Origins of the modern quest for certainty: part 3

We live in an uncertain world. Some things we can be certain of: death, taxes, gravity, the sun rising,... Furthermore, science has been successful at establishing "laws" that describe many aspects of the natural world. Yet, certainty is elusive on so many areas of life, including in our understanding of some aspects of the natural world. Certainty is an idol that is crafted and worshipped by a cast of characters, in politics, science, technology, business, church,...

The yearning for certainty may be a characteristic of humanity. But where did the idea that we could have such certainty come from?

In a previous post I quote extensively from Miroslav Volf's engagement with 

Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity by the philosopher Stephen Toulmin. He traces the quest and all its unhelpful consequences back to Rene Descartes. Here is another author from a completely different field engaging with Toulmin. Malcolm Miles, in his book Paradoxical Urbanism: Anti-Urban Currents in Modern Urbanism (pages 50-51).

the Discourse was written [by Descartes] and published during the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), a conflict between Catholic and Protestant dynasties and ideologies in which Descartes was a gentleman observer at the Emperor’s court. That is why he travelled in Germany and found himself in a stove-heated room.  ...Stephen Toulmin writes of this period that, 

‘rival militias and military forces consisting largely of mercenaries fought to and fro, again and again, over the same disputed territories … in the name of theological doctrines that no one could give any conclusive reasons for accepting.' [Toulmin, p.55] 

 Around a third of the population of the land which now constitutes Germany and the Czech Republic were killed, either directly in fighting or through famines resulting from the destruction of crops, or in the displacement following the burning of villages and towns. Both sides committed atrocities. Toulmin asks, ‘In this blood-drenched situation, what could good intellectuals do?' They could maintain Renaissance humanism, or

withdraw. Or, 

Might not philosophers discover … a new and more rational basis for establishing a framework of concepts and beliefs capable of achieving the agreed certainty that the skeptics had said was impossible? If uncertainty, ambiguity, and the acceptance of pluralism led, in practice, only to an intensification of the religious war, the time had come to discover some rational method for demonstrating the essential correctness or incorrectness of philosophical, scientific, or theological doctrines. [Toulmin, p.55]

This is the reason for the Discourse. But Toulmin identifies another

response in the idea of Cosmopolis, a fusion of two systems: that of cosmos, the natural world and natural sciences, with polis, political and social organisation. Cosmopolis unites these ideas in a single ideal as a means to resolve the separation of the natural from the social and political world. 

Toulmin argues that Cosmopolis figures in the rise of nation-states in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, replacing dynastic feudalism; and in the rise of natural science in the same period. Both seek stability, and the nation-state constructs it in the relations of states to each other while also constructing a hierarchy in their internal social structures, making modern political institutions on a seemingly non-contingent basis: 

It was important to believe that the principles of stability and hierarchy were found in all of the Divine plan, down from the astronomical cosmos to the individual family. Behind the inertness of matter, they saw in Nature, as in Society, that the actions of lower things depended on, and were subordinate to oversight and command by higher creatures … The more confident one was about subordination and authority in Nature, the less anxious one need accordingly be about social inequalities. ...

The comprehensive system of ideas about nature and humanity that formed the scaffolding of Modernity was thus a social and political, as well as a scientific, device: it was seen as conferring Divine legitimacy on the political order of the sovereign nation-state. In this respect, the world view of modern science … won public support around 1700 for the legitimacy it apparently gave to the political system of nation-states as much as for its power to explain the motions of planets, or the rise and fall of tides. 

[Toulmin, p. 128]

One could be certain about the motion of planets. They followed laws, ordained by God. Similarly one could be certain about social and political structures. 

As I argued before, there are significant problems with Descartes' ideas about universal truth and method. Humans are not cannonballs falling to earth or planets orbiting the sun. We are much more complex. The methods and certainties associated with mechanical motion do not necessarily translate to other systems: human, social, economic, and political.,

Following Jesus the Radical

Jesus was a radical in many senses. His teaching is radical, particularly when it comes to money, power, violence, leadership, and service. If someone wants to follow Jesus and his teaching today what might that look like?

What is Christian spirituality? This has always seemed a nebulous concept to me, particularly in the manner that many people talk about it. Yet, I believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And Jesus gave clear teaching about how he sent the Holy Spirit to be with his followers.

What is the role and place of different church traditions today, for better or for worse?

Due to the Reformation in sixteenth-century Europe, several well-defined church traditions emerged: Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed (Calvin), and Anabaptist. Each provides a distinct interpretation of the Bible and a concrete institutional (communal) expression of what it means to follow Jesus. Given that all this happened five hundred years ago, to what extent are these traditions relevant and/or helpful today, particularly in the diverse contexts present in the global church? To what extent today are these traditions faithful to their origins? And should they be?

What should be the relationship between church and state?

You can see I like asking questions!

In the theology reading group this month we read and discussed a book that does address these questions from an Anabaptist perspective, Life Together in the Spirit: A Radical Spirituality for the Twenty-First Century, by John Driver. It was selected to be part of the Global Anabaptist-Mennonite Shelf of Literature, an initiative of the Mennonite World Conference. The book was written in a Latin American context, and originally published in Spanish, as Convivencia radical: espiritualidad para el siglo 21  The English edition is enhanced by short responses from Mennonite leaders from D.R. Congo, Zimbabwe, India, Taiwan, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Ecuador. Each reflects on the relevance of the book to their own context. At the end of each chapter there are discussion questions.

I found the book refreshing, informative, and challenging. Before reading it I knew very little about Anabaptism. Here are a few choice sections.

Anabaptist spirituality is not abstract, but rather concrete. It does not embrace reductionism or dualism, but rather has an integrated (holistic) world view.

In marked contrast to many traditional spiritualities, the Bible does not allow the distinctions we often make between the inner and the outer, or between the spiritual and the material, or between believing and doing.

Rather than emphasizing the highly contemplative life of meditation and prayer, common among the Catholic orders, or focusing on right doctrine, as mainstream Protestants have tended to do, Anabaptists asked, “How can we be obedient to the gospel of Jesus Christ?” 

Although medieval monasticism and Anabaptism held much in common, their different understandings of the Christian community, or the church, resulted in different spiritualities. Instead of an abstract or otherworldly mysticism, the Anabaptists emphasized the practice of obedience, active love, and the integration of faith and works. Their focus was not so much on cultivating a common spiritual life through contemplation, as it was practicing a life of prayer, peace, integrity, and humility in the context of radical communal social relationships.  (page 30)

Anabaptists have an "understanding of discipleship as participation in the very nature of Jesus". This means "taking up your cross daily." (Aside: This may have some similarities to ideas about Pauline spirituality discussed in detail by Michael Gorman.)

This “spirituality of discipleship” assigned great importance to biblical teachings such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) and the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:13– 26),  (page 50)

Can different traditions learn from one another? Driver is not sectarian or presenting Anabaptism as superior. Radicalism has its weaknesses.

John Howard Yoder... observed that radical reform movements tend to take on the mirror image of the very deficiencies that they have identified as in need of reform in the established churches.

For example, in a context where the church defined itself as a “sacramental communion,” the radicals tended to eliminate the sacramental dimension from their ecclesiology in the hopes of recovering a dynamic vision and practice more relevant to their historical setting. Thus, in their reaction against an “idolatrous” liturgy, sixteenth-century Anabaptist worship deprived itself of some of the rich symbolism through which God’s grace and love are communicated.

However, in this desire to respond more faithfully to the gospel, the Anabaptists have not been the only ones in the history of the church whose spirituality has been impoverished. Roland Bainton, a renowned twentieth-century church historian, once suggested that Martin Luther’s greatest tragedy consisted in not having Anabaptists nearby with whom to engage in meaningful dialogue. At the same time, in their reaction against Luther’s resolute emphasis on “justification by faith alone, without works” – and the almost inevitable lowering of ethical standards such an emphasis entailed – some Anabaptist groups emphasized obedience to the teachings of Christ so strongly, indeed almost exclusively, that they sometimes became victims of a sort of moral paralysis or legalism. This tension has lasted for many generations among some Anabaptist congregations.

In the sixteenth century, Christians generally held the conviction that there was only one truth, and that this, of necessity, was to be found in only one tradition. For that reason, the established churches – who believed that they were the custodians of this truth – persecuted and even executed those in the reform movements who dared to question their authority. Yet ironic as it may seem, once they had consolidated their existence and established their identity, these same reform movements tended to assume a similar attitude toward their adversaries. (pages 65-66)

Some of these tragic failures and dramatic hypocrisies are chronicled by Tom Holland in Dominion. 

Unfortunately, Yoder himself and his Anabaptist denomination also experienced significant moral failures.

What is authentic Christian theology? It is not just an intellectual exercise but something that is lived out.

Authentic theology expresses truths that are lived out in practice, so that we may understand and live them more faithfully and communicate them more clearly in our missional witness. (page 71).

4 talks about the positive interaction of science and theology

Next week I am giving four talks at the annual summer school for clergy from the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane. Here is the current draft version of the slides. I welcome any feedback.

Awe and wonder: Science and worship

Augustine on Faith and Reason

The Biblical origins of modern science

Creation: from the Big Bang to the multiverse

Overall my goal is to illustrate the positive interaction of science and theology, particularly in history.

The meaning and significance of the secular

In the theology reading group this month we discussed
How (not) to be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor, by James K.A. Smith
The 140 page book is a synopsis of the 900 page tome  A Secular Age, by  Charles Taylor. It makes that work more accessible, particularly through the glossary at the end of the book.
Previously, I discussed the three senses of the secular. Other important terms include the following.

Immanent frame.
A constructed social space what frames our lives entirely within a natural (rather than supernatural) order. It is the circumscribed space of the modern social imaginary that precludes transcendence.
The influence of this term is indicated by the existence of a multi-author academic blog with this title.

Modern Moral Order.
"A new understanding of morality that focuses on the organisation of society  for mutual benefit rather than an obligation to "higher" or eternal norms.  The "moral" is bound up with (and perhaps reduced to) the "economic.""
Although, not explicitly named neoliberalism seems the extreme and problematic embodiment of this.

Spin.
A construal of life within the immanent frame that does not recognise itself as a construal and thus has no room to grant plausibility to the alternative.

Take.
A construal of life within the immanent frame that is open to appreciating the viability of other takes. Can be wither "closed" (immanentist) or "open" (to transcendence).

It refreshing and encouraging to see such a towering intellect highlight how many views that masquerade as "truth" or "well established" or "conventional wisdom" are just a "take" or "spin".

Some say that Karl Barth's Epistle to the Romans was like a hand grenade lobbed into the world of academic theology. Perhaps Taylor's tome is like a hand grenade lobbed into the secular academy, particular the humanities and social sciences. 

To me the book is highly original, stimulating, and challenging.
It helps understand how we got so secular. Furthermore, the church is secular. 
Some church and mission organisation statements, strategies, and practices may appear to be not that different from Walmart: a focus on money, marketing, growth, efficiency, and numbers...
But it is more than that. It is not just "worldliness" but a whole epistemology and approach to life.

Unfortunately, the rise of secularism was an unintended consequence of the Reformation. For example, if you think of the sacrament in purely material terms or the work of the butcher and the candlestick maker as similar to the priest or monk this does have flow on effects. This led to the disenchantment of nature [a key to the development of science] and life. "the Reformers rejection of sacramentalism is the beginning of naturalism, or at least opens the door to its possibility." (page 39).

Many apologetic strategies, particularly in response to the New Atheism, are conducted on the ground rules layed down by secularists: evidence, logic, rationality, science, .....
imagination, art, story, history, transcendence, emotion, .... don't get a look in.

" ...the responses to this diminishment of transcendence accede to it in important ways... God is reduced to a Creator and religion to morality ... the particularities of a specific Christian belief are diminished to try to secure a more generic deity - as if saving some sort of transcendence will suffice..." (page 51).

I do have a few reservations about the book. Taylor appears to have little engagement with the Tri-une God or little substantial theology. Although deism is decried, most of the discussion is in terms of deism. There is no acknowledge or engagement with the non-Western world. Perhaps because Taylor appears to be a liberal Catholic, there is little discussion of the Lordship of Christ, the prophetic voice to society, and a call for repentance.

Three senses of the secular

What does it mean to be secular?
Secular means different things to different people.

In his book, How (not) to be secular, James K.A. Smith gives three distinct definitions of "secular".

secular_1 
"the earthly plane of domestic life"
This is the "classical" or "historical" definition, and distinguishes the secular from the sacred, i.e. the domain of priests. "butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers carry out "secular" work. To early reformers such as Luther this was positive. There was to be no distinction between the sacred and the secular.

secular_2
"the areligious - neutral, unbiased, objective"
This is a "modern" definition. It is particularly used in claims that the "public square", i.e. politics and public debate should be "free" from discussions about religion or religious values and perspectives.

secular_3
This is the notion of Charles Taylor, who in A Secular Age, says it
 “consists, among other things, of a move from a society where belief in God is unchallenged and indeed unproblematic to one in which it is understood to be one option among others, and frequently not the easiest to embrace”.

A distortion of vocational calling

My son and I are just finishing reading Just Do Something by Kevin DeYoung. I thought the following paragraph in was quite insightful about work and careers.

Unfortunately, we’ve turned the idea of calling or vocation on its head. The Reformers emphasized calling in order to break down the sacred-secular divide. They said, if you are working for the glory of God, you are doing the Lord’s work, no matter whether you’re a priest or a monk or a banker. But we’ve taken this notion of calling and turned it upside down, so instead of finding purpose in every kind of work, we are madly looking for the one job that will fulfill our purpose in life. 

(p. 103)

Repentant theology

Maybe this should be a more appropriate title for Reformed Theology. Historically, reformation is usually thought of in terms of reforming the teaching and structures of the church. Today, some say a key component of Reformed Theology is a commitment to ongoing reformation of ourselves and the church: our lives, thoughts and believes. Although, to some it focuses on the historical teachings of Luther and/or Calvin.

Reading through the Gospel of Luke I have been struck how the word repent is repeated. [see here for the relevant verses]. Repentance is a stronger word than reformation. To me, it focuses more on reforming ourselves rather than others, and on reforming our lives rather than just teaching and structures.

Between radicalism and conservatism

I am reading the next instalment of Creation Regained. The quotes below capture some of the last chapter, Discerning Structure and Direction. I think it is helpful because it provides for a balanced perspective on what a Christian's attitude to the "status quo" should be.

We shall argue that in all cases the task of the Christian is to discern structure and direction... structure denotes the essence of a creaturely thing, the kind of creature it is by virtue of God's creational law. Direction by contrast refers to a sinful deviation from that structural ordinance and renewed conformity to it in Christ.
...no given societal order is absolutely corrupt ... some element in every situation is worth preserving...   a Christians rejection of evil must always lead to a cleansing and reform of created structures, not to an indiscriminate abolition of an entire historical situation.
...
so our focus on structure rejects a sympathy for revolution, and our focus on direction condemns a quietistic conservatism.
For Christians, this renewing orientation is particularly important, since severe social oppression and injustice can easily seduce them into identifying the whole social order ... with the world in its religiously negative senses. When this fatal identification is made, Christians tend to withdraw from all participation in societal renewal. Under the guise of keeping itself from the world, the body of Christ then in effect allows the powers of secularisation and distortion to dominate the greater part of its life. This is not so much an avoidance of evil as a neglect of duty.

Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview, pages 88, 94, 95

Liberty leading the people, a classic work of the French Revolution.

The total redemption of the fallen creation

I am enjoying reading Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview by Albert Wolters, and the associated fortnightly discussion group.
So what is the relationship between the following?

• creation [God's perfect created order]
• sin and the Fall [which made the creation imperfect]
• redemption of the created order by Christ's death and resurrection
• the Kingdom of God [past, present, and future]
• our acts of obedience to help "redeem" some aspects of the created order
• the final re-creation of a new heaven and a new earth?

Wolters offers an analogy (described below) which I thought was helpful, particularly for understanding his "integrated" point of view which has a more positive view of both the progress of history and the content of civilisation than many Christians [particularly some evangelicals] would have. He also strongly advocates Christian engagement [redemption] with all spheres of life; not just church and family, but politics, business, art, technology...

Consider a baby which is born with some degenerative disease which gets worse as the baby grows to become a teenager. The baby is beautiful and "good" [like the original creation] and there is much about her growth that is positive, desirable, and as planned. However, built into the growth there is this terrible debilitating disease [sin] which prevents the teenager from functioning as she might and reaching her full potential. Nevertheless, ongoing medical treatment [redemption] can go some of the way to reversing the damaging effects of the disease.

Pelicans, the Bible, and the rise of Science

What on earth do the three have to do with each other?
In 2005 Peter Harrison gave a Christians in Science - St. Edmunds College lecture, The Bible and the Emergence of Modern Science, in Cambridge. The lecture involves some bold and original hypotheses. Hence, after the lecture there was a lively discussion by a distinguished group of scholars, from both science and the humanities. It all makes fascinating reading. Here is the abstract of the lecture:

The Bible played a significant role in the development of modern science. Most obviously, its contents were important because they could be read in ways that seemed either to conflict with or to confirm new scientific claims. More important, however, were changes to the way in which the Bible was interpreted during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The move away from allegorical readings of Scripture and the new focus on the historical or literal sense – a development promoted by humanist scholars and Protestant reformers – contributed to the collapse of the symbolic world of the Middle Ages and paved the way for new mathematical and taxonomic readings of nature. Biblical hermeneutics was thus of profound importance for those new ways of interpreting nature that we associate with the emergence of modern science.

An example of the incredibly complex and symbolic interpretation of nature in the Middle Ages was that of the pelican and in a common "natural history guidebook" known as a bestiary.

The Pelican Lectern in Norwich Cathedral. It was not destroyed in the Reformation because it was buried in the Bishop's garden. Ironically, it is used daily for the reading of Scripture in evensong.

Barth on creation

I had a really nice meeting this week with Oliver Crisp who teaches theology at Bristol University (where I was visiting the physics department). [An interview with Oliver about his latest book is on the exiled preacher blog]. I read with interest Oliver's chapter Karl Barth on Creation, in the book, Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology: Convergences and Divergences.

I was particularly interested in this because I have started work on a paper, Implications of Barth's Doctrine of Creation for the dialogue between science and theology which is outlined in a talk I gave earlier this year.

Here is a brief summary of the chapter and a few comments.
Oliver identifies four areas of commonality (C1-C4) and four areas of disagreement (D1-D4) of Barth with the tradition of  Reformed theology.

C1. The Creator is the Tri-une God.

C2. Creation was a free act of the Sovereign God.

C3. Supralapsarianism
God pre-destined people for salvation before creation. What was God's ultimate purpose in creation? Was it to save people or to glorify himself by saving people?
Crisp  notes that Barth has his own unique views about electrion and raises questions about whether Barth did not emphasize enough God's ultimate purpose of self-glorification.

C4. Creation and covenant are intimately connnected.
Barth emphasized, "Creation is the external basis of the covenant. Covenant is the internal basis of the creation." John Webster says these are really the same thing. I love Webster's summary of Barth, but I disagree with him on this point. I think Barth is intentionally making a valid and important distinction to amplify the relationship between creation and covenant.

D1. The Doctrine of Creation is an article of faith and there is no room for natural theology.

D2. This was not clear to me.

D3. The Genesis narrative is "saga" not history.
I think this is actually one of the strengths of Barth's approach because it liberates the text to speak theologically rather than getting bogged down in discussions about natural science. Many Conservative evangelicals advocate a historical reading claiming that anything else undermines the Gospel. They usually link their interpretation with  "Intelligent Design" and/or young earth creationism. However, it is ironic that in practice these approaches actually shift the discussion away from the text and its theological claims and towards (usually ill-informed) arguments about biology and geology.
In contrast, Barth stays focussed on exegesis of the text of Genesis, a point that Crisp appropriately appreciates.

D4. A "timeless" God created time. Here I agree with Barth, but my view is largely driven by my understanding of physics. General relativity tells us that time (and space) began at the big bang. Time has a direction.

It is a stimulating chapter and it highlights to me just how "orthodox" and "reformed" Barth was. Differences and disagreements with "tradition" to me were minor and of debatable significance.

The Theology of Mary (Poppins)

My daughter brought to my attention this humorous post on Ben Myers blog, a song about Martin Luther, sung to the tune of the famous Mary Poppins song.