《谁需要神学?》读后感1000字

《谁需要神学?》是一本由[美] 史丹尼•格兰兹（Stanley J. Grenz） / 著作，同济大学出版社出版的平装图书，本书定价：26.00元，页数：144，特精心收集的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。

《谁需要神学?》读后感(一)：你明白吗？

回想自己的经历，从大学开始慢慢的思考一些信仰上的问题，借助不同的书籍来解决我的疑惑，但是仅仅就是解决来疑惑，增加来我的知识而已，并没有对我的生活有什么实质性的帮助。到了后来看加尔文的《基督教要义》（下简称《要义》）也只是知识上的堆砌，感觉这样的神学太高大尚来一些，不过在我看来其实还只是一种知识，很难理解为何众多学者对《要义》这么推崇呢？慢慢地通过接触书本，也积累来一些知识，我也发现这些知识让我变得骄傲，变得会喜欢给人贴标签，喜欢论断人，但是我知道信仰不是这样的，信仰需要去活出来，去行出来，而不是坐着看有关于信仰的书籍而已。

听道的经历也是如此，一开始觉得很稀奇的，慢慢地就习以为常了，这道我应该听过了吧，讲来讲去都是这样，发现这道与我的生命又有何意义？为何当日的门徒天天听主的道都不会厌倦？我主日所听的道对我着新的一个星期的生活有何相干？慢慢觉得我这样的所思所想割裂了信仰与生活，我的信仰只是给我属灵上的知识，而生活才是我每天真真切切所经历的！

有了听道的疑问之后，我便转向主日学，发现所教的孩子也是这样，圣经知识懂得蛮多的，但是也是各归各的，可以是主日学中认真听讲、回应流利的学生，也可以是边打游戏边爆粗口的社会人，我知道这不是信仰，这应该叫做宗教吧。我一直很反对别人说信基督的一门宗教，我比较赞成这是一种信仰，不单单是你的精神得到了救赎，连你的生活也是如此。

我想知道信仰、神学分别对于个人、生活到底有什么作用？于是我开始重新定睛于福音，越是察考福音，越发觉得自己之前认识上的，这福音不单单是接受耶稣是主，同时也要接受祂是救主（需要在每一方面都转向祂）。但是对神学还是比较迷惑，看来《谁需要神学》（之前翻过）之后，发现里面的基督教神学的定义是我们以跟随耶稣基督的门徒身份去思考和阐释我们对于神和世界的信念，目的在于让神透过我们在当代社会文化中的生活得着荣耀。猛然发现这和我对信仰的定义是不谋而合的，神学也是这种模式的，它不是高高在上的知识，而是可以帮助你更好的与神建立关系，更好的回应时代。

这本书对我最有价值的应该是如何进行一种神学思考，很多时候我习惯了只是去读、去听、去接受、零散地思考，而不知道如何去问问题以及问一些合适的问题。看完这本书，也把之前看过的一些关于思考书稍微统一了起来，要努力做一个会思考的基督徒（而不是人）。现在回想《要义》这本书，心里会有一种甘甜感，有时间还要再好好品味一下这本书。书中有一个观点，我们每一个人都是神学家（不管优质与否），我们都在自己的环境下作神学，这点也是很赞同的，要努力的做一个优质的神学家，好好的操练自己。书中对于文化的探讨也花来很多笔墨，让我想起来毕德生的《圣经好好吃》和毛祈乐的《小老百姓神学》中关于文化的论述，总是这样的彼此呼应，同路人如果会有同样的经历呀！。基督徒要学会解读文化，更好地根据现今的文化来传递这份信仰，基督徒总是应该入世的。

如果你对于神学有所疑问，这本书或许可以给你答案。

《谁需要神学?》读后感(二)：思路清晰，节奏带感的好书

我不知道是什么让我迫不及待地要读完此书。我想了想应该是以下两个原因，第一这本书是同学的，放在书桌上，我得看了马上还给人家。第二，这本书写得太棒了！我们在生活中会遇到很多书，有的不过是东拼西凑为了早点下班，有的是把自己的经验和经历讲了又讲，有的是说一些看了会很快忘记的故事。但是有的书让你觉得这个人真是言之有物，这本书真是值得读。而作者的这本书就属于这类。

那么，这本书写作方式是怎么样的呢？就阅读的舒适度来说，作者的节奏和对话的性质是值得称赞的。从字里行间我真得是看到了作者为研究神学这件事有呕心沥血的辩护，他从自己的教会经历，牧会，上课以及一本漫画对神学的讽刺入手，来精准地回应以下几个问题。第一，神学的对象是谁。他算是比较颠覆地提出，认为，只要是一个人一生之中想过几个与终极问题有关的，那么都可以称之为神学家。简言之，只要你对哲学性的，神学性的问题有自己的意见、观点和认定，那么你就是可以称之为神学家。等一等，作者说每个人都是神学家是这个意思？是的，他就是这样的意思。但是为了避免批评，他特别地以基督教为例子，引出界定的几种不同水平层次的神学状态。一种是拥有简单思考能力的平信徒，他们凭着在逻辑和主题上的爱好，对教会提出基本外围的批评，比如认为主题的前后矛盾等一些伪命题。事实上，在作者看来这种所谓的民间的神学是不以圣经、不以神为中心的个人性的批评。但是他们的意见其实仍然具有价值，他提醒教会应当重视这样的意见，甚至对其有牧养，因为这样的人正是会思考的人，不是说什么信什么的宝贵之人啊，而神学洞见，以及更高层次的神学就有可能从他们而出啊（笔者想哈哈）但是后面包括平信徒神学，教牧神学，专业神学其实是真正能够造就教会的，而学术神学和民间神学因为不以教会和个人的生命实践为目的，以至于一个是可以忽略，另一个是因为曲高和寡而可以束之高阁了。不过他是针对一般信徒的束之高阁，但是对于学术神学家来说，他仍然是有研究的必要，他主要是为前三个神学层次的人服务的，特别是对一些神学的前设提出批评。在笔者看来，这种区分是有一定道理的，确实在教牧之中会遇到不同层次但是自己却并不会刻意区分定位的人，甚至与之辩论如果没有清晰的界定，事实上会造成一些冲突，这显然不够智慧。第二，作者强调了神学的目的是什么。当然作者是一个专业神学的水平，所以他认为神学的目的不论是不论是对于个人，还是教会不单是为了增加知识，不仅知其然更要知其所以然，以至于能够不单单是仅仅拥有所谓的信心，但是却不理解信心的对象，造成一种机械的，没有敬虔理性参与其中的所谓的民粹的状态。反之，因为通过神学的操练，能够积累智慧，从而达到改变自己，改变生活这样的目的。第三作者介绍了神学发展史，其实也是基督教早期教会历史，可以说基督教早期教会历史几乎是神学建立的历史，因为那时候有一些异端的产生，而为了应对异端对纯正信仰的干扰，教父们纷纷从圣经出发，建立维护正统的基督教教义和神学。当然作者没有系统展开，同时作者也针一些常见的冲突指出不同的教派比如天主教、改革宗以及东正教对信念，信条，意见的不同程度的认定和划分。最后作者介绍了研究神学可以参考的工具，第一是圣经，第二是教会传统，第三是当代文化。

其实作者这本书作为神学入门，笔者认为还是稍微难了一些，因为当中涉及的东西太多了，包括释经学，教会历史，基督教教义，方法论和内容的大杂烩，包括作者的一些概念的重新的界定。其实对于这本书来说本身是很棒的，不论是表达还是内容，但是对于想要了解神学的人来说，我认为这还是适合已经对神学有积极兴趣的人的阅读，如果是作为对神学反感之人，反而可能还是会充满前设。因为作者的热情可能会在反感之人认为是凌厉的、强势的意见。

另外作者提到有关神学研究值得批判的点，第一不是从圣经出发而是从个人经验出发，作者非常反对。第二作者反对那些天花乱坠的神学研究，认为那是天方夜谭无中生有，没有任何价值和意义，甚至让人摸不着头脑。他也提醒一些做神学研究的人应当注意的是，第一不要太快地因为神学上的成就批判或者离开教会传统，反而是审视并且以建设为主，其次不要试图以神学研究代替信仰活动。

总得来说，作者真得是一个很热情很热情，以及很具有辩护激情，还是一个非常基要的基督教教师。很棒。

《谁需要神学?》读后感(三)：Book Review: Who Needs Theology?

Book Review: Who Needs Theology？

by Eric Landstrom

The Problem

Both Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson have laid a tough task before themselves. How do you affirm the idea that serious study of biblical truth can thoroughly enrich both the individual's faith as well as congregational faith when it is written that true servants are as children before God？ How does a person convey their delight of theology to another who is happy to simply know that which they know already？ Is it not foolishness searching after answers that perhaps only God Himself knows？ Why not simply accept the Bible as a child accepts the love from a parent without question？

The problem of conveying to our fellow brethren that the study of theology is a good thing is further aggravated by the fact that fallible human reason was the manner that led to sin and corruption in the first place. In light of this it can be understandable why many brethren view the study of theology with the deepest of suspicion. But for those of us who love theology, the reflection of biblical truth is as rain to a meadow. Often the clouds may gather overhead, but as the drops of rain permeate and soak into the soil; so too does the understanding of theology saturate and underscore the believer's faith! As the sun banishes the stormy clouds overhead and causes the meadow to grow and blossom, so too does the knowledge of God increase the faith, hope, and love of the believer and bring them closer to God in their Christian walk.

Often times with books such as this, the theologian attempts to state that the underlying idea of theology is to answer the most basic question of "Why am I here？" This basic assumption logically follows, as the authors suggest, that the more profound question is how did something come from nothing？ These are valid questions for an unbeliever to ask and it is hoped that the answers the unbeliever discovers will lead them to accept the Christian faith. The problem that Christians are presented by questions such as these is that they have already been answered through faith. Although questions such as what is the meaning of life are not frivolous, the Christian who is already in possession of answers now hungers for knowledge which penetrates and further reveals biblical truth. Therefore, what is the application of abstract "professional" theology to the humble Christian？ The Christian--having already accepted the basis of those philosophical questions with the belief that the Almighty God created all that there is--asks why is there a need to delve into hypothetical theories that often lead Christians to bitterly divide？

It is the reflection upon my own question that I come to agree with Grenz and Olson that all peoples engage in the practice of theology--even the Christian who asks why we need theology because he already knows how it will end. Because the Christian who truly has reflected upon his faith already knows how he will die, it logically follows that he will then desire to increase his knowledge and learn more of how to live the life God expects of him. Thus the conclusion of denial affirms the study of theology. To confirm this conclusion upon the hesitant mind of our doubting brethren that theology has merit, effective theology needs to be shown to increase Christian faith, guard and defend against doctrinal errors, and increase the Christian in application of biblical truth in their individual lives to be truly acceptable.

I believe that Grenz and Olson do an excellent job of explaining to the layman why we need to further study the Bible and learn more of God (i.e., the practice of theology for the enrichment of faith). However I do not believe that they properly explained why the body of Christ has need for theologians, or justified why the body needs objective theology, something which is frequently perceived to dwell in abstract terms and definitions that seemingly have little to do with the Christian walk on the road to maturity. Further, while the authors do stress that everyone participates in theology, they fail to present the idea that all of us on one level or another do practice all five levels of theology as outlined in their book Who Needs Theology？

One of the problems I hold that the authors had in writing this book was the selection of the best approach to explain the differences within the practice and application of theology within the brotherhood of believers. For example, Grenz and Olson divide theology into five categories but fail to explain the role of the "professional" theologian in a way that the average Christian may clearly see how this kind of theology has application with in their own life. Why not further develop the idea and parcel the "professional" class into three groups that encompass the professional level of theological reflection and study so as to better define its roll within Christianity？ Indeed, a trip down to a seminary reveals an academic class of Christian whose vocation is to train other Christians who will go and teach and preach to yet even more Christians. The "professional" Christian vocation is also made up of another scholastic subdivision whose job is to produce helps for other Christians so that they too may greatly accelerate their studies of the Bible. Certainly it is reasonable to stand on the shoulders of others that have traveled the same paths to enable the Christian student to "see" further down the path of understanding the Bible. The "professional" Christian also is made up of those who would further define and defend Christian doctrine and work to resolve philosophical dilemmas such as the problem of evil. Following the precedent the authors set, a chart of legitimate Christian positions along the lines of Grenz and Olson would then look something like this:

Interesting, no？

In the end where does all of this posturing and positioning leave the body？ Does the rubberstamping of persons into classification help to unify our brethren in faith？ Does it increase our understanding of the need for theology？ In my opinion, it does not. Reading through this book gives me the idea that it started out as a series of individual essays that when combined as a whole, fell a few chapters short of a really good book.

Obviously the intent of the authors was to justify theology, remove the fear of theological reflection, and build a love of theology. While I personally do love theology, I feel that the authors could remove some potential tension by swapping out the word "critical" with the word "objective." I will illustrate what I mean: A Moslem is critical of the Christian faith, he is not objective. To the typical Christian when something is said to be "critical," it is often registered as an attack. This obviously is not the intent of the authors but this is the preconceived perception of those who question the worth of theology. Because of this, it legitimizes their concern and thus should be tactfully addressed.

I believe that the analysis of our faith is a good thing and support the idea that all Christians should reflect upon their beliefs and the impact that God makes in their walk. Even the criticisms of the critical Moslem have their benefit, for they work to further define and thus strengthen the unity of the Christian faith. The failing of the particular approach employed by Grenz and Olson does very little to remove the perception that there is a division in the body between the clergy and the laity.

This perceived chasm is a problem because as Christians, we must all accept the doctrine that the body of Christ is made up by an equal brotherhood of priests no matter how educated or how "spiritual" individuals may consider themselves to be. As brethren we are all in this together and we should seek to separate ourselves from the Nicolaitane error that there exist different "levels" or castes among Christians. I believe that the authors' of the book Who Needs Theology would readily accept that idea. In fact, I believe that was one of their premises for authoring the book in the first place--that various practices of reflection upon our own as well as others' beliefs is a good thing because it defines our faith and allows a basis for which to share the Gospel with our culture. However, the approach used by Grenz and Olson to try to define the role theology plays in the devotional life of the Christian community has set up a dichotomy that I believe does not truly exist.

Certainly if I were faced with trying to explain why we need Christian theology to an indifferent and potentially hostile audience, I too would wonder what the best approach is. Although I recognize that it is hard to write and easy to critique, I also recognize in the authors' attempt to justify theology for the masses, they intentionally tried to remain as theologically neutral in regard to doctrine all the while trying to show the necessity of Christian reflection. To do this they offered the idea that we could look at the different divisions of Christian theology after first carefully arguing that all peoples are in the act of practicing theology. Rather than divide the body of Christ up into segments that ultimately work to justify a division between the clergy and the laity, I believe we should concentrate our studies on the different styles or approaches of the study of God that the body of Christ pursues. In this way the emphasis is moved from the "ivory tower" mentality that many Christians hold towards Christians whose vocation is to be professional ministers and servants to a spirit of unity that delegates the different tasks to different portions of the body of Christ.

There comes a point in the walk of those called to teach when it is recognized that they are no longer studying the Bible just for their own edification. This much is true, but there is a new emphasis that delights in learning so as to be able to share and edify others as well. Depending on how far this is carried, these same persons may find themselves needing to defend biblical truth against false doctrine and out-right apostate teachings or they may find themselves seeking to harmonize seemingly contrary teachings within the Bible. Tackling these different aspects of the Christian faith naturally moves the emphasis to the method employed to suit the task at hand, rather than the position of the individual taking up the task. As I see it, this is the failing of the book Who Needs Theology？ Rather than elaborate on the different applications that theology has regarding subjects like evangelization or defining and defending the Christian faith, Grenz and Olson chose to speak more of the positions of those that propagate the faith. But their approach fails to address that the hesitation people hold towards theology isn't upon the practitioners themselves, but upon the ideas they proliferate. These ideas largely fall within well defined battle lines that are drawn along the movements of liberalism, fundamentalism, neo-orthodoxy, and evangelicalism. And for the most part, people recognize this. Regardless of where you fall, you must contemplate that it was theologians who started these movements, these divisions, in the first place.

It is because we war over a battlefield made up of ideas that the fear of the professional theologian perpetuates. Without a doubt many ideas that theologians contemplate are given to vain philosophy. Because of this many people would rather distance themselves from the occupation altogether rather than determine which of these ideas are theological dead ends and which ideas are truly constructive.

We should recognize, as the authors suggest, that theology in and of itself is not necessarily evil. At the same time we would do well to also recognize the limitations of our own philosophical reasoning which may not encompass truth. In contrast, theology derived from wisdom reinforces its truthfulness time and again by its application and further reflection reveals that when a truth proves itself true in all applications it is applied, it is based off of an attribute of God Himself. Additionally, we must recognize that we are all sinners and because of this the conclusions reached based upon our logical reasoning do not necessitate their truthfulness in the eyes of God.

As Timothy George wrote in summary of a debate regarding the future of the Evangelical Movement in consideration of the new Openness theological question:

Theology that is both Christian and evangelical arises out of the wonder and terror of having been confronted with the living God. It issues in confession, thanksgiving, and praise. As Martin Luther declared: "It is not by reading, writing, or speculation that one becomes a theologian. Nay, rather, it is living, dying, and being damned that makes one a theologian." Theologians are not freelance scholars of religion, but trustees of the deposit of faith that they, like pastors, are charged with passing on intact to the rising generation. In the pluralistic culture of the academy, evangelicals must become subversives or else lose their souls.[1]

The authors have asked, "Why do we need theology？" I believe that Thomas C. Oden provided an answer that best justifies the need for theology that is both objective and reflective, saying, "If there is no immune system to resist heresy, there will soon be nothing but the teeming infestation of heresy."[2]

Amen.

[1] The Future of Evangelical Theology, Christianity Today, February 9, 1998

[2] Ibid.