I learned the other day what I am. Theologically, that is. One of my professors put the term "apophatic theology" on a list of terms we should know before we graduate. Initially, I had no clue what it meant, but the more I studied the topic and learned how it functioned in Christianity, I was more able to see that its exactly what I've been grasping for throughout my upbringing in a doctrine-focused denomination and now seminary.
Apophatic theology is based around the idea of describing God in terms of what he is not instead of in terms of what he is. Its closely related to negative theology. For example, instead of saying that God is "good", we would say that God is "not evil". While that sounds stupid, it has profound implications for how we do theology. If you're an avid reader of my blog, you know I've proposed in the past that one of the great weaknesses of the quality theology in the Reformed tradition is its lack of priority when it comes to the issue of the acknowledgment of mystery. Of course, I'm not fully apophatic. I believe, as Reformed theology points out, that there is something called revelation: God showing us something about himself. There's special revelation that we receive in the Scriptures, general revelation which is revelation we receive in nature and one another, and then there's divine accommodation, or God making ultimate principles real to us on our own terms.
So then the question in my mind runs right to percentages, since I have an economics mind. As far as I know, no writer of systematic theology or catechism teacher has ever made a statement like, "We know about 95% of what God is like," but often times that's the way it comes off, if not higher. In all the rigmarole of arguing theological principles (often times even those veiled in mystery), we often completely forget about the part of God that he has not or can not reveal because it is too grand. Its natural, of course, to spend time on the known. We have to, in fact, because we can't have seminary classes where all we do is wonder. Wondering is hard to grade.
But try this on for size. Let's say, apophatically, that we know 3% of who God is and the workings of the universe. Would that be enough for salvation? It has to be, because the Bible says so. Could it be that God is big enough that we only know .0000001%, and that's enough? Of course it is....God's infinite. Now what kind of implications would this have for theology? How much time would you spend on systematics? How much time would you spend in the Word? How much time would you spend in prayer? There's a lot of implications here.
So maybe .00000001% creates a deistic God or an impersonal God. I'll compromise. How about 20%. No? You still want 95%? I think the origin of the earth, the mystery of human choice, and the spark of life at conception should be worth at least 6% on this scale. So no, I won't buy at 95%.
Here's the point: don't promote a theology that explains God 100%. Its an easy trap to fall into. In fact, I would argue that many of the Reformers and the systematic theologians who followed them got stuck trying to explain 100%. What if we acknowledge only 50%? What does that do for church splits? How many denominations would we have? 50% less? Where does that put my discussion of new churches joining denominations?
In many ways, the Reformation was a reaction against the RCC claiming they had too high a percentage. In many ways, the non-denomitional movement and the
I love theology, I really do. I wouldn't be at seminary if I didn't. I wouldn't write in this blog if I didn't. But I want to give theological discussions and catechisms and treatises and even (gasp) the Bible a perspective check. Where do you fall on how much you think we know about God and the way things are? 10%? 98%? 40%? Where does your church (to an outsider) stand?
Let's roll.
8 comments:
no numbers for me, but I do have a favorite analogy.
I like to think of the life of faith (practice and theology) as a long hike up a tall mountain. you start out in the lowlands in the trees by the lakes. Later, you walk next to the streams feeding those lakes and get a glimpse through the trees at the valley below. By lunchtime you can see quite a lot of the next mountain range over the hills. Indeed, the higher you get, the farther you can see. The vistas are always expanding as new parts of the mountain and the view open up.
I like this analogy because what you can see and hike you can put words too, even if some of of the time the view is so majestic that a lot of it can't be put into words (it has to be seen and walked in order to be beleived). Also, the view goes out so far (infinitely) that the farther up you get, the more you realize how little you know.
Further up! Further in!
I like your analogy, Zach, but you have the same essential issue no matter what the analogy. There is some overt communication of your perceived place on the mountain to others by virtue of their observance of you. ie, someone walks into your congregation on a Sunday morning will perceive that you know something about God. Even if you make it completely relative by throwing "infinitely" into the mix (Californian postmodernists ;)), then do you find yourself claiming less or more of a total knowledge of God than the theology we read at seminary or in general?
Finally, the question still has to be, if we're looking for the center here, has the Reformed tradition passed itself off as having a grasp on too much revelation (and thus, knowledge)? Do we tend to explain away too much? I think I probably already know your answer.
I'm not really sure what you're asking in the first paragraph of your comment.... however, I have a few things to say:
I don't really like to speculate about percentages with respect to theology or knowledge of God. It's too hard to say how much we know, because there is no way to measure the quantity of our knowledge of God. If you're asking if Reformed theology could use a dose of the humility that comes with a deep appreciation of the mystery of God, than I'm all for that. I think Apophatic theology has especially significant points to make about worship. For example, one of my favorite theological aphorisms comes from an Apophatic theologican -- "the best theologian prays best." Obviously, there's no way to quantify this, but it strikes at the truth that there is a big difference between someone who only knows about God and someone who knows God himself.
I do think that Reformed theology is correct on the qualititative question. A better question than "how much can/do we know (or not)" is "does what we know get to the heart of who God is?" On this question I think the Reformed tradition, whatever it's faults, is the best.
Percentages may not be so helpful, since to say that you know 3% of God means that you generally have an idea of the size of God's 100%--which is not true of any human being (except one). We know 0% of God in himself apart from what he has made known to us. In fact, even after our resurrection we will be incapable of grasping God 100%, since he is the creator and we are his creatures (apophaticism).
What we can (and must) insist on, though, is that God has revealed 100% of what we need to know and this revelation is 100% reliable.
More than a restructuring of our theological systems, I think we need to nurture a general disposition of gratitude and humility when it comes to God's revelation to us--and let that gratitude work itself out in our language and behavior.
The Reformed position is actually kind of funky, because on the one hand John Calvin (in a big move away from medieval theology) says that human reason is totally corrupted and incapable of reaching to God, but on the other hand, the Reformers insist on the absolute sufficiency and reliability of God's Word as revelation.
I think ultimately, too, this discussion leads us to Jesus Christ, who reveals the unfathomable mysteries of a transcendent God through the words and gestures of a human person, someone just like us. This ought to routinely blow our minds. ;)
my mind is also routinely blown by the fact that the holy spirit lives in me.
Yep, the Holy Spirit also does key work when it comes to revelation. ;)
I'm not sure if you are understanding apophatic theology correctly... at least from a historical point of view. Apophatic theology is based on an idea of God as totally transcendent and ineffable (this is perhaps the one affirmation and assumption that the mystics who developed apophatic accept). From this premise, they would argue that you can say nothing about God because our language is too human and limited. Apophatic theology is not affirmation by way of denial. If this is the case, the effect is really not that different.
Instead of just saying, "God is not evil" as a way of affirming that God is good, apophatic theology would insist that "God is not good." "God is not 'living'." "God is not love."
Dan~
You might be right that I'm not defending the historic tenets of apophaticism, but what do you think of the concept as presented? I guess I'm trying to do the Christian-leech-on-culture thing and just take what I want and leave what I don't. Its like the emergent church bringing back labyrinths....
Post a Comment