It seems that everyone is trying to rectify their theology (faith) with something, be it science, The Bible, Naturalism or just some sort of validation. Do we need rhyme or reason for faith? Do we have to prove to others why we believe? What difference does it make? At the end of John’s Gospel Jesus basically suggests that it doesn’t matter what happens to someone else, what matters is your own personal faith and path.
Why worry what Science does or does not agree with?
Why (even) worry how the Old Testament fits with Christianity?
What matters is our relationship (or not) with God.
I’ve heard it said, the gospel is simple, but theology is not. So to the rich young ruler, salvation was not keeping rules and knowing stuff, but getting rid of his idols and following Christ.
Why then worry about theology? Personally, I like to understand what is happening and make sense of it, sort of part of being a science geek, so I enjoy it and it adds meaning to Christian life. I can see how those who tend to live in the moment and not care about such things find it boring.
It’s been a while since I read Screwtape Letters, but somebody recently was commenting on the importance that Lewis placed on clear thinking - so that he has the demons rejoicing to be able to reduce their victim into muddled confusion. That said, I’m sure that Lewis would also agree that this doesn’t mean intelligence is some sort of key “in” with God. Which would be bad news for the mentally impaired or young children or those denied education. Obviously that sort of exclusion would not fit God’s M.O. and most of us will probably agree that a faithful heart is not at all a guaranteed outcome of high intelligence. But part of being faithful would mean using your intelligence to the extent that you are granted it. More is expected of people who can go deeper than others or who presume to be teachers of others. I.e. We are expected to make use of the talents we are given. Given how much muddled thinking (or lack of thought) contributes to the evils of the world, we should rejoice to drive out confusion in favor of light and clarity wherever we can.
[Not to mention the pleasure that most people get from gaining new understanding. And if that is a source of enjoyment for me, then part of loving my neighbor would mean rejoicing in and contributing as I can toward their being able to enjoy the same - even just for it’s own sake.]
I think theology has something to do with transportation, some ride in an ox-driven cart, some ride a donkey, elephant, camel, or horse, some ride bicycles, in cars, or airplanes, Some get where they’re going faster, and some don’t.
I think theology gets less complicated when you realize the Bible is less god like. That there is no such thing as systematic theology because not all of the authors agree with one another. That the Bible is no more divine than the vedas, Egyptian book of the dead or even something like the Iliad. Some parts of the Bible says this or that. They don’t really know. Paul was no more in touch with what was happening than the Dali Lama, Kong Qiu or whatever religion ends up replacing Christianity just like it replaced Odinism, Zoroastrianism or the beliefs of those who worshipped Zeus.
Jesus did not invent the golden rule. Ancient Greeks and Confucius both said it way earlier. Even the story of Odysseus mentions only keeping one cost and giving the other away and so on.
What’s complicated is understanding what did the literature mean to ancient people. It’s to far outside of our experience to ever truly know. Especially given they seemingly believed different things.
Perhaps things are only as complicated as we make them? it is said that the evil is in the details and there are some who seem to need to delve as far down as it is possible to go.
Without quoting more, I think the idea is that Christ claimed we needed the faith of a child, a warning not to overthink perhaps?
On the other hand, some of us need to think things through before deciding on what we can or cannot believe. Which takes us neatly to @Terry_Sampson whose attempts at wit sometimes reveals a deeper understanding .
I believe that anyone can understand the basic message in biblical scriptures about God and the salvation He is willing to give us, provided that the Holy Spirit opens our eyes and hearts. That is basic theology that is not complicated.
If we want to learn to know better what God told, His intent and what He has promised, we need to dig deeper. Digging deeper to the biblical scriptures includes some amount of uncertainty because we are fallible humans. The uncertainty and misunderstandings caused by incomplete knowledge and interpretation through our ‘coloured spectacles’ make theology seem complicated.
Deeper knowledge is not needed for salvation but it helps to build a more credible and stable worldview. When someone challenges our beliefs and interpretations, our worldview and life does not shatter. Instead, such an understanding about God and the creation gives a solid foundation to approach differing opinions from a confident and loving attitude.
This, from Richard Rohr’s “Immortal Diamond” (chapter 4)
Much of our life we are trying to connect the dots, to pierce the heart of reality to see what is good, true and beautiful for us.
…
Since the Enlightenment […] we have been satisfied with facts, clear evidence, objective science, or things provable by that one excellent discipline and method called science. The hope is that science gives us objective truth; religion, however, gives us personal meaning or personal truth. They should not be seen as contraries.
How we search, however, will determine what we find or even want to find. I suggest that we should be searching primarily in the universal and wise depths of recurring symbols, metaphors, and sacred stories, which is where humans can find deep and lasting meaning - or personal truth. That is what we mean by the Perrennial Tradition and why George Bernard Shaw said, “There is only one religion, and there are then a thousand forms of it.” The best religious metaphors, like resurrection, assert not just a truth held by Christianity but a universal truth too. (Don’t panic, fellow Christians. I am not denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus by calling it also a “metaphor”; in fact, quite the contrary. Please read on.)
Metaphor is the only possible language available to religion because it alone is honest about Mystery. The underlying messages that different religions and denominations use are often in strong agreement, but they use different images to communicate their own experience of union with God. That should not shock or disappoint anyone, unless they are still kids shouting, “This is my toy, and the rest of you can’t touch it!” Jesus, who is always using metaphors, says, for example, “There are other sheep I have that are not of this fold, and these I have to lead as well. They too listen to my voice”. He is quite obviously talking metaphorically by calling people sheep. He is also saying that sometimes the outsider to the “flock” hears as well as the insider.
…
The goal is never to overcome all differences, since God already made us different in a hundred thousand ways. Differences are not the same as otherness, or at least they need not be. Through clever metaphors such as sheep and flocks, unity and yet differentiation, Jesus resolves the complex philosophical problem of “the one and the many.” He uses clever metaphors to teach unclear spiritual truths. He himself calls them parables, and Mark even says, “He would not speak to them except in parables” (4:34), which means he was willing to risk misunderstanding in hopes that some would get a much deeper understanding (4:33).
It is impossible to get his strong and important messages here if we do not honor metaphor. Maybe that is exactly why we have missed so much of his core message - just the opposite of what fundamentalists fear. Metaphor is invariably more meaning, not less. Literalism is the lowest and least level of meaning.
We must never be too tied to our own metaphors as the only possible way to speak the truth, and yet we also need good metaphors to go deep. That is the inherent tension …
There is one problem with metaphors. They usually involve concepts instad of more blatant understanding. It would seem that not all minds can grasp such thinking.
Also, it is rare to find the "perfect " metaphor. Which results in taking meaning that was not intended.
Yes.
It matters to me because I for one do not want to place my faith in something that is false or irrational. So rational thinking and faith are not contradictory, and should not be separated.
We don’t have to prove our beliefs to others. But we are called to testify to what we believe.
As for John’s gospel, he would strongly disagree with you:
John 20
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
The whole purpose of his written gospel was to give people good and sufficient reasons to believe in Jesus.
I don’t worry. But I do see the value of education and of research. As people better than me have said, to think about the world that God created is to think his thoughts after him, and it leads to wisdom and worship. Why would we not want that to be our experience?
But that is your view and rationale. Why must it be that for everyone?
Are we called to indoctrinate or impose?
I guess you could claim that “Go and make disciples ff” is a mandate, but there is also the practicalities .If what you do has the opposite effect then you are not obeying it.
But that does not give you the right to impose it. It is what it is, and it functions as long as the reader is open to it. You cannot impose or argue faith, it has to come from the person themselves.
You can only teach those who will listen and are open to it.
All we can do is witness as to what and why we believe. If it strikes a chord then all well and good, but if there is no interest we cannot, no, must not try and force it. Such actions are self defeating and contrary to the commission.
Richard, can I ask a question? If it’s too personal, don’t feel any pressure to reply, but your last post makes me wonder if you have had a bad experience in this area. Is that the case?
I ask this because I agree completely with everything you’ve said. It saddens me that you would get any kind of imposing-your-beliefs vibe from my words. If you knew me better you would know that I am the last person in the world to do that. I’m honest about my beliefs and the reasons for them, and I’m happy to talk about them with people if they are interested. But I hate - and I mean, really hate - arguments and pressure. I’m a ‘coffee and conversation’ kind of person.
I would even say … impossible. Because a ‘perfect’ metaphor wouldn’t be a metaphor at all - just like an analogy is never identical to the reality to which is alludes (if it was - it wouldn’t be analogy - but merely description.) So in that sense, the ‘perfect’ metaphor does not exist. But I would argue that apt metaphors exist, and are legion - in language, culture, and especially in the Bible. They call us into deeper contemplation and connection with their subject. And that response to metaphor also will never be perfect since it is generated and housed in our human mind, both individually and collectively. And that is a great thing! Thank God for language.
I always like Rohr’s work and it’s definitely the way I see it too. Definitely on what exactly he means by “ one religion and many forms of it” type of stuff. I feel like it’s all just accomondationism really. To me religion is primarily faiths and hyperbolic stories breathed out to us by a god trying to help raise goodness within that community at that time and place. We can then look back at it even though it was not for use, and find a way forward. So did David and Goliath really meet and fight? Probably not. But it’s still a good story on standing up to evil and trusting in God and your community even when it seems like you’re facing down a giant. The issue arises when someone think that their scriptures are super magical, the only truth, and that there is no mistakes within them. So many act as if the Bible is the fourth god in the trinity.
Reality is complicated. One of the reasons why bogus science is so popular is that real science takes time to understand, to explain the limits, to convey accurately what we know and how, whereas grand sciencey sounding claims can be made quickly without substantiation. Thus, if theology is to be an accurate description of God, it’s quite likely to be complicated. God(s) being superhuman humans, like in many polytheistic religions, is not hard to produce by imagination (see Percy Jackson). But a genuine deity is likely to have unexpected properties, to be different from us in unexpected ways.
When the pieces came together in perfect harmony, a beautiful picture of God appear. Each piece of the puzzle is like a verse or a phrase or a saying of Jesus that fill in the blanks. If we force a wrong doctrine into the picture, somehow the picture become confused. But when the pieces comes together, then theology become beautiful. Complicated because it is the picture of God.
