A theology of change?

Does that sound like a contradiction? Is it impossible to think of theology as vibrant, alive and both an agent for change and changeable in itself?

Theology (and faith) can be a guarantee for conservatism. What's been there has been proven by time, and is therefore truth. What's in the tradition is safe and shouldn't be changed in any way. In some ways this is a respectable position. Some of us long for clear answers and a feeling of knowing the truth. In clear-cut words and theological positions we find a sense of belonging and trust. When we're saying the right words and are fighting for the right positions we are right with God and on the safe side. The community that comes out of defending this kind of truth is often strong, and when it is under attack it's even stronger. Nothing wrong about that. You find this position in every society; in political parties (ideology), in religious communities (faith / theology), sometimes even in sports or music (fan-base of a team or an artist). As human beings we constantly look for ways to be accepted, included and loved. Defending a position is often about defending our belonging to a certain group or community.

Sometimes I've been thinking a lot of the Pharisees at the time of Jesus. What a terrible threat that man must have been for their sense of belonging, for their dignity and their power. They said all the right words, they held strongly to the traditional sayings of the Scripture, they defended what they considered to be the truth with their lives, and they thought that God was on their side and that he loved their faithfulness and seal for his word. Jesus walked up to them and challenged all of their authority, their sense of truth and their understanding of the word. He put another interpretation on the words that they had learned and that had been interpreted by their group for centuries. This carpenter from Nazareth undermined all their wisdom, authority and power, and he revealed a totally new approach to theology and life.

A few years ago I talked to a person that was frustrated about Jesus and his approach to the word, especially was it difficult for him to understand why Jesus didn’t approve of the stoning of the woman that was caught in adultery. He had read in the Old Testament about the law and how people should be punished for what they did wrong, and he found it difficult to understand why God would change his mind. The Pharisees and the people probably thought the same. What did Jesus do? He challenged all of them to the core, because he puts the attention on us instead of the clear-cut words. He emphasizes our humanness instead of our righteousness, and shows us another image of God. He reveals a God that sees every human being, and sees her as unique and special. At the same time he reveals us as people in need of grace. This dual message is very important because it shows us as loved, but at the same time weak and in need of others. Jesus challenges our position of righteousness and our need of affirmation from a group or from God and calls us to be humble and unique persons free from peer pressure.

What does this have to say for a theology of change? How are we to read Paul and the gospels and how are we to interpret the word? I’ve been reading a document from Church of Sweden lately, and it’s interesting to read how they look at Paul and his approach to circumcision. Against all his co-religionists in Jerusalem – who had a preferential right of interpretation, he stated what he called the truth of the Gospel, that there was no need to make a detour via the law in order to become a Christian. This was a great and brave new interpretation – and something that almost ripped the ancient church apart. Church of Sweden concludes in this document that Paul and the other New Testament theologians accepted active new interpretations and that this implies that one states in a new way what is central and already given, but without the meaning as understood being lost. The point is that we sometimes should do as Paul does and not just repeat what he says. In this way the Bible can function as an example of how our faith and ethics are formed, not only of what faith and ethics contain. Just as those who were responsible for the Bible texts, we have to discover together what it means today to live close to God and in the imitation of Christ.

For me this is very much in accordance to Jesus and his life, and it explains why he was so controversial and scary for the religious leaders of the day. He made theology into something vibrant and alive, and not into a set of rules to make us feel comfortable or righteous. He challenges us because he makes theology into something that draws us closer to God AND to ourselves, and he makes us look inside and to him instead of drawing lines. May we all LIVE theology instead of letting it be a tool for building walls to keep our fellow human beings in or out. The in or out is not dependent on regulations, but in letting ourselves fall into the arms of a God that loves, cares and wants us to find our way. Our righteousness is not in living in accordance to principles, but in being filled by a love that covers us, reveals us, leaves us in need of others and lifts us to a place of relationship – to God, to others and to ourselves. That, I believe, is a theology of change!