Theories: Creation, Critique, and Cooperation

Upon reflection on a few conversations I've had lately, I have allowed the beginnings of a picture to materialize in my mind.  I paint it for you modestly and embrace it loosely.

It seems to me that when it comes to certain domains, such as psychology or church-planting, there are, broadly speaking, two categories of workers.  One group works with theory, and the other with application.

Those who work with theory, hypothesize, test, review, critique, and theorize.  Broadly speaking, they are scientists and philosophers.  Their position does not exempt them from a degree of involvement and application (ie research psychologists and missiologists still bear the responsibility of coming alongside other humans to help them), however their main, every-day work is in the ivory tower, proposing and criticizing theories.  Without these people, we wouldn't have many paradigms, and we would have fewer good ones.  The status quo would never be challenged, innovation would be stifled, and progress stunted.

Those who apply theories usually have to accept whole paradigms at a time.  Psychotherapists and missionaries operate according to particular modes, created for them by theorizers.  They may be smarter or stupider, more talented or less talented, then the theorizers.  But their function is completely different.  They perform therapy, they plant churches, they are on the field with their hands in the dirt.

I have been struggling with my own calling as I thought it clashed with my built-in passions.  While I am more certain of few things than my calling to Missions (To Be Defined at another time [UPDATE: I defined "Mission", and "Missions"), I am more passionate about fewer things than theorizing.  I used to think that in order to work in Missions I couldn't be a philosopher - I had to do church-planting or Bible translation or relief and development.  I was conflicted.  How could a philosopher help people?  How could a missionary philosophize?

A professor once told me that I have to die to myself in order to live for Christ.  He wanted me to give up my passion for philosophy (which he interpreted as a selfish desire for fame - which makes me laugh now).  But about the need to give oneself up, so to speak, for Christ - I agree.  I also believe that God has built me with a unique skill set and particular drive for a purpose (think about Paul's metaphor of the body of Christ).  How these two principles cohere I am not entirely certain as of yet.

God called Moses to lead a nation despite his speech impediment.  He can call me to tell stories to remote people groups in order to communicate the gospel to them despite my lack of story-telling ability.  He can call me to do relief and development work while I'm at it, despite my lack of administration skills.  He can call me to lead a revolution (although I believe in non-violent revolutions as a principle, and by the way I have no immediate intention to start or participate in any revolutions.  At least not any political revolutions; although the idea does appeal to me.)

And if He ever does, I hope that I will submit.

But until then, I am only certain of His calling to "Missions".  And I am very certain of it, if I haven't communicated that already.

So, is there room for theorists within the domain "Missions"?

I assert so.  And until I encounter reasons to do contrary, I intend on entering such a category.

It's not that I think I am a good philosopher, or will become so.  It's more like, if I don't go there, I'm not sure where I'll go.

Upon hearing such a sentence, Lindsey once comforted me by asserting that she is confident in my ability to do other work well.  I was touched and she succeeded in showing me something. However, I think the essence of my point is something more like:

If I don't get to work as a philosopher, my conscience will not be satisfied.