Theology & Experience
November 1, 2004
This is going to be the last post until Thursday. I’m swamped with Hebrew until I fly to Chicago for the Covenant Network’s conference: Made in the Image of God: Thinking Theologically About Sex. But until then, here are a few quotes from Mary Solberg’s Compelling Knowledge, and some thoughts following.
“In his God of the Oppressed, James H. Cone observes that: ‘theologians do not normally reveal the true source of their theological reflections…More often than not, it is a theologian’s personal history that serves as the most important factor in shaping the methodology and content of his or her theological perspective…Theologians ought to be a little more honest…’” (21)
“For me, scholarship and the thinking, knowing, and writing it entails have both an intensely personal and a fundamentally provisional character…I would not have written about any of this if it did not matter a great deal to me and to those I care about most passionately. What is autobiographical about this book, then, is reflected as much in the theological and ethical ideas I dispute and propose as it is in the stories, events and feelings I name as my own. I would hope that the convictions and commitments I reveal here strengthen, not diminsh, the value and cogency of the intellectual project.” (21)
Reading the introduction to Solberg’s book, especially the quote from Cone, leads me to ask questions of the role of experience in our theology. How can our personal experiences not play a role in our theologizing? Is it possible to separate the two (experience & theology)…and if it is, is it healthy? What good is a theology that does not speak to our human experiences, struggles, journeys, doubts?
At Whitworth, I primarily heard that our experience should not be involved in our theology - it may be able to inform it to a very small extent, but it should play a very minimal to non-existent role. I was taught to believe that since experiences are so varied, individualistic and subjective, this could lead to a multi-relativized mixed-bag of theology - and this is bad(!).
Solberg’s book on a feminist proposal for an epistemology of the cross, comes straight from her experiences in El Salvador. She makes no apologies that her experience there caused her to rethink her theology from new perspectives. Her experiences directly impacted, changed & continue to change her theology. Is this such a bad thing? Is it bad that as human creatures who are intimately involved in the world, we would live our lives in such a way that we are constantly practicing our theologies and seeing what works and what doesn’t work (is this leading to a base form of pragmatism?).
My theology is affected by the fact that I am a 24yr old, white, middle class, Protestant male. I can not (nor should I) make any excuses for that - that is the paradigm I was born into and that is what I must work from and struggle with. My theology is affected by the experiences I live out as that 24 yr old white, middle class, Protestant male. African-American women’s experiences affect their theology. Oppressed Latin Americans’ lives affect and impact their theology. The experiences of the LGBT community in America and around the world will impact their theologies and views of God and the Church. Isn’t this how we have been blessed by such varied theologies (black theologies, womanist theologies, queer theologies, feminist theologies, Liberation theologies, etc.)?
So there’s the question. What about the role of experience in theology? I don’t believe the Whitworth-mantra that your own personal experience must stay out of theology - I don’t know how that’s even possible. I want to be true to myself, to who God created me to be and to the experiences God has blessed me with. And I want to be honest in my seeking, questioning, doubting and theologizing about God. I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive…
Tags: Experience, Liberal-Theology, Theology
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
November 1st, 2004 at 3:12 pm
Adam! I am so glad to read this post.
I will be in Chicago, at the conference WITH YOU!! What a small world. I have been anticipating this conference for months, and believe that it will be an important week for us all. I will be looking for you. I will be eager to buy you a drink and to process the conference with you as we sojourn through these issues together.
With great anticipation,
O.
November 1st, 2004 at 7:04 pm
It is a very Modern idea to separate the subjective and the objective. Post-Modernism recognises that objectivity is not achievable, we are subjective about everything. And so it is very important to understand how your paradigm influences your approach to life.
November 2nd, 2004 at 7:34 am
I wrote a paper once on how all biblical criticism is autobiographical criticism, because we are consistently informed by our Experience. I focused most of my work in seminary on emerging theologies. Dig into Palestinian Liberation Theology if you get a chance. There are some excellent resources about it.
November 2nd, 2004 at 8:53 am
of course, experience plays into theology. the danger with that is that experience can absolutize itself and cut itself from the community, effectively enabling itself to say nothing.
November 2nd, 2004 at 12:25 pm
Adam:
Good stuff. I’m learning in my seminary training that we must rise above our ethno-centric particularity. Fancy words to repeat what you just said. Your particularity is white, middle class, Prodastant, 24yr. You realize this, so now, we must rise above it. We all wear different tinted lens to see and understand things. But what if we realized that those lens are not the only color on the market, so to speak? I’m learning that we all work by our own lights because those are the only ones we have to work with. That being said, how can our experience not shape our theology? It (theology) must be able to bend and stretch as we continue learning in this journey.
November 2nd, 2004 at 3:28 pm
This is an interesting post Adam. Experience is a vital ingredient to good theology. It resonates a lot with James McClendon’s theological method. His book “Biography as Theology” touches a lot on these sort of ideas.
One thing that I’ve been pondering about context and contextual theology lately is do we privilege culture and socio-economic status in our attempts at intellectual honesty (about the influences that impact our theology)? Whilst this (culture and socio-economic status) is very important, so too are many other shaping life experiences. What does a theology coming out of the context of a suicide survivor have to speak to people, or one out of the context of a rape victim (I mention these two because they are two influences that are significant to me)? I’d want to suggest that these influences on people’s lives are just as significant as culutre or socio-economic influences. This isn’t an attempt to deny that White Middle-class males (like me) aren’t privileged (because we are), nor is it an attempt to trivialise Latin American Liberation theology (or the many liberation theologies), it is acknowledging these contexts and accepting that such contexts bring fresh and important insights into the Christian faith but at the same time trying to ask if there are other significant influences on our lives which impact our theologising…I hope this makes sense??? Don’t know if I’ve expressed myself correctly???
November 2nd, 2004 at 6:07 pm
I just have to ask: what is theology? If theology is nothing but stuff we say about God - either stuff we’ve made up entirely, partially based on a source (Bible, experience, other people, etc) or a mixture, then this is a valid point. It is certainly impossible to gain full & complete objectivity, but that doesn’t mean some degree isn’t possible. But our theology will necessarily be influenced by our experiences, knowledge, etc.
However, if theology is actually meant to be true - true in the most objective sense possible, true for everyone, everywhere - then this is crap. Our context will change the way we interact with theology, but at its core, our theology would be (or should be) the same. These “varied theologies” are then distractions from the truth; man-made ideas that distort or obscure the truth that permeates the real theology. So far as these distortions are mutually exclusive, we can be sure that they are false and actually pointing us away from the truth.
November 2nd, 2004 at 8:07 pm
Nathan, you ask what is theology? I should totally be studying my Hebrew but I couldn’t not reply to your comment. Theology is simply God-talk.
I hate to break this to you bro, but there is no one, absolute, universal theology. It is impossible - although even that statement may not be able to be contained by the current epistemological categories you’re working out of right now. You write: “if theology is actually meant to be true - true in the most objective sense possible, true for everyone, everywhere…” - well, it’s not Nathan. It is simply impossible.
Theologian Tom Beaudoin writes in his Virtual Faith: “For us to understand even the word theology, a theology must take the form of terms and ideas that we can grasp, which means it must be articulated in the language of our culture. Even though theology always adopts the style of a particular culture, however, it can still bear witness to a reality beyond the limitations of language and culture. For instance, although my conceptions of God derive from my culture (even my popular culture!), God may still exist beyond my limited language.” (30)
Black theologian James Cone says that Christian theology is “human speech about God.” According to the Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology, “For Cone, this means that all theology is limited by the cultural conditions of its production and thus is not universal language.” (67)
Cone elaborates further in his God of the Oppressed, “Our image of God is a finite image, limited by the temporality and particularity of our existence. Theology is not universal language; it is interested language and thus is always a reflection of the goals and aspirations of a particular people in a definite social setting.” (quote found in White Women’s Christ and Black Women’s Jesus: Feminist Christology and Womanist Response, pg 10).
Okay, enough quotes. But I hope you read them. You said the varied theologies are “distractions from the truth.” How can people’s explanations of their honest experiences with the God-man be distractions - they are personal, embodied manifestations of the truth as they have experienced it.
Your language (”complete objectivity” or “most objective” or “true for everyone” or “real theology” or “the truth”) gives away the bias from which you come at this idea. I understand a bit of where you come from - and your perspective is valid. I just cannot see it as a fruitful or productive way of looking at God and being in relation to people in the multicultural, postmodern world we live in. There is no one way to think of God. There is no one theology.
Embrace the multiplicity my brother…
November 3rd, 2004 at 10:22 am
Adam -
“Theology is simply God-talk.”
I don’t mean to sound flippant, but what is “God-talk”? If it is simply stuff we say about God, then Islamic Allah-talk is equal to Buddhist Brahman-talk is equal to Hindu Vishnu-talk is equal to New Age spirit-talk is equal to Christian Christ-talk. None is truer or more valid, all are equal - is this what you are saying?
“I hate to break this to you bro, but there is no one, absolute, universal theology.”
So there is nothing true about God? Your statement is non-starter. Either God is Trinity or he is not. Either God is spirit or he is not. Either God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent or he isn’t. Different faiths have vastly different understandings of God, and while I am fully willing to embrace the idea that Christians don’t have it all nailed down perfectly, it simply cannot be that Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, etc, are all right at the same time. The reality is that an absolute, universal theology does exist - our ability to understand and express it is an entirely different issue.
“It is simply impossible.”
Again, I don’t mean to sound flippant, but why is it impossible?
Let me highlight one of your quotes:
Theologian Tom Beaudoin writes in his Virtual Faith: “For us to understand even the word theology, a theology must take the form of terms and ideas that we can grasp, which means it must be articulated in the language of our culture. Even though theology always adopts the style of a particular culture, however, it can still bear witness to a reality beyond the limitations of language and culture. For instance, although my conceptions of God derive from my culture (even my popular culture!), God may still exist beyond my limited language.” (30)
It is clear that Beaudoin understands my point - there is a reality beyond which our culturally influenced language points. That reality is objectively, absolutely true regardless of what any of us say about it, regardless of whether any group or faith has it more or less right on this side of heaven. It is possible that some faiths better describe that reality - that they describe it deeper, more completely or more accurately than other faiths. If God is one, then polytheistic faiths are not accurate in their description of God. If God is, in fact, many, then monotheistic faiths are not accurate in their description. I know this all sounds terribly modern and rational, but that does not make it untrue. While I would agree that God is mostly mystery, he is still a very rational being given the evidence of the complexity of his creation.
“Your language (”complete objectivity” or “most objective” or “true for everyone” or “real theology” or “the truth”) gives away the bias from which you come at this idea.”
As does yours, and as does Cone’s (I have not read any of his works, just FYI). A liberation theologian is, of course, going to say that theology is limited by culture because only in particular cultures does liberation theology make any degree of sense. You ask how can “people’s explanations of their honest experiences with the God-man be distractions?” Take liberation theology - is what it says true about God, or what the oppressed would like to be true about God? How much is truth and how much is wishful thinking? We have to be aware of the existence of the father of lies and the possibility that such experiences, especially ones that depart from the historic understanding of the faith, might be under some kind of corrupt influence. We cannot, as you appear to be doing, assume that everyone’s experience is actually of God. Leaving aside the devil, it is entirely possible that people delude themselves. I’m not saying our default reaction should be “this is false”, but we have to sift through such things in prayer, study & communication. It is dangerous to accept such things at face value.
“I understand a bit of where you come from - and your perspective is valid. I just cannot see it as a fruitful or productive way of looking at God and being in relation to people in the multicultural, postmodern world we live in. There is no one way to think of God. There is no one theology.”
What do you mean by fruitful and productive? I don’t think our way of looking at God should be utilitarian or seen as a means to uniting disparate groups. It should be our effort to know God - both rationally and irrationally - as much and as best as we can. True unity will not come from crafting well written theologies that aren’t true.
“Embrace the multiplicity my brother…”
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. :)
November 4th, 2004 at 5:20 pm
academic types lecturing about sex? does life get any DANG BETTER mutt???
and not just academic types but PRESBYTERIAN academic types!!!
it’s all in love…many important issues to hash out and the church has a long way to go. anxious to get your thoughts on the event!
November 5th, 2004 at 4:35 pm
Nathan, well spoken. You kept saying what i wanted to say… I would posit this, what theology, in my un-seminarian opinion, should be, is the humble attempt to understand a God that we know we will never understand, from our own perspective, and through which, His existence becomes inescapably relevant in every aspect of our lives… The diversity of culture and the diversity of ideas of God should not impede us in our quest to understand Him. But all of us, from every direction, looking at God will see something different, but we will all see God. If 36 people are surrounding Michelangelo’s David, all will see it differently, all will appreciate a different line, detail, or emotion that it communicates… But all will still be looking at the same statue. We need to humbly accept that we don’t have a monopoly on truth, but that truth is there none the less, and it should ALWAYS be our goal. The one true TRUTH.
Excellent discussion gentlemen.. God Bless