lifeasmission

Confusing Foundations and Convictions

September 10, 2006

I think I like what Mark Driscoll has to say in this video, with one exception. In speaking of the theology out of which a community of believers operates, he interchanges the words “foundations” and “convictions.” There are a few important differences in these terms which can’t be overlooked.

1. Whereas the aim of theological foundations is the establishment of objective, and therefore timeless, theological truth claims, convictions on the other hand come about by people and communities personally interacting with Scripture, the traditions of which they are a part, and the culture and context in which they find themselves.

2. Once people decide on foundations and build upon them as Mark describes, if those foundations are shaken for any reason, the whole construction is in danger of crumbling to the ground. Convictions, rather, are flexible without being arbitrary. So, if someone or some group makes decisions based on their convictions and those decisions do not produce the desired or expected results, there is room to reshape the convictions.

3. Lastly, and this relates to an assumption about the nature of christian theology in general, foundational approaches to theology tend to be propositional, abstract, and impersonal. Convictions, however, can only be communicated incarnationally if they are to be truly communicated at all.

So, I would agree with Mark that Christian communities should operate out of theological convictions, but these should not be confused with theological foundations which tend to be quite different.

“Convictions are not so much things we have, but things which have us.” — James William McClendon Jr.

Related Posts

1. Toward A Missional Vision of Theological Education: Conviction Shaping
2. Missional Pastoring
3. The Missiological Future of Theological Education – Training Kingdom Citizens

Posted in: bible, church, community, culture, decisions, theology