This piece is part of an on-going blog series called Plurality 2.0 (watch video here). Full schedule of guest authors throughout April and May is available here.
Tony Hoshaw is a graduate of Whitworth University and McCormick Theological Seminary. He is currently a flight attendant for a major legacy carrier, and he is based in Chicago. Beginning in the Fall, Tony will be a full-time PhD student at Chicago Theological Seminary; he will be studying under Professor Theodore Jennings. Tony is interested in topics such as anthropology, christology, politics, hospitality, and human rights. Tony blogs with Matt and Michael at Queer Messages.
Theological Pluralism, Jesus, and Faith
I am writing on Good Friday; thus I cannot help but think of Jesus the Christ as I consider the topic Adam has suggested for this series: pluralism. The events surrounding the murder of Jesus reveal a great deal about human beings under the spell of sin. One aspect of the story that stands out is the lack of appreciation for theological pluralism exhibited by the religious of Jesus’ day.
Jesus was not controversial because he sought to do something terribly radical – like abrogate the Torah. Jesus was troublesome because his teaching challenged tradition and exposed the distance, the immense gap, between the teaching of the religious and the Word of God. The religious had forgotten that their theology = the product of the human imagination; their theology = a completely profane, human way of attempting to bring into view the reality of God. ((See Jennings on theology and the imagination in Introduction to Theology: An Invitation to Reflection Upon the Christian Mythos (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976). )) The religious had forgotten that their theology ≠ the Word of God or God. It was because this lesson had been forgotten or not learned that Jesus, the Word of God, was killed.
Here we are in the twenty-first century, and I don’t think much has changed. Social and religious conservatives (and some liberals) have confused their tradition, “the way things have been for thousands of years” (never mind if things have always been the way they believe) or their interpretation, the so-called “plain meaning of scripture,” with God. Thus one who disagrees with the conservatives is a “heathen,” an “unbeliever,” “disobedient,” a “heretic,” “stupid,” “immature,” “unqualified for ministry,” “disrespectful of authority,” – especially so-called “biblical authority,” etc. The religious of our day are not at all unlike the religious of Jesus’ day.
Social and religious conservatives (and some liberals) have no tolerance for theological pluralism. They are right, and that is all there is to it. Contemporary Sauls (of all religions), then, have very few options when dealing with those who, like Jesus, contest widely accepted interpretations and tradition. Conservatives must 1) kill the opposition, 2) terrorize the opposition, or 3) legally enforce their theological position (oh, perhaps their will be a theological teabagging session soon. I sure hope so!). Religious and social conservatives strive to create the very same theological ethos that enabled the murder of Jesus.
Now, before I get accused of being a radical relativist, I must note that I do not believe “everything goes.” I agree with Ted Jennings:
“Theology is not or ought not to be a haven for all inarticulate sputterings about human life or Christian faith nor the sort of lunatic asylum where everyone does his or her own thing without facing the responsibility of giving an account for such speaking, writing, or gesticulating which is, or purports to be, of theological significance.” ((Ibid. , 7.))
Everything is not theology or theologically accurate; however, given the gap between any theology and God, certain guidelines should be followed when making theological judgments.
First: “thou shalt not kill.” Second, we ought to be done with the Presbyterian variety of church government. A congregational system allows for connection – and allows for individual churches to follow the Spirit in their particular contexts. Third, we ought stop asking secular courts to adjudicate theological disputes. Hearts and minds are not changed by ramming laws funded by religious fervor down the throats of citizens. Finally, we ought to remain open…open to the idea that their is a gap between any theology and God’s Word and to the idea that others (especially enemies and outsiders) might have something helpful, corrective, and good to add to the discussion.
Embracing theological pluralism, that notion that others might be on to something and that “I” am not totally correct, is difficult because faith is needed to embrace theological pluralism. If God’s will cannot be abrogated, if God saves, if God sanctifies, if death cannot stop God – diverse theologies do not represent threats to the Gospel. If we reject theological pluralism – we may end up rejecting the One in whom we place our trust.
Related posts:
- Jim Burklo on Plurality 2.0
- Eboo Patel on Plurality 2.0
- C. Wess Daniels on Plurality 2.0
- Philip Clayton on Plurality 2.0
Share This Post:
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
Finally. An argument.
Yet another who misunderstands conservative views and paints them with a radical brush. He has no clue what the Tea Parties are about. I see he placed strategic (and some liberals) in there, but it does no justice to the fact that many liberals are using their policies to ruin Jesus’ message…But that is the point of these pluralism threads is it not? To normalize the left wing?
Yeah, Mike – this whole blog is basically the coming-to-be of a domestication of nihilism.
I think that my question to you, Tony, is this:
Does the pursuit or acceptance of theological pluralism (within Christianity) necessarily mean a full-out rejection of tradition? Or, put another way, what do you see as the worth, if any, of historical orthodoxy? (By historical orthodoxy, I do not mean any particular “brand” of theological liberalness or conservativeness, but rather the concept of a historical theological lineage – standing in the long line of theologians stemming all the way back to the church fathers.)
I’m personally very interested with questions of how to balance the old and the new; with how the church can find the best balance of history/tradition and newness. I’m especially interested in it because it feels that contemporary thought on this issue advocates strongly toward newness, and seems to take into account tradition only for the sake of deconstructing it and then reconstructing it into something new (for example, C. Wess Daniels’ first post in this series: http://pomomusings.com/2009/04/01/c-wess-daniels-on-plurality/).
I wonder what your (and his) thoughts are on whether appropriating only fragments of history/tradition in new ways a)does justice to the spirit of the tradition itself, b)allows for deep and meaningful expressions of faith, and c)gives proper deference to the cloud of witnesses – both historical and current – of which we are all a part.
Good question, Melissa. Tony, do you have any concerns to align your thoughts with orthodoxy – i.e., that which through time has been recognized by the Church as right belief?
Questions for you, Jason:
Does standing in line with the theologians that came before us necessarily mean subscribing to the whole of the church’s theological tradition? Does standing in the lineage of historical orthodoxy necessarily mean the same thing as subscribing to “right belief?” (Is there such a thing as “right belief?”) Or is there room to follow in the footsteps of historical theology while still contributing to the ever-continuing process of theological thought?
I might sound like I’m equivocating, but I’m actually just curious. On the one hand, I have reservations about unchecked departure from (or disregard for) tradition, but on the other hand, I disagree with the notion that the historical church (and historical theology) got everything right on the first go around and that we should uncritically accept what history offers us. As I said in my earlier comment, one of my personal struggles right now is to figure out what the best balance of tradition/newness really is.
Melissa and Jason: Thank you for the thoughtful questions. Here’s my take on tradition:
In my view, any serious theology attempts to situate itself within the larger tradition. This is to say, any theology that does not attempt to address what has come before is, probably, not worth too much, no? In the same way we must be open to one another, we must be open to what has come before – contemporary folk don’t have it all right and the theologians who came before did not get it all wrong. This is not to say that one’s theology must stand in agreement with the tradition or orthodoxy, etc. I do, however, think that a theology worth some thought should defend/give reasons for why it must depart from or why it must stand with the tradition. All this is to say I have a deep respect for the tradition – and I understand that simply because x, y, and z have been believed and practiced for thousands of years does not mean x, y, and z are correct , that is, faithful behaviors or ideas.
My issue is with those who equate tradition or orthodoxy with the Word of God or God. In my view, this is yet another form of idolatry and this sin leads to violence. If there is a gap between any theology and God – then we must remain open to hearing the Word of God from wherever it may come (perhaps, in our day, from gay people). Simply because something has been done for thousands of years is not an argument for why one should accept x, y, or z. Did the Reformation teach us nothing about both the fact that tradition is not always helpful and that we should approach the theological task with more openness and epistemological humility?
Just some later afternoon thoughts – and again, I thank you for this discussion and look forward to more…
Mike: I would agree that not all conservatives are so confident that they have it all right – but I think they are a minority group these days. Second, I essentially agree with Drew about the Tea Parties. Third, there is a big difference between most liberals and conservatives when it comes to pluralism. Most liberals are ok with people they think are wrong having civil rights, worshiping without interference, getting married, etc. Most conservatives, because they believe they got it right, don’t allow for the same degree of freedom. I don’t know where you are coming from, but in my world a lot, A LOT, of people are dying and leaving the church because of conservative nonsense ruining the message of Jesus.
Tony -
Please lets not pretend that liberals don’t have their own tendencies to impose their views on others. We only have to look northward to Canada’s Human Rights Commisisons to see that liberals are perfectly willing to remove or deny civil rights to those they think are wrong, interfere with worship and generally restrict the freedoms of those of a more conservative bent. The same kind of thing is starting to happen here. In you world, people may be leaving the church because of the conservatives, but if the declining liberal mainline denominations are any indicator, people sure aren’t coming to church because of the liberals.
Nathan: I think we have to separate two issues: theology and secular politics. In the church, there are those who want the option to marry gay persons and ordain gay persons – and they want this option without restricting the right of others not to marry or ordain. I think this is fine. I am not sure what’s going on in the Canadian context; however, regarding gay marriage here in the U.S. – gay marriage = religious freedom. Churches may continue to marry who they will. The state, however, is not an arbiter of theological disputes. The state must weigh the evidence that is open to all. And time and time again those who champion gay marriage, for instance, are making better secular legal arguments and are making arguments based on evidence open to all – and the courts and legislators are, increasingly, concluding: the state has no interest in banning gay marriage. One is free to disagree on the basis of Scripture, tradition, etc. and organize churches and groups accordingly. However, the state is not at liberty to legislate one side’s theological bent. The secular conversation must depend on different evidence. There is much more to think about in terms of church and state separation.
Tony -
If only people were content to leave politics and religion separate. The problem is that the language of nondiscrimination is not being equally applied to religious conservatives. The present administration is working to rescind the conscientious objection of nurses, physicians and pharmacists to participating in abortion-related services based on their faith. Similarly, lawsuits have been brought against people who have refused to provide certain services to gays. The photographer in New Mexico, for example, who was sued because she did not not want to photograph a gay wedding based on her religious faith. Will an increasingly litigious liberal movement really not sue churches for ‘discrimination’ when the pastor refuses to officiate at a gay wedding or to allow a gay wedding to take place in their facility? Whose religious freedom will be respected in that instance? Or what happens, as is the case in Canada and parts of Europe, when parts the parts of the Bible that condemn homosexual acts are described as hate speech, which is legally prohibited? The simple fact of the matter is that both political and religious liberals are more than willing to engage the mechanisms of state to enforce their religious-political-social values. So no, gay marriage does not equal religious freedom, not for those who disagree. If that isn’t true now, it likely will be all too soon.
theological teabagging! ha! thanks for the head’s up on the Jennings book.
Nathan: Thanks, again, for your comments. I have responded more fully at Queer Messages. Maybe you have seen Colbert’s ad?
{ 3 trackbacks }