Digging a Little Deeper – Theology I

The United Church of Canada did an interesting survey lately. They wanted to find out why people in their 20’s and 30’s weren’t going to church. So like any self-respecting large organization they responded with a survey. The responses they got are important. While I don’t have the survey, what I was told it said was that folks my age basically saw the church as arrogant, that it wouldn’t listen, excluded, it didn’t address relevant issues Etc. What shocked the United Church was that they found out that all churches were seen this way equally including the United Church. Now the quick church reaction is to start blaming society and their depiction of church. If we want to go deeper though we need to look at ourselves. An important place to start is how we do theology.

Theology is foundational to the church. Basically theology is how we understand God. Thus for a church almost everything else flows from this. Now what precisely theology is about and how theology has been done is something that has changed greatly over the history of Christianity. I would also argue that in modernity, with its systematic or Word of God theology, it has gone horribly wrong.

There are several ways of approaching this question. Today I will begin with a little bit of history, just so that we can get the framing of the question right. I will write more, and more constructively about the possibilities later.

The beginnings of a distinctly Christian theology began simply with Jesus’ life and teachings and the experience of his disciples that came out of their encounter with Christ. There is perhaps no more important point about how theology is to be done then what is wrapped up in this. Theology did not begin with doctrine. Jesus did not provide a treatise first, rather while walking along the Sea of Galilee he simply asked his first disciples to come and follow him. The encounter and the invitation to follow came first, in the context of which Jesus taught. Likewise one of the first great theologian writing mystics of the Christian faith, Paul, did not begin his Christian life by being convince by doctrine, no he got blinded and knocked off his horse by an encounter with Christ. The encounter came first. Paul’s theology then flowed from this encounter, not as some explication of eternal knowledge, but rather as proclamation of as well as pastoral guidance in the Gospel for specific communities.

While it was not long before early theologians began to adopt the universalizing tendencies of neo-platonic Greek philosophy. Early Christian theology retained the basic principles of proclamation of the Gospel and guidance. Many of the early theologians were engaged in apologetics, that is they were defending the faith and justifying it to their culture. Likewise much of what we have from the early theologians are in fact letters and sermons intended for the guidance of their flocks. While it was important to set limits to what the Christian faith said, at its heart early Christian theology was not about expounding a final truth (something almost unthinkable at the time), as it was about leading people into the mystery of God. It was one of the characteristics of the thought of the founders of early orthodoxy that deeper they went into their contemplation of their theology the more they encounter the unknowing of God. As Athanasius of Alexandria (one of the key founders of orthodoxy) wrote

“For the more I desire to write, and endeavored to force myself to understand the Divinity of the Word, so much the more did the knowledge thereof withdraw itself from me; and in proportion as I though that I apprehended it, in so much I perceived myself to fail in doing so. Moreover, I was also unable to express in writing even what I seemed to myself to understand; and what I wrote was unequal to the imperfect shadow of the truth which existed in my conception” (Against the Arians, Preface pg. 25, col.693B)

What is also important to note that early Christianity resisted the attempt to create one version of Christianity. One of the reasons for rejecting Gnosticism was precisely its claim that there was one version of the gospel that was only known by a select elite and even secret group. The early claims about the apostolicity of the church came long before Rome’s claim for a singular monopoly. The early claims, against Gnosticism, for the apostolicity were a argument for a faith that was publicly available to all through twelve different version and telling of the story instead of a faith which was in secrete revealed in its full truth to just one. Likewise attempts to harmonize the gospels into one consistent version was also strongly rejected with the result that Christianity still has four different and often conflicting versions of the gospels and it is still in the midst of this conflicting diversity that it is claimed God is revealed.

The desire to have one complete truth began to move from the margins of Christianity to its core with Emperor Constantine. Constantine has a serious problem. He has used his military might and political skill to unite what had become a divided Roman Empire racked by civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I). Military might can not rule a people alone, there needs to be a common ideology which can bind the mind and souls of people together. In the days before CNN and Fox news religions was the most powerful ideological force. Constantine chose Christianity to be that force for his empire. While I won’t question the sincerity of his own faith, it was his imperial needs and resources which brought about an important transformation.

Christianity at that time was both diverse and filled with internal debate. For it to be the imperial ideology that diversity needed to be over come. It was out of this need that Constantine used the resources of the empire to bring together the leaders of the Christian faith for the council of Niceae from which we get the Nicene creed. Now I have problems believing that the Nicene creed was a creation of the emperor. The reality was that the people Constantine gathered were people who had on countless times risked their own life and faced severe persecution for their faith. It is hard that when faced with the comforts of the empire they suddenly went, yea what ever that emperor guy says. In fact the stories of the council indicate it was a ruckus affair (my favorite story is of St. Nicolas (yep the Christmas guy) punching out one of the people he disagreed with (yea, not always so jolly)). What is also important is that the Nicene creed, while setting limits to what was to be considered orthodoxy, continued to allows a wide diversity of belief and understanding to exist within its broad confines. What was created though was the beginning of an understanding that the Christian church could name a singular truth with words. Instead of truth being in Christ and the Mystery of God, which our words proclaimed and guided people towards, what began to develop was the understanding that the words of the church were the truth. This concept was still in its infancy. It would take over a thousand years for this to develop.

So not to bore you, I will speed through a lot of history. Basically it would take the fall of Rome, the rise of the Roman pope, the Gregorian reforms and the great skims between West and East to begin to cement the understanding that the church as an institution held the truth (that was quick 700 years). Still what is important to note was that in the middle ages the main theological textbook remained (and studied by greats such as Aquinas and Luther) not a book of final official doctrine but rather Peter Lombard’s Sentences.

This is an ineradicably important book. Not only was it one of the first attempts to pull together the major topics of theology in to a systematic order it is important in how it did this. What Lombard did was simply bring together what scripture had to say along with what many of the Church Fathers had to say. Since these did not always agree, while occasionally giving his own resolution, most often he simply left the differences. What is also interesting is that this text is divided, first into books, but then subdivided under “questions”

It is also important that Thomas Aquinas, probably the first great systematic theologian wrote his work, not as a final answer to theology, but rather as an attempt to make theology easier to understand (yes I know ironic isn’t it). Then while saying the Mass during of the feast of St. Nicholas he had an experience of God which led him to tell his long time secretary that he could write no more “All that I have written seem like straw to me”. (perhaps one of his most profound theological insights – and his writings out class almost all).

With Luther, standing on the theological revival that grew out of the medieval universities, reach a new high of importance as his insight that we are justified by grace, through faith, and not by works, became the standard which both reformed and split the Western Church. What is important to note though is that Luther was not standing in the tradition of setting out the whole truth, rather his theological work was in the ancient tradition of setting the boundaries outside of which we have lost the core of the gospel. For Luther this core was the God of Love and Grace revealed at the heart of scripture. The rest of his writings, like Paul and many before, were not treatise of truth, but rather writings from a pastor seeking to guide and encourage his flock with every word he could muster both kind and brutal. As such they are wonderfully inconsistent, but deeply passionate.

Another movement was a foot at the time of Luther. Modernity had begun and with it, its turn towards the subject as knower. It is important to note that modernity is in many ways an outgrowth of the church’s own claim to knowledge. It is quite simple, when you have someone claiming that they have the truth, even if you wrap it up with armies, and spectacular architecture, instructions, liturgies (the ancient versions of ominous music and scary graphics) and claims to speak from the tradition and the apostles and Jesus himself, eventually someone is going to say to the persons in the funny hat proclaiming these things “I have read those fathers and scriptures” or “I actually took a look at those planets and moons” “I am quite sure that you are not saying the truth” And once someone has said they have the truth (even if they have a funny hat) it doesn’t take lone before someone else without the hat will start saying that they have the truth and we have the modern turn to the subject.

On one side we had those who didn’t quite turn to the subject, but instead began seeking a truth that seemed to be a part of the world and from that science arose. On the other hand we had those who thought that they themselves could know the truth. With that both modern philosophy but also in one of the great irony’s of Christian theology, something called protestant orthodoxy arose.

Instead of approaching the mystery of God, or guiding people as they walked with God, people began to claim that their understanding of God was in fact the truth. And as the reformers began fighting over who’s version of the truth was in fact THE TRUTH, the reformation began to tear itself apart and soon began adopting the practices of the Roman church which the reformation had fist sought to reform. You guessed it burnings, imprisonments war and the like – not very gospel like.

In theology a transformation happened. Folks started believing that they could know enough of the truth so that they could logically combine the elements of theology into a system whose coherence (it logical unity) would define its truth. Modern systematic theology was born. (Systematic philosophy soon followed but it largely collapsed after its height in Hegel in the 19th century). Others followed modernity’s correspondence epistemology and they began to say that their theology corresponded or was equivalent to God’s truth and The Word of God theologies flourished.

Now many of the masters of these forms of theology make no such claim. This is largely because it doesn’t take much depth of study to realize the foolishness of such claims. The popular impacts were vast though. Faith was transformed from being understood as trust in God, to instead meaning the belief in particular doctrines. Luther’s Justification by grace soon became in practice justification (salvation) by having the correct beliefs. To this day their remain churches which proclaim that if you don’t have the right beliefs you are going to hell. Similarly people also began to oddly proclaim the infallibility of the bible, which has always really been a claim of the infallibility of their particular understanding of the bible (the bible has too much depth for anyone to claim they have it right).

What is also important are the effects this has had on our clergy and our churches. Instead of training our pastors in the skills of being attentive to the presence and movement of God in people’s lives and how to guide both individuals and communities in this life of the spirit, we have taught them to know doctrines. While doctrine is important as a guide, the ability to quote an answer to any particular question is not theology, it is historical research. More importantly it has distracted our pastors and our churches from the needs and questions of people’s lives, and from developing skills in walking with them to instead spend most of their training memorizing history. I would even say that in re-orientating many people to a realm of theology that exists as a truth some how separate from the world, we crippled our ability to respond to the needs of the people and our communities right in front of us.

This perhaps can explain the strange spectacled that while our world face ecological disaster and a growing food crisis which could push hundreds of millions more in to hunger and even starvation, both of which have been fed by our consumerist culture, our churches spend massive amounts of their attention on whether to pray for God’s presence in the lives of two people who love each other.

Thank God that this is beginning to change. Contextual theology and classes in spirituality have returned again to the seminary. Still the basic structures of seminary education remain ones designed for memorization and reciting instead of practice of the art of walking with.

I also shudder to think about the confirmation classes and bible studies where the main task is still filling in pre-determined blanks, instead of walking into the questions.

Even with the signs of overcoming our modern self indulgence and once again discovering what theology is about we also stand at a point where many have been cut off from the deep tradition of theology, that is walking into the mystery of God. We have also forgotten that it is not the answers, but the questions which lead us into God.

No wonder people find the church arrogant and say that it doesn’t listen. For centuries now we have been quite assured that we have the truth and we have become very practiced at proclaiming it. It is time again to relearn the virtue of humility. Once again our challenge is to find ways of walking with people into our questions. We have to again learn that the deepening of theology leads us not to answers but encounters beyond words. Once again we have to learn how we can come to see and experience the grace and love of God which is already amongst us. We have to again learn how to truly do theology.

That will require that we come to a new/old understanding of what theology is about and how we come to know God. That though is for another day. I am amazed at anyone who read this far today – I know my own attention span on the web is rarely that long.