I'm in a posting frenzy today.. In part due to the fact that I really want to put off doing my outlines of Wesley's sermons for one of my classes.
Jim West wrote a post on whether a theologian must believe. Josh McManaway did here too. I shall now proceed to give my obviously oh so enlightened answer to this question.
It depends on what type of theologian you are talking about. Are we talking about a Biblical theologian, whose theology is purely derived from Biblical statements and based upon propositional logic? If so, then I would say, maybe a bit suprisingly, no. I do not believe a person must be a believer to be a Biblical theologian. Any person can study the text of the Old Testament and New Testament and attempt to bring out the meaning from it and then build a system based upon the interpretations of the different texts. Certainly, a true believer may find ti a bit easier because they first of all experience what they are reading about and, secondly, they have the Holy Spirit who can guide them in understanding the Biblical texts. However, an unbeliever is perfectly fit to come to the same observations that believers do.
However, if we expand theology beyond the point of interpretations of Biblical texts and their synthesis, then I would answer a theologian must be a believer. Take a look at the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, where scripture, reason, tradition, and experience are all sources for theology. The first three may be had by all, whether believers or not. However, experience of the Christian religion is the exclusive realm of true Christians. Where there are gaps in the biblical texts, in reason, and in tradition, experience (and the interpretation of such experiences) allow us to attempt to fill in the gaps. Theology is supposed to be more than an intellectual exercise. It is to also be personal. This is because theology can not be discovered through a scientific process of observation, unlike most other fields of knowledge.
An unbeliever talking about theology is like a person who never experienced soccer by watching or playing it being a soccer coach (apologies to many parent coaches). How can they truly understand the nature of the game? Likewise, how can an unbeliever truly understand the nature of theology and discover deeper truths in theology if they do not experience it? They might could possibly get things right on occasion, just as the soccer coach with no experience at all in the sport. As they sometimes say "even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
If I were to answer yes to the question in the title of your post, my reasoning would be basically that a theologian can be defined as a person who studies god/God/gods. Since anyone can study with the same reason, tradition, and Scripture we, as Christians, have they can also be theologians.
Your argument for no boils down to the fact that we as Christians have "access" or a "relationship", for lack of better terms, with God. But to assume our conception of God is actually THE god, is to presuppose something that should be the destination of our theological pursuits not the presupposition. So I don't think we can say that only believers can be theologians because we can't verify that they have a relationship with THE god, God. We can arrive there through theology, but then that's my whole point. So it becomes a circular sort of thing.
I like that Wesleyan quadrilateral idea. I had never heard of that. But I would put reason on a different plane than the others. Because, you naturally use reason to interpret the other 3. For example, to use the Bible to interpret your reason wouldn't make any sense because it's your reason that has to decide that the Bible is an authority worthy enough to make decisions. Reason is the ultimate presupposition whether we like it or not. As I commented on another blog, even if you believe the Bible is innerant and it is the ultimate source of authority and knowledge, you still used your reason to arrive at that conclusion. So to me reason acts as a sort of filter for the other 3.
Greetings Alex!
I think are disagreements first of stems from our definition of a theologian. I do not define a theologian as a person who has a few thoughts about God, no more than do I define a physician as a person who gives a little bit of medical advice (I for instance will give a little bit when it is minor). A theologian is a person who is trained (though not necessarily in a formal school) in the area of theology and makes many pursuits to pursue deeper knowledge in that area.
But I don't mean to say that an unbeliever can have no experience in the realm of theology. They can through scripture, reason, and tradition. In addition, they may have even the beginnings of God's work in game (as John Wesley would term it, prevenient grace) that has not lead them to salvation, but it is nevertheless some sort of experience. But it is only the beginnings and it does not really make them a theologian. They have yet to experience things like redemption, being lead by the Spirit (beyond mere conviction), etc., etc.
So, an unbeliever may have some thoughts about God and come into a relationship. But previous to that conversion, they can not capably develop a through understanding of the faith and how God works, especially in individuals, because they little to no experience to draw from.
"I like that Wesleyan quadrilateral idea. I had never heard of that. But I would put reason on a different plane than the others. Because, you naturally use reason to interpret the other 3. For example, to use the Bible to interpret your reason wouldn't make any sense because it's your reason that has to decide that the Bible is an authority worthy enough to make decisions. Reason is the ultimate presupposition whether we like it or not. As I commented on another blog, even if you believe the Bible is innerant and it is the ultimate source of authority and knowledge, you still used your reason to arrive at that conclusion. So to me reason acts as a sort of filter for the other 3."
Well, I refuse to give Scripture and reason precedent over the other. My reason is indeed interpreted in light of Scripture also. Now certainly, logical forms are not dictated by the Bible. However, reason must have more than logical forms. It must also contain certain assumptions, or otherwise we will not be capable of making at arguments of reason. Those assumptions then are interpreted or changed in light of Scriptural texts. For the theologian, it is a spiral cycle where one reason interprets parts of the Bible and then the Bible interprets parts of ones reason (or the assumptions the reason is based upon).
Tradition and experience falls on the second level, where they are interpreted in light of the conjunction of scripture and reason. Of course, they also affect our understanding of scripture and reason, but on a lesser scale than scripture and reason affect each other.
Hey Owen,
Thanks for the response.
First, in regards to the question of who can be a theologian, I think that the analogy comparing a theologian to a physician, while I totally see the point you are trying to make, is not the best one. Let me explain. By all definitions I could find, a theologian is basically someone who is well-versed in theology which is the field of study which studies the concept of god and its/his/her attributes. A physician on the other hand is not merely someone who is well-versed in medicine but also practices medicine. So a better analogy would, I think, be to compare a theologian to a med student of which there are varying levels of knowledge. As it relates to the issue at hand, I would say that in a broad sense, anyone that studies the concept of god is doing theology and can be considered a theologian, just like anyone that studies medicine can be a med student or at least a biology student or at the very least a first-aid student.
Now you may object and say, “Well Alex, a biology student wouldn’t be able to study nature if he didn’t believe in it because he would never run any experiments”. And I wouldn’t blame you for objecting because that was my initial objection to myself as well. But we both know that biology isn’t a perfect analogy for biology and I’ll explain why it isn’t. Imagine a hypothetical dimension in our universe where there is no nature to be studied, only empty space. Now imagine there is a hypothetical student sitting in this realm and he has found a book in his hypothetical library about a hypothetical place called earth. This earth has a thing called nature. In a sense this earth is a thing called nature. He decides to study this book to learn everything he can about this hypothetical place. He can in a sense become a biologian, if you will without ever experiencing the place.
Now, if you think hypothetical examples are silly, and I agree with you that in some contexts they are, let’s bring it back down to earth, replace the word hypothetical in the sentences above with the word mythological, and assume that person is actually a very real person named Edith Hamilton. Edith Hamilton actually is a real person. Look her up on Wikipedia and you will find that she is a world leading expert on Greek Mythology. She is a Greek Mythologian if you will. You might even call her a Greek theologian. But here’s the catch: She doesn’t believe in any of the gods she studies. She thinks they are all fake, figments of the imagination, mythological, hypothetical, and yet she can be a Greek theologian. Maybe she is theologizing about the wrong or nonexistent gods but then who is to say which god is the real god without first doing theology. That brings me to my second point.
Second, in regards to the experience of relationship with God, I still find it a circular argument to say that you have to be in relationship with God (Yahweh) to study God (Yahweh) or god. But the problem with that is that the only way you know that God is god is by doing theology in the first place! The succession looks like this: you must first do theology, then you get to know the concept of god, then you decided that God (Yahweh) is the god. You see what I mean about circular reasoning? You’re saying you can’t do theology without a relationship with God, but the problem is that you can’t get a relationship with God without doing theology.
Third, in regards to reason being prime over the others, it’s not that I am giving it primacy over the others. It’s just that it has it whether I like it or not. Based on a common dictionary definition, reason can be defined as the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments or inferences. The idea that tradition has authority is a conclusion you reached through reason within your mind. The idea that the Bible has authority is a conclusion you reached through reason within your mind. The idea that experience has authority is a conclusion you reached through reason within your mind. The succession looks like this: you must first have a mind that works, then you use it to make conclusions about what to trust and what not to, then you decide that the Bible is worth trusting above all, then tradition and experience follow behind. But here again we border on circular reasoning. The Bible is placed in a position of authority ahead of reason, but all along it was actually your reason that determined you were going to respect it as the ultimate authority.
Now with my third point I agree with you that we adjust our reason based on the others so it is kind of a naturally circular process. But in the end it is our reason that decides to adjust our opinions based on the Biblical record or our experiences or our traditions. The reason I think this is such an important point is that often people claim that their ultimate authority is the Bible when the Bible is actually subject to so many different people’s reasoning and interpretations. Don’t misunderstand me. Truth with a capital ‘T’ is not subject to multiple interpretations. The truth is what it is. The Bible testifies or witnesses to that truth and once that witness is passed through the filter of the reasoning minds of millions of people it comes out in millions of different ways from humble Christ-like devotion to religiously motivated killings and all the varieties of interpretation in between.
So you're right. A lot of this does stem from our definition of theologian. Let me know what you think.
"First, in regards to the question of who can be a theologian, I think that the analogy comparing a theologian to a physician, while I totally see the point you are trying to make, is not the best one."
Keep in mind, the analogy was used for an explanation, not proof. It was illustrating my point that a theologian, by my definition, is not merely one who has some thoughts about God.
"Now, if you think hypothetical examples are silly, and I agree with you that in some contexts they are, let’s bring it back down to earth, replace the word hypothetical in the sentences above with the word mythological, and assume that person is actually a very real person named Edith Hamilton. Edith Hamilton actually is a real person. Look her up on Wikipedia and you will find that she is a world leading expert on Greek Mythology. She is a Greek Mythologian if you will. You might even call her a Greek theologian. But here’s the catch: She doesn’t believe in any of the gods she studies. She thinks they are all fake, figments of the imagination, mythological, hypothetical, and yet she can be a Greek theologian. Maybe she is theologizing about the wrong or nonexistent gods but then who is to say which god is the real god without first doing theology."
Is she really what I would call a theologian? I myself would call her knowledgeable about the field of theology. However, in my opinion, knowing about the field of theology makes one as much of a theologian as knowing about the field of archeology but never going out into the field (keep in mind, that is an analogy of explanation of my views and not proof). That person does not add to the field of archeology, but only puts together what is already present. Likewise, without Edith having an experience of Greek religion (lets say hypothetically there was an experience there) she can not bring any deeper insight into theology.
Now some might call her a theologian, but I would not. But then we are getting into the matter of semantics. That is most of what our disagreement is over. However, the semantics I find are important, because under my definition, a theologian has many more practical uses for the community of faith than a person who merely knowledgeable about the field of theology. So beyond semantics, this is also a question of what is practical.
"Second, in regards to the experience of relationship with God, I still find it a circular argument to say that you have to be in relationship with God (Yahweh) to study God (Yahweh) or god."
First off, logical abstractions do not dictate reality. Just because it is circular logically does not mean that is not how reality works. Its just that circular logic is not a proof. We need not apply fallacies beyond what they are meant to be for, arguments of logic, and not the way reality works.
But past that point, there is no circular reasoning with what I am saying. A person may have some theology beforehand which leads them to God, but it does not make them a theologian.
"Third, in regards to reason being prime over the others, it’s not that I am giving it primacy over the others. It’s just that it has it whether I like it or not. Based on a common dictionary definition, reason can be defined as the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments or inferences. The idea that tradition has authority is a conclusion you reached through reason within your mind. The idea that the Bible has authority is a conclusion you reached through reason within your mind. The idea that experience has authority is a conclusion you reached through reason within your mind. The succession looks like this: you must first have a mind that works, then you use it to make conclusions about what to trust and what not to, then you decide that the Bible is worth trusting above all, then tradition and experience follow behind. But here again we border on circular reasoning. The Bible is placed in a position of authority ahead of reason, but all along it was actually your reason that determined you were going to respect it as the ultimate authority."
Sure, in one sense what you say is true. But pragmatically speaking, we may come to certain beliefs without much use of reason. For instance, if you are told a certain fact that you have never heard about either for or against it (in a sense, your knowledge in that area is non-existant), you will more than likely accept it as fact regardless of whether you think it through or not. So a child who is told the Bible is inerrant will more that likely accept this without using reason to think about it. And then if they read a verse like John 3:16, they will accept it with very little use of reason (and not knowledge itself, like the knowledge of certain words).
Secondly, emotion plays a role too (emotions could fall under the realm of experience). We accept many ideas more because of the benefits of the emotional response we have rather than reason. For instance, our favorite foods are not picked reasoning out which is our favorite food, but rather we simply taste and enjoy one thing more than the other. Often times there is no thought of "I enjoy this food more than the other" but it simply happens, in a sense, automatically.
If we understand reason to be the conscious or subconscious (or in other words, cognitive) forming of judgments, conclusions, or inferences, I would disagree that everything is seen through the line of reasoning. If we broaden it to include knowledge, then even then it has not encompassed emotional "decision making." But to include knowledge is to make the concept of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral useless (or tautological in a sense) because theology (which is knowledge, therefore reason) would be said to be obtained by reason (which includes knowledge).
In short, reason is only a part. It plays a significant part, but it is not the prime part. There is in fact no prime part, because there are many things that go into deciding our knowledge. Those many things work separately with each other and work together with each other.
"Now with my third point I agree with you that we adjust our reason based on the others so it is kind of a naturally circular process. But in the end it is our reason that decides to adjust our opinions based on the Biblical record or our experiences or our traditions. The reason I think this is such an important point is that often people claim that their ultimate authority is the Bible when the Bible is actually subject to so many different people’s reasoning and interpretations. Don’t misunderstand me. Truth with a capital ‘T’ is not subject to multiple interpretations. The truth is what it is. The Bible testifies or witnesses to that truth and once that witness is passed through the filter of the reasoning minds of millions of people it comes out in millions of different ways from humble Christ-like devotion to religiously motivated killings and all the varieties of interpretation in between."
I don't disagree with this, so far as to say that the objective Truth goes through our subjectivity and as a result is something we choose. However, as I stated above, I would disagree with relegating this to the faculties of reason. Reason is only a partial role. Emotion without cognitively thinking about it is just as significant, if not more so, in many ways to what we accept and reject.
Thanks for the discussion so far, Alex. :) Look forward to more if there is anything else you wish to say.
Even though this is minor, I feel it necessary to clarify myself on a couple points (due to my nature of wanting to be exact).
First off, when I speak of analogy as illustration, and not proof, I should rephrase that to say it is illustration and PRECEDENT, in order to show it is concievable. However, I do not use it as proof for what I say is correct, but only to illustrate what I mean and show that it is supposable. In my opinion, analogies should only be used for illustration and precedent, and not a pivotal part of proving something true or not.
Secondly, I need to append my understanding of experience. Experience includes a broad range of things, including experiences that people have and experiences that only Christian's have. So in one sense, even unbelievers have all four part of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, but I do not believe that have sufficient experience to be theologians. Practically speaking the have no experience of the what the religion claims except maybe work in their hearts to convict them of sin so that they would repent and believe. However, they do not have experience of the deeper things of the Christian religion, which I find important for us to be a theologian according to my definition.
I guess another way we could rephrase the initial question then is, can an unbeliever be of *great* value as a theologian to the church? I would answer that as no. They may be of a little value in documenting certain beliefs that allow believes and those who would become believers some knowledge to build upon, but the have no advantage over the believer who talks and studies theology. So in that sense, I do not believer an unbeliever can be a theologian
But likewise, I do not believe an unbeliever is capable of obtaining truth beyond the knowledge that has been laid out already (knowledge that was previously given by believers). This includes the prophets and apostles who effectively laid down the very beginning of the foundations of theology (Jesus did too, but I would in one sense be hard pressed to call Him a "believer" since it is a religion centered upon Him as God). But I would not expect an unbeliever to grasp the depths of redemption, of being lead by the Spirit, etc. etc. because they have not experienced those things, and therefore can make no statements based upon evidence that was not made known by believers of the past. In other words, the progress of theology is built on the foundation of believers, and unbelievers can only summarize what has been given but they are not the ones who in fact developed the idea. They contribute very little original material for the church and those that are seeking.
Post a Comment