gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) (08/19/85)
> >From: rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) >Gary concludes his long and learned essay trashing confessional >theology as follows: >>Christianity will survive but only in popular form in church backyards >>at ice-cream socials and rummage sales - in short, in purely social >>forms and contexts. The historic theological tradition is elsewhere >>wanting nothing to do with ice-cream or used clothes. To "us" the >>former is "heresy", worse, it is apathy, and still worse it is a >>denial, betrayal and noncommitment to the historic Christian tradition >>post-Reformation. Secular theologians in the modern world are the true >>inheritors of historic Christian theological tradition. >> >I think you're painting a stereotype that has validity for some of the >stale and dead churches and denominations. I would want to treat theology as any other academic discipline and as such, the discipline does not allow "just anyone" to "walk in off the street" and participate as a full member. The price of admission is much higher than that. How many years does one attend medical school before one is qualified to be a doctor ? How many years of study does it take to pass the bar and become a lawyer ? Is theology any different ? Christian theology has a 2000 year history - is this any less a body of knowledge and tradition than either medicine or law ? What is the church ? An association of "doctors" that never went to medical school, or "lawyers" that never attended law school ? How can they claim for themselves these 'titles' having never devoted any serious study to those disciplines that would allow them to rightfully claim these titles for themselves ? The church is a paradox. It is an association of people calling themselves doctors and lawyers selling snake oil and rhetoric. Is it any wonder why professional theological societies want nothing to do with the church ? Is this anything new ? Not at all. In 1806 Friedrich Schleiermacher(called the father of modern theology) in his book "On Religion: speeches to its cultured despisers" in defense of the Christian religion *against* the church writes this: (p 157-58) "...This at least is certain, that all truely religious men, as many as there ever have been, ... have all known how to estimate the church, commonly so-called, at about its true value, which is to say, not particularly high. <the church> ... is very far from being a society of religious men. It is only an association of persons who are but seeking religion, and it seems to me natural that, in almost every respect, it should be the counterpart of the true church <true Christianity / Schleiermachers theology> ...They <people in church> cannot be spoken of as wishing to complete their religion... for if they had any religion of their own, it would, by necessity of its nature, show itself in some way... They exercise no reaction because they are capable of none; and they can only be incapable because they have no religion.... I would say that they are negatively religious, and press in great crowds to the few points where they suspect the positive principle of religion... In entire passivity they simply suffer the impressions on their organs. ...In few words this is the history of their religious life and the character of the social inclination that runs through it. Not religion, but a little sense for it, and a painful, lamentably fruitless endeavor to reach it, are all that can be ascribed even to the best of them, even those who show both spirit and zeal" What S. writes here in 1806 as regards the relation of theology/theologians to the church is reflected throughout the theological tradition to the present day. My quote of Altizer as regards a church theology being impossible and the impossibility of returning to the bible is simply the latest instantiation of S. remarks here articulated by the (theological) tradition in 1985. It's simply a matter of paying dues. People in church don't pay the "dues" that professional theologians think they ought to pay and therefore professional theology wants nothing to do with the church and those people therein that *call themselves* "Christians". Do you blame them ? >However, the social scope... >that you present is rather limited. The sick are being healed, the >hungry are being fed, the naked clothed, the prisoners visited, ..., If you are sick, seek a secular doctor (preferably one who has gone to medical school). Secular rock music feeds the hungry. Secular humanists will visit the prisoners. >and the Good News is being preached. But having no effect in getting people out of church into theology schools, divinity schools, or seminary. You all still sit there and "suffer impressions on your organs". Whats the problem ? >Yes, there is some time for ice cream too. I'll pass. Thats not a criticism of ice-cream but the company. >I admonish you Gary that you walk humbly with your >treasure of knowledge ( you do indeed exhibit great intellectual >skill). The lessons for today are "Pride goes before destruction and >a haughty spirit before a fall." and "God resists the proud but gives >grace to the humble." Don't make total ignorance of the historic Christian theological tradition a Christian virtue. One can be proud and have a haughty spirit if one is in possession of the tradition and can move the Christian symbols with ease. >Or does God even fit into Post-Everything Theology ?? The successor discipline to traditional theology does have a name. The name is written thus -> A/theology It is a triple-play on words and situates the problem precisely. The question of post-modern theological thought is the status of the boundry signified by the "/'. >Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} In all honesty I must say that the church looks as silly to professional theology as it would look to the AMA if a group of people having no medical education whatsoever were to meet on a weekly basis to chart the future course of "medicine". What these "doctors" perceive as "medicine" is, by the standards of the profession, no more medicine than witchcraft and voodoo magic practiced by witchdoctors. The extrapolation of the analogy to Christianity and the church are exact. If you have no theological talent - then don't bother. As in the case of medicine, the profession is best served by eliminating those people who show no promise. To paraphrase Schleiermacher, the church is the site of those who "wanting to be" have utterly failed. Gary
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/20/85)
Well, I've known some who have paid their dues in seminary and I'm glad to say that they don't all indulge in the inellectual snobbery that Gary does. I've never seen a better example of a modern day Pharasee. The gaurdians of truth are those who have paid their dues in the study of modern theology. Salvation belongs to the "educated". And people chide fundamentalists for acting like they have a corner on spiritual truth! Pigheadedness seems respectable if you've studied at the right seminary. Gary likens the craft of theology to secular professions like law and medicine. I suppose we should have a requirement that ministers be licensed by the state too? Doctors and lawyers deal with fairly objective and technical goals with regard to their clients. Apparently Gary views the obtaining of knowledge of God in a similar light. Could you describe that goal, Gary? I don't think you'll get much help from Schleiermacher there. You seem to espouse ideas similar to those of Harvey Cox in "The Secular City" but also seem to fall into the trap (Cox himself warned about) of championing "secularism". (Cox distinguised between the terms "secular" and "secularism"; maybe not too adaquately). One thing I couldn't figure out about Cox's book is: What use does the secular city have for secular theologians? Cox seems to have spent all his time importing theology into the secular world. Surely "secular man" can get along fine without the theological trappings. The only use I can see that secular society has for secular theology is clerical hedge against the criticism of more conservative Christians like the fundamentalists and evangelicals. The liberal "secular" theologians are the flatterers of secular society and society does not exile its flatterers. Once the usefulness of the clerical hedge is past, however, I'd expect secular theology to quickly fade from existance itself. It's basis for authority is in secular society itself. It has no basis for authority from which it may criticize that society that I can see. Adults, for all their maturity, often learn important lessons from their children. So it is that I find some of the most "theologically crude" Christians display more evidence of having internalized the character of Christ than the most learned theologians. As long as today's modern theologians act as if their heady knowlege is all that applies to the biblical concept of truth, they are going to fail to learn some important lessons. Truth has as much to do with personal integrity (of God or persons) as it does with true or false propositions, maybe even more so. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/22/85)
In article <1008@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Gary w Buchholz writes: > I would want to treat theology as any other academic discipline and > as such, the discipline does not allow "just anyone" to "walk in > off the street" and participate as a full member. The price of > admission is much higher than that. > How many years does one attend medical school before one is qualified > to be a doctor ? How many years of study does it take to pass the > bar and become a lawyer ? Is theology any different ? Christian > theology has a 2000 year history - is this any less a body of > knowledge and tradition than either medicine or law ? This analogy doesn't inpress me. I think a much better analogy would be to mathematics or composition. People in general need to know very little about medicine or law; arithmetic and grammar they use every day. People live their religion every day, whatever they know of it. > What is the church ? An association of "doctors" that never went to > medical school, or "lawyers" that never attended law school ? How > can they claim for themselves these 'titles' having never devoted > any serious study to those disciplines that would allow them to > rightfully claim these titles for themselves ? On the day when the only theology of Jesus is one which belongs only to theologians and priests, on that day, Christianity will cease to exist. One thing which is becoming clear to me is that Gary's A/theology quite explicitly denies an old Protestant doctrine: the preisthood of all believers. This comes quite in the face of all the mystics through the years who called directly to God, and (to their ears) were answered. If Jesus has any real power in the world, then there is no surer death for him than binding him up in an elite of disbelievers. > The church is a paradox. It is an association of people calling > themselves doctors and lawyers selling snake oil and rhetoric. Is > it any wonder why professional theological societies want nothing > to do with the church ? Which church? and which theologians? Does Chicago not listen to Boston? or Duke? or Sewanee? or Canterbury? > Is this anything new ? Not at all. In 1806 Friedrich > Schleiermacher(called the father of modern theology) in his book > "On Religion: speeches to its cultured despisers" in defense of the > Christian religion *against* the church writes this: (p 157-58) >"...This at least is certain, that all truely religious men, as many as >there ever have been, ... have all known how to estimate the church, >commonly so-called, at about its true value, which is to say, not >particularly high. > <the church> ... is very far from being a society of religious men. >It is only an association of persons who are but seeking religion, and >it seems to me natural that, in almost every respect, it should be the >counterpart of the true church <true Christianity / Schleiermachers >theology> > ...They <people in church> cannot be spoken of as wishing to complete >their religion... for if they had any religion of their own, it would, >by necessity of its nature, show itself in some way... They exercise >no reaction because they are capable of none; and they can only be >incapable because they have no religion.... I would say that they are >negatively religious, and press in great crowds to the few points where >they suspect the positive principle of religion... In entire passivity >they simply suffer the impressions on their organs. > ...In few words this is the history of their religious life and the >character of the social inclination that runs through it. Not >religion, but a little sense for it, and a painful, lamentably >fruitless endeavor to reach it, are all that can be ascribed even to >the best of them, even those who show both spirit and zeal" > What S. writes here in 1806 as regards the relation of > theology/theologians to the church is reflected throughout the > theological tradition to the present day. My quote of Altizer as > regards a church theology being impossible and the impossibility of > returning to the bible is simply the latest instantiation of S. > remarks here articulated by the (theological) tradition in 1985. Soren Kierkegaard attacked the church in much the same way, on much the same grounds; yet he embraced the reality of Jesus and the Bible. The words of Schleiermacher sound to me to be perilously close to those of an intellectual snob. > It's simply a matter of paying dues. People in church don't pay the > "dues" that professional theologians think they ought to pay and > therefore professional theology wants nothing to do with the church > and those people therein that *call themselves* "Christians". > Do you blame them ? YES! It sounds very much like the justifications of Libertarianism. Everything is worked out very neatly, with great faith and confidence. And yet, even with my very distant exposure to poverty and need, the whole thing feels unreal to me. I get the feeling that the proponents have no feeling for the common people their schemes would affect. I get this same feeling from much of modern theology. > In all honesty I must say that the church looks as silly to > professional theology as it would look to the AMA if a group > of people having no medical education whatsoever were to meet > on a weekly basis to chart the future course of "medicine". How unfortunate that the body lives without our volition or knowledge, unlike our religious life, which perforce must be forcibly bound up in our wills. > What these "doctors" perceive as "medicine" is, by the > standards of the profession, no more medicine than witchcraft > and voodoo magic practiced by witchdoctors. The extrapolation > of the analogy to Christianity and the church are exact. They are much more like writers who must write, even though they have no hope of writing Shakespeare. Liveing is something the body does, regardless of our understanding. Religion is something we must will ourselves, and so is dependent upon our understanding. The a/religion Gary is talking about seems destined to wither and fall off of the church, because it is no religion at all for anyone who cannot afford the luxury of seminary. > If you have no theological talent - then don't bother. As in > the case of medicine, the profession is best served by eliminating > those people who show no promise. To paraphrase Schleiermacher, the > church is the site of those who "wanting to be" have utterly failed. Those of you who read the Gospels should not need to be reminded of Jesus' attacks upon the scribes. I think Gary might want to reconsider who is the unmarked tomb. Charley Wingate The wind blows where it pleases....
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (08/22/85)
I guess I am more than a little appalled by the tone (and some of the
content) of Gary's latest article. If theology is not, as Anselm claimed,
"faith seeking understanding", if it does not work in service to the People
of God, what then, do you have left? Not much, except a dessicated,
inbred, and essentially secular discipline qualifying for the name "theology"
only through historical accident. "Faith seeking understanding" only is
meaningful if there is a faith from which to begin, and of course, that
faith comes through the Church.
Churchmen seem to go their own way and theologians another; if anything,
this is the perennial fate of the two groups ("can't live with 'em, can't
live without 'em", both sides say.) And, indeed, though theologians are the
best qualified to concern themselves with matters theological, I get the
distinct impression that Gary sees theologians as the High Priests of the
One True Church, rather than key participants in the interpretation of
faith for the Church at large, through which their efforts are fully
realized.
Finally, it is not completely out of order to note that Gary's response
to Bob is lacking in several virtues traditionally considered Christian.
--
/Steve Dyer
{harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
sdyer@bbncc5.ARPAdan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (08/23/85)
In article <1008@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) writes: > > I would want to treat theology as any other academic discipline and > as such, the discipline does not allow "just anyone" to "walk in > off the street" and participate as a full member. The price of > admission is much higher than that. > > How many years does one attend medical school before one is qualified > to be a doctor ? How many years of study does it take to pass the > bar and become a lawyer ? Is theology any different ? Christian > theology has a 2000 year history - is this any less a body of > knowledge and tradition than either medicine or law ? > > What is the church ? An association of "doctors" that never went to > medical school, or "lawyers" that never attended law school ? How > can they claim for themselves these 'titles' having never devoted > any serious study to those disciplines that would allow them to > rightfully claim these titles for themselves ? > > The church is a paradox. It is an association of people calling > themselves doctors and lawyers selling snake oil and rhetoric. Is > it any wonder why professional theological societies want nothing > to do with the church ? > > > In all honesty I must say that the church looks as silly to > professional theology as it would look to the AMA if a group > of people having no medical education whatsoever were to meet > on a weekly basis to chart the future course of "medicine". > > What these "doctors" perceive as "medicine" is, by the > standards of the profession, no more medicine than witchcraft > and voodoo magic practiced by witchdoctors. The extrapolation > of the analogy to Christianity and the church are exact. > > If you have no theological talent - then don't bother. As in > the case of medicine, the profession is best served by eliminating > those people who show no promise. To paraphrase Schleiermacher, the > church is the site of those who "wanting to be" have utterly failed. > > > Gary You are absolutely right, Gary. The "church" has no right to claim equality with professional theologans. They are as different as night and day! Why, the church is made up of illiterate carpentars, fisherman, tax collectors, and farmers. Who do these untrained men think they are, anyway. Why, one of them even spoke of some silly Spirit coming that would guide them into all truth. Oh Brother! Imagine claiming that having a Spirit within you is better than being taught by learned men. On the other hand, these professional theologans have truly arrived. There is nothing like historical traditional teachings to keep the religious tone to society. Look what a good job the Pharisees did! So disregard what the scriptures say about some people having the gift of teaching, which comes only through the indwelling Holy Spirit. Just keep listening to those learned and dignified Neo Orthodox with all the answers. Don't let those church people fool you with this old familiar phrase: The Letter kills but the Spirit gives life! Dan
vek@allegra.UUCP (Van Kelly) (08/26/85)
In article <387@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP writes: [... in response to Gary Buchholz, of course ] > > So disregard what the scriptures say about some people having the gift > of teaching, which comes only through the indwelling Holy Spirit. Just > keep listening to those learned and dignified Neo Orthodox with all > the answers. Don't let those church people fool you with this old > familiar phrase: > > The Letter kills but the Spirit gives life! > > > Dan Just a small point, but you should get the name of your poison right. Historically, Neo-Orthodoxy has had, if anything, less similarity with Gary's position (and Schleiermacher's) than with your own views (if you can believe that). I know that Neo-Orthodoxy is something of a general cussword for all theological wishy-washiness by some of our more -- er -- flamboyant champions of theological conservativism, but it is jarringly incorrect here. Gary is anything but an ersatz-moderate wishy-washy. To cut matters a little closer, I wouldn't even equate Gary's views with those of "liberal-mainline" theologians in general, although he does speak for an apallingly large segment of them. I know of a few "liberal" theologians who enjoy constructive and open-minded dialog with their evangelical counterparts, and who espouse (at least in public) a much more humble attitude toward the theological task than Gary seems to intend. (Krister Stendahl of Harvard comes to mind as an example). But then again, maybe their more radical colleagues would just consider them to be incurably infected with neo-orthodoxy! :-) Van E. Kelly allegra!vek (All opinions expressed in the foregoing are my own and do not reflect those of my employer. blah blah blah...)