the burning or…

I was perusing old posts on Faith and Theology the other day and came across this quote by Karl Barth evolution and theology:

[One] can as little compare the biblical creation story and a scientific theory like that of evolution as one can compare, shall we say, an organ and a vacuum-cleaner – that there can be as little question of harmony between them as of contradiction?… The creation story deals only with the becoming of all things, and therefore with the revelation of God, which is inaccessible to science as such. The theory of evolution deals with what has become, as it appears to human observation and research and as it invites human interpretation”

The brilliance of this quote is the way that it captures the subtlety of the distinction between science and theology.  A vacuum cleaner and an organ operate according to the same physical principles of pressure and suction.  Yet their role and significance in human life is rather different from one another.  So, it is not the case (as it is often argued) that science and religion are totally distinct epistemological categories.  Rather, starting from the same world, they diverge to accomplish different epistemological goals.  In Kantian language, we could say that, starting with the same noumena, theology and science apply different manifolds of perception to reality, thereby arriving at different perceptions of the phenomena while remaining both ‘true.’

Theology derives its significance as more-than-myth by virtue of being based on fact.  The creation story as theology would bear no significance were it not based on the fact that the world did in fact come into being.  We need not look at the Bible as a science textbook, but we need not relegate its truth to the realm of merely aesthetics.  As Barth says, “…[One] should distinguish what is to be distinguished and not shut [oneself] off completely from either side.”

Ben Myers has a post today over on Faith & Theology concerning the relationship of ‘research theology’ as practiced in the academic setting and the popular theology that occurs in the actual ecclesial setting of the church.  His comments and the posts that they link to are well worth reading and I will not bear simply repeating them.

However it occurs, I see a deep problem in the disconnect between academic theology and the life of the Church.  The insights and ideas of professional theologians seem to be by and large utterly ignored by the vast majority of Christians and I am saddened by the ignorance that I have seen even in the clergy.  Yet oftentimes the subject matter of theology bears little insight on the interests and cares of the person in the pew and this is not helpful either.

There was a move associated with the Liberation Theology movement to focus on ‘Theopraxis’ (that is, right practice) rather than ‘Theology’ (that is, right thought).  However, the two are not alternatives but are rather dialectically interconnected.  One cannot have right practice apart from an understanding of the Gospel and one cannot fully understand the Gospel apart from living it.

I found the following quote the book ‘The Gospel According to Peanuts.’ Linus is speaking to his older sister Lucy and says:

Charlie Brown says that brothers and sisters can learn to get along. He says they can get along the way mature adults can get along. And he says that adults can get along the way nations get along.

At this point the analogy breaks down.

The failure of humanity to ‘get along’ ascends along the axis of size and maturity and resources.  Yet maybe the principle works in reverse as well and nations and adults must learn to get along the way children do.

If you have not read ‘The Gospel According to Peanuts’ I highly recommend it as a remarkably sophisticated and insightful exploration of theology via the Peanuts universe.  I have included a link to it in my Amazon Store.