This blog post is a shout-out to all the theologians out there. A show of unity between academics and students alike contributed to the survival of the University of Sheffield’s Biblical Studies department when it was threatened with closure. It was a warning shot over the bow, if you like, for any predatory cost-cutters swinging the axe over other theology departments within the UK. Since the vultures are once again circulating over theology departments across the country, now is your opportunity to tell the blogosphere – and any budding theology students out there – why the study of theology is a worthwhile exercise and why it should remain firmly within the Academy.
http://thegeekmuse.blogspot.com/2010/08/101-reasons-to-study-theology-and.html

In my view Theology is the study of life according to a story. To keep theology in the academy is to be reflective on that life lived. To have others ask why, and to ask others why. To remain open and connected to others is incredibly important – otherwise stagnation and further fragmentation occurs. The realization that we all live according to some belief and story (that is inherently unproven and presumed) is massive. To reject Theology on those grounds is to reject all of humanities choice in where they find meaning in their own life. Because no meaning is proven. Anything proven is objective, and objectivity has no relation to an individual – it is the absence of an individual. Theology is the recognition that our presence is required to make meaning out of our life. And all the questions thereafter flow from that origin.

Theologians are people for whom the Christian faith is especially difficult, incomprehensible, infuriating. As a rule they are not especially talented or spiritually adept individuals. Faith-Theology

David, the Naked Pastor reveals a good explanation
of why fundamentalism works for people. Though, it doesn’t work for David or myself any longer. Fundamentalism is a rigid and strong structure which is self-affirming. The self-affirming nature of the system cannot be assailed. Every system, even science and math, is self-affirming (see Polanyi Personal Knowledge). These structures we impose on the world must reify themselves in the wake of new evidence. There does come, however, a breaking point in all systems. It all goes downhill when the adherents of Fundamentalism refuse to allow the evidence and experience that comes to them to override what they believe (Polanyi recounts many stories of scientists where this exact system of belief needed toppling, and they were unable to allow it to happen).

The problem is not with Fundamentalism as such, but the adherents unwillingness to challenge what they believe. It is really interesting to contrast this ideology with what is going on in NYC with the mosque near Ground Zero. I’m a New Yorker born and raised, and I know the people of the city can deal with this issue perfectly fine. It seems to be all the competing interests that are causing problems over this issue.

Ultimately systems of belief (of any field or topic) will be toppled by another that comes after it. The issue of faith and loyalty is not to a specific dogmatic expression – but to the ineffable core which grounds all those expressions, and to the loyalty of your fellow human being.

The great movement for independent thought instilled in the modern mind a desperate refusal of all knowledge that is not absolutely impersonal, and this implied in its turn a mechanical conception of man which was bound to deny man’s capacity for independent thought. Such objectivism must represent the public good in terms of welfare and power and set in motion thereby the self-destruction of freedom. For when open professions of the great moral passions animating a free society are discredited as specious or utopian, its dynamism will tend to be transformed into the hidden driving force of a political machine, which is then proclaimed as inherently right and granted absolute dominion of thought.
Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge, pg 214

The refusal to allow personal knowledge a voice within greater society will diminish the society over time. It rules out of court the entire realm of value propositions (posited, at least, by Christianity) based on the common welfare which is unquestionably right to do so and ought not be challenged.

That being said – we’re constantly reinterpreting everything. I understand that, and it is a necessary element. But it is only valuable when you can still remember the original context and meaning (if you’re not doing that, you are a revolutionary – not one who stands in the tradition).

Why does this bother me? Because under that clause we are systematically removing the values and morality of religion from speaking about public life. There is a grand delusion that people have fallen into where only science or fact can talk about public life. Only objective data (which boil down to Kantian ethics) are useful at all for the public domain. In this way the project of modernity is still ticking right along.

The movement to ban the ability of churches, or people of faith, from acting on behalf of that faith in public is growing. In effect, the message of Christianity is being censored out of public life. At this point it is only Christianity. But as soon as an imam or rabbi says something people don’t like, they’ll be out too.

The hypocrisy of it all, for me, is that Christian theology is only one way of talking about meaning and value. Other religions perform the same task. Other philosophies, including the materialist, secular, scientific philosophy which is in dominance today is performing the exact same task. All these systems of value do it on radically different terms and premises. But they are all playing the same game. The hypocrisy is that one value system, which now has power, is ruling out of court the other value systems that have the ability to topple it. They’re not doing it by appealing to an argument, or that their system is “better”. They are merely doing it by mischaracterizing what is actually going on. They say they’re not playing the same game, but different games – and that religion game is outlawed from public life.

I’m not worried for a minute that they’ll “win” and something will happen to religion. Religion has been the primary mover of humanity and culture until the mid 1800′s in Europe, and the mid 1900′s in America. It is still the primary mover in Africa and South America. Asia is a little harder to diagnose. I’m just worried that we’ve stopped actually thinking about what is going on. Because should the tables of power turn, voices for value should not be arbitrarily silenced.

It has become apparent to me over the last few years of writing this blog that the critical conversation is between the fundamentalists and the rest. It is the fundamentalist mindset that presents the greatest challenge, in my opinion, to open dialog between all parties
Naked Pastor

The preceding quote mentions polarization. Groups that only talk to themselves become further polarized. This is a sociological fact. Fundamentalists often define themselves by a small number of essential truths. The ultimate question is not whether these truths are “correct” or “true” – but rather to discover why it is these truths and not others which orient the group.

If someone cannot tell you why they have not performed the necessary self-reflection that is required. Such reflection is required in order to actually positively participate in a dialogue.

And people cannot listen to each other. When we’re talking, you and I, mostly when I’m talking and trying to listen to someone I maybe hear—if I’m lucky—one-third of what they say. Mostly I hear my own thoughts, and when I try to write down what they’ve said I mix it with my own thoughts. But there is a discipline which one can obtain. It’s not that hard. It’s to step back from one’s own opinions, make a space in myself and let you in. I don’t have to agree with you but I have to let you in, so that you are heard. I hear you. And you let me in. And that way something very beautiful can appear; I can still disagree completely with you, but I don’t deny your humanity. found here

This is something I have failed to accomplish time and time again. The more and more it happens it has become easier to recognize and correct. You have to be looking for it of course, but it can be done. We all need to learn to listen and to give everyone the humanity they already possess. This is the only way we are going to learn anything.

I agree that the Documentary Hypothesis seems far too “ideal” to be true. The degree of reliance on the written word in the 19th century just doesn’t exist the ancient world. The pesky evidence needs to be accounted for: if they weren’t copying, are you positing that the memory of the words/construction was *that* widespread and in agreement? Is that consistent with ancient writing and storytelling? Furthermore, if the early memories were retold in such precise forms how then did we get four different gospels and what implications does that have for their relationship?

The unrest that the modern situation poses to the church is decidedly secondary — at best — to the unrest that lies at the heart of the church itself. The church is unsettled, unstable precisely because it bears witness to the triune God present through Christ in the Spirit. The crucified Christ is not a stable center, but a transcendent voice that cannot be domesticated by the church into their own possessed message.
Inhabitio Dei

What implications might this have for an understanding that the Spirit works with the Church, giving her authority? Does this qualify, permanently that authority? To what extant must one find oneself in continuity with the Church, and to what extant can one break fellowship with the Church? All these questions are on my mind, as today I sat down to hear progress on ecumenical Christian dialogue between the United Methodists and Catholic Church.

I would agree that the Church cannot domesticate this message, but the tone of the writing (at least to me) implies that each and every church has domesticated this message. Thus failing to live up to their calling. And again, what implications does this have for the statements of the previous paragraph? Apparently I’m falling behind in theology. Too much historical studies for me.

All of these questions aren’t meant at all to detract from the ridiculous, and truthful, statement that the present evangelical woe has entirely taken hold.

To be sure, both approaches to ecclesiology and Scripture aren’t congruent with one another. Coming from a theological ghetto, this is a compass by which I may judge the night sky that is Christendom. Cross’s comments concerning the liturgy match my own thoughts. It is almost scary. I find much of the Anglo-Catholic praxis, ecclesiology, and liturgy persuasive. That said, I still have reservations I am working through.

My largest reservation is, what I perceive to be, a massive redefinition of power by Jesus in his passion and crucifixion. That said, the papacy throughout history has seemed to work according to the ways of the worldly institutions. I am supremely impressed with Rowan William’s refusal to wield any power he might have as a worldly leader might. I will be the first to agree that most leaders will abuse power, and that is a shame and should be resisted. However, it is another thing to create such an inappropriate power through canon law.

Secondly, I have no way to determine what the line between an acceptable and unacceptable accretion is. There doesn’t appear to be a defining line within Catholicism either. It appears to an outsider that whatever opinion gains sway in the magisterium will become canon law. Were these new opinions (it doesn’t appear that much new in the way of law or councils has occurred) considered in terms of ecclesiastical unity? It doesn’t appear so to an outsider. Protestantism, perhaps narrowly, has defined that line. Anglican’s seem to hold to two principles regarding the question of orthodox; “always, everywhere, everyone”, and “all may, none must, some should”. That puts both questions of additions to the definition of orthodox belief, and giving ecumenical thought on the table. Though it does not solve them conclusively – and even that might be a good thing. And I am aware that the first principle was first uttered against Augustine’s theology.

Still working on all this. It is fun, and tough.