Justification Debate
Piper and NT Wright are to big wigs in theology and they had a disagreement i few years ago. After reading them I want to comment on the main point of their disagreement. I realize I am like three years late on this debate , I feel like a guy going to the prom for the first time at age 23, always the thinker never the theologian.. ho hum..
First we will look at some things this debate is not. It is not a liberal vs. conservative debate, both men are far from Bultmannian in their thinking. They agree on many things, like “Theo-centrality of everything”, “God’s passion for his glory” are ideas central to the thinking of both men. Further, they agree on personal acquisition of salvation by individuals, along on things like the importance of church covenant, and the second coming, they all matter to both men.
Between them there seems to be some confusion over what the other believes.
There are some cultural differences like the way Wright Implying Piper is man centered, Wright could not be more wrong and a bit silly. But I am sure that Tom was just going on cultural assumptions about American’s doing theology. To understand Piper’s thought on justification as a doctrine that just answers the question am I righteous enough for God? It is clear he has not read much of piper. His works such as “Let the nations be glad” speak to the big picture of justification.
The debate circles around two points of contention the first is the defining of righteousness and role of Christ’s Obednace. The other is answering the question “what is reckoned to the believer in justification?”
For Wright the righteousness of God’ mean, essentially, ‘God’s covenant faithfulness’, For Piper it is ‘God’s commitment to act in accordance with his character and glory’. Piper understands the righteousness of God as ultimately grounded in God’s commitment to uphold his glory. (See first chapter of “Let the nations be glad” for a good explanation) Wright sees righteousness as God’s commitment to keep his promises in line with the covenant to Abraham. The shorthand way of understanding Wright’s view is God’s righteousness = God’s ‘covenant faithfulness’.
The two men give different answers to the question, “what is reckoned to the believer in justification?” Piper says the death, resurrection and righteousness of Jesus and Wright says just the death and resurrection of Jesus. In short, Wright does not believe in imputation. Now before you gather a lynch mob to go heretic hunting. Wright does affirm part of Jesus’ mission was to offer the obedience Israel could not, and that union with Jesus means we have what he has, and that a positional righteousness is given to all who belong to Jesus. (“Justification” pages 83, 82, 180) This is not far from Piper’s description of imputed righteousness.
Why does Wright drop imputation from his definition of justification? Wright understands imputed righteousness to be a confusion of categories. It only answers the question. “Am I righteous enough for God?” (Pipers) Without answering what he thinks is the question Paul was dealing with in teaching justification “am I a Christian? And am I a part of the church?” So he drops it from justification as not part of Paul’s thinking on the matter.
A clear difference in Wright and Piper is the role of Christ’s obedience plays in justification. Wright sees it as obedience of the cross and resurrection but not obedience to the law. As for Piper obedience covers Jesus’ entire life. I think Piper wins this one for Jesus did the Father’s will moment by moment, all you need do is read the gospel of john (not john piper but john the dude who hung with THE BIG DUDE JESUS). Further, Romans 5:10 says,” For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” A life lived fully in the moral will of God, it is not law keeping but life rhythms, worldview vision, and the love pull of heaven; you know the stuff “faith” is made of!! (yes my two cents, below is a little more change for ya)
Let me begin (to end) with some Rhetorical questions:
If Jesus has perfectly obeyed the Father’s will, and if what is true of him is true of us because we are united with him … don’t we receive his righteousness? And the answer is YES!
Don’t we have his obedience, faithfulness and righteousness, and death and resurrection, given to us on the basis of faith? … Wait for it.. bam.. YES!
the unsaid elephant in the room
The real issue is not as much their differences in justification significant as they are? Three real debate is over prolegomena and perspectives the men bring with them. It is a debate as old as Methuselah and as circular as, “who came first the chicken or the egg?” I am speaking of systematic theology vs. Biblical theology. In academic circles, the two schools are often at odds over who is better, that is first.
One theologian has defined biblical theology as "that discipline which sets forth the message of the books of the Bible in their historical setting. Biblical theology is primarily a descriptive discipline. It is not initially concerned with the final meaning of the teachings of the Bible or their relevance for today. This is the task of systematic theology. Biblical theology has the task of expounding the theology found in the Bible in its own historical setting, and its own terms, categories, and thought forms. It is the obvious intent of the Bible to tell a story about God and his acts in history for humanity’s salvation." (1)
In academic theology today you can get an education in one camp and never realize the dynamic interaction the two forms give each other. A biblical studies department (biblical theology) focus’ on the text’s meaning and exegesis with proper hermeneutics this includes reading the text in light of its historical setting to get at the authors intent. The stress on historic clarity is paramount. Its definitions are often textual and flatly within the text. A Systematic theology department seeks to teach a set of doctrines and formulate and articulate a comprehensive worldview. They often begin from a creed or confession or Christian idea that is off the page but formulated by scripture. In the case of Wright vs. Piper we have a hung jury (lol – little justification joke). Behind each man is a different school of theology, biblical (Wright) - Systematic (piper). There definitions of righteousness clearly show this to be true. Piper begins with God’s nature (a systematic concept) and Wright dogmatically holds to the text (more precisely, the covenant narrative). The difference in starting points makes all the difference and as the logic plays out the implication grow till imputation is a footnote of medieval anxiety.
You could say one wants to read their Bible's historically and “the others” (yes it is a ‘LOST’ reference) wants to read the Bible theologically but that is a little simplistic a summary of both. If your still a little fuzzy, here is a dose of “DA” CLARITY. D. A. Carson writes on the distinction between systematic and biblical theology so you can get a better idea:
“Although both are text based, the ordering principles of the former are topical, logical, hierarchical, and as synchronic as possible; the ordering principles of the latter trace out the history of redemption, and are (ideally) profoundly inductive, comparative and as diachronic as possible. Systematic theology seeks to rearticulate what the Bible says in self-conscious engagement with (including confrontation with) the culture; biblical theology, though it cannot escape cultural influences, aims to be first and foremost inductive and descriptive, earning its normative power by the credibility of its results. Thus systematic theology tends to be a little further removed from the biblical text than does biblical theology, but a little closer to cultural engagement. Biblical theology tends to seek out the rationality and communicative genius of each literary genre; systematic theology tends to integrate the diverse rationalities in its pursuit of a large-scale, worldview-forming synthesis. In this sense, systematic theology tends to be a culminating discipline; biblical theology, though it is a worthy end in itself, tends to be a bridge discipline.” (2) (3)
Imagine if you will, two men stand before a ordination committee they are both asked one question? What is your authority for faith and practices? One answers “my authority is Scripture and I am willing to affirm a Confession in so far as it coheres and comports with Scripture, as I see it". The other responds “my authority is Scripture as understood by the Confession (insert denomination of choice)". Both men are ordained. Both go on to fruitful ministry. But this is not a comedy it is a tragedy, for after a season of fruitfulness both end up walking off the narrow way. One in the Wright ditch and to the opposite side, in a ditch deep and dogmatic. Both blindly following and forgetting a needed remedy. The first one to the Wright said “ as I see it.” He had forgotten the gravity and trepidation of saying something new and the humility of second guessing ideas in light of opposition. Such remembrance can go a long way in keeping you in the way. The other? Although oh so dogmatic he is neck deep in dirt. Yet even in the ditch he still treats his Creed and Confession like a Mishnah of the Rabbis or a Magisterium hot from Roman. All narrow roads have two dangers, two ditches - we all need humble orthodoxy. (4)
In no way, should this be a denouement of either man. I think both men are brilliant theologians. Yet I do believe there is a little something to learn about Moral formation. Israel was known for fighting among itself during peace time but when there was an enemy from without it battled as one army. In theology there is a difference between reordering categories and heresy. The new perspective on Paul (Wrights’ Camp) plays at this line but I believe (among the more faithful branch is within orthodoxy).
Sinners like me and you have a tendency to draw lines where there is no line. We make enemies out of sparing partners, much like the tribes of Israel. We must remember our identity comes from who we believe in not the tribe we follow. We are Jesus people first and foremost. Pride is like a virus it gets in everything especially a desire for the truth. So protect yourself, know your place and the dynamics of theology in all its dimensions or know pride and the ditches it leads people too.
Balance is the holding of two valid extremes
End Notes
________________________________________________
1.) George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, revised ed. (Eerdmans, 1993), p. 20.
2.) Systematic theology and biblical theology,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Downers Grove: IVP, 2000, p. 102-103)
3.) For futher study on the dynamic interaction of systimatic ans biblical theology see, http://www.upper-register.com/papers/bt_st.html
4.) In case you missed it the story gets at the pride that infects both dogmatic conviction and deep independant thought.
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Imputation of Christ's righteousness
I have done little more than looking over some notes and a few resources. I have not looked into the modern debate, so no labels – ok dudes! Yes! You! Now get your mom some lunch. I wrote this over lunch.. K ..
Imputation of Christ's righteousness is part of God’s justification of us. Justification is twofold in function 1.) Forgiveness and 3.) Imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Justification is objective and declarative in Christian teaching as a way of viewing what Christ has does as the object of our faith that justify us.
Imputation means to “think of as belonging to”. It is used to describe the transaction that allows us to stand before God . Imputation is akin to, if not synonymous with another theological concept: Union with Christ. No Transaction of righteousness is at an arm’s length. Rather it is about two becoming one, Christ and the believer becoming one in the sight of God. Thus Paul is able to speak of the believer dying and being made alive in Christ (Rom6:3-4).
I think the best way to get at imputation is to take the above idea and frame it within the metaphor of a bridle covenant (Eph 5). This is not a stretch for I think the union in Christ is the theological construct imputation fits within.
Imputation as an aspect of Oneness: The mystery spoken of in Eph 5 is the oneness of Christ and the church foreshadowed in the oneness of a bride and husband. So Christ’s righteousness is our righteousness for we are made one with him. The oneness we share with Christ is a position we have before the father. Imputation is not as much transference from person to person but an act of two becoming one. A bride is dressed in the bridegroom’s robes and shares in his inheritance, and in His love. So In him we hold all things in common with him and are declared as righteous “IN HIM”. As Isaiah 61:10, reads, “I will greatly rejoice in the Lord; my soul shall exult in my God, for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation; he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself like a priest with a beautiful headdress, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.”
Justification is declarative and not a personal internal work of making someone actually righteous (sanctification) but righteous in position (like a marriage makes one a wife or husband in position). Their is no infusing righteousness in the oneness view only a positional shift from under the wrath of God to “in Him” thus In Him we gain the grace and joy and pleasure the Father has for Christ because of his righteousness that is counted as our righteousness for we are in covenant relationship. OK, Ok, I will say it, we are marriage to Jesus. His is ours by his work (the bridal price) that makes us his possession and he gives us a new identity (position before God) and keeps all sides of the covenant because of his covenant keeping faithfulness. The result of imputation is a new identity and position be have because of our covenant relationship with Christ. We are “in him” one with him in the new covenant, So that we can become in practice what we are in position. (2 Cor 6:1)
The bridal covenant is a New Testament theme used repeatedly to describe the new covenant in Christ. It is in the background of Paul’s thought in his view of the Old Testament promise. Look in 2 cor 6:16,18 he uses this theme as the backdrop to stress the temple metaphor which is another way of looking at oneness with Christ as a way to promote church accountability and responsible action in view of our positional relationship with God. In 2 Cor 6:16, 18, Paul writes:
17. I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
18. and I will be a father to you,
and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty.”
Paul is not seeing adoption here but people of being made Sons and Daughters by covenant, such an act happens when a coupe enters a marriage covenant. As in the new covenant, the two become one; the church and Christ become one to be one new family.
SO Christ’s righteousness is our righteousness – we are in right relationship and made perfect in God’s sight. It is our possession because we are his possession. It is our position because it is his position. It is about him and clinging by faith to him and his work as the only way of salvation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Books used in reflection:
Christian theology - Erickson
Systematic theology – Grudem
Sit, walk, stand - Watchman Nee
Imputation of Christ's righteousness is part of God’s justification of us. Justification is twofold in function 1.) Forgiveness and 3.) Imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Justification is objective and declarative in Christian teaching as a way of viewing what Christ has does as the object of our faith that justify us.
Imputation means to “think of as belonging to”. It is used to describe the transaction that allows us to stand before God . Imputation is akin to, if not synonymous with another theological concept: Union with Christ. No Transaction of righteousness is at an arm’s length. Rather it is about two becoming one, Christ and the believer becoming one in the sight of God. Thus Paul is able to speak of the believer dying and being made alive in Christ (Rom6:3-4).
I think the best way to get at imputation is to take the above idea and frame it within the metaphor of a bridle covenant (Eph 5). This is not a stretch for I think the union in Christ is the theological construct imputation fits within.
Imputation as an aspect of Oneness: The mystery spoken of in Eph 5 is the oneness of Christ and the church foreshadowed in the oneness of a bride and husband. So Christ’s righteousness is our righteousness for we are made one with him. The oneness we share with Christ is a position we have before the father. Imputation is not as much transference from person to person but an act of two becoming one. A bride is dressed in the bridegroom’s robes and shares in his inheritance, and in His love. So In him we hold all things in common with him and are declared as righteous “IN HIM”. As Isaiah 61:10, reads, “I will greatly rejoice in the Lord; my soul shall exult in my God, for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation; he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself like a priest with a beautiful headdress, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.”
Justification is declarative and not a personal internal work of making someone actually righteous (sanctification) but righteous in position (like a marriage makes one a wife or husband in position). Their is no infusing righteousness in the oneness view only a positional shift from under the wrath of God to “in Him” thus In Him we gain the grace and joy and pleasure the Father has for Christ because of his righteousness that is counted as our righteousness for we are in covenant relationship. OK, Ok, I will say it, we are marriage to Jesus. His is ours by his work (the bridal price) that makes us his possession and he gives us a new identity (position before God) and keeps all sides of the covenant because of his covenant keeping faithfulness. The result of imputation is a new identity and position be have because of our covenant relationship with Christ. We are “in him” one with him in the new covenant, So that we can become in practice what we are in position. (2 Cor 6:1)
The bridal covenant is a New Testament theme used repeatedly to describe the new covenant in Christ. It is in the background of Paul’s thought in his view of the Old Testament promise. Look in 2 cor 6:16,18 he uses this theme as the backdrop to stress the temple metaphor which is another way of looking at oneness with Christ as a way to promote church accountability and responsible action in view of our positional relationship with God. In 2 Cor 6:16, 18, Paul writes:
17. I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
18. and I will be a father to you,
and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty.”
Paul is not seeing adoption here but people of being made Sons and Daughters by covenant, such an act happens when a coupe enters a marriage covenant. As in the new covenant, the two become one; the church and Christ become one to be one new family.
SO Christ’s righteousness is our righteousness – we are in right relationship and made perfect in God’s sight. It is our possession because we are his possession. It is our position because it is his position. It is about him and clinging by faith to him and his work as the only way of salvation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Books used in reflection:
Christian theology - Erickson
Systematic theology – Grudem
Sit, walk, stand - Watchman Nee
Imputation
There is a debate today over the issue of justification, particularly one aspect of it: The imputation of Christ’s righteousness. I want to know your thoughts but don’t forget to first define your terms:
Imputation means “to think of as belonging to another”. For me, it is wearing your brothers Tux to the prom and looking good in it!! Just kidding! Seriously, Imputed righteousness is the act by which the righteousness of Christ is given and thus treated as if it were theirs through faith. It is on the basis of this "alien" righteousness that God accepts us. This acceptance is one half of justification the other being forgiveness of sin.
I have always seen the below passages clearly teaching that imputation. What do you think?
Rom 3:21- 26 (Key in on Rom 3:21-22, 24)
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Rom 4:6-8
6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
Rom 5:9, 17, 19
9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ
19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous
Rom 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Rom 10:4
4. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
1 Cor 1:30
30. And because of him, you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption,
2 Cor 5:21
21. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Phil 3:9
9. and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.
Imputation means “to think of as belonging to another”. For me, it is wearing your brothers Tux to the prom and looking good in it!! Just kidding! Seriously, Imputed righteousness is the act by which the righteousness of Christ is given and thus treated as if it were theirs through faith. It is on the basis of this "alien" righteousness that God accepts us. This acceptance is one half of justification the other being forgiveness of sin.
I have always seen the below passages clearly teaching that imputation. What do you think?
Rom 3:21- 26 (Key in on Rom 3:21-22, 24)
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Rom 4:6-8
6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
Rom 5:9, 17, 19
9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ
19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous
Rom 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Rom 10:4
4. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
1 Cor 1:30
30. And because of him, you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption,
2 Cor 5:21
21. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Phil 3:9
9. and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Why "why" is an the central ethical question
It may even be held that [the intellect] is the true self of each, inasmuch as it is the dominant and better part; and therefore it would be a strange thing if a man should choose to live not his own life but the life of some other than himself. Moreover . . . that which is best and most pleasant for each creature is that which is proper to the nature of each; accordingly the life of the intellect is the best and the pleasantest life for man, inasmuch as the intellect more than anything else is man.
Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 1178a2-7, trans. H. Rackham.
A World without a Why
It is, perhaps, a truism to state that in twentieth century philosophy it is by no means certain that there is any discernible purpose to human life. From Nietzsche’s mere “will to power”1 which find purpose in conquest, to Lyotard’s “incredulity toward metanarratives,”2 which drops all ultimate to particulars and strips reality to a bare canvas, and with many points in between there has been a reluctance to find over arching meaning.3 Western culture supported by philosophical positivism, a technological society and the dogmatic adherence to a scientific body of knowledge, has provided humanity with ample answers to the “how” with little guidance for the “who,” the “what,” or the “why.” We have massive amount of a “reductionistic” information yet knowing “how” a natural process works gives little if any, light to the questions of “what” or “why” the natural process is rather than is not. Modern philosophy and science avoided the questions of being in of a meaningful universe and cleaning their hands of metaphysical issues by reducing them to personal preference, presuppositions and improvable beliefs.
Being “Fit” and the "why" in the world
The philosopher Alasdair Macintyre has made it fashionable for some to utilize again the age-old Aristotelian perspective about human life as having a telos, a purpose.4 If we agree, as Aristotle taught, that life is lived toward a telos - that human life is at its best in the light of that telos - then we might suggest, again with Aristotle, that the aim of human life is eudaimonia; a word that means “well-being, wholeness, blessedness, happiness.” The word is rich, yet problematic. Before diving to deeply into it a few clarifying points must be made. The necessity of a world of order and syncopation is implied when you talk of eudemonia as a concept. Eudaimonia is a concept that focuses on the moral agent or in Hieddgier terms a being-in-the-world. Eudemonia is “fittedness” in the cosmos. Thus, human telos implies an objective world in the necessity of a fit-able place for man in the world of moment and often-unintelligible order. Man does not create meaning but finds a certain “fit” in the world. So Eudemonia is a subjective understanding of the content of a moral self in an objective world of order and choices.
Eudaimonia as aim for personal growth
The cultural use of happiness as personal satisfaction and fulfillment may pervert our understanding of eudaimonia. Though often translated “happiness,” the word is far more full than mere “feelings of being happy”. Eudaimonia is comparable to the Hebrew idea of shalom, or perhaps the English word “flourishing.”5 The modern misunderstanding of eudaimonia is the result of a sallow hedonism that is common to western culture. There are, of course, philosophically sophisticated versions of hedonism which cannot be dismissed lightly and do have great insights into the nature of humanity as a wanting creature. Yet If we steer eudaimonia away from the shallow hedonism prevalent today and toward the richer meaning, then it is arguable that the idea of a human telos, would be a helpful for both psychologists, pastoral theologians and ethicist interested in regaining a intellectual world endued with significance, human life grained more than just functional worth and personal action guided by a value directed purpose.
Human telos is understood along a paradigm: the temporal and eternal. The first is understood as the value paradigm where man’s action is judged in light of its proximity to the eternal. Thus it can be said that in light of a human telos - human action gains meaning and ethical value-direction.
When, pastors, or psychologist advise other they should have eudaimonia is view. Working to move people toward this state of eudaimonia. In this way, Eudaimonia is a worldview that is formed thought guided character development. I have termed Eudaimonia as a “mental well-being” more for alliterative purposes than because of a focus only on the mind. Aristotle’s eudaimonia is well-being in the most rounded sense: body and soul; feeling, thinking, sensing; the entirety of human personality, in whatever way we might perceive its complexity.
Harmony, Syncopation and the Glory of God
This is not a new idea but proposed in the Christian tradition as a life lived for the glory of God, an idea set out by the apostle Paul, explicated by st. Augustine and systematically described by St. Aquinas. For the Christian, eudemonia is found in God as the ultimate good. This faith tradition holds that eudemonia, as an end in itself is at best Moral selfishness, and at worst shallow hedonism. God is for the Christian, the foundation of all flourishing, the source of life and shalom. Further, God is the realization of human bliss, fundamental source of human enjoyment and the end to which all things where created. With this in mind, MacIntyre, defines eudaimonia as “the state of being well and doing well in being well, of a man’s [sic] being well favored himself and in relation to the divine.”6 Thus for the Christian eudemonia is the character traits and essential nature of a mature Christian that lives in harmony with and movement towards the telos of all creation, the glory of God. For those in the Christian tradition it allows eudaimonia to be understood as a holistic worldview that is rooted in the character of the individual. An individual enters and engages in a world that finds its temporal and eternal movements towards the glory of God. Thus in seeking God in all of life we seek a harmony of “fittedness” with the movement of the natural law and syncopation of our hearts with the glory of God.
Footnotes
1 Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power (Vintage, 1968).
2 The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian
Massumi, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press, 1979, 1984, p xxiv. See also his Postmodern Fables, translated by George Van Den Abbeele, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press, 1993, 1997.
3 This was classically stated by Paul Tillich in The Courage To Be ((New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1952), 35, 41, 47, 57, 61-63, terming the twentieth century as “the age of anxiety.”
4 See for example, Nancey Murphy, Brad J. Kallenburg, and Mark Thiessen Nation (eds.) Virtues and Practices in the Christian Tradition: Christian Ethics After MacIntyre (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997).
5 There is a good introductory discussion both eudaimonia and telos in Christian philosophy in Stanley Grenz The Moral Quest: Foundations of Christian Ethics, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997)70- 72,75-76, 172-173.
6 Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (London: Duckworth, 1981, 1985), 148.
Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 1178a2-7, trans. H. Rackham.
A World without a Why
It is, perhaps, a truism to state that in twentieth century philosophy it is by no means certain that there is any discernible purpose to human life. From Nietzsche’s mere “will to power”1 which find purpose in conquest, to Lyotard’s “incredulity toward metanarratives,”2 which drops all ultimate to particulars and strips reality to a bare canvas, and with many points in between there has been a reluctance to find over arching meaning.3 Western culture supported by philosophical positivism, a technological society and the dogmatic adherence to a scientific body of knowledge, has provided humanity with ample answers to the “how” with little guidance for the “who,” the “what,” or the “why.” We have massive amount of a “reductionistic” information yet knowing “how” a natural process works gives little if any, light to the questions of “what” or “why” the natural process is rather than is not. Modern philosophy and science avoided the questions of being in of a meaningful universe and cleaning their hands of metaphysical issues by reducing them to personal preference, presuppositions and improvable beliefs.
Being “Fit” and the "why" in the world
The philosopher Alasdair Macintyre has made it fashionable for some to utilize again the age-old Aristotelian perspective about human life as having a telos, a purpose.4 If we agree, as Aristotle taught, that life is lived toward a telos - that human life is at its best in the light of that telos - then we might suggest, again with Aristotle, that the aim of human life is eudaimonia; a word that means “well-being, wholeness, blessedness, happiness.” The word is rich, yet problematic. Before diving to deeply into it a few clarifying points must be made. The necessity of a world of order and syncopation is implied when you talk of eudemonia as a concept. Eudaimonia is a concept that focuses on the moral agent or in Hieddgier terms a being-in-the-world. Eudemonia is “fittedness” in the cosmos. Thus, human telos implies an objective world in the necessity of a fit-able place for man in the world of moment and often-unintelligible order. Man does not create meaning but finds a certain “fit” in the world. So Eudemonia is a subjective understanding of the content of a moral self in an objective world of order and choices.
Eudaimonia as aim for personal growth
The cultural use of happiness as personal satisfaction and fulfillment may pervert our understanding of eudaimonia. Though often translated “happiness,” the word is far more full than mere “feelings of being happy”. Eudaimonia is comparable to the Hebrew idea of shalom, or perhaps the English word “flourishing.”5 The modern misunderstanding of eudaimonia is the result of a sallow hedonism that is common to western culture. There are, of course, philosophically sophisticated versions of hedonism which cannot be dismissed lightly and do have great insights into the nature of humanity as a wanting creature. Yet If we steer eudaimonia away from the shallow hedonism prevalent today and toward the richer meaning, then it is arguable that the idea of a human telos, would be a helpful for both psychologists, pastoral theologians and ethicist interested in regaining a intellectual world endued with significance, human life grained more than just functional worth and personal action guided by a value directed purpose.
Human telos is understood along a paradigm: the temporal and eternal. The first is understood as the value paradigm where man’s action is judged in light of its proximity to the eternal. Thus it can be said that in light of a human telos - human action gains meaning and ethical value-direction.
When, pastors, or psychologist advise other they should have eudaimonia is view. Working to move people toward this state of eudaimonia. In this way, Eudaimonia is a worldview that is formed thought guided character development. I have termed Eudaimonia as a “mental well-being” more for alliterative purposes than because of a focus only on the mind. Aristotle’s eudaimonia is well-being in the most rounded sense: body and soul; feeling, thinking, sensing; the entirety of human personality, in whatever way we might perceive its complexity.
Harmony, Syncopation and the Glory of God
This is not a new idea but proposed in the Christian tradition as a life lived for the glory of God, an idea set out by the apostle Paul, explicated by st. Augustine and systematically described by St. Aquinas. For the Christian, eudemonia is found in God as the ultimate good. This faith tradition holds that eudemonia, as an end in itself is at best Moral selfishness, and at worst shallow hedonism. God is for the Christian, the foundation of all flourishing, the source of life and shalom. Further, God is the realization of human bliss, fundamental source of human enjoyment and the end to which all things where created. With this in mind, MacIntyre, defines eudaimonia as “the state of being well and doing well in being well, of a man’s [sic] being well favored himself and in relation to the divine.”6 Thus for the Christian eudemonia is the character traits and essential nature of a mature Christian that lives in harmony with and movement towards the telos of all creation, the glory of God. For those in the Christian tradition it allows eudaimonia to be understood as a holistic worldview that is rooted in the character of the individual. An individual enters and engages in a world that finds its temporal and eternal movements towards the glory of God. Thus in seeking God in all of life we seek a harmony of “fittedness” with the movement of the natural law and syncopation of our hearts with the glory of God.
Footnotes
1 Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power (Vintage, 1968).
2 The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian
Massumi, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press, 1979, 1984, p xxiv. See also his Postmodern Fables, translated by George Van Den Abbeele, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press, 1993, 1997.
3 This was classically stated by Paul Tillich in The Courage To Be ((New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1952), 35, 41, 47, 57, 61-63, terming the twentieth century as “the age of anxiety.”
4 See for example, Nancey Murphy, Brad J. Kallenburg, and Mark Thiessen Nation (eds.) Virtues and Practices in the Christian Tradition: Christian Ethics After MacIntyre (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997).
5 There is a good introductory discussion both eudaimonia and telos in Christian philosophy in Stanley Grenz The Moral Quest: Foundations of Christian Ethics, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997)70- 72,75-76, 172-173.
6 Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (London: Duckworth, 1981, 1985), 148.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
A modern Parable by N T Wright
The Resurrection, the Postmodern Dilemma, the
Let me end with a parable, returning one more time to the story of the two on the road to Emmaus. To understand this parable, you need to know Matthew Arnold s poem “
. . . at the full, and round earth’s shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl’d;
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating to the breath
Of the night-wind down the vase edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.
Two serious-minded unbelievers are walking home together, trying to make sense of the world of the mid-1990s. The dream of progress and enlightenment has run out of steam. Critical postmodernity has blown the whistle on the world as we knew it.
Our two unbelievers walk along the road toward
Into this conversation comes Jesus, incognito. (It is just as well that they do not recognize him, since modernism taught them to disbelieve in all religions, and now postmodernism has rehabilitated so many that Jesus is just one guru among dozens.) “What are you talking about?” he asks. They stand there, looking sad. Then one of them says, “You must be about the only person in town who doesn’t know what a traumatic time the twentieth century has been. Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx were quite right. We had a war to end wars, and we’ve had nothing but wars since. We had a sexual revolution, and now we have AIDS and more family-less people than ever before. We pursued wealth, but we had inexplicable recessions and ended up with half the world in crippling debt. We can do what we like, but we’ve all forgotten why we liked it. Our dreams have gone sour, and we don’t even know who ‘we’ are any more. And now even the church has let us down, corrupting its spiritual message with talk of cosmic and political liberation.”
“Foolish ones,” replies Jesus. “How slow of heart you are to believe all that the Creator God has said. Did you never hear that God created the world wisely? And that he has now acted within his world to create a truly human people? And that from within this people he came to live as a truly human person? And that in his own death he dealt with evil once and for all? And that he is even now at work, by his own Spirit, to create a new human family in which repentance and forgiveness of sins are the order of the day, and so to challenge and overturn the rule of war, sex, money, and power?” And then, beginning with Moses and all the prophets, and now also the apostles and prophets of the New Testament, Jesus interpreted to them in all of the scriptures the things concerning himself.
The three arrived together at
The two travelers began wearily to open a small picnic basket, totally inadequate for the task of feeding so many. Gently Jesus took it from them, and then in what seemed like moments he had gone to and fro on the beach until everyone had been fed. Then the eyes of them all were opened, and they realized who he was, and he vanished from their sight.
Then the two travelers said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us on the road, as he told us the story of the creator and his world, and his victory over evil?” And they rushed back to tell their friends of what had happened on the road, and how he had been made known in the breaking of the bread.
Actually, that is not a story. It is a play, a real-life drama. And the part of Jesus is to be played by you and me. This is Christian mission in a postmodern world.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Theology as Knowledge, Part 1 - James R. Stoner, Jr
Who stripped the public square and left it naked? That puts the matter a bit abruptly, but it is worth asking why religion lost its prominent place in American public discourse during the later decades of the twentieth century—and why the attempt to restore it has triggered a culture war among writers in the republic of letters.
The usual explanations—that secularization of public discourse necessarily results from increased pluralism in American society, or that it was the deliberate product of a determined faction on the Supreme Court—offer clues but remain inadequate. As recently as the 1950s, the pluralism of “Protestant-Catholic-Jew” was apt not to suppress attention to faith but to enhance its public voice. And in other areas of life, such as popular culture and cuisine, pluralism fostered engagement and emulation, not a retreat to the bland.
Meanwhile, blaming judges leaves unanswered the question of why they interpreted the Constitution in so secularist a manner. It underestimates the extent to which the decisions of the Warren Court reflected the common wisdom of their time, and it forces us to ask why those decisions succeeded in binding subsequent judges who are probably more friendly to religion.
In fact, I suggest, the secularization of the public square resulted from the prior secularization of the university. Of course, this itself had a variety of causes, but the academics’ decision that theology is not a branch of knowledge, merely an elaboration of belief, helped turn America away from a religiously informed public square.
The issue is as old as Cardinal Newman’s day. Several discourses in The Idea of the University are devoted to theology as “A Branch of Knowledge,” its bearing on other branches, and their bearing on it. In America, it seems to have been around the beginning of the twentieth century when theology was eclipsed in the curriculum of the nation’s leading universities, as they transformed themselves from Protestant seminaries into research institutions influenced by the German model. Darwinism in the natural sciences and pragmatism in the others made theology superfluous, the professors thought, and by mid-century the natural sciences were increasingly autonomous, while the humanities and social sciences were enamored of such thoroughly antitheological figures as Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud.
As George Marsden explains in his Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief, the full meaning of these curricular developments was hidden for a long time—not least from the universities’ alumni—by the continued, visible extracurricular religious life of the students: The Yale Christian Association, known as “Dwight Hall,” remained a center of student life, and in the 1920s both Harvard and Princeton constructed grand new chapels at the center of their campuses. Religious idealism of a generic sort was a regular object of appeal in addresses by university administrators, even as denominational idiosyncrasies dropped from the curriculum and study of the Bible was marginalized. Though theology was no longer treated as a field of knowledge, the old religious establishments persisted for more than fifty years.
But the shell cannot survive forever without the living organism, and in the 1960s the religious establishments collapsed as clergyman presidents, mandatory chapel, and even formal affiliation with the founding denomination disappeared. The crisis in the universities in those days may or may not have been precipitated by this collapse, but no one can deny the crisis revealed a vacuum of authority. Indeed, American universities today still live with that crisis.
My question, however, is not whether theology ought to be restored as the queen of the sciences, but whether she belongs among them at all. As a political scientist, I am particularly interested in what happens to the national polity when graduates of many universities—especially the oldest, wealthiest, and most prestigious—never saw theology as a serious field of knowledge and thus see religion as, if not an illusion, at most a form of mere belief.
One consequence is obvious: The equation of theology with belief has now been written into the law of the land. In the 2004 case Locke v. Davey, the Supreme Court upheld a state of Washington statute that denied theology students state scholarships that were available for vocational training in every other field. Only Justice Thomas in dissent distinguished “devotional theology” from theology in any other form, and that was to distinguish “the study of theology from a secular perspective.” Religion, it seemed to the Court, is all emotion or commitment, not thought, so the state can with reason exclude theological study from its support, even though it was admitted that, since the choice of what to study was made by mature individuals, there was no Establishment Clause objection to including theology if the state had so desired. That the word vocational is itself a term of religious origin seems to have occurred to the justices not at all.
Another consequence, as the controversy over intelligent design has revealed, is that society in general (and, here again, the judiciary in particular) seems incapable of imagining that rational doubts can be raised about Darwinism except by those whose reason has been clouded by religious belief. I know good, Christian scientists who are skeptical of the claims made by the proponents of intelligent design, and this journal has certainly been in the forefront of exploring its relation to theology—but these debates take place “off the radar screen” of the general press and apparently in a dimension beyond judicial notice. That science and religion are fundamentally at odds—or, rather, that the one is a matter of the mind and the other of the heart—seems a settled tenet of public debate.
Similarly, because theology is considered tied to emotion rather than to thought, the great moral controversies of our age proceed, not exactly without a theological voice, but with that voice heard only for its conclusions, not the reasoning that attained to them. Indeed, the conclusions are often thought suspect because their origin is presumed to be irrational. On campus, or at least on the faculty, the theological voice is absent or barely audible. One reason for the notorious uniformity of faculty sentiment on issues such as abortion and gay marriage is the banishment of modes of discourse that might produce a contrary conclusion. Students do not believe everything their professors tell them (thank God!), but they do tend to accept that the professors speak for rationality. Some obstinately hold to their faith, but they are made to feel obstinate for doing so.
Indeed, holding theology not to be a form of knowledge creates the entire way religion is approached in our culture. Religion can still make itself heard in the public square—but only by singing or shouting, not as a kind of reasoning. When philosophers, following John Rawls, speak of “public reason” as the test of what arguments and what positions are valid in public, they mean to subject public discourse to the censorship of the secular professoriate. They know, I think, that they will never actually suppress the voice of faith in everyday politics, but they mean to exclude it from the higher reaches of the law, from journalism and the media, from professional and corporate networks, and the like.
Is there a way out of this predicament? Not a political one, or at least not an immediate political one. Anyone who looks at the matter with an open mind will see, I think, that there is at least a kind of knowledge possessed by theologians. Many disciplines have a historical dimension—political theory and constitutional law, for just two examples—and it is becoming increasingly apparent to scholars that simply to understand authors who wrote in the past it is necessary to know something about the theology they took for granted.
From Renaissance art to Enlightenment political theory, every text is opaque to a reader who does not know at least the basics of Christianity. In the study of English literature, no overdose of critical literary theory can compensate for ignorance of the Bible. In the study of history, the age of Western discovery and expansion cannot be grasped apart from the story of its missionaries or the millennial struggle of Christianity with Islam. At the very least, knowledge of religion is needed as ancillary to many fields—and I think scholars appreciate that it is critical in understanding a religion to consider how the religion understands itself. Sociology of religion without theology will not do, as it ends up reiterating the worldview of sociology rather than letting its subject speak for itself.
Still, in my experience, the research program of scholars has not been the only cause of a reawakened interest in theology. Interest in religion is reawakening among students, and, unless they are browbeaten, the students are not satisfied with superficial answers from professors trying to cover their own ignorance of theological concerns. If only to be able to keep up with improved catechesis, professors trained during the apogee of secularism have had to retool to be taken seriously in the classroom.
Nor can they count on scoring easy points by expounding their worldly experience in contrast to their students’ narrow upbringing. Few undergraduates have been granted the luxury of an age of innocence; and when not hungry for affirmation of their misbehavior, they are eager to hear a voice of moral authority, and they are astonished when it comes confidently giving reasons, not just making assertions. The questions theology asks—about the nature of God, what can be known in revelation, how to live in the light of these things—are universal. Just to know how to formulate them as questions and where to look to weigh the most plausible answers is a kind of knowledge in itself.
None of this is to say that theology will return to its ancient pride of place. In different kinds of institutions it will have a different function, formative perhaps in resurgent denominational colleges, auxiliary in more-secular universities. Nor is it to say that the current array of religious-studies associations and their journals will satisfy the needs of which I have been speaking. I certainly do not expect anything like the old Protestant establishment to return to authority in the universities, for the current liberal establishment there is in some ways very much like the establishments it replaced.
There will be moments, I trust, for genuine academic leadership, but for now the urgent need is to restore the serious sense of mission among academics who study theology—for, in the long run, even goodwill and an aching desire for a certain kind of learning are no substitute for scholars doing the hard, even sacrificial academic work. Obstacles are already in place: scientists who are not open to understanding the philosophical basis of their own work, counselors and coordinators who disseminate strictly secular doctrines and practices, entrenched scholars whose whole careers have been based on a contrary premise. But a good, clean fight about what is true would itself reform a university culture reveling in cynicism.
James R. Stoner, Jr., is professor of political science at Louisiana State University.
Copyright (c) 2006 First Things (May 2006).
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=128
The usual explanations—that secularization of public discourse necessarily results from increased pluralism in American society, or that it was the deliberate product of a determined faction on the Supreme Court—offer clues but remain inadequate. As recently as the 1950s, the pluralism of “Protestant-Catholic-Jew” was apt not to suppress attention to faith but to enhance its public voice. And in other areas of life, such as popular culture and cuisine, pluralism fostered engagement and emulation, not a retreat to the bland.
Meanwhile, blaming judges leaves unanswered the question of why they interpreted the Constitution in so secularist a manner. It underestimates the extent to which the decisions of the Warren Court reflected the common wisdom of their time, and it forces us to ask why those decisions succeeded in binding subsequent judges who are probably more friendly to religion.
In fact, I suggest, the secularization of the public square resulted from the prior secularization of the university. Of course, this itself had a variety of causes, but the academics’ decision that theology is not a branch of knowledge, merely an elaboration of belief, helped turn America away from a religiously informed public square.
The issue is as old as Cardinal Newman’s day. Several discourses in The Idea of the University are devoted to theology as “A Branch of Knowledge,” its bearing on other branches, and their bearing on it. In America, it seems to have been around the beginning of the twentieth century when theology was eclipsed in the curriculum of the nation’s leading universities, as they transformed themselves from Protestant seminaries into research institutions influenced by the German model. Darwinism in the natural sciences and pragmatism in the others made theology superfluous, the professors thought, and by mid-century the natural sciences were increasingly autonomous, while the humanities and social sciences were enamored of such thoroughly antitheological figures as Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud.
As George Marsden explains in his Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief, the full meaning of these curricular developments was hidden for a long time—not least from the universities’ alumni—by the continued, visible extracurricular religious life of the students: The Yale Christian Association, known as “Dwight Hall,” remained a center of student life, and in the 1920s both Harvard and Princeton constructed grand new chapels at the center of their campuses. Religious idealism of a generic sort was a regular object of appeal in addresses by university administrators, even as denominational idiosyncrasies dropped from the curriculum and study of the Bible was marginalized. Though theology was no longer treated as a field of knowledge, the old religious establishments persisted for more than fifty years.
But the shell cannot survive forever without the living organism, and in the 1960s the religious establishments collapsed as clergyman presidents, mandatory chapel, and even formal affiliation with the founding denomination disappeared. The crisis in the universities in those days may or may not have been precipitated by this collapse, but no one can deny the crisis revealed a vacuum of authority. Indeed, American universities today still live with that crisis.
My question, however, is not whether theology ought to be restored as the queen of the sciences, but whether she belongs among them at all. As a political scientist, I am particularly interested in what happens to the national polity when graduates of many universities—especially the oldest, wealthiest, and most prestigious—never saw theology as a serious field of knowledge and thus see religion as, if not an illusion, at most a form of mere belief.
One consequence is obvious: The equation of theology with belief has now been written into the law of the land. In the 2004 case Locke v. Davey, the Supreme Court upheld a state of Washington statute that denied theology students state scholarships that were available for vocational training in every other field. Only Justice Thomas in dissent distinguished “devotional theology” from theology in any other form, and that was to distinguish “the study of theology from a secular perspective.” Religion, it seemed to the Court, is all emotion or commitment, not thought, so the state can with reason exclude theological study from its support, even though it was admitted that, since the choice of what to study was made by mature individuals, there was no Establishment Clause objection to including theology if the state had so desired. That the word vocational is itself a term of religious origin seems to have occurred to the justices not at all.
Another consequence, as the controversy over intelligent design has revealed, is that society in general (and, here again, the judiciary in particular) seems incapable of imagining that rational doubts can be raised about Darwinism except by those whose reason has been clouded by religious belief. I know good, Christian scientists who are skeptical of the claims made by the proponents of intelligent design, and this journal has certainly been in the forefront of exploring its relation to theology—but these debates take place “off the radar screen” of the general press and apparently in a dimension beyond judicial notice. That science and religion are fundamentally at odds—or, rather, that the one is a matter of the mind and the other of the heart—seems a settled tenet of public debate.
Similarly, because theology is considered tied to emotion rather than to thought, the great moral controversies of our age proceed, not exactly without a theological voice, but with that voice heard only for its conclusions, not the reasoning that attained to them. Indeed, the conclusions are often thought suspect because their origin is presumed to be irrational. On campus, or at least on the faculty, the theological voice is absent or barely audible. One reason for the notorious uniformity of faculty sentiment on issues such as abortion and gay marriage is the banishment of modes of discourse that might produce a contrary conclusion. Students do not believe everything their professors tell them (thank God!), but they do tend to accept that the professors speak for rationality. Some obstinately hold to their faith, but they are made to feel obstinate for doing so.
Indeed, holding theology not to be a form of knowledge creates the entire way religion is approached in our culture. Religion can still make itself heard in the public square—but only by singing or shouting, not as a kind of reasoning. When philosophers, following John Rawls, speak of “public reason” as the test of what arguments and what positions are valid in public, they mean to subject public discourse to the censorship of the secular professoriate. They know, I think, that they will never actually suppress the voice of faith in everyday politics, but they mean to exclude it from the higher reaches of the law, from journalism and the media, from professional and corporate networks, and the like.
Is there a way out of this predicament? Not a political one, or at least not an immediate political one. Anyone who looks at the matter with an open mind will see, I think, that there is at least a kind of knowledge possessed by theologians. Many disciplines have a historical dimension—political theory and constitutional law, for just two examples—and it is becoming increasingly apparent to scholars that simply to understand authors who wrote in the past it is necessary to know something about the theology they took for granted.
From Renaissance art to Enlightenment political theory, every text is opaque to a reader who does not know at least the basics of Christianity. In the study of English literature, no overdose of critical literary theory can compensate for ignorance of the Bible. In the study of history, the age of Western discovery and expansion cannot be grasped apart from the story of its missionaries or the millennial struggle of Christianity with Islam. At the very least, knowledge of religion is needed as ancillary to many fields—and I think scholars appreciate that it is critical in understanding a religion to consider how the religion understands itself. Sociology of religion without theology will not do, as it ends up reiterating the worldview of sociology rather than letting its subject speak for itself.
Still, in my experience, the research program of scholars has not been the only cause of a reawakened interest in theology. Interest in religion is reawakening among students, and, unless they are browbeaten, the students are not satisfied with superficial answers from professors trying to cover their own ignorance of theological concerns. If only to be able to keep up with improved catechesis, professors trained during the apogee of secularism have had to retool to be taken seriously in the classroom.
Nor can they count on scoring easy points by expounding their worldly experience in contrast to their students’ narrow upbringing. Few undergraduates have been granted the luxury of an age of innocence; and when not hungry for affirmation of their misbehavior, they are eager to hear a voice of moral authority, and they are astonished when it comes confidently giving reasons, not just making assertions. The questions theology asks—about the nature of God, what can be known in revelation, how to live in the light of these things—are universal. Just to know how to formulate them as questions and where to look to weigh the most plausible answers is a kind of knowledge in itself.
None of this is to say that theology will return to its ancient pride of place. In different kinds of institutions it will have a different function, formative perhaps in resurgent denominational colleges, auxiliary in more-secular universities. Nor is it to say that the current array of religious-studies associations and their journals will satisfy the needs of which I have been speaking. I certainly do not expect anything like the old Protestant establishment to return to authority in the universities, for the current liberal establishment there is in some ways very much like the establishments it replaced.
There will be moments, I trust, for genuine academic leadership, but for now the urgent need is to restore the serious sense of mission among academics who study theology—for, in the long run, even goodwill and an aching desire for a certain kind of learning are no substitute for scholars doing the hard, even sacrificial academic work. Obstacles are already in place: scientists who are not open to understanding the philosophical basis of their own work, counselors and coordinators who disseminate strictly secular doctrines and practices, entrenched scholars whose whole careers have been based on a contrary premise. But a good, clean fight about what is true would itself reform a university culture reveling in cynicism.
James R. Stoner, Jr., is professor of political science at Louisiana State University.
Copyright (c) 2006 First Things (May 2006).
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=128
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)