Category Archives: theology
On being too Christian
Just a thought that occurred to me yesterday – it is surely possible to be too Christian.
Consider Jesus’ teaching about salt, and how salt that has lost its savour isn’t any good, it is fit only to be trodden underfoot.
Salt is not there as an end in itself. It is there to enhance the flavour of the food. It is not there to be eaten in its own right; to do so is in fact to be poisoned.
That is the role of the Christian. Not to have an alternative life, marked out with boundaries and little fishes, but rather, to enhance the life of all which is not salt.
In other words, the role of the Christian is to ensure that those who are not Christians can enjoy abundance.
When this is missed, I think that Christians have become too Christian, and have missed the point. They have become too isolated, and too concentrated, and have thereby become toxic to the wider community. Rather than enabling the savouring of the flavouring they induce vomiting. Not good.
(and after writing that, I see this)
READING GROUPThe Victory of Reason (Stark) 1.i
As mentioned earlier, I plan to run a ‘reading group’ looking at interesting books on a weekly basis. I’ll normally post on a Thursday morning, as that is when I can normally guarantee some quality time to look at it. We being with Rodney Stark’s “The Victory of Reason” – How Christianity led to freedom, capitalism and western success.
Preface & Chapter 1.i
The main burden of this section is about the way that Christian theology was the necessary precondition for the rise of science – that, in fact, science cannot proceed without using Christian theological assumptions. Stark writes:
“…the West is said to have surged ahead precisely as it overcame religious barriers to progress, especially those impeding science. Nonsense. The success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians.”
Stark begins chapter 1 by outlining his conception of theology which, in contrast to its popular image, is ‘highly rational – formal reasoning about God’. This rational emphasis included the ability to develop new doctrine on the basis of such reasoning, and Stark gives the examples of Augustine rejecting astrology, and the notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity. In the Christian outlook, therefore, the use of reason was encouraged, enabled, and allowed to be fruitful – it was seen as an indispensable component of faith. Whilst Stark acknowledges some difference of view amongst theologians (eg Bonaventure) he comments that “[their] views did not prevail – if for no other reason than because official church theology enjoyed a secure base in the many and growing universities, where reason ruled.”
Moreover, this view of reason was one that assumed the possibility of progress, ie that over time people could gain “an increasingly accurate understanding of God’s will”, and that “the assumption of progress… may be the most critical difference between Christianity and all other religions.”
This progress applied to the study of the natural world, which was seen as reflecting the nature of the Creator, and this is where Christianity is substantively essential for the establishment of science. The universe has a stable, rational, intelligible structure which reflects the nature of God and is open to our increasing comprehension – “This was the key to many intellectual undertakings, among them the rise of science.” Stark goes on, “Not only were science and religion compatible, they were inseparable – the rise of science was achieved by deeply religious Christian scholars.” Stark goes on to briefly survey China, Greece and Islam, to explain why their differing religious perspective inhibited the development of science in those societies.
In short, science was developed in a Christian culture because only Christians believed, as a result of their theological insight, that science both could and should be done: “The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honour God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork…”
Some suggested questions to trigger discussion:
1. I believe it to be true that science depends upon a Christian theological framework, but I’m not convinced that Stark gives enough of an argument in favour. Do you find him convincing on this core point?
2. Stark doesn’t take any time to explain his conception of “reason”, which is central to his case in a number of different ways. Is this a major flaw?
3. Stark makes the curious argument that “The East lacks theologians because those who might otherwise take up such an intellectual pursuit reject its first premise: the existence of a conscious, all-powerful God.” I see this statement as both a) trivially true (ie by definition) and b) remarkably silly. Is Eastern thought as philosophically rich as Christian thought?
4. In an environment where the practice of science is under increasing cultural strain, one implication of Stark’s argument is that the preservation of science can most effectively be undertaken by Christians. Is this plausible?
5. Much media presentation depends upon the idea that science and religion are in inevitable conflict. If Stark is correct then this is a pernicious falsehood – where might it have come from, and whose interests are served by the propagation of this falsehood?
Feel free to answer these in the comments, or throw up anything else that strikes you.
Apparitions (BBC)
I enjoyed watching this series, which was one that pressed most of my buttons, but there were some problems. The smaller ones were mainly to do with Martyn Shaw’s character, who displayed far too much pride to be doing the things that he did – and which had occasionally bizarre consequences (exorcism by ‘phone??). The Black Mass, in particular, was incredible for me, in that I don’t believe a priest would do such a thing.
However, the biggest conclusion that I came to, which is one that I’ve reached separately, is that any presentation of exorcism that describes it as in any way a struggle of equals fails, for that very reason, in being a Christian presentation. Exorcism is more akin to plumbing, and a binary 50/50 clash of good and evil is no more real than a binary 50/50 clash between a plumber and a blocked u-bend. I might write more on that aspect in due course.
I very much hope that there is a second series. 3.5/5
TBTM20090105
140 character creed
Got tagged for this a while ago by Tim, but didn’t get around to doing it. Here goes:
I believe: God is love; we’re from it and for it; and it’s understood when we eat the bread and drink the wine singing Hallelujah.
(130 characters)
This night all gods die (a sermon)
I’ve definitely gone off the idea of posting sermons, but my boss liked this one, and as I had written it out in full – very rare these days – I thought I’d shove it up.
This will be a sign to you: a baby lying in a manger
I’d like to begin my remarks tonight by talking about the end of the world, the twilight of the gods, gotterdammerung, ragnarok, armageddon – the day when Tesco has nothing left on its shelves – and what I want to say to you on this magical night is: “this night all gods die”
For what do we think of when we think of the gods? The traditional mythical portrayal is normally of heroic figures, of Zeus and Apollo, or Odin and Thor – characters that are larger than life, filled with mighty power and special skills, who can interact with mortals but only from a position of great superiority
So why might I claim that gods such as these die on a night such as this? Simply because, for a Christian, here is where the real God, the one, true, living God, God with a capital G, can be found – and can be found, moreover, in the form of a small human baby.
This will be a sign to you: a baby lying in a manger.
A baby who is not invulnerable and filled with amazing strength; this baby is an especially vulnerable one, homeless, a refugee, warmed by the breath of the animals as he struggles into life in their feeding tray – and remember, at the end of this story, this god gets executed like a common criminal
we cannot believe in both sorts of gods – it is either one or the other – so we can either believe in gods geared around strength and power and victories, a celestial form of “my dad is bigger than your dad” – or else we can believe in a god that can be discovered in what is weak, what is not respectable, what can so easily be ignored by all the people well fed, warm and satisfied in the inn.
this will be a sign to you: a baby lying in a manger
or perhaps there is room to disbelieve in both? to disbelieve in all the Greek gods, and the Norse gods, and the Celtic gods and so on – and then, as some atheists like to put it, to not believe in just one more? I don’t believe that’s actually a possibility, for let me ask the question: what are the priorities around which we build our lives? for that is really what the gods are – they embody and personify our values, they represent those things for which we strive, they are what guide our choices day by day, as slowly but surely we either build a prison for our souls, or a home in which to live – and everyone, even atheists, has priorities in their life
for all that happens, when people are deceived into thinking they don’t worship any gods is that other things, things that we don’t normally recognise as being gods take the place of God, and these become the objects, the idols, around which lives are built, and lives are then destroyed. After all, possibly the best example we have seen, this year, of a god being toppled is our financial system, what Jesus called Mammon – and we’re all vulnerable to that temptation, to look to the accumulation of wealth to provide security, and respect, and comfort, and happiness – it doesn’t of course, and in a time such as this, when that particular god has toppled to the floor, the emptiness of that worship is revealed for all to see
such gods are not the one, true living God – for the hallmark of the true and living God is that worshipping Him leads to life, not death; it leads to peace in our hearts, not strife in our souls; it allows us to flourish as fully human beings, to know and become who we truly are, and not simply to be pieces chewed up and spat out by an unthinking and uncaring system
how then, if tonight is the night when all gods die, how can we learn to listen to that living God? Well let us pay attention once again, to that small and vulnerable baby, the one that can be pushed aside so easily.
This will be a sign to you: a baby lying in a manger.
Let me suggest that the living God speaks his Word in just the same way; he will not normally light up the sky in bright neon to tell us what to do; no, his is a quiet voice, one that is easily pushed aside or shouted down by all the voices that fill our heads – of friends, of family, of society, of economic necessity – but this quiet, easily pushed aside voice – this voice is persistent, this voice will never leave us, for this voice leads to life, and the eternal desire of this voice is to lead us into abundant life
this voice speaks a word to us, a word which was there in the beginning, when we were first thought of, and a word through which we ourselves were made – it is a voice which already knows the fullest truths about us, more truths than we are even prepared to admit to ourselves in our most private moments – and which speaks a word of love in just those places, at just those times
if we can but listen to that voice, if we can but leave the comfort of the inn, and go to be in the stable, with the shepherds and the wise men, and the donkey and the ox, then we too can hear this voice which leads to life – for that is what is at stake in this story of the death of the gods, and the birth of the living God
this will be a sign to you: a baby lying in a manger.
may each of us hear this voice of the living God, so that Christ can be born in our hearts, this Christmas time, and for ever more. Amen.
TBTM20081223
TBTE20081211
The virtue or sin of contraception
The 90(!) comments on my post on the difference between being Green and being a Christian who cares about the environment (here) have ended up being a long conversation about different attitudes to contraception.
Chris G-Z takes a traditionalist Roman Catholic perspective on the subject, and I have been puzzled on the justifications being offered. In particular, in situations where a married couple come to know that they are not fertile, we pursued the question of whether it was legitimate for sexual relations to take place. Chris agreed that, in such a case, it was licit “to have sexual intercourse for non-procreative purposes, so long as, if it is procreative, then the conception is allowed to take its natural course” and so long as the sexual relation is “between a husband and wife married to each other”.
I am baffled as to the difference between this and accepting the use of contraception. I’m not aware of a contraceptive method with 100% reliability, and I’m aware of a number of people (myself included) who, should contraception fail, would be willing to accept the consequences of that failure (eg raise the resulting child). There seems to be an acceptance that sexual relations are not exclusively for purposes of reproduction, which I think is right, but which runs against the grain of the teaching on contraception.
I should add that I think this is a problem with the official teaching of the Roman Catholic church, not with Chris’ logic generally. It may be that there is something in the official teaching which we haven’t unearthed yet.
Discuss!