticed that intellectual Christians are almost intuitively anti-practical in their faith and the practical are almost intuitively anti-intellectual. Again these are broad observations and generalizations. There are always the exceptions, and when I meet them I am thrilled…

As it’s already been pointed out, theology in itself is something all Christians espouse whether they understand it or not. The issue gets more complicated when theology becomes systematic. Basic theology does not usually divide orthodox Christians unless you’re talking to a Mormon or JW. But the systematic that thrives on –isms and –ologies carries a scent of intellectual aloofness with it which is unfortunate.

My experience and observation has been this: (don’t shoot, I said ‘MY observation’). Christians who indulge in sophisticated arguments and possess an extensive vocabulary of –isms and –ologies are the most unlikely (in a statistical probability sense) to get their hands dirty with anything practical, like say, volunteering in a soup kitchen or homeless shelter. I dared suggest this last year on the ‘Extreme Theology’ blog and it produced a violent reaction (I actually mentioned something simpler, just buying a homeless guy a burger). Predictably, I was accused of propagating works-based salvation. The idea seemed so repulsive to some that I considered the reaction would have been less-aggressive if I suggested attending a Hare Krishna convention.

The ones who combine intellectual and practical are the exception not the rule – again according to MY observation -. I am NOT suggesting that if you have deep theological knowledge you MUST ‘get your hands dirty’, I am simply highlighting the attitude one tends to produce against the other. The problem is neither deep theology nor knowledge, but what it does to people who possess it. I would say people with ‘a lot of knowledge’ face a greater challenge to stay humble and use it for the edification of the church at large. By contrast, a prima facie understanding of the New Testament shows that Jesus, the Apostles and the early church were more hands-on and less academic (don’t throw Romans in the mix, please). One has to wonder how the early church thrived before systematic theology gained a footprint. I’m sure there’s a blog about this somewhere.

On the flip side, there are those who ‘just love Jesus’ that would not enter anything theological within a 100 mile radius. They are equally condescending (and intolerably frustrating). As a friend recently told me that he attends a ‘worship only’ meeting because as he put it ‘it’s all about passion for Jesus’. Oh goody, how did I miss that? As Lisa-PaleoCharismatic-Robinson put it, there’s the charismaniac tribe (my words not hers) whose definition of furthering knowledge is underpinned by the visceral not the intellectual. (As a Pentecostal refugee I can jibe, guilt-free).

Unless I’m alone, I have noticed that intellectual Christians are almost intuitively anti-practical in their faith and the practical are almost intuitively anti-intellectual. Again these are broad observations and generalizations. There are always the exceptions, and when I meet them I am…

Theology has something in common with secular philosophy. It is fascinating at first as ideas are elaborated and one goes deeper into understanding them. But later comes a realization that one isn’t really getting anywhere and is just accumulating more theories and interpretations that often conflict with each other. Theology is largely a human effort. The big words help us to understand theology, but not necessarily to understand God.

The cure for Theology Avoidance Disorder is to be passionate about theology, while keeping a good understanding of doctrines essential to salvation vs doctrines not essential to salvation. That way, a Christians can be passionate about what they believe in (including the particulars), while recognizing that some equally devout brother/sister may have a different interpretation than them.

Secondary doctrines are important but primary doctrines are far more important!

Nor, CMP, would I want to hand my spouse my biography and say read and study this–then you will know me. Don’t bother laboring with me in the vineyard. Don’t expect me to enjoy your gifts to me. Just know the truth in this book. And if someone else reads the book and comes away with a different understanding of me than you be sure and argue with them until they get it right.

Minnow,

Nor would I. Good point, but I hope that you are not saying this is what I am saying?

Here is what I said again, “I am not saying that knowledge is all there is to our relationship with God, but it is foundational.”

Do you agree there?

It is truly a sign of our times when people will throw out orthodoxy in the name of orthopraxy, as if the two are somehow incompatible and in fact, capable of a reaction equal to Hiroshima in one’s life.

Paul was on the right track in 1 Tim 4:16 – “Watch your life (orthopraxy) AND your doctrine (orthodoxy)…” I cannot stand this modern idea that is X or Y when it comes to these two things – it is BOTH. God took the time and gave you His Word – least you could do is invest a little time to know what it’s all about…

Rant over, granted, theology is full of big, multi-syllabled words which sound like something out of a medical textbook sometimes, but may I present an example? The word set “justfication” and “justified” comes to the Greek term “dikaioo” [dikaioo, dikaiosune, etc. ](CMP can correct me if I butchered that…)

Dikaioo wasn’t a word invented by the Holy Ghost – it was a secular legal term, the equivalent of our “not guilty” verdict…yet by God’s sovereign pleasure, He saw it fit to use a secular, technical-legal term to express one of the most glorious truths in Scripture – Romans 5:1.

Methinks we make too big a deal of the fact that theology contains big words and use that fact to smokescreen our ignorance of theology…

CMP: “the adoption of a Theology Avoidance Disorder is not a Christian option.”

I’d agree.

But it’s a non-salvific issue and not a core doctrine. Thus, there are Christians who suffer from Theology Avoidance Disorder and we shall love them all the same.

CMP–I would absolutely agree that knowledge of God is foundational to relationship with Him. I just don’t think the only path to knowledge is through a book and achedemic study. I would hardily agree with all those who have weighed in saying we need both praxy and doxy.

Minnow, instead of pitting orthodoxy against orthopraxy, would you agree that one provides the foundation through which the other eminates? So rather than being a this or that, a both? In other words, I can’t just have orthodoxy without orthopraxy (James talks about this being faith without works is dead). But neither can I have orthopraxy without orthodoxy. Otherwise, what is my practice rooted in? The more we understand God through His revelation, the more that should impact our practice, I think. But it does start with understanding what that is.

I just don’t think the only path to knowledge is through a book and achedemic study.

Why not start with the Book of Books, the Scripture? There must be some reason Paul was inspired to write:

“Study to show yourselves approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of God.” – 2 Tim 2:15

Orthodoxy and orthopraxy were never meant to be separated, dear friend – at least, from passages like Acts 6:1-7 where the apostles didn’t neglect “prayer and teaching the word” (orthodoxy), yet they were conscious of the fact that widows needed feeding (orthopraxy) and Titus 2:1-15 where Paul spends ten verses explaining how they are to live (orthopraxy), then roots that in the doctrinal reality of the grace of God.

Everyone functions with some amount of theology—some of it rudimentary, some of it faulty and some less so. But there is a kind of theology that the average person wants to avoid, that which delves into side issues or speculates about things that we will never know. Those are areas where most of the ‘big words’ are used. It’s best to leave most of those thoughts to the professionals.

Theology is at a disadvantage compared to other disciplines because the sources are so limited. Unable to put God under a microscope, we depend on His revelation, and according to orthodox belief He hasn’t revealed anything new in nearly 2000 years. So, theologians must keep consulting the same old documents. What has been missed that experts are still likely to gain out of that effort? Should I expect much?
(Sorry for sounding cynical.)

“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”
— Jesus

“I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able also to admonish one another.”

“And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight”
— Paul the Apostle

“Whether you are a Calvinist or an Arminian, a traducianist or creationist….”

I certainly disagree with him on the claim that it doesn’t matter whether you are a Calvinist or an Arminian, and on whether you believe the soul to be passed along from the parents (traducianism) or to be a new creation of God (creationism as used above). Certainly these matter immensly. It matters whether you blaspheme God by asserting he is the author of sin (Calvinism) or not (Arminianism loosely defined as any non-Calvinist). It matters also whether you think you will float to heaven on a cloud of laziness or have to actually obey. And it matters whether you believe that souls are passed along from the parents and thus tainted by sin from conception or that God creates a new and spotless soul in every fetus, for with the first view you are denying the sinlessness of infants and thus are easy prey for the demonic doctrine that unbaptized infants go to hell. You will then by this doctrine (or by the Calvinist doctrine that there are such things as non-elect infants) disturb every mother who loses a child in the womb or shortly after birth, and greatly distress her soul (and the father’s too [and the Father’s too!]).

rey,

1) Those who assert that God is the author of sin are not Calvinists. They are hyper-Calvinists. The WCF states that God is not the author of sin. Whether Calvinists are logically consistent in denying that “God is the author of sin” while affirming “exhaustive determinism” is up to debate, but at least give them the credit for rejecting this blasphemous notion.

2) Arminianism is not to be loosely defined as any non-Calvinist. Hyper-Calvinism is neither Arminian nor Calvinist. Likewise, semi-Pelagianism is neither Arminian nor Calvinist.

3) Many Calvinistic Baptists (such as John MacArthur) believe that all babies who die go to heaven, regardless of whether their parents are believers.

TrueHope,

Don’t waste time discussing Calvinism with this guy. He likes casting aspersions…

I do not see that the cause of ‘theology avoidance’ is fear of truth, as the essay claims. It may be a factor in some cases, but there must be other more common causes. The issue needs to be looked at in depth. Most people do not fear truth, though they do have to be confident that it is truth. People begin to avoid theology when they doubt the verity of theological statements. Such statements are formed from revelations given to an ancient generation. Nothing is revealed directly to us, we cannot interview God, we cannot subject Him to analysis—all the ways that we consider necessary to establish truth. As I see it, the main problem isn’t with people but with theology, which rather than being the study of God is actually the study of what people believe about God.

[…] Theology Avoidance Disorder June 4, 2009 Parchment and Pen […]

Lisa–Verbal-linguistic learners learn best through words. That is how they gain knowledge. Bodily-Kinesthetic learners learn best through hands on type activities. That is how they gain knowledge. I am not saying it is the only way or the foundational way or the best way (except for that type of learner). I get to know my God by experiencing His creation, by interacting with His people, and by studying His word. I am neither excluding nor prioritizing the many way we come to know God.

Your arguments could be used to justify debate over how many angels fit on the head of a pin. What is missing, IMO, is a distinction about *which* theological debates are worth having.

I *just* had this same conversation with my pastor. Some theological debates have clear urgency (like Arminianism vs. Calvinism), but some seem to be pointless — for example, debates about which of the millennialist eschatological theories is most accurate (it feels like people are trying to “time” Christ’s coming).

My pastor convinced me that it is important to press into the theological issues and always try to understand more. But unless there is a clear and urgent practical application that demands judgment, I feel that we shouldn’t rush too quickly to take sides and claim a level of understanding that we don’t have. It seems there is a lot of that “premature certainty” in theological debates.

Of course, I am very much a beginner in these things, and frequently need correction. But at the moment, it seems that any theological debate must be justified by it’s applicability to a practical question.

“People begin to avoid theology when they doubt the verity of theological statements. Such statements are formed from revelations given to an ancient generation. Nothing is revealed directly to us…” (rayner markley)

This is an interesting and important point. How often have you heard a preacher make a sermon out of Judges 2:10 “And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel”? They pontificate long and hard on our responsibility to train our children in the way of the Lord and point at this generation as absolute failures in training their children. But is it really so? Is it really that that old generation failed to tell their children about the Lord? The generation that preceded me told my generation all about the Lord, and yet a great many of my generation have turned away. Is it the older generation’s fault? For all their zeal and enthusiasm, for all their brow-beating and fear-mongering, did they not do enough to teach the new generation about the Lord?

I think the answer lies in the latter part of the verse: There not only arose a generation “which knew not the LORD” but also did not know “the works which he had done for Israel” — and why? Why did they not know? Because the Lord Himself didn’t see fit to do any works for that generation as he had for the previous generation. They didn’t know the Lord because the Lord didn’t speak to them as he had spoken to the previous generation.

So again, with the Amalekites. God commanded Saul to exterminate them for their ignorance of Himself. By why were they ignorant? Because He Himself had not seen fit to send them a Moses like he did the Israelites. Seems to me that both we as Christians, and the Lord Himself, need to own up to the fact that the Lord has let the modern generation slip by taking on an attitude that He doesn’t have to do any more miracles. Does he really think that a book is sufficient today when it clearly wasn’t sufficient at any point in the history of Israel? Of course a generation will arise that knows not the Lord when the Lord refuses to introduce himself to them personally.

So would you say that any means of getting to know God, formal or informal, could be Theology? Or do you mean to say that only formal knowledge about God is conducive (sp?) to actually knowing him?

I could accept the latter, but I can’t the former. My concept of Theology is a formal study of God, and that isn’t sufficient for me (or it is my belief, anyhow) to relate to him; however, if that’s not what you mean then I’m not going to get hung up on verbage.

Honestly, there’s a lot of value in both the intellectual and the abandoning of the intellectual for the emotional. Jesus had great Theology (obviously) but it always flowed out of his very emotional, reckless love for people.

Moreover, we can know something on an emotional level and apply it subconsciously without every processing it intellectually. I have a friend who is incredibly wise and intuitive in spiritual matters (read, “all matters”), but she has less formal Bible instruction than most high schoolers who grew up in the Church–she was instructed almost exclusively through God’s spirit (or so I believe) and she lives a Godly life because of it. Very little of what she knows manifests itself intellectually, as opposed to emotionally.

I hope that makes some kind of sense. It does in my head anyways.

Rey’s comments about God’s part in people being unbelieving are both disconcerting and revealing. First, because I have read Rey’s posts in other places and his own blog, I understand that he really does cast aspersions on Scripture, on Paul’s claim to be an Apostle, and on the doctrines of sin and grace. But secondly, because unwittingly Rey reveals that God is ultimately in control of who knows what and when the know it.

The Calvinist does not deny God’s part in knowledge or God’s part in sin. God does not cause us to sin. God is not the author of sin. But God could have not created sinful people. He himself chose to allow sin and then to punish that same sin. To deny this is to deny God’s omniscience and omnipotence.

We know God because we have the Bible. We might know God to a lesser degree in other ways (see Romans 1) but that knowledge never leads to life. Life only comes through faith, and faith only by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Christ himself invested his life in Scriptures, teaching from Scriptures, devoting himself to theology, the knowledge and study of God.

To suggest that theology is unimportant and devisive is to suggest that Christ himself walked in an unworthy manner. To suggest that theology is unimportant is to suggest that God’s thoughts and ways are really unimportant. Compare that with the Psalmist’s reflections: “How precious are your thoughts to me, Oh God. How vast are the sum of them” God’s thoughts are what theology is all about.

Which of us can say we love our wives if all we really want to do is to be like our wives? That’s crazy talk. We love our wives when we want to know our wives inside out – her thoughts, her manners, her habits, her desires, her likes and dislikes. That is how we know God. To love God is to keep his commandments, and we cannot know those commandments without knowing his thoughts, desires, likes and dislikes.

[…] Over at Parchment and Pen, C Michael Patton names this ThAD. What I find is that people have a theological disorder when it comes to truth. They are theologyphobic (theology, “study of God” + phobia, “fear” or veriphobit (veri, “truth” + phobia, “fear”). Really it is simply a rationalization of some sort of a Theology Avoidance Disorder (ThAD). It is saying to God that you are not interested in coming to know about him, his word, or his truth (at least in any detailed way), but you, nevertheless, want to experience all the benefits of the relationship. […]