While the title may be attractive, when you realize it is actually about theology, some folks may be turned off. Certainly, among the students I teach, theology is not always at the top of the list of things they are really hoping to spend time thinking about. But if you have faith in something---whether it is God or some lesser god---you have some form of theology. Obviously, this is theology very broadly defined. Theology is basically a way of describing what and how we believe something.
The title comes from a recent piece by my good friend and Franciscan friar, Dan Horan. Dan teaches theology, but he is so much more. He has been to my campus, we serve on a couple committees together and, I can attest, he is a great, fun guy. He is much younger than I am and, therefore, gives me a fresh look at how a more recently educated theologian is doing the work of interacting with contemporary society and helping people---not just Catholics---make sense of life. For many of us, God is still in the picture of how we make sense of life.
It would be easy to say Catholics have much doctrine and Quakers have none. But that would be untrue. Even though Quakers talk about being non-doctrinal, what that really means is we don’t consider doctrine the beginning point of beginning to live a spiritual life. Typically, our beginning point is an experience of God, not a belief in that God. But once we have an experience, we begin to have to describe it. That makes us all theologians.
The doctrine of the Church, if I can put it that way, is nothing more than the agreed upon sense of how the group thinks about God or Jesus or the Spirit. Many of us feel this is in some way inspired or maybe even revealed. It is not the result of some guy sitting in a church one day and figuring out what the group is supposed to believe. What I discovered as a Quaker is much of what Quakers actually say they believe is what my Catholics friends believe---and Methodists and Baptists, etc.
Dan’s title for his article takes a particular direction with theology. He entitled it, “The Heresy of Oversimplified Christianity.” What he begins to give focus is heresy. Let’s listen to him define it. “One of the best definitions of heresy I've heard over the years describes it as the experience of mistaking part of the truth for the whole truth in a matter of faith or doctrine.” Basically, I learned that heresy is a mistaken “truth” or a wrong idea. Again, that is a corporate judgment. The group decides that someone is off base in his or her thinking.
Rightly, Dan says that heresies have been attractive to many people over the centuries. The reason they are attractive is because someone really believes in the “part of the truth” that is magnified. We move too easily from part of the truth to the whole truth. Let me give my own example. I might think that because God is always merciful, it actually does not matter what we do. God is ok with it because God is always merciful. The makes God’s mercy part of the truth, but I elevate it to the only truth.
I find Dan’s point attractive because theology inevitably seems to play a public role in politics and other modern arenas of our life. Again, heresy becomes attractive when I or my faction elevate a particular issue---especially if it is a religious issue---to not only a primary place, but exclusive place. There are many examples, such as abortion, capital punishment, illegal immigrants and others.
If we make a particular issue effectively the whole of our truth, then we are led to make it the litmus test to see whether someone is ok. We can use abortion as the example. Clearly, it is a hot-button issue. Mention that word and we know the “opposite party,” the right-to-life gang. Even by calling them “gang,” can imply I am already taking sides. If you are on my side, you hold dearly the truth. The other side is heretical---wrong.
It is not to say any particular issue is not a big deal. Of course, the discussion about a fetus is hugely important. But it is not the whole of theology---Christianity or any other major tradition. To treat Christianity in light of any particular issue is simplified Christianity, to use Dan’s framework. I like the perspective Dan offers us. “The way to avoid slipping into this kind of unwitting heresy is to steer clear of oversimplifying Christianity and accept the beautifully diverse, wondrously complex tradition that has been handed on to us.”
Christianity and every other religious tradition are beautifully diverse and that is one reason to love it. And of course, it is a reason why we find ourselves sometimes confused by it. But hey, isn’t that how life is? And why should not our way of making sense of life also be a little more complex than an oversimplified one-liner?
At least, that is how a Franciscan and Quaker see it.
Those of us who have read theology or, perhaps, those who are people of faith and are old enough might well recognize this title as a reminder of the late Jewish philosopher and theologian, Martin Buber. I remember reading Buber’s book, I and Thou , when I was in college in the 1960s. It was already a famous book by then. I am not sure I fully understood it, but that would not be the last time I read it. It has been a while since I looked at the book. Buber came up in a conversation with a friend who asked if I had seen the recent article by David Brooks? I had not seen it, but when I was told about it, I knew I would quickly locate and read that piece. I very much like what Brooks decides to write about and what he contributes to societal conversation. I wish more people read him and took him seriously. Brooks’ article focused on the 2016 contentious election. He provocatively suggests, “Read Buber, Not the Polls!” I think Brooks puts
Comments
Post a Comment