Defense of a Liberal Theology

Posted 6/17/97 on xtianity@infidels.org and talk.atheism

[Note: This response has been posted on xtianity@infidels.org AND talk.atheism as I suspect there may be interest in both groups.]

On Fri, 06 Jun 97 12:17:56 EDT, " Thomas J. Wheeler"   [TJWHEE01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU] wrote (on xtianity@infidels.org):

On Sat, 24 May 1997 15:46:20 EDT Bill Bekkenhuis said:

[It seems to me that, despite the variety of specific assertions which Tom Wheeler and myself contest, we nonetheless keep returning to a small number of fundamental issues. I've attempted to identify and respond to those issues.]

1. What is the relation between thhat which is subjective, that which is objective and that which is real?

It is my belief that reality is a complex whole consisting of  both subjective and objective elements. While it may be useful to  extract only the objective element for purposes such as engineering, the result of such a procedure is a simplified abstraction  of a complex, concrete reality.

My argument for this is simple: to the extent that any reality  exists completely independent from human subjective perception,  we cannot know of it. Knowledge implies a connection between the  knower and that which is known. And while Mr. Spock (or, even  more so, Mr. Data) can know facts without personal involvement,  the rest of us humans cannot.

Taking a closer look, let me define the objective as that which  is not dependent on any particular point of view. For example, a mathematical proof does not (or should not) depend on the  time, place, culture, sex, race, etc. of the mathematician studying it. The same could be said for theoretical constructions in  the hard sciences.

What does this make the subjective? The subjective is that which  depends on the point of view of an individual or community making  the assertion. Now, while there may be a number of elements that  go into one's subjective point of view, I'd like to focus on  the single issue of value.

When reasonable people act, they should be able to defend their  actions through reference to the facts. But even reasonable  people do not act simply on the basis of facts. They also act on  the basis of their values. And values, by definition, are not  objective. Objects do not make value judgments regarding outcomes, subjects do.

This, initially, does not seem to be much of a problem. We can  agree on the facts and agree to disagree on our values. Which  would be fine, I suppose, if we were all libertarians.

The problem arises if we take seriously the need for corporate  action. For if individual and corporate action arises out of our  consideration of the facts (which are objective) and our values  (which are not), then we must reach some type of consensus in  both facts AND values.

And this consensual process, IMHO, causes subjective community  values to function - WITHIN THE COMMUNITY WHICH HOLDS THEM - as  if they were objective facts.

I believe there are two primary ways a community can interpret  their values such that they are able to function as a basis for  action with the same degree of substantiality as the objective  facts.

The first is to claim that the values are revealed by God or the  gods or by whatever serves that function in the worldview. The  second is to claim that the values are self-evident. But whether  we claim these values are revealed or self-evident, we release  those who hold them from the need to argue for them.

2. Is the objective more valuable than the subjective?

In my discussions with Mr. Wheeler (and many others) there often  seems to be an implied claim that that which is objective is  superior to that which is (merely) subjective. And that the  claims of religion (which I believe to be heavily, though not  exclusively, subjective) are therefore suspect with regard to the  claims of science (which I believe to be heavily, though not  exclusively, objective).

On the face of it, the implication seems as strongly paradoxical  as anything Christianity can dish out - how can one subjectively  value the facts over subjective values without arguing against  oneself?

Still, I suppose it IS an advance to distinguish between the  objective facts and our various subjective valuations of the  facts. So long as we realize that nothing can be achieved for the  benefit of the human race if we restrict ourselves merely to the  facts - because " benefit"  is not an objective fact :-)

3. What is the relationship between science and religion?

I believe that science, strictly speaking, deals with facts, and  religion, strictly speaking, deals with values. Although, in the  real world, scientists and religionists usually dabble in both.

4. What is the relation between the supernatural and the natural?

I believe the fruitlessness of many discussions I've had with  various people results from equivocation (mine and theirs) regarding these terms.

If we use those terms in the context of science, than the natural  is the proper object of science and the supernatural is undefined.

If one claimed, as a historical or natural scientist, that Jesus'  resurrection from death is a natural fact, then presumably they  are claiming that there are objective grounds for accepting its  occurrence. They would also, presumably, be claiming that science  could engage its usual optimism regarding the eventual explanation of anomaly through natural processes in the study of the  resurrection phenomenon.

If, on the other hand, one claimed, as a historical or natural  scientist, that Jesus' resurrection from death is a supernatural  fact, then I'm really not sure what they would be claiming - in  the context of a scientific discussion. I suspect it would be a  conversation stopper, as there would be little to discuss - from  a scientific point of view - regarding that assertion :-)

Now, if we use those terms (natural and supernatural) in the  context of Christian theology, than the natural is the experience  of death as ultimate threat to life's meaning, value and purpose  and the supernatural is the experience of death (as existential  threat) as overcome.

Therefore, I believe (as a Christian) that no supernatural claims  in Christianity conflict with scientific claims regarding the  natural world WHEN BOTH CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE REMAIN WITHIN  THEIR PROPER BOUNDS.

The problem, of course, is that both Christians and scientists  can use factual assertions to express their values.

5. If no supernatural claims of Christians conflict with scientific claims regarding the natural world (when both remain within  their proper bounds), then how does one interpret the biblical  language of prophecy and miracle?

The $64,000 question...

In a nutshell, I believe that a miracle (whether in the Bible or today) is an event in which life's value is substantiated even in the face of death. Considering the ultimately inseparable subjective and objective aspects of an event, it does not seem strange to me that the miraculous character of an event may best be communicated through narratives which portray that which seems scientifically improbable. It is a way of asserting that the value of life is more reality-based than the fact of death.

My premise here is that communities, as I argued above, tend to  " objectify"  their subjective values.

There are many different cultural tools (IMHO) that one can use  to encounter, communicate and respond to reality.

One can write philosophical or theological arguments, or conduct  scientific experiments. One can paint pictures, tell stories or  dance. One can play music, buildd buildings or gadgets, write plays or poems, or enact laws. The full range of cultural symbolic life is available to express an individual's or community's  worldview.

If my premise is correct, then all the above represents - to  varying degrees - the facts a culture holds to be true as well as  its differential valuation of the facts. Again, in cultural  creation, facts and values are combined.

The gospel narratives - canonical and extra-canonical - represent, IMHO, various community's valuations of the man Jesus.  Using the oral traditions and written sources available as well  as their own daily experience with the risen Christ, each author  constructed a narrative to express what was significant about  their community's encounter with Jesus.

I believe that the story they were attempting to tell was that death's ultimate threat to the meaning, purpose and value of Jesus' life was overcome. And because that threat was overcome regarding Jesus' suffering and death, it was in principle overcome for the entire human race's experience of suffering and death.

They used the cultural symbols available to them as an artist uses the various paints on their pallets. And two of the most powerful symbols their culture made available to them were miracle and resurrection.

These authors boldly presented their contemporary experience  through a narrative depicting the miraculous nature of Jesus'  life (including God's raising him from the dead) using the same  physical metaphors they used to describe his suffering and death.

So, in the gospel narratives, the leper is healed, the demon is  cast out, and Lazarus walks out of his tomb.

But the story the four canonical authors told also communicated a  strong paradox; the paradox that it is precisely in weakness,  suffering and death that God's free gift of strength, joy and  life are to be found.

[Well, maybe not ALL of them. I think Luke " snuck through"  the  canonization process despite Luke's lack of interest in the  theology of the cross in favor of a power theology of miracles -  precisely, IMHO, th theology that the Apostle Paul argues AGAINST  in II Corinthians 10-13. But Luke COULD still be interpreted via  the theology of the cross if the Gospel of Mark, for example, was  read alongside as a corrective. And Luke DOES have all those  lovely (and historically valuable) parables.]

So what does it mean for a modern person to appropriate the  biblical language of miracle and resurrection in light of the  theology of the cross?

To me it means that the subjective value of life takes precedence  over objective, biological death. And acceptance of this precidence as a revealed or self-evident given creates a new human  possibility regarding ordinary life in this world.

Those Christians who fight so strenuously over the facticity of  the incarnation, the miracles and the bodily resurrection of  Jesus are attempting to preserve something quite important - that  this positive valuation of life in the face of suffering and  death is real and dependable and not just a mighty fine idea one  might have.

While I think the McDowell crowd is wrong-headed in attempting to  defend the facticity of the resurrection, their attempt is perhaps understandable in the context of a culture which has been as equally wrong-headed in its confusion of that which is " real"  with that which is " objective" .

This experience of the supernatural warrants, for Christians, the  claim that a realistic acceptance of death does not prohibit  joyful appreciation of life and an engagement in life's projects  which is as radical as it is optimistic.

And Christians believe they must, in turn, warrant this positive  valuation of life in the face of death on its revealed rather  than its self-evidential nature.

When things are really bad, there's nothing self-evident about  it.

6. What is the relationship between Christianity and other religions?

IMHO, Christianity combines three existential virtues - realism  regarding death as well as appreciation of and optimistic involvment in biological life.

As a Christian, I tend to evaluate other religious or philosophical positions from a Christian viewpoint. And I attempt to see  beyond differences of language and cultural expression to see to  what extent FUNDAMENTAL differences exist.

Most of the positions that would suffer in the comparison, from  my POV, would be those that are either unrealistic in the face of  death, do not appreciate the gift of life, and are not optimistic  in their engagement of life.

The polar opposite of Christianity, for example, would not be  atheism - it would be nihilism.

And while some world religions and secular philosophies seem to  fall short according to these criteria, so do some life-denying  or fantasy-embracing forms of Christianity. On the other hand,  some world religions and secular philosophies seem to compare  quite favorably.

7. Are my various positions on these matters consistent with  orthodox Christianity, particularly in light of the orthodox  claim that salvation is only in Christ?

I think most non-Christians would find a detailed argument for my  orthodoxy, using biblical, doctrinal and historical evidence  incredibly boring and incredibly unconvincing since they are  unconvinced by the whole endeavor anyway!

So I will forbear. But some remarks regarding the heresy challenge are nonetheless in order.

" Orthodox"  is one of those subjective words. When one says " such  and so is orthodox" , one must immediately identify the community  making the judgment.

Is one orthodox regarding Roman Catholic teaching? Methodist? The  pentecostal store front church across town?

ANY person who writes theology risks heresy because, while the  Christian truth does not change, the cultural environment in  which the theologian writes changes constantly. One cannot remain  orthodox by merely repeating the orthodoxies of the past, as the  Fundamentalists would have us all believe.

I would wish to identify myself with the broad, central tradition  of protestant orthodoxy. Almost twenty years ago I received a  Masters of Divinity from a liberal Methodist seminary characterized by an inter-denomonational faculty and student body. One of  the things I had to do to accomplish that was to convince those  who made the final decision in such matters that I was personally  committed to something they would recognize as Christianity. And  I passed that particular hurdle without trouble.

[Someone getting a Masters in Religious Studies, on the other  hand, has no such hurdle. They may believe anything or nothing at  all.]

I personally don't believe my theology has developed in any  direction that could not have been foreseen by an examination of  my theology at seminary.

I might also add that at various times from 1978 - 1988 I led  Christian Education programs in two separate Episcopal churches.  And while my experience there was characterized by political  turmoil, no one ever questioned my orthodoxy.

In fact, the most unorthodox thing I've done in the past 25 years  of my Christian life has been to join a Unitarian-Universalist  Church (which I did in March '97).

While joining a church in which most people are not Christians  might seem odd, I can only point out that, for the first 60 years  or so of the Christian faith, Jews who believed Jesus was the  Messiah worshiped alongside Jews who did not so believe.

Also, much of my ministry experience outside of the Episcopal  parish to which I belonged involved chaplaincy on a university  campus and at a Boy Scout camp.

So participating in and conducting worship in situations where  people could not be presumed Christians or theists is nothing new  to me.

In October '96, when talk.atheism was just getting off the  ground, a great deal of controversy developed over defining  " atheism" , distinguishing " soft atheism"  and " hard atheism"  and  other community definition projects.

As a Christian I wisely (IMHO) refrained from taking sides in  that controversy because I figured that

1. As a theist, it didn't concern me, and

2. I could discuss issues, on a case by case basis, based on  any labels atheists chose to use to describe themselves  so long as I understood how they were using the labels.

I would think that if my ideas seemed worthwhile, they would  remain worthwhile regardless of their orthodox or heterodox  nature.

Return to top of page.

Return to Apologetics page.

Return to Archive

Return to The Inclusive Christian

Bill Bekkenhuis

Return to top of page.