Sound Bite Theology: Theologians & Apologists

There are inquirers after truth, and there are defenders of truth conceived. In Christianity (or in any religion), the former are the theologians the latter are the apologists. The greatest mistake that either could make is to see their tasks as mutually exclusive.

Both serve a useful purpose. The apologist seeks to preserve and conserve the warranted conclusions of past inquiries after truth. The theologian seeks further truth, or to articulate deeper truth, in light of new discoveries and new insights within new contexts, specifically in areas where earlier articulations of truth may be found insufficient or shortsighted.

The wise theologian knows that while all inquiry is provisional, the most fruitful inquiry happens along the well-trodden paths of earlier inquiry, heeding the sign-posts of past travelers. The wise apologist knows that while the resilience of truth renders it impervious to spurious inquiry, the failure to acknowledge new discovery essentially amounts to a denial of the very truth that the apologist is duty-bound to defend.

The disposition of the apologist is to regard orthodoxy as the end of the journey. The disposition of the theologian is to regard orthodoxy as a means to an end. Therein lies their greatest difference and their greatest bone of contention.

The apologist should never mistake apologia for theologia. Neither should the theologian trivialize the hesitations of the apologist.

What is the Post-Catholic Project?

What is the Post-Catholic Project?

Humpty Dumpty and The Idols of Our Thinking

Based on a recent conversation in another forum:

Once upon a time I too was a "top-down thinker," vainly imagining that if my philosophical and theological reasonings were sound, locked-up, air-tight, and "correct," then everything else "down below" would conveniently fall into place, eventually anyway since I did not have all the answers yet. "Common sense be damned!" The Biblical Inerrantist I once was would never countenance the possibility of formal contradictions in the Bible; any discrepancy I could not explain was merely "apparent." The Creationist I once was would never tolerate any interpretation of the empirical evidence that suggested evolution by natural selection, because, of course, that would not have been consistent with my understanding of God as Creator. But what if the Bible did contain discrepancies? And what if evolution by natural selection did occur? These were questions I was afraid to ask, because my top-down world, like Humpty Dumpty, might have "had a great fall." It is a menacing enterprise, at first, to retrain oneself to be a "bottom-up thinker." We suddenly discover that all of our "top-down" loyalties are on trial, and that is a frightening notion for those of us who have been conditioned to place absolute trust in the idols of our thinking.

What is Theistic Naturalism?

Theistic Naturalism represents an approach within the general movement of Religious Naturalism that appeals to the primacy of the sciences in reimagining what it means to be a person of faith in a scientific age. Their conclusions may vary greatly, yet all religious naturalists begin with the same general epistemological assumptions. Among the most important are:

• The presupposition of the ontological unity of the cosmos over against dualism;
• The evolutionary emergence of all biological life;
• The primacy of the scientific method in understanding the world around us and our place in it;
• The recognition of the limitations of the sciences in giving a full account for human judgments of value and aesthetics, as well as of our religious impulses.

The author of "The Science of Knowing God" assumes these general assumptions, while standing apart from other religious naturalists in affirming the uniqueness of God as ontologically distinct from the cosmos (hence, Theistic). The author also identifies as a neoclassical Christian, scrutinizing and reimagining traditional normative theologies in light of scientific progress. The following characterize the starting points for this position: 

• A belief in the sacredness of all life, of which human beings are an interconnected and emergent part; 
• The directional evolutionary emergence of consciousness and morality;
• The priority of faith-event over creedal affirmations;
• The priority of spiritual narrative, story and myth within the faith community over against historical reification; 
• The pursuit of authenticity over against claims of interpretive or dogmatic authority;
• The primacy of metaphor over against metaphysical speculation;
• The pursuit of a Christocentric-anthropology over against Anthropological Exceptionalism.

"The Science of Knowing God" is a theological pursuit rather than an apologetic one. Grasping the distinction between an apologist and a theologian will go a long way in helping the reader to understand the bullets above. The author approaches all questions as a "Believing Thomas," looking into the holes and finding Christ.

Posts that may interest the reader:

Seven Views on Creation, Evolution and Divine Intervention
Theistic Evolution: A Theological Narrative
Two Minds of Augustine
Toward an Evolutionary Account of Original Sin
Natural (s)Election
Theologians & Apologists

Confessions of a Post-Catholic Priest

I still wonder if this whim to take up blogging again after a long hiatus will stick.  Perhaps it will.  Perhaps it will not.  I am not the same blogger that I once was, and yet I am.  I affirm continuity and consistency, but I also acknowledge development, evolution, and emergence (yes, “emergence” is the proper term, as is “post-catholic” to describe this project).  While my former blog was an ambitious attempt to explore the possible course that catholicity would take in the third millennium, this project begins with the realization and admission that “catholic” has become (and actually has always been, if we are honest) a wax nose shaped according to the will of those who would fashion it in their own image.  Indeed, the three principle communions which lay claim to the “catholic and apostolic” identity (Roman, Byzantine, and Anglican) have three mutually exclusive definitions for it.

One might ask: has post-modernity caught up to me?  Yes, I admit this. But I do not identify with the “Emergent or Emerging Church.” So-called “emergents” tinker with theology and church. Nevertheless, I do identify with (or rather I have begun to recognize in myself) postfoundationalism. “Christianity must change, or else die” (to paraphrase John Shelby Spong).

I simply cannot abandon the term "catholic."  Suffice it to say, for now, “post-catholic” does not mean “ex-catholic” or “former catholic.”  I can no more abandon my Christian heritage (Scriptures, liturgy, creeds) than I can disown my ancestry.  Rather, as others have noted in different contexts, “post” means something more like “beyond” or “moving on from."  The Christian story – from virgin birth to resurrection – is just as much my story now as it ever has been; though what this story may mean from a third-millennium perspective…well, that is what I hope to explore.

"Believing Thomas" (nom de plume)