The relative attitude toward the whole question of truth is not always merely the desire to doubt, but very often, and particularly today, it is the admission of the insufficiency of human knowledge, and - in so far as this is the case - it is the sign of a secret longing for a truth which lies beyond the human plane.
- Emil Brunner, Revelation and Reason (The Westminster Press, 1946) 7.
I have investigated, pondered and even recorded my thoughts on the meaning of faith. While I still have a great deal more to say, especially since I’ve said hardly anything, I think Emil Brunner captures best some of my current feelings on the subject. It is quite amusing or perhaps ironic that I purchased his book a month or two ago and tossed it aside because it seemingly didn’t address the issue and now it somehow manages to address my present situation.
Orthodox theologians never seem to notice that they were using the same word to describe two completely different ideas of “faith”; namely the personal act: the obedience of the trusting soul; the impersonal attitude to something abstract: a priori doctrinal conviction. But it is precisely the non-Biblical idea of faith which predominates in the popular mind. The average Protestant’s idea of faith is thoroughly “Catholic”; it is the one which is represented in the Epistle of James. In these few bare words we have indicated the greatest tragedy in Church history. This alteration in the understanding of faith, which turned the relation of trust in, and obedience to, the Lord of the Church into the authoritarian doctrinal belief in the Bible, is the ultimate reason for the perversion and weakness in Christianity and the Church, from the second century down to the present day.
- Emil Brunner, Revelation and Reason (The Westminster Press, 1946) 39.
If faith is anything less than real trust (not the blind, wishful thinking type and nevermind for the moment how we arrive at that moment of trust) it becomes a leap into a chasm. Sadly, it is this leap that is conjured up in the minds of people when we use the word faith. I know, we still have lots of work to do, but I think this is a good start.
You may have noticed or will soon be noticing a large flood (if I have the time and inclination) of theological reflections. This is because of my investigations into the nature of faith. I am reading all sort of monographs on the topic. Some authors speak to those that are on the “inside ” (sorry Keith and Dustin) and others who speak to everyone else. This is directly related to my other research in epistemology. It seems at first that faith is somewhat at odds with any sort of epistemological project, but it is too soon to tell. I have already taken some fairly informal polls and sent out a few initial email correspondences with some academics. Unfortunately, it seems that not many people think too much about faith. Is faith some type of reasoning process? Is it concerned with rationality at all? How has the definition of faith been revised since and before the enlightenment? Since this definition of faith is so central it exposes me to a lot of great theological reflection that in my younger fundamentalist days I was sheltered from. Hope you enjoy it.
The God of the Gospel is the God who mercifully dedicates and delivers himself to the life of all men–including their theologies. Nevertheless, he transcends not only the undertakings of all other men but also the enterprise of evangelical theologians. He is the God who again and again discloses himself anew and must be discovered anew, the God over whom theology neither has nor receives sovereignty.
– Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology (Wm. B. Eerdmans 1963) 6.
I know, it is offensive to some to offer commentary on the great Barth, but I can’t resist for that very reason. Really though, if more people (by people I mean, well, you know) read Barth I think the world would be a happier place. Seriously. Many groups give their theologies (which in some ways are convenient constructions even if they are derived from some sacred source) a position of authority on and about God without considering the fact that the very God that they put their faith in transcends the human understanding. Sure we can come up with language and labels that attempt, as accurately as possible, to capture the nature of the object which we label “God” but to presume that we have some comprehensive understanding is quite naive. Yet, this happens all the time.
I have intended for the past week or so to write on faith. In fact, I have several drafts sitting in wordpress. Why the focus on faith? Perhaps because there is no term more overused and yet thoroughly confused than this. I’m sure there are others, but this one is particularly so because it sits on the fence between philosophy and theology. It isn’t a word to be defined purely within the closed system of theology and, at the same time, cannot be adequately described by philosophical reflection. It sits on this fence because it is the means by which some sort of epistemological justification is conferred upon a belief. The real confusion occurs when one examines whether faith is a hopeful leap into the void or some sort of trust based on relational and evidential reasoning. In the former case it may be clear to some that this is not too different that unjustified belief. This is what I’ve typically referred to as mere opinion. A hopeful leap implies that there is no adequate justification for belief. As we all remember, this justification is part and parcel of how we measure whether the beliefs in our minds should be considered knowledge. The latter case is equally confusing because we seem to be using the word faith in place of justified belief. Upon closer examination, however, some may realize that this faith/justified belief doesn’t quite behave the same. There are some question begging scenarios and circularities that surface. Of course, it is no help that many philosopher/theologian types dodge the issue completely or speak so abstractly as to be meaningless. And before too many of you get crazy about this process of defining a “religious construction”, keep in mind that we do this quite often with to describe other cognitive activities which are not specifically religious. So, there is the problem and the reason for the long delay. Hopefully these ideas and arguments will coelesce sometime soon and result in a more refined and precise post.
What is funny is that this is on the first page of the introduction to his systematic theology text. There is much I could say, but I’ll be silent and let Tillich say it for me. Wait, one thing. Although I agree with most of this statement, there is some of Tillich’s existentialism that I don’t. The important point here is that even if, in my opinion, he gets that wrong (the existentialist ideas) that doesn’t somehow disqualify his other ideas. Many times (most?) when we are confronted with an author’s or speaker’s ideas that we disagree with we immediately tune out the rest of their arguments. Okay, enough of that, I’m drifting way off topic.
“Theology moves back and forth between two poles, the eternal truth of its foundation and the temporal situation in which the eternal truth must be received.”
“Most of them either sacrifice elements of the truth or are not able to speak to the situation. Some of them combine both shortcomings. Afraid of missing the eternal truth, they identify it with some previous theological work, with traditional concepts and solutions, and try to impose these on a new, different situation.
They confuse eternal truth with a temporal expression of this truth.”
“When fundamentalism is combined with an antitheological bias, as it is, for instance, in its biblicistic-evangelical form, the theological truth of yesterday is defended as an unchangeable message against the theological truth of today and tomorrow. Fundamentalism fails to make contact with the present situation, not because it speaks from beyond every situation, but because it speaks from a situation of the past. It elevates something finite and transitory to infinite and eternal validity…It destroys the humble honesty of the search for truth, it splits the conscience of its thoughtful adherents, and it makes them fanatical because they are forced to supress elements of truth of which they are dimly aware.”
Melinda over at str.org said that her “theological views haven’t changed much in the last decade“. I’m not sure if I should give her props or wonder if she is out to lunch. From a complete reading of her post I think she wants us to understand that change isn’t necessarily an indicator that one is progressing in a positive way in their theology. I agree with this. But Melinda seems to rule out any other positive possibility when a change in theological perspective occurs. She offers two options, both of which are untenable. Either you were too stupid when you started out or you’re getting a lot of new information. The second option she attempts to make unavailable by stating that the availability of new information (of the theological type?) is not a common occurence. So we’re left with the cold hard fact that if our theological positions change over time we were possibly too stupid or naive when we started out. Interesting conclusion.
Let’s explore the unavailability of the second option to see if perhaps Melinda was, in fact, being a bit short-sighted in her assessment. Clearly in the last 50 years there have been some significant discoveries (go here for starters) that have lead to the release of new information. These older and, of course, newer discoveries (archaeological, sociological, historical) are the input for the creation of new information. Even the methods used to process existing ancient texts has led to new information about how we read and understand them. So, I’m not sure what Melinda means when she says that there is not a flood of information. Of course, I haven’t even touched on contemporary theologians who spend most of their lives taking this information and formulating more precise and sometimes new ways of thinking about theological subjects.
I think we can use Melinda’s same arguments to conclude that a lack of change is evidence of some sort of intellectual stagnation. Posts that attempt to communicate the superiority of a view based only on its ability to persist in the mind of a person do not have much substance. Sure, if your views do change with every new idea that is published then Melinda has a point (but only if she admits that this is a flood of information) and perhaps you need a bit more skill in the critical thinking department. I don’t think that is her point though.
Finally, I don’t think history matches Melinda’s reality. I don’t believe that there is any evidence that most theologians in the past 200 years did not alter, shift, or modify their theological views. If anything the evidence tells us quite a different story. Using the same broad brush that Melinda uses I can say that theological views change and this can be a good thing if they are moving closer to a theological construction that most accurately represents the objects to which they refer. Undoubtably as we discover and study evidence these constructions will change. The challenge then becomes how much are *you* willing to change when there is sufficient evidence and arguments to justify such a change?
I didn’t want to respond point by point to Kim’s “propositions” on peace and war, but it seems I will have to. Of the ten propositions only three offer any compelling explanatory power. The rest are either expansions of the three or “mere opinion”. Rather than make this post way too long, I’ll just offer my responses. For the initial propositions you’ll have to follow the link above.
1. It does not follow that if God is the god of peace then he is a pacifist. Peace and pacifism are not the same, but even in Kim’s title Peace is put in place of pacifism. Equating these two terms is a stretching beyond the bounds of what they mean. Additionally, it does not follow that God wants “pacifism” or “non-violence” between himself and humanity. He wants peace between himself and humanity. How Kim manages to extract “non-violence” from the wider term and meaning of peace is beyond me. Of course, this wouldn’t be the first time I’ve missed something.
2. I’ve already spoken in the comments of the original post about this, but this is, again, a stretch beyond what the texts themselves aim to deliver. We do not have a complete view (even if we use all available Jesus texts) of the life that Jesus practiced. We can at best make inferences, but even these inferences must be made within the continuum of 1st century Judaisms. In this proposition Kim would have us believe we have enough information to inform us about Jesus’ preaching and practice. I’m sorry, but I don’t think we make make these claims in the certain way in which Kim offers them.
3. When we a priori presume as Kim has done in proposition 1 and 2 that Jesus practices of pacifism (point 2) were an embodiment of the divine nature (point 1) then there must be a harmonization of the texts where violence is mentioned. In such a short reponse all I can offer is that the interpretation presented by Kim are in no way agreed upon by all and still hotly debated depending on which a priori assumption you come to the table with. We must resist interpretation of the Christian scriptures using our a priori assumptions.
4. Kim whispers the voices of supersessionism to reduce the effectiveness of the arguments offered by Torah. As I’ve stated elsewhere there is no evidence whatsoever that the earliest followers of Jesus (Jews) discontinued or abandoned strict observance of the Torah.
5. I agree with Kim that the people of God misunderstood, misapplied or refused to apply the commands contained in the Sermon on the Mount. Again, Kim intends his particular interpretation of these texts to be the “most correct” understanding and therefore applied to his ethic of pacifism. Whether his interpretation is in fact the “most correct” I leave to the reader. Again, see point three above.
6. An argument using the “failure” of Just War Theory. Sure we get it wrong, but what does this have to do with a theological view of pacifism (or Peace if you prefer)?
7. Again more anecdotal information regarding contemporary failures. I feel the frustration and agree that we get it wrong, but, again, what does this have to do with the theological view of pacifism (again, Peace if you prefer)?
8. and 9. I’m surprised to see Kim reach back to the “roots” argument. How do we know, unless we assume Kim’s position, that these roots got it right and that their view represent an ideal? A reaching back into time argument doesn’t really work here I’m afraid. We have to demonstrate why they believed what they did, not simply that they believed certain things. This arguments fails to explain.
10. Kim wants us to, as a community, “try pacifisim”, but why should we try something if it is not an ideal we ought aspire to? Kim thinks he has established this in the above propositions, but falls short in my opinion. Kim goes so far to equate loving our enemies with the very concept of pacifism bypassing other ideals such as justice, fairness and mercy.
As should be clear by now, Kim fails to convince me that pacifism is both an ideal communicated in the Christian scriptures and a prescriptive virtue to be practiced above others. Anytime I see a binary (this OR that) approach it warns me to be cautious. To misquote Meier, ” “Indeed the usefulness of the historical Jesus to theology is that he ultimately eludes all our neat theological [or idealogical] programs.” Until we think carefully and clearly about the myriad issues involved we will fall back into these binary distinctions. No matter how strongly we may feel about certain issues using religion or “Jesus Ethics” to promote one particular view just doesn’t work. Well, it can “work”, but you won’t have any succifient justification.
Now, my rant. It is easy to say we must begin the quest to free ourselves from the ravages of war. It is easy to say that pacifism is the only real, noble, virtuous answer to the world’s troubles. However, it is difficult to do when we witness the atrocities committed ALL over the world against those that cannot help themselves or do not have the ability to defend themselves. What is the world, filled with those that want to rid the world of war and pursue peace, going to say when thousands are being slaughtered when they say these easy words? What are they going to do? We can’t start with a clean slate, where all countries and cultures will forgive one another for the crimes perpetrated against them at some time in the recent or distant past. We can move toward a condition where war may not be required, but right now people are dying and saying things does not protect those lives. Should we pursue non-violent means of resolution? Certainly, but everyone in the world does not share a common ethic. In short, this issue isn’t as neat and tidy as some would like you to believe. It requires care, compassion and balance. Beware the binary solutions.
I finally finished reading N.T. Wright’s large tome “New Testament and the People of God” about a month ago. I have to say there are lots of great ideas in that book. Of course, as any good book will do, there were times when I disagreed entirely with some of Wright’s points. At the same time there were other points during my reading where I was glad to hear someone come to the same conclusions. The book was very much a dialogue for me. I had many ideas, questions and musings that troubled me that I had been attempting to resolve through reflection. Wright seems to have had similar experiences and wrote about many of these same challenges. Of course I still have questions, but Wright did go a long way to communicate a relatively coherrent method of discovering possible and probable answers to some of these questions.
What is most striking to me is that in this work Wright has the luxury of stepping past the theological implications of his observations. I’m sure he’s addressed these elsewhere in other works, but as a case in point I’ll focus on the normative power of narrative texts. Simply , this is the question (and answer) of how texts about true events (a narrative) have the power to prescribe behavior. Wright clearly believes that many of the events documented in Christian and Jewish literature actually occurred. What he does not touch in his text is how this affects us, if at all in ways beyond the simple narrative information. In other words, he completely dodges what most would consider almost foundational. Sure, we’ve read the story, but what is descriptive (merely a story) and what, if anything, is prescriptive. Wright’s take on it is far beyond what is reasonable post about. What I can appreciate, though, is Wright’s historical method. I believe his intention was to approach the subject from this perspective alone and delay the theological implications.
Understanding, to the best of our ability, what people said, thought and hoped for will go along way towards understanding texts that have been subjectivized far too often for the gain of other people or groups. Wright’s method provides a possible lens for the correct understanding the works of the New Testament writers without forcing a priori assumptions upon them. This, I think, takes a lot of courage. As you can see there is a lot to like and a lot to dislike (or disagree if you prefer) about this book, but like any lively and intelligient debate, it is well worth the effort.
My good friend Felix and I had a lengthy theological discussion on Saturday evening. It was so lengthy and rather complex that I have two pages of notes, thoughts and points for further research that I quickly wrote down after we were finished (which I’m more than happy to share offline). At some point I plan to make some of the items into full length essays, but we’ll see if that works out. We discussed the concepts of supersessionism, dispensational theology, first century Judaism and the Jesus movement, historical epistemology and most importantly how the first century Jews viewed the actions and teachings of Jesus. We were attempting to discover how, when and if these ideas (theology, understanding) were significantly altered when pagans began converting or when the converted Gentile population outnumberd the Jewish population. It is far too much to unpack now and appears, I’m sure, as a random grab bag of concepts. Don’t worry as we develop these concepts “in the next couple of months”, to quote Felix, I’ll post the developments. I can tell you now though that it is interesting and challenging to see how little we can really know about this time period. However, with the little data we do have we intend to come up with tentative answers (conjectures to some, hypothesis to others) that deal with all of the data while offering the simplest answer. Thank you William.
The thing that is most satisfying is the experience you can enjoy when two or more individuals seriously engage in dialogue, inquiry and investigation about issues that are a bit deeper than what popular culutre has to offer. I’m not knocking pop culture as I have my share of favorite T.V. shows just like everyone else, but it is difficult to feel that your time is well spent in those sort of conversations. The sad thing is that I’ve only met a few people that enjoy the former. Yes, I know, maybe I’m looking in the wrong places. I’m definitely open to suggestions.
