The churches in my neck of the woods have been a huge disappointment during these two years of fright stoked by a worse-than-average flu. Even now, when secular authorities have dropped the odious vax passes, a local Protestant church refused entry to a concert to those who could not show proof of having been injected with the harmful, ineffective "vaccine."
About ten years ago, after a period of atheism, I slowly returned to faith in God, the writings of St John of the Cross being very helpful in setting me straight. Coincidentally, my parish bulletin announced that Frs. Laurence Freeman and Richard Rohr would be holding a weekend conference on Christian contemplation. On the last day, during a Q & A session, Richard Rohr announced--unprompted--that he did not believe in the "supernatural Jesus," a sentiment enthusiastically seconded by Fr. Freeman. Goodbye, miracles and Resurrection! Hello, CS Lewis' madman!
“Theology mediates between a cultural matrix and the role of religion in that matrix” B. Lonergan
Or not?
++++
I’m trying to understand your multiple references to Tao (or Dao in pinyin) as per Lewis. Going from memory, I recall Tao not being primary. “Humans are patterned after Earth, Earth is patterned after heaven, heaven is patterned after Tao, and Tao is patterned after self-evidencing”. It’s been 30 years since my study of ancient Chinese but this is top of mind. As you know, Chinese is quite connotative but my point remains: Tao isn’t primary.
I have another question regarding ontology but need more time to think it out. The main point here is, could we not put ontology aside for a moment and deal with nominalism via epistemology? I’m taking a risk here putting it so boldly.
What Lonergan says is true; indeed, that is what I am trying to do. But more has to be said, of course, about theology and the role of theology. I try to help with that in chapter one of Theological Negotiations...
As for Lewis's appeal to the Tao [Dao], The Abolition of Man link will take readers not only to the sense in which he is employing the term but also (in the appendix) to many cross-cultural illustrations he provides. He indicates already at p. 8 that "the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are" is what he wants to abstract from the widely varying forms in which different religious philosophies appeal to, or manifest, a doctrine of "objective value." That is a pretty loose use of the term, to be sure, and these forms are not all compatible by any means, but the illustrations do help to display the common ground...
Can nominalism be dealt with successfully in purely epistemological terms? Apparently not, to judge by its sweeping triumph over western culture, sketched out in chapter seven of Theological Negotiations. In any case, it is a mistake to treat epistemology in the abstract. Polanyi, in Personal Knowledge, was right about that. Put me down for a critical realist.
Thanks, Douglas, for this detailed response. I’ve started your Theological Negations and look forward to understanding more of your thought. In the meantime, I’ll mention my provisional definition of Philosophy is from Whitehead, “Philosophy is the critic of our present scheme of abstractions”. My first Theology course in 1986 was at St. Augustine Seminary in Toronto. After looking at a number of definitions of Theology (and using McBrien’s Catholicism) our professor settled on this: ‘Theology is the study of a religious faith, duly participated in and reflected upon, which seeks to express the contents of that faith in the clearest and most concise language available.’ Now obviously, Lonergan never adhered to the latter part of that definition but I never found reason to abandon it.
Finally, I found it odd that after 50 years of studying philosophy starting from 1970 when I started undergraduate studies till now, I had not heard, at least had not remembered hearing, about nominalism. So has nominalism been relegated to the closet? If so, that makes me more inspired to understand the issues. Back to Whitehead; thats a signal for a wider truth! I use ‘truth’ sparingly because for me, Vico’s ‘Verum ipsum factum’ is a way out of intellectual deadlock, if indeed, that’s where we’re at in western philosophy and theology.
The definition of theology in question requires a definition of 'religious faith'. It also makes such 'faith' the object of its study, which raises the question why it should be called 'theology' rather than 'fideology'.
I offer my students a different sort of definition, less abstract in nature, by describing the task of theology as "'the disciplined exploration of what is contained in revelation’ (Nichols) pursued for the sake of holy wisdom and friendship with God; that is, pursued in service of the human vocation to know and enjoy God, and of the Church’s mission to rightly proclaim and worship God."
Here one might conform Vico to St John and the creed; the Word, though begotten not made, incarnatus est et homo factum est. Which makes theology (so described) possible.
Re: nominalism, Gillespie's The Theological Origins of Modernity is helpful.
I’m struggling here, Douglas, keeping up with you but am willing to remain engaged. For many years I’ve found Northrop Frye’s understanding of faith most helpful. His definition is imagination. He gives the example of having the faith to move a mountain and quickly adding, “That doesn’t mean it won’t involve a whole lot of shovels!” In the meantime, could you give me your understanding of revelation. That would be helpful.
Faith can move the imagination and be moved by it; but no equation of the two will do, theologically. Faith is a posture of receptivity to the God who reveals himself. As Augustine says: "I believe in order to understand and I understand in order to believe." Revelation is God showing and declaring himself to his creatures, a showing or declaring that takes various forms but in its fullness is a trinitarian affair; cf. Matt. 3:13-17 and 11:25-30.
My theological understanding of revelation includes receptivity to divine self-disclosure and divine self-donation. Thus revelation, like communication, is the result of disclosure and my openness to that disclosure. Textual revelation strikes me as secondary revelation; I read about the experience of others. To some extent it is a distraction from the primary divine self-disclosure offered to me.
I do recall Augustine and the theological twist of “faith seeking understanding” and “understanding seeking faith”.
Yet, faith and belief are distinguishable.
Today, you posted on the resurrection. From my perspective, evidence of resurrection was that the followers of Jesus were changed. They thought and acted differently.
Some feminist lit of 70s (Spretnak perhaps?) discusses how the spiritual had to be eliminated so the materialsts could mine Mother Earth. So the witches burned.
And there is a short story in one of the dark horse podcasts - about Bret and Heather visiting a judge in Africa. Their host, the judge, wondered how he could trust them where they had no faith. i think about that a lot: can I trust anyone devoid of reverence, faith, trust in some greater power.
The churches in my neck of the woods have been a huge disappointment during these two years of fright stoked by a worse-than-average flu. Even now, when secular authorities have dropped the odious vax passes, a local Protestant church refused entry to a concert to those who could not show proof of having been injected with the harmful, ineffective "vaccine."
About ten years ago, after a period of atheism, I slowly returned to faith in God, the writings of St John of the Cross being very helpful in setting me straight. Coincidentally, my parish bulletin announced that Frs. Laurence Freeman and Richard Rohr would be holding a weekend conference on Christian contemplation. On the last day, during a Q & A session, Richard Rohr announced--unprompted--that he did not believe in the "supernatural Jesus," a sentiment enthusiastically seconded by Fr. Freeman. Goodbye, miracles and Resurrection! Hello, CS Lewis' madman!
Hello Douglas.
Would this be helpful?
“Theology mediates between a cultural matrix and the role of religion in that matrix” B. Lonergan
Or not?
++++
I’m trying to understand your multiple references to Tao (or Dao in pinyin) as per Lewis. Going from memory, I recall Tao not being primary. “Humans are patterned after Earth, Earth is patterned after heaven, heaven is patterned after Tao, and Tao is patterned after self-evidencing”. It’s been 30 years since my study of ancient Chinese but this is top of mind. As you know, Chinese is quite connotative but my point remains: Tao isn’t primary.
I have another question regarding ontology but need more time to think it out. The main point here is, could we not put ontology aside for a moment and deal with nominalism via epistemology? I’m taking a risk here putting it so boldly.
What Lonergan says is true; indeed, that is what I am trying to do. But more has to be said, of course, about theology and the role of theology. I try to help with that in chapter one of Theological Negotiations...
As for Lewis's appeal to the Tao [Dao], The Abolition of Man link will take readers not only to the sense in which he is employing the term but also (in the appendix) to many cross-cultural illustrations he provides. He indicates already at p. 8 that "the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are" is what he wants to abstract from the widely varying forms in which different religious philosophies appeal to, or manifest, a doctrine of "objective value." That is a pretty loose use of the term, to be sure, and these forms are not all compatible by any means, but the illustrations do help to display the common ground...
Can nominalism be dealt with successfully in purely epistemological terms? Apparently not, to judge by its sweeping triumph over western culture, sketched out in chapter seven of Theological Negotiations. In any case, it is a mistake to treat epistemology in the abstract. Polanyi, in Personal Knowledge, was right about that. Put me down for a critical realist.
Thanks, Douglas, for this detailed response. I’ve started your Theological Negations and look forward to understanding more of your thought. In the meantime, I’ll mention my provisional definition of Philosophy is from Whitehead, “Philosophy is the critic of our present scheme of abstractions”. My first Theology course in 1986 was at St. Augustine Seminary in Toronto. After looking at a number of definitions of Theology (and using McBrien’s Catholicism) our professor settled on this: ‘Theology is the study of a religious faith, duly participated in and reflected upon, which seeks to express the contents of that faith in the clearest and most concise language available.’ Now obviously, Lonergan never adhered to the latter part of that definition but I never found reason to abandon it.
Finally, I found it odd that after 50 years of studying philosophy starting from 1970 when I started undergraduate studies till now, I had not heard, at least had not remembered hearing, about nominalism. So has nominalism been relegated to the closet? If so, that makes me more inspired to understand the issues. Back to Whitehead; thats a signal for a wider truth! I use ‘truth’ sparingly because for me, Vico’s ‘Verum ipsum factum’ is a way out of intellectual deadlock, if indeed, that’s where we’re at in western philosophy and theology.
The definition of theology in question requires a definition of 'religious faith'. It also makes such 'faith' the object of its study, which raises the question why it should be called 'theology' rather than 'fideology'.
I offer my students a different sort of definition, less abstract in nature, by describing the task of theology as "'the disciplined exploration of what is contained in revelation’ (Nichols) pursued for the sake of holy wisdom and friendship with God; that is, pursued in service of the human vocation to know and enjoy God, and of the Church’s mission to rightly proclaim and worship God."
Here one might conform Vico to St John and the creed; the Word, though begotten not made, incarnatus est et homo factum est. Which makes theology (so described) possible.
Re: nominalism, Gillespie's The Theological Origins of Modernity is helpful.
I’m struggling here, Douglas, keeping up with you but am willing to remain engaged. For many years I’ve found Northrop Frye’s understanding of faith most helpful. His definition is imagination. He gives the example of having the faith to move a mountain and quickly adding, “That doesn’t mean it won’t involve a whole lot of shovels!” In the meantime, could you give me your understanding of revelation. That would be helpful.
Faith can move the imagination and be moved by it; but no equation of the two will do, theologically. Faith is a posture of receptivity to the God who reveals himself. As Augustine says: "I believe in order to understand and I understand in order to believe." Revelation is God showing and declaring himself to his creatures, a showing or declaring that takes various forms but in its fullness is a trinitarian affair; cf. Matt. 3:13-17 and 11:25-30.
My theological understanding of revelation includes receptivity to divine self-disclosure and divine self-donation. Thus revelation, like communication, is the result of disclosure and my openness to that disclosure. Textual revelation strikes me as secondary revelation; I read about the experience of others. To some extent it is a distraction from the primary divine self-disclosure offered to me.
I do recall Augustine and the theological twist of “faith seeking understanding” and “understanding seeking faith”.
Yet, faith and belief are distinguishable.
Today, you posted on the resurrection. From my perspective, evidence of resurrection was that the followers of Jesus were changed. They thought and acted differently.
Thank you.
Some feminist lit of 70s (Spretnak perhaps?) discusses how the spiritual had to be eliminated so the materialsts could mine Mother Earth. So the witches burned.
And there is a short story in one of the dark horse podcasts - about Bret and Heather visiting a judge in Africa. Their host, the judge, wondered how he could trust them where they had no faith. i think about that a lot: can I trust anyone devoid of reverence, faith, trust in some greater power.
O