In my work as president of the National Secular Society I sometimes receive manuscripts from people who have come up with what they imagine is the definitive refutation of Christian claims. “Publish this,” they say, “and Christianity will end within a year!” (See here for an example.)
I find these turgid tomes no more convincing than the ones that they seek to refute. They are anti-theology, and given that theology is drivel, efforts to unpick it are hopeless.
What is theology? I think one of the best definitions was given by the sci-fi writer Robert A Heinlein when he said: “Theology … is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn’t there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.”
“He is said to have a brain the size of Jupiter because he can produce convoluted writing that nobody with their feet in reality can comprehend. And because no one can fathom it, it must be very important, right? He’s much cleverer than we are because he can say things that we don’t understand.”
I have to admit that I found his description of the ABp Williams to be accurate.
Thank random chance for Henlein and others who can lead us from an imaginary god to the reality of space civilazations and such.
One of the best atheist arguments, because it can gather a ton of anecdotal evidence, is that “god” is merely the projection of the believer’s ego upon the cosmos. Like all psychologizing, however, that argument must eventually point back at the atheists themselves. What are their projections? They can’t claim some sort of objective, rational world view when quoting Henlein.
Well, I personally don’t see much of a reason to make a distinction between Sanderson’s writing and theology. Buddhism, after all, is an agnostic theology. The way to not do theology is not to talk about, not to say “no” to it.
And I would suspect that the guy who took down atheism as a coherent idea would strike Sanderson as just as incoherent. Atheism is mostly a religion for upper middle class people who are too thick to realize that there’s less reason for a Secular Society (of which Sanderson is listed as president) than there is for a church or temple or synagogue, even in a godless world.
It is rather damning on RW. Ultimately this is what a lot of people see…oh that they would instead speak of a holy man who speaks the truth clearly and in love.
Good Morning, 4. rugbyplayingpriest. Would very much like to “speak of a holy man who speaks the truth clearly and in love.” Am I correctly inferring that you perceive RW as such?
Comments like the following make the columnist and I strange bedfellows…
[i]Take Rowan Williams, for example, who is lauded far and wide for the vastness of his theological knowledge. He is said to have a brain the size of Jupiter because he can produce convoluted writing that nobody with their feet in reality can comprehend. And because no one can fathom it, it must be very important, right? He’s much cleverer than we are because he can say things that we don’t understand. For instance:[/i]
[blockquote] “The word of God is not bound. God speaks, and the world is made; God speaks and the world is remade by the word incarnate. And our human speaking struggles to keep up. We need, not human words that will decisively capture what the word of God has done and is doing, but words that will show us how much time we have to take in fathoming this reality, helping us turn and move and see, from what may be infinitesimally different perspectives, the patterns of light and shadow in a world where the word’s light has been made manifest. It is no accident that the gospel which most unequivocally identifies Jesus as the word made flesh is the gospel most characterised by this same circling, hovering, recapitulatory style, as if nothing in human language could ever be a ‘last’ word.” [/blockquote]
Translation of the quotation from ++Williams:
[blockquote]”The word of God is not bound. God speaks, and the world is made; God speaks and the world is remade by the word incarnate.”[/blockquote]
When doing theology we need to be aware of the difference between what the Creator is and what a creature is. Too often our theological language reflects a view that God is simply more powerful than us–a super-angel, etc. Take two fundamental theological teachings: God creates the world from nothing; and God redeems the world by God somehow becoming a real human being without diminishing or compromising his Divine nature.
[blockquote]”We need, not human words that will decisively capture what the word of God has done and is doing, but words that will show us how much time we have to take in fathoming this reality, helping us turn and move and see, from what may be infinitesimally different perspectives, the patterns of light and shadow in a world where the word’s light has been made manifest.”[/blockquote]
The words humans use are drawn from the world we naturally know– the world of creatures. The precision or finality that we expect our words can achieve when talking about creatures, we should not expect to achieve when talking about Divine action. For the Divine actions in creation and redemption have no [i]adequate[/i] creaturely analog.
A key function of good theology is to teach us that our words fall short when talking about God. This is true even when our words are intelligent and clear and are faithful to the Divine action. One thing that such a theology will teach us is that we benefit from multiple ways of verbally and non-verbally expressing God’s action in the world. The differences in creation that are good all have something to teach us about the One God who is the undivided Source of all creaturely goods.
[blockquote]”It is no accident that the gospel which most unequivocally identifies Jesus as the word made flesh is the gospel most characterised by this same circling, hovering, recapitulatory style, as if nothing in human language could ever be a ‘last’ word.”[/blockquote]
Some people find the Gospel of John irritating because it is not straightforward enough. The text uses many literary devices that refuse to give us clear, precise, scientific answers to our questions. But this is a feature, not a bug. The text respects how difficult it is to stretch creaturely words to talk about the Creator. You cannot exhaust what is important to say about God’s action in Jesus Christ in 50 declarative sentences or any multiple of that number. More importantly, what we say will always stand in need of correction, because we are stretching language to do work it was not made to do.
Thank you, newcollegegrad. I have a hard time understanding why #1 and #6 seemed to join Sanderson in gloating at Cantaur’s expense. +RW’s prose can be rough sledding, but in the passage cited he’s not so incoherent or unfathomable.
The “Six Ways of Atheism” page at the end of Sanderson’s “See here for an example” link (first paragraph) is so incoherent I thought it might be a parody of atheism rather than an argument for atheism.
B’shalom,
Chuck Bradshaw
Hulls Cove, Maine
John 14:16-17 “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.”
What I find disheartening is the total ignorance regarding theology and its influence upon the philosophical tradition in the west (science being a part of this tradition). In papers like the Guardian people of faith are used as punching bags. I don’t mind ‘non-believers’, but it is the contempt rooted in ignorance (or blind prejudice) that gets me going. How can you have a conversation with some like that?
“Theologians can convince themselves of anything”. Truth be told, Sociologists can (and do) convince themselves of just about anything, too, and no one at the Guardian seems to be bothered by that…
The first step to having a conversation with a person such as Sanderson, assuming he or she gives you the opportunity, is probably to use some analogies. If you have ever studied physics, you will learn that there is a lot of interesting phenomena that cannot be explained without moderately difficult mathematics. It’s not necessarily a failure of the physicist if she cannot explain the idea to plain persons in non-technical language. Likewise with economics, orchestral composition, poetry, philosophy, etc. (“[A]ny philosophy that can be put in a nutshell belongs there” Hilary Putnam, [i]Realism and Reason[/i], p.179.) Sanderson is committed to the idea that all theology is nonsense. So getting him to admit that many legitimate fields of study also have technical vocabularies that are opaque without serious study and this fact undercuts his complaint would be difficult.
St. Paul teaches that the body of Christ has different parts with essential functions (1 Cor 12.21ff). This applies to great theologians such as Rowan Williams no less than to those such as C.S. Lewis. That being said, theologians, in and outside of the pulpit, need to do a better job communicating to plain persons. Williams does not always do this, partly because his audience often is not the man on the street but the student in the library. In that case, it may fall upon the parish priest or neighborhood theologian to explain what Williams means just as it is sometimes necessary with St. Athanasius or St. Augustine.
Ironically, the logic of the statement “all theology is drivel” is a self-damning argument. “Theology” is technically defined in the dictionary as “the field of study and analysis that treats of god and of God’s attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.” Or, in layman’s terms: the study of God.
Is not atheism or agnosticism a type of theology? Therefore, logically, his own assertions and beliefs that God has no attributes because God does not exist is therefore drivel by his own definition.
#10, so do professional economists. Larry
If I had written that sort of expository prose, I would never have made if half way in freshman English at college. The essayist here, whoever he is, is not worth paying attention to – except in the case of RW, wherein he is right on target. Such byzantine, convoluted prose gives theology the bad rep has. C.S.Lewis could have cut RW’s prose in half and said more in the process, and more clearly.
We had watched and listened and watched and listened. And what have we learned if not that RW is a outright liability. Larry
Mr. Morse: If I have done evil to you or others, my only request is that you pray to our Lord Jesus Christ for me when you point out my faults.
C.S. Lewis was a genius, and he remains a touchstone for good theology. As his writings showed, theology need not and ought not to be done primarily for other academic theologians. Students and teachers of theology would do well to remember this.
Rowan Williams is a different kind of theologian. He writes profitably about thinkers like Wittgenstein and Augustine and topics as various as liturgy, historical theology, and contemplative spirituality. People who do such work keep the rich, ancient resources of Christian theology available to people today. That task requires both highly technical argument as well as the synthesis of a large range of work written in diverse times and languages. Williams is better at this than most people.
It’s entirely possible for this description to be accurate and for Williams to fail as Archbishop of Canterbury. However, my belief in God’s providence constrains me. What seems like a disaster sometimes is God’s perfect plan (Acts 8.1, 1.8). Moreover, what if though Williams is a weak vessel, he is beloved by God? King David was an adulterer and murderer and Paul abetted the murder of Christians. If Williams has a moment of repentance to come, this does not detract from the point. God showed his love for us in this: while we were still sinners Christ died for us.
I maintain that Williams compares favorably with Lewis. Their gifts are different, but they are gifts nonetheless. A white wine and a red wine can both be excellent although their characteristics are not interchangeable. Likewise, a red wine can be excellent in one context (paired with grilled meat) but awful in another (a chaser for whiskey).
A clearer explanation of my comment to JuniorAAE: a standard approach to apologetics is that you need to start with premises that the other party can accept. If you can show a relevant analogy between what the skeptic rejects and the premises that he accepts, you may have a means of persuading him.
I argued that the technical languages that theologians sometimes use or develop is not unlike many other fields of study. Unless you study the language it will seem like gibberish. Unless you study differential equations, a college physics textbook will seem like gibberish. [i]In outline[/i]: Sanderson believes theology is irrational. You establish that Sanderson believes X is rational. You then argue that the rationality of theology is relevantly similar to the rationality of X. You further argue that if Sanderson believes X is rational that this bars his objection to theology. This puts Sanderson in the position of (1) denying the analogy between X and theology, (2) rejecting his belief that X is rational, or (3) accepting that theology is rational.