"Practical" Theology

I've been thinking about the interview Jonathon had with Steve Long, noted radical orthodox theologian. At a couple points, Jonathon tried to make the turn with Long toward "practical" applications of the radical orthodox position in the church. Long shied away from that altogether as a matter of course based on radical orthodox sensibilities.

However, I do not think radical orthodox positions are inherently impractical. We joke about how we believe in the Trinity, but do not see any "practical" value in it. Shame on us. If God is not relational within the Trinity, then we who are made in the image of God have no basis to be relational either.

The same with the hypostatic union. Christ has to be one person. Yet He has to be fully God and fully human. His deity makes perfection possible...both as an example and as being a blemish-free sacrifice. But if Christ were not also human, He would have no legitimacy in being our representative on the cross to take away the wrath that we deserve.

How can theology be more practical than reinforcing that there is a personal loving relational God (Trinity) as opposed to a blind mechanical elan vital? How can theology be more approachable than the way it underscores the lengths God is willing to go to (hypostasis) in order to renew fellowship with his broken, rebellious, separated creatures who were made in His image? Radical orthodoxy, though it has flaws, is there to remind us not that theology is anti-practical, but that theology already is practical if we simply take the time to reflect on it, instead of allowing our instant gratification culture dupe us into expecting nothing more complex than chicken fingers and fries for a theological basis for our faith. But I'll leave the topic of cultural distraction for another day.