seems to have profoundly missed the point.  Any rational discipline grounded in reality and, at least in part, in trying to understand reality should expect the hard cases and unusual vocations to be the best places to learn something deeper about reality (keep in mind that God is ultimate reality).  Any legislation we might want to do should flow from our understanding of reality, so unusual marriages, sterile marriages, and maybe even the monastic life all have the possibility of teaching us more about whether ssm makes sense or not.

I regret that we appear unable to grasp your point. I for one struggle with your words as I attempt to connect them together “a rational discipline grounded in reality that is ultimately God that is our understanding of reality”. The debate, actually I find it as a very interesting and informative discussion, relates to the part played in scripture, in reason and tradition within the context of the Anglican Communion in our approach to God. I personally feel that pressing the SSM issue now is premature. It is not to me about whether “SSM makes sense or not”. I am hoping for a better understanding of the homosexual situation and a solution that does not fragment the Church further. In other words, my view of reality is not necessarily your view, or Sean’s view, or Karen’s view. The term ‘ultimate reality’ is almost a contradiction in modern terms. We tend to think of reality as a measurable quantifiable object and suspect Neoplatonism. Yet God is simply not measurable, the infinity of God’s Being is not the recursive subroutine that locks up our computer or the infinite series or the infinitely divisible number. So I agree that unusual . . . sterile   . ..  .monastic contain the possibility of teaching us more, but every event in the day can teach us more about God’s call to us.

In Christ, Michael

Why assume that the modern sciences are the only rational disciplines, Charlie?  Does what-should-be arise from something fake, delusional, or otherwise unreal?

Michael, perhaps it would help if you noted that “understand” was part of the verb not the noun.  I’ll break it down into a definition and two assumptions.

Definition:  Theology is, at least in part, a discipline concerned with God and any connections between God and anything else.

Assumption 1:  Theology is a rational debate/conversation.

Assumption 2:  God is real.

It should be obvious from Assumption 2 that I reject the assumption that physical reality is the only reality.  Personally, I don’t think any Christian can coherently believe both that God is real and that physical reality is the only reality without becoming delusional, but people often believe incoherent things without becoming delusional.

Why does any of this matter?  These are part of the foundation upon which the worthwhileness of conversation about God’s will is built.  For example if one adds to these the assumption that God is free to do as God likes, and that God has revealed God’s self in Scripture and the act of creation, one can very quickly arrive at the conversation you were enjoying about scripture, tradition, and reason.  Taking these as the foundation also means that responding to folks thinking about hard cases by insisting (accurately) that they make for bad law acts as a barrier to recognizing the truth.  Hard cases make bad law, but they are also among the best places for us to go to learn more about what is really real precisely because they don’t simply conform to what we expect to be true.  Similarly, while it is very true that everyone has a point of view and that no two points of view are ever identical, noting this aspect of reality can prevent us from growing in our understanding since it focuses us away from reality itself into the rather less stable realm of our personal ideas.  After all, lunatics have views of reality, but that’s no reason to ask them about their ideas.

Jon

Since joining Covenant during Holy Week I have been avidly reading as many threads as I have time for and I have, at turns, been enlightened, educated, excited, challenged, enraged, offended, and delighted.  Sounds about right for what I understand to be the purpose of this forum.

As I have pondered whether I can, in good conscience, sign the Reconciliation in Communion document, I have read and reread and read yet again this particular thread to see if I am truly able to enter into covenant with the people who have signed.  I am hopeful that this important dialog can continue between all of us within and without the Episcopal Church; the more we talk the more I realize that we probably should have started this conversation a long time ago.

I am no theologian.  I am simply a decidedly liberal Episcopalian Christian whom does some rather orthodox things, such as pray the Daily Office, attend church regularly, read my bible daily, and seek God through prayer.  I deeply love the Book of Common Prayer in all its manifestations but I also appreciate and enjoy innovations in liturgy and evangelism. 

I’m not sure that I will ever reach a place where I can agree 100% with the conservative theology and statements that drive these discussions yet I am truly respectful and earnest in my desire to listen and engage with those who hold these conservative viewpoints.  I have found that there is, indeed, much that I share with those who might call themselves my opposites in the church.  I am learning to see Jesus in those who would probably deny I have ever known him myself, and that is a powerful witness to this forum. 

My own theology aligns pretty closely to what the Episcopal Church has been engaged in for the 20 years that I have been a member, much of which seems to have scandalized many who post here.  I credit the writings of John Shelby Spong with saving my faith during a very turbulent time in my life and bringing me back into the church in a lasting and deeper way when I had thrown religion to the side and abandoned it entirely.  I don’t find much posted here that supports or shares my own viewpoint but there are many who speak in kindness, respect, and with genuine empathy for those who differ and that gives me great hope. 

I have been challenged to stop and think and pray before I post because the words of some members of this forum cut me to the quick at times, as I’m sure my own words could do if I spoke in defense of my own beliefs more often.  It has been quite edifying for me to leave my accustomed “choir” of like-minded Episcopalians to listen deeply to those who disagree, often vehemently, with us.

As we manifest our baptismal covenant together in this place I am gratified knowing that Jesus is here with us.  Thank you for allowing me to enter into a strange place and be made welcome.  It is my hope that, although I have decided that I cannot sign the document as it stands at this time, I can continue to journey with you, my brothers and sisters in Christ, and be made the better for my time spent amongst you.

Yikes! I hope I didn’t say that science is the only rational discipline. I hope I said that the “rationality” of a discipline is determined by the subject of that discipline (a la T.F. Torrance).

Jonathan, I think you and I agree (but I’d put things differently). Reality is too big for modern Western science to completely describe.

My current hypothesis is that part of what the Fall did is to put down a curtain so that we cannot see all of reality. When Elisha’s servant see the armies of God encamped around, he is getting to see beyond this curtain. When Jesus returns (literally, “is revealed’), the curtain will be removed permanently.

Science is not set up to see beyond the curtain. “What-should-be” is in part behind the curtain.

Charlie,

Your hypothesis is pretty Augustinian.  I think Calvin wrote of the effect of sin in similar terms: sin causes us to see the world as though partially blinded with a stigmatism.  We can’t see reality without the spectacles of Christ.

Brian,

Welcome to the conversation!

As someone who doesn’t think much of Bp Spong, I’d love to hear more of why you you credit him with saving your faith.

If you get offended here, you should tell us so. Many of the conservative voices want to better understand how to minimize the hurt (but I hasten to add, if you are offended because of the base content, there might be only so much that can be done to soften the blow).

Thanks for your gracious post, Brian. 

I propose that we need to have a discussion about the descriptors we use to describe those who post here.  Certainly there are those who would call themselves conservative, but we have many who would not.  And there are distinctions to be made between those who often agree but from different perspectives; there’s a distinction, for example, that one might make between a conservative and a traditionalist.

I would love to hear more about the things that prevent you from signing our document.  I’d love to identify the obstacles and understand the questions and concerns they present for you.

We are glad you are here!

Shalom,

Craig

Reality is too big for modern Western science to completely describe.
Science is not set up to see beyond the curtain. “What-should-be” is in part behind the curtain.

Borg talks engagingly of ‘the more’. I understand the argument that for a Christian God is part of reality and that is certainly true for me. Fundamentalists read the Bible as an inerrantly true description of reality, creation in eight days, Eve formed from a rib taken from Adam, the second creation with Noah etc. The difficulty is to draw the line between science and faith so that we can embrace both. One can show that everyone fundamentalist, atheist, marxist, liberal, conservative etc has a belief system or as Jon puts it assumptions. You can show this by deconstructing his (or her) words or deeds. I don’t know whether sin is the curtain that prevents a clear view of reality. Even that idea gives me difficulties, maybe because I have not advanced enough. At times the awareness of my sin gives me a glimpse of reality/God. I get stuck on the curtain in the Temple that was torn when Jesus died. I am still wrestling with the idea of Adam eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge . . . . . I sometimes think that the Christian journey means advancing on a series of unanswered questions. I think Borg is right (although I am not wild about the Jesus Seminar) and so was Meister Eckhart.

cheers Michael

I think you’re mostly right about us agreeing, Charlie.  The point around which our apparent disagreement seems to turn is talking about rationality vs rationalities grounded in specific disciplines, but even that could be about choice of wording.  Unfortunately, I’m not familiar with Torrance’s work (it is a weakness in my own studies, but I’ve read relatively little of any theologians more recent than the Reformation).  What bothers me most in your replies is that you seem to assume that theology and modern science are fundamentally different, or that they have non-overlapping spheres of expertise.  I, on the other hand, would much rather talk about theology and the modern sciences as forming a sort of extended family in which all the members are concerned to express what is real in human terms.  It is true that the modern sciences mostly share a single method while theology operates quite differently, but method depends on subject matter and the modern sciences are all concerned with aspects of physical reality while theology is most deeply concerned about something non-physical.  In other words, the difficulty modern science has in saying what should be isn’t due to not being set up to see behind the curtain of sin, but to the question being inappropriate for the discipline.  I think it’s worth pointing out, though, that most of theology isn’t particularly aimed at answering the question of what should be either.  In fact, approaching theology as a discipline among others that tells us about what is can make the question of what should generally be seem either to have obvious answers or to be to complicated to answer.  Questions of vocation, for example, can normally only be answered individually in concrete terms (ex. Am I called to be a priest in this parish?  Am I called to marry this person?  Am I called to join this monastic order or house?).

On sin, I prefer Julian of Norwich’s image in which the servant of God goes running to do God’s will and falls into a ditch, getting hurt and tangled up with himself.  The only reason the servant can’t see God is because he isn’t looking the right way and doesn’t know what the right way to look is.  God, on the other hand, sees the fallen servant and is watching with pity and love, since God has oned himself to humanity from without beginning (a point Julian insists upon several times in her Revelations).  So I would say that grace (perhaps it might be better to say the power of the Holy Spirit) is always present around us, and that as long as we are looking with (or in the direction suggested by) that power we can see God as clearly as our embodied nature will permit.

Jon

I don’t think we will make progress in understanding until we define what we mean by science and theology.

There is the old stream that would say of science it is all of human understanding, and so the phrase “theology is the queen of the sciences” make sense from that perspective. The fact that science and theology both are the result of humans trying to make sense out of data leads to commonalities between them.

However it is quite telling that in the modern university there is no room for ‘theology.’ Rather, ‘Religious studies’ is what you find. RS, as a combination of sociology, anthropology, and psychology, studies *humanity*. I assume that theology, somehow, involves “the study of God.”

Issues of methodology then become important. I cannot see how science can use anything other than methodological naturalism. I guess that one could say that theology is like the observational sciences, watching God work, and then reflection on what God is like.

This process of reflection (this might be my working definition of theology—watch God work, and then reflect on what God is like) is what allows theology to ask the question “What should be.” My theological work leads me to say that things are *NOT* like they should be, in part because I believe the observations of God working indicated that God is “fixing” things.

We continue to live in the shadow of the modernest-fundamentalist controversy of the last century. One unfortunate result has been Christianity’s tendency to adopt the language of the secularist moderns with their particular epistemologies (empiricist and positivist). The word science is deeply embedded in that context. So I very much like the impulse to remarry science and theology.

Which brings me back to Torrance. I think that when you say

I, on the other hand, would much rather talk about theology and the modern sciences as forming a sort of extended family in which all the members are concerned to express what is real in human terms.  It is true that the modern sciences mostly share a single method while theology operates quite differently, but method depends on subject matter and the modern sciences are all concerned with aspects of physical reality while theology is most deeply concerned about something non-physical.

we are basically saying the same thing. The method to study something is determined by the thing studied. The subject must be allowed “to speak for itself,” so to speak. Otherwise, we can impose on that subject something foreign to itself. This is precisely the problem with reducing theology to religious studies. We cannot impose on the study of God the methods of the study of humanity.

This is where I would take issue with Marcus Borg. He has too much decended to the level of religious studies, assuming that God can only be studied “in God’s human form.” This error can be traced back to Ludwig Feuerbach, who believed that God was nothing more than the extension of humanity.

Which leads me to say that when we talk about theology and science, we have to be up front with our metaphysical assumptions. If you don’t believe there is a ‘god’ (or define god in a very non-traditional way) then you will define theology very differently than will a traditional theologian.

I, on the other hand, would much rather talk about theology and the modern sciences as forming a sort of extended family in which all the members are concerned to express what is real in human terms.  It is true that the modern sciences mostly share a single method while theology operates quite differently, but method depends on subject matter and the modern sciences are all concerned with aspects of physical reality while theology is most deeply concerned about something non-physical.

The difficulty with this argument is the circularity, science, theological and real

The method to study something is determined by the thing studied. The subject must be allowed “to speak for itself,” so to speak. Otherwise, we can impose on that subject something foreign to itself. This is precisely the problem with reducing theology to religious studies. We cannot impose on the study of God the methods of the study of humanity.

This is where I would take issue with Marcus Borg. He has too much descended to the level of religious studies, assuming that God can only be studied “in God’s human form.” This error can be traced back to Ludwig Feuerbach, who believed that God was nothing more than the extension of humanity.

If you ask a scientist about his method, he would typically say observe, measure, induce a law, make a prediction and refine the law. In other words, he is dealing with observable or sensible reality, one that he shares with others and in this sense is objective. A Christian, I believe is dealing with his personal experience of God as revealed to him through Scripture, Tradition and Reason, and prayer, I would add - thus this is subjective. However both these activities, those of the scientist or Christian, actually contain an underlying belief system, fairly broad based belief systems actually. However it is easy to be both a scientist and Christian. Polkinghorne does it one way but there are others. Miracles appear to cross the boundary. Since they break physical laws they are attacked by scientists but for the same reason inspire Christians. Due to the problem of proof and to the problem of Christian inspired wars, torture, human abuses, suppression of rights etc etc, it is tempting to discard Christianity altogether. However, if we go back to Christ on the cross, the mystery of suffering and redemption, I believe there is a credible way forward. In my opinion, it requires both faith and science. You can build hospitals, study medicine and DNA and work and pray when confronted with apparently innocent suffering.

in Christ, Michael

We should be very careful with the labels of subjective and objective. Most of the time subjective is equated with “not necessarily true” while objective means “any reasonable person believes it to be true.” As you have pointed out, both Christian and scientist have an underlying worldview. Worldviews tend to define what is then subjective or objective according to their presumptions.

Arguments about miracles have revolved around this axis. The phrase “they break physical laws” assume certain things about reality, and for many (notably materialists) a miracle can only have at best subjective truth. Ironicly, fundamentalists have bought into the post-enlightenment epistemology and argue for the “objective” truth of miracles (I say ironic because why should we accept the underlying assumptions of the materialist?).

The current debate about the existence of God taking place between the “new atheists” and their theistic adversaries also hinges on these questions. If you assume that the existence of God is plausible, you think the burden of proof is on the atheist, while if you don’t believe God plausible, the burden of proof is on the believer. But who gets to adjudicate the issue of plausibility? Plausibility is contained within a worldview.

You have my full and complete attention when you mention the cross. There is no other answer IMHO to the question of evil and suffering apart from Jesus death and resurrection.

My hero Tom Wright suggests a whole different way around the question of resurrection as miracle: What if Jesus’ resurrection is not a miracle, but is the “re-writing” of the very laws of nature? It is a new reality breaking *into* the old.

While there is much in the document with which I agree, I am unwilling at this time to support the acceptance of the Anglican Covenant by the Episcopal Church. The most obvious reason for my reluctance is that the Anglican Consultative Council has not yet taken any action on the latest draft. If the ACC does send on a draft to be considered by the member Churches of the Communion, it may be a draft with significant revisions. My second reason is that, even if the latest draft is sent on without revisions, I need time for study and discussion of such an important document before deciding to support its adoption. I sense that there are people who are pressing for its adoption or its rejection right away for their own reasons. I hope that there will be no rush to judgment, but a serious process of study and discussion leading up to consideration by the General Convention in 2012.

Both worldviews tend to define what is then subjective or objective according to their presumptions.
. . . .  If you assume that the existence of God is plausible, you think the burden of proof is on the atheist, while if you don’t believe God plausible, the burden of proof is on the believer. But who gets to adjudicate the issue of plausibility? Plausibility is contained within a worldview.

In general I agree with this since it seems to be agreeing with my earlier statements. Remember James was martyred by being thrown from a roof demonstrating at the very least the importance of the law of gravity. Remember also that the monks studied the laws of nature as an example of God’s wonderful creation. They assumed that a law evident in one part of the universe applied elsewhere. An example of faith in these physical laws is space exploration. To my mind there is no value in denying the scientific method, or even blurring its borders. You may debate whether this is objective or not but so what, scientists themselves are generally wonderfully skeptical about ‘scientific claims’. We Christians are starting to learn from that. Personally I think Mack, especially, and Crossan go too far. I believe that we Christians would do better to listen to God’s call to each of us and wrestle with the mystery of Christ’s suffering. Although that call, “in as much as you did it to the least of my . . . . “, is a call for justice, it is a mistake simplify this justice simply to the current agenda asserted by American Liberalism. A justice based on “you should vote that they should provide for them” to my mind misses the point of the personal call of Christ. Religiously inspired political action is fraught with dangers but then you remember Wilberforce or the suffragettes or Martin Luther King . . . .  Personally I do not believe that gay marriage falls into this category but I could very easily be categorically wrong. I deeply suspect Bishop Robinson, not because he is gay, or because he lives with a gay partner, but because he trumpets the physical aspect of that relationship aware of the strain it places on a valuable communion. I cannot understand how anyone can read Paul’s letters and conclude that the flesh is as important as the spirit.

Now I have lost what was at issue here.

As a scientist myself, I highly value the benefits modern science has brought. And the way of looking at the world embedded in science is helpful (within limitations).

I think the importance of worldview to both science and theology is well worth examining. And just as some worldviews don’t work for science (any that are obscurantist, for example), some worldviews don’t work for Christian theology (eg. materialist naturalism).