Over the holidays I have read two significant books. The first was Karen Armstrong's History of God. The second, and one which I am still reading, is Gretta Vosper's With or Without God. Both books are mind-stretching. I am particularly enjoying Vosper's thought at the moment. She makes the comment at one stage, 'God, writ large, has been lost; god, writ small may yet disappear.' Both books I would recommend to anyone who is seeking to understand what God has become, or perhaps needs to become, in the 21st century. Vosper's musing also reminded me of a paper I wrote a few years back that explored the notion of 'God, writ large, has been lost.' I'm reproducing it in this post. I hope you enjoy reading and thinking about it.
A history of Classical Theism and its relevance for Christianity in the thought of Francis A. Schaeffer and John Shelby Spong
Throughout the history of the Church various understandings of the nature of God have been proposed which ultimately derive from the formative factors of experience, scripture, traditions, culture, and human reason. One such understanding is that of Classical Theism.
Developing as a synthesis of Christian thought and Greek philosophy by Augustine and later extended by Thomas Aquinas, the question is posed as to whether this understanding of God is still relevant for Christian theology. While Classical Theism enjoyed consensus up to the Enlightenment and may still be relevant for many Christians today, for other Christians living in a post-Enlightenment world, new ways of speaking about God may be necessary for faith integrity to be maintained.
Yet any abandonment of traditional understandings of God is perceived by some, akin to Francis A. Schaeffer, as heretically perilous and is summed up in the words of Tevye the Milkman when he declares, ‘without our traditions our lives are as shaky as a fiddler on the roof.’ For others, living within a post-Enlightenment understanding of reality, as does John Shelby Spong, they are required to ‘bend their minds into a first century pretzel’ in order to understand God within the Classical Theism framework.
Peter Angeles defines theism as, ‘the belief in one God (monotheism) transcending but in some way immanent in the universe. God is personal, the creator, the sustainer of existence, omnipotent, omni-benevolent, omniscient, supreme in power, reality and value, the source and sanction of all values, and accessible to human communication.[i] Waite Willis suggests ‘in contemporary theology the terms, ‘traditional theism’, ‘classical theism’, ‘metaphysical theism’, ‘cosmological theism’ or simply ‘theism’ have come to stand for the form of theology, dominant in recent centuries, which has combined biblical themes of divine sovereignty, power, and justice, etc. with philosophical worldviews producing conceptions of God as Supreme Being.’[ii] While a precise definition of Classical Theism is open to debate, the similarities posit a single, transcendent God who can do anything, knows everything, always makes loving decisions, created everything that exists, does not change and chooses to interact with the universe.
A study of history of theology reveals that the development of Theism was a process. It had its foundations in the traditions of the early Church that developed in the context of the philosophical systems prevalent among Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. During the Inter-testamental period the development of the idea of God was towards a radical transcendence. God became more and more transcendent, and for this reason became more and more universal.[iii] By the third century, Greek thought had evolved into a religious philosophy which found its expression in Neo-Platonism. Neo-Platonism influenced all later forms of classical Christian theology especially with respect to the doctrines of God. Neo-Platonism viewed God as the transcendent One, the Infinite, as opposed to the many and the finite. The One is the source of all life and from whom all else emanates.[iv]
Augustine and his view of Neo-Platonism contributed to the widespread integration of Greek thought into the Christian intellectual tradition. Augustine understood God as ‘Ultimate Being,’ beyond all categories, beyond all temporal and spatial things. He expressed a doctrine of creation out of nothing and that God is the continuous carrying ground of the world. In Augustine’s understanding there is one world whose center is the earth and one history whose centre is the Christ.[v] Augustine lived in the medieval and pre-Enlightenment world and it was from within this paradigm that he came to express his understanding of God. His concepts were later developed by the Dominican Thomas Aquinas.
Under the influence of Aristotelian scholarship, Aquinas separated the doctrine of God into two treatises – one, on the One God, and the other, on the Triune God. In his Summa Theologiae, Aquinas advanced the tenets of Classical Theism when he discussed God’s simplicity or lack of composition; his perfection and goodness; his infinity and omnipresence; his immutability and his eternity; his unity; and how God can be known. Aquinas asserted that, ‘the existence of God, and similar things can be known by natural reason … are not articles of faith, but preambles to the articles of faith.’[vi] We see in Thomas Aquinas both the method of development and the content of Theism’s view of God. Based on a human faculty (in this case, reason) one finds language in which to speak of God.’[vii]
Although Martin Luther broke from Thomism and insisted that all of theology must be based on revelation in Jesus, the Protestant theology of the Reformation and Orthodox period did not accomplish a complete reversal of Theism. At the onset of the Enlightenment, the Theistic conception of God that Aquinas developed, still dominated orthodox theology and philosophy. While reason and faith moved towards independent realms during the seventeenth century as is evident in the thought of Rene Descartes and John Locke, the arguments of Theism were accepted as the ‘standard’ understanding of God.
However, in the mid-eighteenth century a major shift away from the domination of Classical Theism began to emerge. This shift may be credited to Immanuel Kant. He challenged the framework in which philosophical inquiry was to operate and wrote that all church and state paternalism be abolished and that people be given the freedom to use their own intellect. Theologians began to speak of God in different ways that were again informed by their own experience, scripture, tradition, culture, and reason. Classical Theism, while a dominant view, was to emerge from the milieu of a pre-scientific and medieval worldview and as the Enlightenment blossomed and its full epistemological effects were felt, ways of speaking of God inevitably changed.
For many, Theism was still accepted wholeheartedly. For others, an unravelling of Classical Theism presented only one alternative – atheism. And still others who, whilst living in full appreciation of a post-Enlightenment world could not dismiss the experience of something other, transcendent, and beyond their limits. They needed to find another God language.
Representative of those who continue to speak of, and understand God in Theistic terms is the late theologian and philosopher, Francis A. Schaeffer. Schaeffer’s thought exerts a strong influence among many Conservative Evangelicals. He interprets the shift away from Theism as a dilemma or ‘despair’ rooted in the divorce of God (Grace) and nature, of the supernatural and the natural, which he understands began with Aquinas and continued through Kant until modern times. Schaeffer concludes:
‘The significant thing is that rationalistic, humanistic man began by saying that Christianity was not rational enough. Now he has come around in a wide circle and ended up as a mystic – though a mystic of a special kind. He is a mystic with nobody there.’[viii]
A Christianity based on the Bible provides Schaeffer with the answer to this dilemma. It is a literal interpretation of the Bible that gives Schaeffer his frame of reference. ‘God exists – a personal God who has always existed – and He has created all other things outside Himself.’[ix] Schaeffer’s understanding does not seek to prove God and takes the existence of God for granted. He sees the Bible as the basis for belief in Classical Theism.
This is the point at which many Christians connect to Schaeffer’s position – the assumption that the Bible is absolute truth and that the tenets of Classical Theism derive from this truth. However, Classical Theism God grew from within a synthesis of Christian, Neo-Platonic and Aristotelian thought and was an understanding of God that fit the age. Concepts such as immutability, omni-benevolence, and impassibility do not ultimately derive from an absolute source but from the reasoning of men.
Yet even if one understands that the scriptures emanate from God, the notions of God alluded to in the Bible are variously described by authors in different eras. At times, God is compassionate and forgiving, at other times angry and vengeful. Sometimes distant and yet sometimes so close it seems he may be walking with you in a garden. He changes his mind, feels and displays emotion. The traditions of Classical Theism do not necessarily derive from the scriptures.
Bishop John Shelby Spong has a well-deserved reputation for questioning the most basic Christian beliefs. His perception of God is at odds with that of Classical Theism:
‘Theism is collapsing. The theistic God has no work to do. The power once assigned to this God is explained in countless other ways. The theistic God is all but unemployed … human beings have evolved to the place where the theistic God concept can be and must be cast aside … If there is no other possible understanding of God, then surely God has died. It was when I reached this conclusion but could not dismiss what seemed to be to be an experience of something other, transcendent, and beyond all of my limits that I knew I had to find another God language. Theism was no more.’[x]
In an attempt to find another God language, Spong replaces the theistic notion of God with the language of Paul Tillich:
‘The replacement of the theistic God of the past with the inescapable God who is the Ground of Being is, in my opinion, the prerequisite to sounding forth the mighty chorus of the future … There is no God external to life. God, rather, is the inescapable depth and centre of all that is.’[xi]
The criticisms of Spong’s theology are many and he tends to finds most acceptance amongst liberal Christians and those for whom Classical Theism no longer provides a relevant and honest expression of their faith. His views derive from the assumption that the scriptures do not represent absolute truth but rather are a human response to God written primarily for the ancient communities that produced it. Spong suggests, ‘Theism and God are not the same. Theism is but one human definition of God’ and he asks the question, ‘Can any human definition ever exhaust the meaning of God?’[xii]
The relevance or not of Classical Theism to Christianity depends greatly on the paradigm in and from which an individual thinks and operates. Personal experience, an understanding of revelation and perception of scripture, the role of tradition and culture, together with personal reasoning, all these influences play a role in determining the way in which God may be understood. Classical Theism arose within a pre-Enlightenment worldview built on a synthesis of philosophy and theology. This understanding was redefined during the Enlightenment and whilst it still holds relevance for thousands of Christians such as Francis A. Schaeffer, for many thousands of others, new ways of speaking about God are necessary to maintain true faith integrity.
For twenty-first-century Christians who live with a post-Enlightenment understanding, but who refuse to give up their commitment to the reality of God and the experience of Jesus, Classical Theism may well be an inadequate expression of faith and in the words of the Psalmist and John Shelby Spong, they may need to ‘sing the Lord’s song in a new way.’
Gretta Vosper's With or Without God, sings a new song.
No comments:
Post a Comment