One of the most interesting questions in theology and religious philosophy, at least for me, is why certain individuals and cultures opted for a particular religious framework. While this is certainly a complex issue, one can speculate at what might have been happening with seminal figures (i.e. Elijah, Moses, Jesus, Siddartha, Lao Tsé, etc.) in history who for some reason formulated their religious thinking as they did. One way to approach this question is, I think, from the standpoint of religious experience. Now, what I mean by religious experience is any experience that is interpreted as revealing something about the ultimate basis or structure of reality. I believe the issue of religious experience as a basis for forming religious sentiment has become particularly acute in this age of religious pluralism. Prominent Christian theologian Langdon Gilkey wrote:

If I were asked what are the biggest changes in theology since the first half of the twentieth century, since the great neo-orthodox days, I would mention, first, the concern for the issue of the pluralism of religions, and second, the deep, and very new, theological concern with nature.

Religious pluralism calls into question the truth and authority of a particular tradition. A survey of religious sentiment throughout history reveals both similarities and differences between religious traditions. If religion, in some way, taps into and characterizes ultimate reality this begs the question why there are differences? There are, of course, adherents who just claim that the others just got it wrong. To an objective observer these claims will, in my view, be almost always circular.
(more…)

There is a general theme in liberal theology these days that really irks me. It represents a picture of a god that is distant and not participatory in any real sense. This trend can be seen in the neo-deistic ideas that relegate God to a maintenance person keeping the water flowing and the heat on but not really entering into the lives of the tenants in the building. It can also be seen in process thought where God prehends the sufferings and existential issues of life and tries to influence the world to the better but remains pristine in God’s glory. This is not the God of the scriptures. It is not the God that can be found in such a wonderful representation in the participatory suffering and death of Jesus. The god that is being presented is a god who has nothing to do or say to the weak who find themselves alone, suffering, and dying. This god has nothing to offer to the prayers of those dying of hunger and violence in their solitude. What good is the heat, water, and lure to those who reach out to the Source of life in their solitude and despair. This god is a demonic god who doesn’t get god’s hands dirty. It is not a god that is of any use to the world of the weak.

The true God is a God who actually lives in this world. It is a God who doesn’t just prehend or feel the sufferning of the weak but one who actually suffers and dies as well. Isn’t the message of the gospels that can be found many religions that even when we are alone and reach out to God, God is there in the very midst of life’s trials. All these trends that try to be accommodating to the mainstream worldviews of science and culture today will never be embraced because their response to the weak can only be “buck up”, “accept the influence of God”, “shit happens”, “God cannot do anything”. These are hollow responses that find no existential impact. They do not touch the heart of the weak of body or spirit. Theologians who promote these ideas should be ashamed. In their comfort they have nothing to offer the downtrodden of the world.

The only answer that has power is that we and God are one. Our suffering is not just sensed and appreciated by God but it is God’s suffering. All theologies that strike a divide between God and the world are destined to the dustbin. They will not find any appeal for the great masses of the world. They may appeal to the intellect of some but they do not translate to the real world. Only a God who is personally there in the dark, even closer to us than we are to ourselves can speak to the deeply heartfelt prayers of those in profound need. If Jesus is right that the weak shall inherit the Earth is it because they, above all, can know that God who lives in the very midst of their needs and trials.

In past centuries most theologies began and proceeded from within a constrained circle. Usually the constraint was defined by a scripture, scriptures, or religious and theological traditions. All one has to do is look at the educational institutions for theology around the world and their curriculum to see this. Theological departments are invariably grounded in some religious tradition be it Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. This should not come as a surprise since most of these institutions were probably established to train scholars and clergy persons for those traditions. The problem with this circumscribed approach is that these institutions take as a given the veracity and authority of their particular traditions when that has become the very issue in a religiously pluralistic world. This leaves untouched some very basic questions that theology should address outside any particular theological circle: (more…)

I don’t know when the idea of perfection arose in human thought. It certainly appears in the axial age when philosophy blossomed both in the East and the West. From that period the major religious systems arose and they were all world rejecting in some fashion. They all point to a perfection in the offing for reality and from that necessarily ensues theological and philosophical schemes of how that perfection can be reached. Those schemes might include a cycle of life and death until enlightenment is achieved or the advent of an eschatological event that brings things to a final solution. Of course because of the presence of evil in the world, it is understandable that such notions would arise. How can this world, as it is, be accepted as “the best of all possible worlds” as Leibnitz said when evil is confronted at every turn. The answer to this question can only come when the goal of perfection as normally defined is abandoned. (more…)

Love has to be one of the most talked about and written about things in the world. The apostle Paul has a wonderful definition in 1 Corinthians. I would add one thing to Paul’s list. Risk. I think it is important to add this for two reasons. First it is an obvious element in love and secondly it is important for theology.

The statement that “God is love” is ubiquitous in theology and religious sentiment. But if God is love then God must also be at risk. Many of the ontologies employed by theology neglect this idea and reduce God to a bystander. This has tragic consequences for the formulations of theology and the personal piety that ensues. (more…)

Theologians all have a given temperament just like anyone else. Should it be any wonder that features of that temperament would be reflected in their theological approach and the ensuing content that emerges. I have often wondered about the psychological dynamics of great thinkers and how it effects what they produce. It is an area that, in my opinion, has been sorely neglected in the history of thought. Although the arguments of these thinkers can be taken on face value, it is often enlightening to see “where they are coming from”. There are exceptions to this neglect. Biographies of great minds often give some insight into the “background” from which their thoughts emerge. Gary Dorrien’s books(three volumes), “The Making of American Liberal Theology” take a biographical, narrative approach that offers opportunities to see how temperament might have shaped the thought of the great liberal theologians. (more…)

Both theology and engineering are systematic endeavors. In engineering systematics is unavoidable. Systematics means completeness, coherency, and compliance with all available knowledge. The reason engineering must be systematic is because if it is not bridges fall down, airplanes crash, and people die. As a result engineering must correspond to the reality of things. This means that it is not enough that certain parts of an engineering design seem to fit the reality of things but that everything must work. The same should be true for theology. (more…)

There is a concept in Christianity and Hinduism call kenosis (i.e. self emptying). I think this concept is apt in that in God’s living aspect there is a limitation on God. The characteristics of life itself are finitude and temporality. If God is a living God then this is a limitation that God imposes on God’s self. The crucial concept in my theology is life. Life is constrained being but it is also becoming. What we see from science is that life is constituted by regularity and novelty. Science has good opportunities to characterize the regularities in life because its method requires repeatability. However, science has also discovered its limits with quantum theory where there is an indeterminacy in the very fabric of the cosmos. While the scientific implications of this indeterminacy are not fully fleshed out, it does provide a point where an attempt to coalign religious intuitions with what science is exploring. This coalignment is certainly speculative. The question is, should one wait for more confirmation from science on the possible practical consequences of this indeterminism or do some speculation. My approach is to see if religious intuitions are *reasonable* within the current context. This necessarily drives a certain amount of speculation. As long as one is willing to abandon certain speculative concepts when new information comes in, then I see no harm. (more…)

The history of theology and philosophy is rampant with what I would call the reductionist program. Certainly there is an order to the cosmos that is reflected in rational thought. All one has to do is look to the “summas” of various thinkers over the years to see the massive volume of thought that seeks to rationally elucitate theological and philosophical thought. It is as if a rational argument is deep enough and consistent enough it will persuade. There is some element of truth in this. There is an rational order to the cosmos as propounded by the Logos concept and many philosophers like Hegel. However, it is becoming more and more evident that a reductionist approach (the logic of primitives) cannot be adequate. In science this is represented by the burgeoning field of organizational studies or as more commonly called emergence. Philosophers and scientists of emergence claim that the whole cannot be explained by understanding the dynamics of its parts. Often, it is thought that there has been great success in this approach at very low levels of complexity (i.e. particle physics). That exploration has, however, revealed that there are no deterministic “laws” that determine things but only probabilities and averaging(decoherence). This has been a striking and disturbing turn of events for many thinkers because it opens the possibility that no “lawlike” theory of everything is attainable. Instead what we are left with is the idea that the hope of reductionism and with it, its predictive certainty is ill conceived. The same can be said, I think, about the goal of rationally reductive theological and philosophical systems that seek to manipulation foundational primitives. (more…)

The rise of religious pluralism in societies has created a new climate for theologians. As prominent theologian Langdon Gilkey says:

If I were asked what are the biggest changes in theology since the first half of the twentieth century, since the great neoorthodox days, I would mention, first, the concern for the issue of the pluralism of religions, and second, the deep, and very new, theological concern with nature.

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.

All religious systems attempt to characterize the structure of reality. Inevitably they find their foundation is what is called ontology (the study of being). The ontology chosen stems first of all from an intuition about the structure of reality. Those intuitions have always struggled with a sense of being both an individual and a part of the whole. Historically this struggle has been characterized as the question of the One and the Many. In philosophic terms it dates back at least 600 years BCE. It was probably first dealt with in depth by philosophers in the Indus Valley of what we now know of as India. There early philosophers seemed to diverge into two schools, dualistic and monistic. The dualists claimed that there are two distinction ontological realms, the realm of God or some form of ultimate reality and the realm of reality as we experience it. The monists claimed that there is only one ontology, one being and that we are part of that One. As these philosophies spread to the West through Persian trade routes the question of the One and the Many was taken up by early Greek philosophers as well. There too philosophers, for the most part, opted for either a dualist or monist ontology. Plato, in most of his works, was a dualist positing both a realm of ulimate reality and the mundane reality of life. In fact Plato thought that this realm was so corrupt and God was so perfect that God had no direct contact with this world and used a demiurge instead. Interestingly enough, however, Plato in his work Timaeus sounds much more like a monist. Parminedes was an early philosopher who, through logic, claimed that there can only be the One reality and that we are a part of it. (more…)