Flat earth?

David Starkey (reputedly the rudest man in britain) was talking on the Radio this morning about history - true history, he said, is history that is written for everyone to read, not in the rarified and dull style that makes it exclusive to the Academy. Regular readers will know that I feel passionately that a similar view of theology should prevail - not complex theology for academics and simplistic religion for everyone else, but a serious level of theology engaged with in a language and style and forum that anyone can join in with if they want to.  Obviously this is a vision that will work itself out at different levels, and people will self-select the level they feel comfortable at. But the deliberate exclusiveness of the Academy that can sometimes occur should not be caved in to; neither should we allow ourselves to believe that the general public are not interested, or too stupid, to engage with in-depth thinking. People are not that stupid. 

I have  C S Lewis on my side here - I've posted this quote before, but it suits my theme, and my grumpy Friday mood.

Everyone has warned me not to tell you what I am going to tell you…They all say “the ordinary reader does not want Theology; give him plain practical religion.” I have rejected their advice. I do not think the ordinary reader is such a fool. Theology means “the science of God,” and I think any man who wants to think about God at all would like to have the clearest and most accurate ideas about Him which are available. You are not children: why should you be treated like children? Theology is practical. Everyone reads, everyone hears things discussed. Consequently, if you do not listen to Theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones—bad, muddled, out-of-date ideas. For a great many of the ideas about God which are trotted out as novelties today, are simply the ones which real Theologians tried centuries ago and rejected. To believe in the popular religion of modern England (or America) is retrogression—like believing the earth is flat.
C S Lewis, Mere Christianity, 135-136

Comments

[mark]

Amen, amen, amen. And unless academic theologians are open to learning theology from 'everyone else', then they've truly lost their way. Thanks Maggi and stay passionate.

[Matt]

I also strongly agree. Good Theological Thinking must surely link in with action, practice and the everyday mundane. I just wonder if we are in danger of being a bit 'academy bashing'. Are there more 'academic' people or institutions than we think/know who are keen to eartb their theology and also respect and listen to the non academic speakers/thinkers/writers/poets?

[Christopher Shell]

Lewis not only preached this, he practised it. In fact, it is precisely the ability to speak clearly that indicates that one has understood clearly.

[John Pettigrew]

CS Lewis is one of my favourite writers on religion - possessed of a huge ability both to think clearly and to write clearly. Not, of course, that I always agree with him! Indeed, this is a favourite quotation, especially this portion: "if you do not listen to Theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones".

pax et bonum

[Chris Tessone]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment, because I'm not sure I agree.

I don't believe theology should be consciously disengaged from ordinary people or ordinary language. But theology should engage philosophy, it should place itself within a tradition rather than starting from scratch, and reading any theology that does these things and engages hard questions is bound to be hard to read. If a theologian is reacting to Kant or Hegel, I want them to use Kant's language or Hegel's language so I know exactly what they're refuting; I don't want them using some simplified, vague language just so lay folks can understand.

Certainly there's a need for greater access by lay people. But I think it lies along the lines of Tillich, who is accessible but requires some philosophical sophistication, rather than Lewis, who has contributed much to devotional life and little to theology.

[maggi]

I agree, Chris - that's what I meant by different levels and self-selection. SOme of it will be too hard for some people. But that's no excuse for sinking into the smugness of an exclusivist attitude - always a temptation for people who go for it at top flight level

[James Coleman]

Chris, I don't agree with your judgment on Lewis. While he always disavowed being a theologian, he made a significant contribution to the question of the artistic imagination and theology (owing a lot to George Macdonald, admittedly) and to repristinating the Christian Neo-Platonic tradition. This last point makes him more problematic to evangelicals aware of the historical and theological issues and makes him less satisfactory in his own high church (occasional mis-)apprehension of what evangelical theology is really about. But on Bultmann and on 20th century liberal Protestant (a-)theology - including Tillich - Lewis was right on the money, largely in the same tradition as G. K. Chesterton. 'Fernseeds and Elephants', 'The Abolition of Man', and the encounter with the bishop in hell in 'The Great Divorce' make some very penetrating theological points. And 'The Last Battle' ('Tash' and 'Tashlan') makes some telling observations on the big issue of religious pluralism.

[Annie]

Aha! While Christianity goes to rack and ruin across the board, the academics sit in their ivory towers and get farther and farther from the truth. Yep, that's what I said. The more theology I read the more frightened I become. I started with the greats like Augustine. Then it deteriorated with the reformation. I gave up and dismissed them all.

It doesn't matter what y'all think if you are right and it doesn't reach the masses while we go to hell in a handbasket and if original intent of the Founding Father's, the Apostles and Jesus Christ himself are ignored. Why do you get up in the morning? Why bother to do anything at all?

What is with the literalist view of scripture? How did anybody ever begin to put all books equal to the Gospels? How can people proclaim orhtodoxy while promoting the literalist view? How can people who call themselves Christian promote first century values as though that was God's greatest hope for mankind? Am I speaking of other denominations? No. This is right where I sit. My church is being torn apart over seven verses. Not seven paragraphs; not seven chapters; not one verse in the Gospels. Help! Or go do something else. If there is one place where truth can be found, I want it to be found where I sit, in my small town, in the church I grew up in. Be real. There is no use in doing what you are doing unless it helps us all. There is no use in doing what you are doing unless we understand you. Christondom is going backward, folks! And, from where I sit, it looks as though we can't see the forest for the trees--none of us. For Christ's sake! (And no, I am not cussing.) If you love your faith, you are going to have to scurry.

Sorry for the rant. It felt good. I'm just stupid li'l ole me. I'm just a simple, straighforward, average Annie. A nobody, a nothing, a person that sits in the pew. And, by the way--I think somebody is trying to take it out from under me. But there you go, two cents from one among the masses, the disenchanted. It might help your credibility rating to share some of your brilliance in no nonsense fashion. (No criticism whatsoever of you, Maggi--just generalizations--I do admire you and what you are doing.)

So, whether you believe that Christ died on the cross or not--let his sacrifice be for something. Let him bring light into the world.

[Chris Tessone]

"I agree, Chris - that's what I meant by different levels and self-selection. SOme of it will be too hard for some people. But that's no excuse for sinking into the smugness of an exclusivist attitude - always a temptation for people who go for it at top flight level"

In that case, we're on the same page.

I find myself really drawn to systematics (I'm applying to Harvard and desperately hoping I can work with Sarah Coakley because I'm fascinated by her attempts to wed systematics and feminist/liberation theology), but I agree public theology has atrophied in recent years. I just listened to a radio program on Reinhold Niebuhr, and it's fascinating how direct and vital his theology was. I wonder if this is the kind of thing that can only be done with ethics and other disciplines that directly interface with public life? I have to admit, as I said above, I'm at a loss for how to do this with some kinds of philosophy, and I'm too much a realist to demand literacy in Western philosophy and theology of all lay persons. ;-)

[Chris Tessone]

(I should clarify my last sentenceI'm not a defeatist who believes that lay people should be literate in all those things and am resigned to the fact that they won't read Kant. I mean to say that it's silly and pointless to believe that in a perfect world computer programmers and bus drivers would be as familiar with philosophy and theology as a theologian. But I'm at a loss for how the insights of systematics can make their way to people who should not be expected to know these things. If there is a place for "complex theology", how should it relate to the theology meant for those working on a different level? Sometimes I'm at a loss to answer that question.)

[Serena]

I'm no theologian either, but when I read that bit of Mere Christianity I was rolling around on the grass in my back garden laughing my head off because God was using those words written by C S Lewis all those years ago to crack through the layers of fundamental evangelical "plain practical religion" without a questioning attitude I'd had pasted onto me (sorry if that sounds harsh to anyone) and to make me realise that, if I was going to go deeper into a relationship with God and fall more and more in love with him, then I had to be a theologian!