All Theology, Rightly Formed, is Practical

On Facebook, a few minutes ago I posted a status concerning Martin Bucer's on the True Care of Souls:

Today, I read Martin Bucer's on the True Care of Souls. Bucer's pastoral theology is superb, which is unsurprising, since his ecumenical (and, as a consequence, his eucharistic) theology was driven by his constant pastoral concern and determination to achieve the “peace and purity of the church.”

What strikes me as I mull over this is that Bucer would be appalled at our current distinction between “Biblical,” “Practical,” “Historical” and “Systematic” theology. In this work, as in de Regno Christi and his other writings, he constantly blurs disciplines. He, along with his friend and fellow laborer Philipp Melanchthon, probably knew the Fathers better than any of their opponents, for example, and Bucer's familiarity with many of the sources of theology shows strongly in this handbook to pastoral theology.

The four-fold categorization of theology is unhelpful because it encourages us to compartmentalize and think that some theology is inherently practical whilst other theology is something else. But, as Dr. Douglass likes to remind his students at Covenant frequently, orthodoxy leads to orthopraxy. Each theological discipline, when thought through properly, should flow into applications within the Church.

If only more of the “Christian living” works that were authored followed the great Reformers' examples.