Balance and emphasis are the impossible but necessary tasks of theology

Christian theology is talking and writing about the triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). It has a history of two thousand years. There are multiple traditions: Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Reformed, Liberal, Evangelical, Feminist, Black, Liberation, Conservative... 

There are multiple sub-disciplines of theology:  Biblical, Old Testament, New Testament, Trinitarian, missional, spiritual, historical, pastoral, practical, political, ...

There are multiple topics: Trinity, creation, sin, redemption, revelation, the Cross, the Incarnation, soteriology, ecclesiology, Christology, eschatology,...

Denominations, churches, parachurch ministries, and careers are often built on making one of these theologies central and dominant.

There is endless jockeying and competition within the church and the academy for the relative importance and priority of one of these theologies. Fashions come and go. The "breakthrough" or "paradigm" of yesterday is today seen as a mistake or irrelevant or simplistic... However, it is amazing how in the long run people keep coming back to something basic that centres around the Bible and the theology of the early church, such as in the Apostles Creed.

Different factions critique one another, sometimes carefully and graciously. Sometimes critiques are harsh, aggressive, dogmatic, selective, and ill-informed. People talk past one another. Individuals and groups and their voices get marginalised within certain communities if they do not conform to the favoured "theology".

How do we make sense of all these competing voices?

Much of the difference between these theologies is of emphasis. One particular topic, concept, method, perspective, Biblical passage, doctrine, creed, or historical figure is claimed to be the most important and to provide the key to making sense of everything else. The problem is whether the emphasis is helpful overall or whether the emphasis distorts the overall picture in an unhelpful way.  

Where does this diversity come from?

We should not be surprised by this diversity of perspectives and emphases as the diversity reflects the nature of the object under study and the nature of the subject studying it.

The objects under study are God, humanity, the world, and their interplay. This is a multi-faceted reality. The complexity of these objects requires descriptions at multiple levels and perspectives. This leads to a multiplicity of questions, methods, and conclusions.

Just consider the Bible. It has multiple authors, and possibly editors, who wrote in diverse contexts over two thousand years. There is a multiplicity of genres: history, law, poetry, prophecy, pastoral letters, and apocalyptic. How is this canon of literature to be interpreted? Naturally, the text will mean different things to different people at different times and in different contexts. The text does not interpret itself. Readers will interpret the text drawing on a complex interplay of interplay of reason, experience, and tradition. Even interpreters who claim to be drawing on a specific tradition have to also interpret that tradition. Given our diversity of personalities, life histories, and contexts it should not be surprising that we disagree about questions of meaning and significance on the most profound topic of all: God.

Everyone is a theologian. We are all human and this means that our theology is constrained by our limitations, individually and corporately. On the one hand, human language is incredibly powerful and a testament to what makes humans different from other animals. On the other hand, language, particularly formal academic language, cannot fully capture complex and subtle realities. That is why we have poetry!

Given our finite mental and linguistic capacities we need simplicity. This leads us to develop models, metaphors, frameworks, doctrinal statements and creeds. All models are wrong, but some are useful. 

Theologies can reflect the fallen nature of humanity. Our reason and communication are corrupted by sin. This can lead to the narcissism of small differences. Eugene Peterson says "a sect is a front for narcissism."

What do we really need? 

Humility, grace, and love. We need to be humble about our own abilities, individually and collectively, to discern the truth. We need to be gracious towards those who have different views. We need to be driven by love, love for God and love for others.

That there is a plurality of theologies does not mean they are all equally valid. On the one hand, we should not deny subjectivity. On the other hand, a careful comparison and critique of theologies different to our own may show their respective limitations. Commonalities that transcend our contexts may be a signpost to the essential truths to emphasise. Our focus should be on being more faithful to the centre, rather than trying to determine and enforce the boundaries of acceptable belief.

We need dialectic. A problem with many theologies is that they are dualistic. They are either/or. They embrace false dichotomies. There is room for both/and. Consider the following pairings: the humanity and divinity of Jesus, free will and predestination (human agency and God's sovereignty), faith and works, grace and judgement, redemption now but not yet, creation and fall (humans being made in the image of God versus corrupted by sin), faith and reason, special and general revelation, ... They need to be held in creative tension. Finding such a balance is impossible to do perfectly. But it is necessary if we are to be faithful to our subject.

Balance and emphasis are the impossible but necessary tasks of theology.

A model academic conversation about Christian transformation

What does it mean to be human? How might a Christian address this question? How does Christian formation happen and what are its moral implications?  

This week at the theology reading group we are discussing a book that wrestles with these questions.

Becoming Whole and Holy: An Integrative Conversation about Christian Formation, by Jeannine K. Brown, Carla M. Dahl, and Wyndy Corbin Reuschling

The three authors are all seminary professors in the USA. They present a conversation drawing on their respective academic disciplines: social science, biblical studies/hermeneutics, and ethics.

The "method" used is "offer, receive, and integrate." Specifically, each author presents two chapters that give a perspective based on their discipline. This is followed by a chapter in which the two other authors respond, and then a three-way conversation about how their insights and perspectives might be integrated. 

In some ways, this book is (sadly) unique in that the tone is one of humble listening, mutual respect and appreciation, but with room for questioning and dissonance. I found the generosity of spirit refreshing. This has been facilitated by the authors being friends and professional colleagues for several decades.

There are many ideas in the book I found refreshing, helpful, and resonated with.

Multi-disciplinarity. There is a serious and sincere attempt to obtain a multi-faceted perspective by seriously engaging with other disciplines, including acknowledging the limitations of each discipline. Christians need not be afraid of the social sciences.

Rich theology. Several concepts are at the forefront. The Trinity is a model for the character of God and human relationality and particularity. Humanity is made in the image of God and this underscores human dignity, including the Other (those different from us). Personal holiness and wholeness mean participation in Christ and theosis (taking on the character of God). The Old Testament concept of shalom is the model for social wholeness and holiness.

Ethics matters. We live in a complex world of smartphones, sweatshops, marketing, wars, gross inequality, and refugees. How should then should communities of Christians live? Discerning answers requires ongoing prayer, study, debate, initiative, experiment, and reflection.

Context-sensitive. The authors repeatedly emphasise how hermeneutics is about being sensitive to differences (and similarities) between the original context of the different books in the Bible and the context of any reader today. They also wonder about how their own USA context influences their interpretation.

Beyond individualism. Holiness, wholeness, and formation are not just about individuals or something that can be achieved by isolated individuals. Rather, they all have communal dimensions. A Trinitarian perspective embraces the dialectic of relatedness and distinction. Christians need "to navigate between the extremes of living the narrative of "humans as autonomous, rugged individuals" and humans as "little more than social constructs."" (page 146). This resonates with John Wesley who said “The gospel of Christ knows of no religion but social; no holiness but social holiness”.

Embodiment. The Christian life is not just "spiritual". Holiness "has an important visible, bodily dimension" highlighted in the Incarnation: God dwelt in a human body. We worship and serve God with head, hearts, and hands.

Hospitality. This is highlighted as "a marker of holiness and wholeness" (pages 47-51).  "Hospitality is at the heart of the Christian life." Hospitality is not about entertainment, luxury, or fancy food and wine. It is a disposition that creates space for the other, particularly those who society keeps on the margins.

Later, I hope to discuss a few weaknesses of the book.

Where did universities come from?

This video nicely answers the question, showing how many universities, even in the non-Western world, had origins that were rooted in the church, mission, theological education, and service.



Today many of these universities have quite different goals and values. Some seem to want to deny their origins or are embarrassed by them.
Important questions that this raises include:
Are these origins irrelevant today?
Has something been lost?
Are the many problems universities do have today, particularly those associated with the focus on money, metrics, management, and marketing, due to the loss of a theological basis for their mission?

This week in the New York Times

I think the New York Times is a benchmark for high-quality journalism. It is independent, thorough, thoughtful, and analytical. When in the USA in July and August I really enjoyed reading a hard copy every few days.
My wife and I do have an on-line subscription; both so we get access and because it is important to support high-quality journalism. Currently, in India, I am restricted to reading online.

Here are four articles from the past few days that I thought were particularly stimulating.

Buffett Calls Trump’s Bluff and Releases His Tax Data
Warren Buffett is one of the wealthiest people in the world. Yet, he has real integrity, generosity, a modest lifestyle, and a concern for social justice.

Flush and Dominant, Australia’s Banks Come Under Pressure
It is always interesting to see what it takes for Australia to make it into the New York Times. Unfortunately, it is often major failings of Australia, such as our shameful treatment of asylum seekers. I did not realise that the "big 4" banks are comparable in size to Goldman Sachs, and more profitable.

The Professor Wore a Hijab in Solidarity — Then Lost Her Job
This long Magazine article concerns a former Professor at Wheaton College. The article is striking for the detailed discussion of subtle and important theological issues.

Among Donald Trump’s Biggest U.S. Fans: Hindu Nationalists
This is an example of how the Times finds interesting and important stories that others don't even look for, let alone report.

Why should we love learning?

I was honoured that I was asked to write an endorsement for the book
Wouldn't you love to know: Trinitarian epistemology and pedagogy
by Ian Payne, Principal of SAIACS

Ian Payne makes a compelling case that Karl Barth's theology speaks to the philosophy of education; teaching should be driven by love for the student and the subject under God. The learner is transformed for the service of others. The book is a timely antidote to the increasingly utilitarian focus of educational institutions on careers, rankings, and money. Payne’s book is enhanced by his substantial teaching experience, in both the Western and Majority Worlds.