Thursday, June 3, 2010

A Pint And Theology?

The other day i was having a pint with one of my brothers at one of the local bars in town. He is well known there, and whenever he takes one of his brothers with him he tends to introduce us to all his regular friends (or acquaintances, to use his terms-he doesn't like to admit that he actually has friends). I have attended a few times and it seems to be that whenever i go i am drawn into conversation in some way about theology. Not out of my own doing, mind you. But someone will inquire about what i graduated in and once they learn i studied theology, off we go on an hour long tangent. From cracks against redheads, union worker griefs, and motorcycle intrigue to God, Jesus and the Bible (or whatever suits the regular's fancy). In some way it seems to seek me out, theology that is, and i don't mind it. It keeps my mind rolling which, many of my friends know, accumulates quite the momentum at times. It is interesting to observe the diversity of people's reactions to me once they realize i majored in theology. I have come across excitement, avoidance, interest, apathy, and hatred-from the well meaning to those out to smother anyone who mentions the dreaded term 'religion'. It's kind of fun to be around such a mixed group of people, even if it takes a good dose of patience to understand what people are trying to articulate.

The last time i went i had a conversation with a man in his late 40's. When he learned of my studies he became quite excited (granted he had had quite a few by that time), and went on to describe quite a story. I'm sure i couldn't go through it all, but to keep it simple he told me about his life. How he had spent much of his younger years as a fisherman and, after a fiscal blow to the industry, found himself on the street selling cocaine to support his daughter. After a few years of this he then took the road back to being sober (that is, free from drugs) and into construction work. He told of his quite mystical experiences and finally explained how he came to Christ. Though it was quite a jumbled mass of information, the most interesting part is how he had realized the faithfulness and presence of God in his life through thick and thin. He had quite the testimony to God's patience and was quite grateful in spite of coming to grips with the fact that he is dying from cancer and has not the means for the proper medical procedures. The same night i found myself talking with a younger man who had attended a seminary in Portland and now finds himself in a most militant manner against the idea of God, Jesus, and the Bible especially. He couldn't get past the legitimacy of the flood, or other 'grandiose' ideas presented in the Bible and therefore had nothing but bitter criticism for the Church and its people. Quite the mixed bag, for sure.

Of late i have been reading Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind by P. T. Forsyth. It is quite the exploratory book, as it delves into preaching, modern thought, historical inquiry and theological musing, to name a few. Here is a passage from the book in the chapter 'The Preacher and the Age' that i found most intriguing.

'It is very singular that on the most grave concern of life a serious man so often makes up his mind in an offhand way. His religious views are of the most casual kind. He seldom really takes pains with the matter. He does not attend to it. His opinions are a sort of spontaneous deposit on the surface of his mind. If it were a business matter he would go into it. If it were a scientific question he would train his mind, and then examine. He takes business and science seriously. But his religion he does not. Scientific people who begin to desire some acquaintance with theology will betake themselves, not to the masters of that discipline as they would with any other science, but to popular sciolists who happen to have a vogue. It is not a matter worth study, as history, literature, philosophy, economy, or the markets are. I do not say a man's religion must be the result of professional or technical study, like these subjects. But it should receive no less earnest attention, and engage him no less seriously and personally, and not be taken at haphazard. That casualness is the source of most of the confusion of the time. Every important topic of human discussion seems a pathless thicket to the person who gives it no attention. It is only after you have taken it seriously for a year or two that it opens into clearness and order. Religion is confused and pathless chiefly to those who treat the greatest concerns with most levity. And it is clear and great not from without the Church, but from within. To look at a building like Albert Hall, or even St. Paul's from the outside, you would have no such impression of its vastness or grandeur as you receive from its interior. And so with Christian truth. It is really and mightily true only from within.'

It is interesting to me that on one hand, during my time at the bar the other night, there is a man who has had no learned education and yet finds 'God' a most appealing topic, and on the other, a man who has spent time in study, possibly years, and finds no more room for 'God' in his life. I'm not trying to infer that by these two gentlemen Forsyth is wrong in any way. In fact, possibly just the opposite. The older gentleman mentioned to me a that there was a reason for the younger man to be so callous. He told me, 'it's because he hasn't had to see someone die yet'. I don't know if that is true, but i heard him out just the same. It's interesting to me because although the younger man had spent time in 'professional' study, he had not the life experience that the older man had. Not to say that age is the only factor here. And maybe its because the younger man has '[made] up his mind in an offhand way' or maybe its because he hasn't given Christianity the opportunity to really engage him seriously and personally. Obviously i cannot be for certain, but again it sets my mind wheeling.

I have been thinking for a time that i may go to seminary. In light of this i have been given quite a large amount of advice concerning this thought. One idea came up when i was talking to a married couple, friends of mine, who are enrolled at Fuller Seminary in California. They told me that the reason why so many fellow students are having a hard time in seminary is because 'they spend there whole time talking about God and they never actually talk to God' (they may be quoting someone, maybe one of my professors, but it escapes my mind for now). I think this may shine a little bit of light on what Forsyth is saying when he says, 'it is clear and great not from without the Church, but from within'. It is easy for one to delve into the arguments about the historical validity of the Bible and whether or not things actually happened the way they are told. Or get hung up on one iota and completely miss the point. It is easy to talk around a subject and never actually engage with it. It is a technique of arguing that happens quite a bit in conversation as i have discovered. And it is so with Christ. As one begins to study theology it can be a slippery slope, and one can lose track of the purpose. As Paul wrote it, 'knowledge puffs up'. Theology is not free from the same danger. But if i can quote a great professor of mine, Adam Neder, (i believe, in summary of another theologian) 'the study of theology is unique in that you do not master the subject, the subject masters you'.

9 comments:

  1. Hi Tyson,
    Here's the trouble I have with the "better from the outside than in" quote. Forsyth says, "If it were a scientific question he would train his mind, and then examine." The trouble is, this is not true. Folks would still say, "power lines are built high up because electricity runs better downhill" if that were in Vogue. And people do not take philosophy or literature seriously-I mean study it seriously-if they do not love it. Theology is not apart from other subjects in this sense. You don't make it, studying theology, for one or two years if it does not thrill you. It seems annoyingly pompous to me to pretend that a passion for theology was fostered by something other than intrigue and pleasure.
    That's all, you two. Carry on in your foolishly narrow topic spectrum. :)
    Amy

    ReplyDelete
  2. Amy,

    Thanks:) I'm not sure that what you are saying really gets at what Forsyth is trying to say. He says that theology is like any other subject, in that if you take the time to step into its world it will become more clear. What, i think, he is saying is that 'religion' is unique in that generally it is not taken as a serious thing to study. You are right. There are people out there who will not understand literature or philosophy or science or theology only for that fact that they do not love it. But, intrigue aside, i think what Forsyth is saying is something that would parallel what you are saying. He is just making a note that religion, in his time (which may be true in ours), is not taken by the general public as seriously as business or science or other subjects. And, therefore there are problems in what conclusions are drawn from such a misinformed position, just like misinformed conclusions about literature or science or what have you. But this is not to say that it shouldn't be studied. Like, i'm sure you would say, this doesn't mean that literature or science shouldn't be studied. I am not trying to say that these subjects can be measured against each other, as if one is better than the other because one is misunderstood more than the next. All that i am trying to say is that theology needs to be taken as seriously, at least, as any other subject might be. There will always be people who miss the point... in any subject. Forsyth was drawing on the example of a scientist for the fact that the scientist has spent considerable time 'within' science. And when the scientist chooses to take a stab at theology they can forget that theology, like any subject, needs to be given considerable time for an actual serious survey of it. Engaging him/her 'seriously and personally'. I think that what Forsyth is trying to say is that one may not understand the heart of the major issues in theology unless one actually take time with it. But, most importantly is, i think, the idea that when one studies theology one is not just accumulating knowledge. I mean, you can do that but it can be problematic in that you actually never interact with the subject that you are studying. In Science, when you study it (at least at Whitworth, and i would assume other institutions), you have 'labs' where you actually spend time with the thing that you are studying. In theology, the 'study of God', you can study about the things around Him and never actually interact with Him. I believe this is a problem. If you never actually interact with Him, all your thought can be simply theoretical, not that theoretical is bad, and can lead to dead ends, possibly a loss of faith. Not to say that a loss of faith is the only end that it will reach, but it can lead there. Something that many seminarists in our day are affected by. 'Faith seeking Knowledge' -Saint Anselm. Something that i, for one, need to be aware of. I need to recognize that, even in my study of theology, i need to remember that God is mastering me, not i Him.

    :)
    -tyson

    ReplyDelete
  3. The bulk of your response made me nervous, but I found it quite sensible. Phew.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah, sorry. I guess i can talk a bit. Hopefully it was helpful as well:)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I want to second what you're saying near the end of your response, Tyson. I think one thing that makes theology (rightly done) unique is that it is a field where you are coming up against something that you can't possibly hope to master, and that won't ever come close to being mastered. In a book I was reading yesterday, there was a quote from Luther (I think, although it may be a paraphrase) that says that a theologian is someone who is interpreted by scripture, not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think you could make the same argument for art. Philip Larkin (I'm reading his collected letters right now) writes, "I need someone who consciously accepts mystery at the bottom of things, a person who devotes themself to listening for this mystery - an artist - the kind of artist who is perpetually kneeling in his heart - who gives no fuck for anything except this mystery, and for that gives every fuck there is."

    And Ty,
    Talk as much as you want. I was nervous because if a response is long like that, it usually means the writer is angry or defensive or doesn't really know what the point of the argument is, etc. But yours wasn't like that, which was a relief.
    Amy

    ReplyDelete
  7. John, I like it:)

    Amy, you mean you didn't see my fuming ears and flaming red face in those words... man. :) Thanks.

    Also, Which argument do you mean? Are you reasoning that theology and art are similar in that they both master the individual who is participating in the activity? Or something else?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yeah, I think art, like theology, can master the individual... or at least how I understand "to be mastered."

    ReplyDelete
  9. That's interesting. Not to say that you are wrong, but i think i was trying to say that theology is unique in that the subject that you study is actually God Himself. Not just another human being, or man made thing, or natural occurance in this world, but He who made everything! The Creator, Redeemer, Lord, and all that jazz. In this, theology is quite unique.

    ReplyDelete