Court House Theology
A professor at Union Theological Seminary said in the course of a lecture on theology, “If you want to know what kind of job a minister is doing in a community, don’t go to his church community to inquire but to the ‘courthouse’ to determine how much trouble he has stirred up in the community.”
In a recent newspaper article the Rev. Jerry Falwell is quoted as saying, “If a church is doing its job it should have half the town mad at it.” The article also stated that a person who raises Falwell’s name in Lynchburg should be ready to “pucker the duck.”
On his six-day “peace crusade” in the Soviet Union the Rev. Bill Graham said, “The Gospel of Jesus Christ, which I have proclaimed for many years, is a gospel of peace. The God I serve is the God of love, mercy and forgiveness.”
How does one reconcile these two approaches relative to the proclamation of the gospel: one which says that the authentic proclamation of the word will have the effect of bringing strife to a community which hears the word – hearing in the sense of acting upon the proclamation; the other which says no genuine part of the gospel would ever issue a dissension in the community, i.e. the gospel of love truly heard will issue in love.
“Courthouse Theology” may today find its expression only in the “cutting edge” of the gospel which often brings resentment and even hatred because the Christian religion of necessity is often opposed to the world; to the life-style of those without Christ, to the mores of the secular society, and even at times it leads to disharmony among denominations.
It is my firm belief that when the Gospel of Love is proclaimed in love by a minister, even though there may be disagreement from the hearers, when they know it is “the word from God’s word” there will never be valid reasons for “courthouse theology” but rather a humble acceptance of the truth proclaimed.