Theological Change, A Matter of Investment
There can certainly be theological change within a tradition but there are also core concepts that may in fact be untenable for many in this millennium. There is a general decline in religious affilliation at least in the West. Reasons for this are varied but the trend should be disturbing for professional theologians. Why does there seem to be a general intransigence among most professional theologians to make any sort of radical change. I believe it is because of the investment they have in the status quo.
To become a professional theologian requires a considerable investment in time and effort. It takes years of hard study and writing to attain professional status as a theologian. It also usually requires an investment in some affiliation. One has only to do a search for academic institutions that are not affiliated with some tradition to realize that they just aren’t there. Professional theologians for the most part end up becoming part of a community within a tradition. This makes it extremely hard for them to be significantly critical of core principals. Accordingly theological change tends to be minimal. Perhaps a parallel is found in science where “normal” science is, for the most part, what is taking place. Professional scientists also have an enormous investment in a current paradigm. To go against that paradigm is risky business that most scientists are not willing to take. Unfortunately I’m afraid the same is true for theologians. There are, of course, some brave individuals who do buck the trend and often find themselves ostresized. Hans Kung comes to mind. Spong is another who proposes a radically different approach to Christian theology and I suspect he does not find a happy place within the church. Borg is another radical theologian and I also wonder what his relationship to the church is like now.
Unfortunately these brave proponents of radical theological change are rare. They do have an investment in the church but somehow they have been able to put that investment at risk in favor of the belief that radical change is needed. These are rare voices that can make some difference but in order for widespread change to take place there must be many more. Where will those other voices come from? Think they will come from young theologians and theology students who do not have so much of an investment in the status quo. As they come up they are not as constrained from forging new directions. They can respond more radically to the challenges of the current situation. Those brave theologians who have had a substantial investment in a tradition, but who are willing be critical and formulate new directions can offer an outstanding example to the young theologians who will be the theological leaders of the future. They can deal more creatively with issues like pluralism, religious knowledge, science and religion, etc.
Maybe it’s a good thing that radical theologies aren’t coming out all the time. Anyone can sit in their living room and come up with an original idea of God -and plenty of people do but is that actually theology. If Theology is the study of God then our starting point has to be “How do we find out about God.” They aren’t things we can create. They are things that exist, that are observed.
I would see it as a strength that Christian Theology happens in community and happens in a conservative way. That is what Christian Theologians are called to do -to pass on the faith once for all delivered. Maybe it doesn’t give us much excitement or cuedos as innovators -but if we help other people to meet with God, to see their lives changed, to have assurance of eternal life, to go and be salt and light in their own communities -then that is the test of being a good theologian -not our level of radicalness
Comment by Dave Williams —
Dave,
I don’t think that theologians should strive to be radical or create excitement either. The question for each generation of theologians is whether or not something radical is needed. There is a long history of Christian theologians (like Luther) who felt something radical was required. While others may disagree it seems to me that we are in a period of time where something radical is needed. There is and has been a disturbing trend towards secularization in societies around the world. Participation in religious traditions is constantly on the decline. Something is wrong with what the traditions are offering. Many polls say that people find what is being offered irrelevant. The constant steady re-nuancing of theology has apparently not made the difference necessary. I think this is why theologians like Marcus Borg have offered radical new visions for Christianity.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Hi Steve,
The difference with Luther wasn’t that he thought something radical was needed to meet the polls as it were. Rather he saw that the church had departed from what the Bible taught and indeed from the church fathers such as Augustine were saying too
Comment by Dave Williams —
Dave,
Luther was commited to the truth of things. For him that meant consilience with the Bible. Much of what was once thought to be literally true in the Bible has been rejected by major theologians. In my view, a theologian should be committed to the truth first and only then to some revelatory resource. Otherwise they are susceptible to idolatry (i.e. raising something preliminary to the status of the ultimate).
As I see it we probably have different goals in our theology. I am interested in the disaffected in religion, those who cannot say the creeds or those who cannot accept the claims of the tradition. This is a growing group worldwide as worldviews have changed and people have embraced the knowledge about reality that has been forthcoming. For that group there is a need for radical changes in theology that are still transparent to the diviine.
This is certainly a wonderful goal. However, I do think that all theologians within the traditions will increasingly face tough questions from those who are in the process of becoming disaffected. Their sucess will depend in how well they address those questions without further alienating adherents from either the traditions or God.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve,
My aim is as much for the diasffected as for the religious! Indeed more so. That is part of the Christian call!
Luther’s commitment to the truth was as revealed. Indeed I fear you have turned the idea on its head. Where do you get the idea of idolatry from in the first place? It is a Biblical idea -a revealed idea. Indeed it starts with Adam and Eve in Genesis deciding as prompted by the serpent that they can make their own minds up between God’s revelation and other claims.
What is truth? If “Truth” as a vague notion set apart from God revealing it exists then Truth is a higher authority than God. So truth is worshipped -surely that is idolatry?
Yes those of us concerned with teaching people the truth as revealed by God in the Bible do meet with tough questions. I’ve been involved with people with tough questions for a good few years now. But churches that teach the Bible as God’s truth are seeing substantial growth across the world and here in Britain are normally growing!
Comment by Dave Williams —
Dave,
Ok. So what do you say to those people who can no longer say the creeds because they cannot accept the supernaturalism inherent in them? Or what do you say to those Christians who have friends who are devout Hindus or Muslims and come to question the exclusivity of Christianity? These are the disaffected I am talking about.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve,
As for the former I would want to discuss with them why they cannot say the creeds anymore -there might be a whole range of reasons why not!
As for the latter -I grew up in Bradford, it is a multicultural northern city in Britain with a significant proportion of muslims and some hindus -there are more practising muslims than practising Christians there. So my school friends were devout muslims and I had lots of interesting conversations with them. So the issue of Christian exclusitivity was a live topic then. It was a live issue for the Bible writers too -other religions might be a new phenomona to the west but not to Christianity. So I would want to chat with them about the differences between the religions and what made Christianity exclusive.
Comment by Dave Williams —
Dave,
I think we do have a common goal in seeking the spiritual well-being of the individual. Our difference, it would seem, is that you would try to dissuade of their disbelief in the dogma of the Church whereas I would affirm that disbelief and attempt to show them that there are alternatives within which they can maintain their belief in God, albeit perhaps in ways different than before.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve,
Possibly but we shouldn’t try to find too many commonalities. It is very clear that our aims are heading in very different directions. You clearly believe that my approach wont work. My issue with your approach is that I would say it is dangerous both for yourself and those you are aiming at -although I respect your intentions as honourable.
I would love to continue the dialogue -I’m probably not going to be able to continue at this pace and on these particular articles we probably are not going to get much further at the moment. I hope you wont mind if I continue to read your blog and comment when I get time. You are welcome to return the visit! It has been a pleasure debating with you
Dave
Comment by Dave Williams —
Dave,
Thanks for the discussion and stop by anytime. I’ll also be reading your nice blog.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Dave is so very off the point. If God is discovery, no too persons are likely to find the same thing about God, and each will find something different. God exist, but that very statement ensures that each man must discover what that existence is.
God is always in process- God is process- hence there can be no automatic identical discovery for every man. What God is, is determined by one’s preparation to discover and discern it.
That is the difference between a Mother Theresa, a Mahatma Ghandi and the man in the street.
God reveals himself differentially to each man- hence the controversies of history. Een to say God is love means different things to different people.
Comment by Clive Ocnacuwenga —