I spent some time routing around my attic. My attic is where I store all of my books. Sometimes, I just go up there and hang out in its quiet and look through the books until I find one that I forgot I had. It would be an understatement to say that I have a bunch of different kinds of books stored up there. I have everything from Richard Dawkins to a Charismatic Dictionary. I have books by Friedrich Nietzsche and Alvin Plantinga. There are titles up there by Channing, Emerson, and Parker (Early American Unitarians) as well as titles by Spurgeon, Finney, and Edwards. I have books on Chaos Theory and books on Holy Spirit Baptism. My personal library is a broad collection, to say the least.
My last trip to my attic reconnected me with a book that I totally forgot I owned. I’m not sure how that happened because this particular title is an incredible read.
The book is called Possibilities for Over One Hundredfold More Spiritual Information: The Humble Approach in Theology and Science. It was written by Sir John Templeton. Templeton made a fortune by dealing in mutual funds and global stocks. He used portions of his billions to fund research specifically dedicated to science and religion. Templeton was also a member of the Presbyterian Church, but remained opened to the truth, values, and expressions of other global faiths. His mantra was that we – humanity – only realize about 1% of the spiritual reality in which we live. He was a firm believer that science and religion were not diametrically opposed and in fact could inform one another in a way that would lead to even more spiritual information. Said differently, Templeton believed that science could inform religion in edifying and monumental ways, and vice versa. I agree.
Possibilities for Over One Hundredfold More Spiritual Information is a fantastic collection of Templeton’s thoughts concerning the relationship between science and religion. It reads like a handbook for those who are brave enough to chase a spiritual expression that is not estranged from the present and always growing compilation of human data and empirical knowledge.
Templeton writes, “Spiritual information is a realm of study which may expand in ways none can yet predict. But in this book, those words refer to the concepts from religions which have proven beneficial and which need to be supplemented through millions of dollars daily for rigorous verifiable research, especially on those neglected basic invisible realities such as love, purpose, creativity, intellect, thanksgiving, prayer, humility, praise, thrift, compassion, invention, truthfulness, giving and worship. Already, some thinkers are pondering the concept that every discovery in any science helps humans to enlarge their definition of the word god. For example, can humans learn something about god from x-ray astronomy, by subatomic physics or by quantum nonlocality? Or if the expensive search for extraterrestrial intelligence, SETI, ever succeeds, will we enlarge our theology? If discoveries keep pointing our search toward multiplying mysteries, will we begin to comprehend more about creativity? Clarifying the words spiritual information is equally difficult now as the difficulty as recently as 1800 in foreseeing the expansion of medical information or electromagnetic information (preface).”
These are very, very big questions. These are questions that people of faith the globe over should be asking. These are the questions that we should be worrying about instead of constantly arguing over thin and abstract theological issues that should have been settled a long time ago. Personally, I would rather that we move forward, theologically, and invest our energy into the unmined relationship between science and religion and strive to apply all the spiritual information that undoubtedly would be revealed by such dedicated research. Instead, we go on arguing over the minutia parsed from the historically and culturally relative musings of some dead 16th century theologian(s). Ironically, if those 16th Century theologians would have adopted our current approach to theology, they would have had nothing at all to say, and we would not even remember their names. Once again, we prove ourselves unable to actually learn the most important lesson that our collection of historical figures offer us! And what is this important lesson? It’s horribly simple: Work like they worked, think like they thought, but do not appropriate their relative conclusions. Theology is not static; theology does not exist in a vacuum. Each generation must work towards its own conclusions based upon the world and knowledge and reality in which they live.
Sir John Templeton, a Presbyterian, understood this truth. He dedicated his wealth and his time to it. Consider, if you will, some of the things he says in Possibilities for Over One Hundredfold More Spiritual Information.
It is exciting to be alive and to think about all the wonders of discovery that lie ahead for future generations. Where will it all go? What will be its benefits? All we know is that if we knew we would be surprised, because reality is surprising. The adventure of science has shown us that it is very deep, very subtle, often strange and ever stretching our imaginations and expanding our horizons. Persons who view the world theistically often think how inappropriate it is to imagine, as we sometimes are tempted to do, that divinity who created and sustains a vast evolving universe through eons of cosmic time placed our generation as the completed purpose of a creative process. maybe we can expand our horizons and invigorate our sense of purpose if we think that god might have placed us at a new beginning. Are we here for the future and to participate in a grand adventure of the spirit (4)?
Often theologians, religious leaders and laypeople can be blind to obstacles they themselves erect. Many religious people are not yet inspired to hope that the spiritual future could, or should, be improved from anything that has ever been learned before. Many do not imagine that progress in religion may be possible, perhaps by appreciating ways that sciences have learned to flourish and by being creatively open to a discovery-seeking and future-oriented perspective. For so many religious people, the future of religions seems nothing much beyond the perspective of ancient traditions. Some therefore may not want to consider the possibility of a future of progressively unfolding spiritual discoveries (5).
Can humility be a key to our future progress? Without it, will we be too self-satisfied with past glories to launch boldly into the challenges ahead? Without a hunger to explore new possibilities and a restlessness to transcend our ignorance, will we be wide-eyes and open-minded enough to discover new areas for research? If we are not humble enough to learn as children learn, we may be unable to admit our mistakes, seek advice and try again (7).
Can even the best doctrines function for some as blinders serve on a horse? Can they create a kind of tunnel vision? One unfortunate aspect of dogma is that it tends to belittle the infinite variety and nature of divinity. Dogmas are, after all, written by human beings, and human concepts of god are always limited. Would it be unfortunate and a great waste of human energy if every advance or reform in the church had the nature of being a rival from outside? Those well-meaning people within the church would naturally be more resistant to outside intrusion, would would tend to side with tradition, thus strengthening the forces behind the status-quo and ultimately hindering progress (47).
There is so much more big information in this otherwise small book. Templeton does not limit its pages to vision casting, though that is an important and inspiring aspect of his work. He also talks science – a lot of deep science – and connects it to spirituality by raising the questions that result. Like I said earlier, this is a great read. Find a copy. Then start searching.
Related posts:
You wrote, “Theology is not static; theology does not exist in a vacuum. Each generation must work towards its own conclusions based upon the world and knowledge and reality in which they live.”
I am curious about your position on this statement; I am wondering exactly what you mean by this. Are you talking about humanity’s understanding of theology, or are you referring to the underlying reality behind our understanding?
Just how relativistic of a statement is this? You will have to forgive me – I deal with all types on a pretty daily basis, and maybe I have read too much relativistic philosophy for my own good. Maybe I see it when it’s not really there.
I’m just trying to nail down what it is that you (and from other sources, those similar to you) actually believe. I have to say, as I am beginning to dig into the Emerging movement, I am finding myself increasingly frustrated with (what I perceive as) the lack of a defined belief system. I know that many seem to think that “statements of faith” end conversations; I propose that statements of faith (or statements of definition in other fields) are what make conversations coherent, meaningful, and even possible. How can we frame a discussion without a point of reference? First rules of rhetoric… anyway, sorry about the rant. It’s not all your fault :)
Maybe I am just being too hard on the movement, or over-generalizing – this is certainly possible, I am far from infallible, and I am still reading and listening. But I really wish I could get a little more precision, a little more linguistic clarity, and a little more definition.
I can certainly understand your frustration, Dave. I too was thoroughly frustrated with the EC (Emerging Church) before I started to really get a grasp on Postmodernism, philosophically and theologically. I’m still learning and searching …
More will be said in subsequent posts regarding this issue. I’m working on a few posts that were born from an article I read in The Journal of Biblical Literature that concerns the in-house debate in Biblical Studies depts. over historical-critical and literary-critical methods of interpretation. These posts, I hope, will be informative.
That said, I’ll leave you with a question: What do you do with a god that on the one hand commands his people (men) to “inspect” their new wives on their wedding night and if they find that they are not virgins to take them outside, gather the men, and stone them (women) to death (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), and on the other hand stumbles upon a woman caught in adultery and challenges those who are prepared to stone her to only do so if they themselves have no sin (John 8:1-11)?
Well, I’ll start with “having a grasp on postmodernism”. While I am no English or Philosophy PhD, I have spent the last 10 years or so reading and writing about literature, philosophy, critical theory, and the social studies. I’ve read the pillars – from structuralists like Strauss and Saussure to New Critics like Barthes, thru the incoherency of Lacan, into pomo thinkers like Derrida and Lyotard. I’ve also done a lot of work with the materialistic existentialists like Sartre and Nietszche, as well as some philosophy of mind stuff with Descartes, Kant, Bergson, and Searle. Hegel, mostly for background on thesis/antithesis/synthesis stuff and as background for studies in government and early 20th century history. Of course the classics too, lots of Aristotle and Plato, Cicero and the like. I hope this doesn’t come off as a “look at me” blurb – I’m trying to lay out what I know so that you can perhaps bring something out that I have missed, or recommend something strong that will supplement what I have already read, and maybe even understand a little more of my mental framework.
The theology aspect of it is a little less clear to me. I understand how people want to apply pomo litcrit to the Bible, but in many ways I can’t see how they expect to come to anything substantial this way. One of the keys of the pomo paradigm is a rejection of metanarratives, and a rejection of an objective truth outside of experience (interestingly enough, since pomo theory is of itself a metanarrative, it seems as though one should reject it as well in order to be truly postmodern). One of the foundations of the nature of God is that he exists outside of experience. I know this is a somewhat oversimplified version, but I’d rather not write a novel here. Maybe I am missing something… don’t know.
In great Socratic style, let me answer the question with a question.
How is this in anyway incongruous? In much the same way that we no longer sacrifice goats and bulls, or refrain from pork and unclean seafood, or where Hassidic beards, we no longer stone the fornicator. That does not automatically make fornication acceptable, however – it is dealt with clearly and easily in the New Testament. Regardless, the Levitical law is clearly fulfilled in Christ’s death and resurrection, thus we are freed from its burden.
Anyway, something to look at in all of this is the nature of language in and of itself. You were talking about the historical-critical method and the literary-critical method. But you may be a little wanting in your taxonomy – literary criticism is far more than postmodernism. I would encourage you to read a little of what was referred to as the “New Criticism”, from back in the 50s. It shares a lot in common with Structuralism, though applied more to literature/texts rather than to spoken language. Roland Barthes and his article on the “author-god” is a good place to start. But I digress… my point is that it seems to me that historical criticism fails on a crucial point – one that keeps it in the undercurrent of the literary community, and that keeps it derided in general by historians.
Are we looking for authorial intent, or for audience understanding? Neither is ever clear – I have no special insight into the mind of the author, nor of the reader. All that one can know is one’s own mental state – in at least this Descartes was right. Anyway, forgive the digression, I’ll look forward to your upcoming articles.
Peace out!
Dave – Well done! It sounds like you have read more deeply than most into the subject. I wonder though if you have really thought about the ramifications all of this has upon theology and our expressions of divinity and revelation, now and then?
Yes, people apply literary-critical methods to interpretations of scripture. Yes, sometimes it seems hard to see what the benefit or result of this application may be, but that isn’t the big point, at least for me personally. The bigger and more fascinating aspect of all of this for me is found in the act of this sort of application itself. Take ideological readings of the text, for example, which is but one way to apply the literary-critical method of interpretation. A major presupposition of ideological readings of the text is the understanding that particular ideology has been invested into the text. There is also a realization that we bring our own ideological ideas to the text too. The fascinating thing in all of this has to do with a realization that this sort of thing has been going on from the very beginning. That realization has an effect upon our interpretive approaches. It must.
For example, in our own American setting, we have a crazy almost bipolar socio-cultural phenomenon unfolding before us that is for the most part divided along party lines we call liberal and conservative. Both of these groups have a particular expression of Jesus and Christianity. OK? Jesus, in the conservative camp, looks and sounds an awful lot like the conservatives; in the liberal camp, Jesus looks and sounds like them too. OK? So, something happened there, and I would suggest it has to do with ideological readings/interpretations of the text, and it obviously doesn’t mater if the interpreters were conscious of it or not. It happened and it shaped their entire expression of faith. Now, my question concerning all of this is two fold: 1. If members of either camp wrote down their faith expression in a book of sorts all of that would be embedded into the text and people 1000 years into the future would either take all that they said as God’s truth and try to apply it to a world that it may or may not be applicable or they would have to do the hard work of separating and examining ideology and revelation, which is obviously intertwined. 2. I can’t help but wonder, when reflecting on this liberal and conservative approach to interpretation and expression, if this is the first time this sort of ideological interpretation – or perhaps re-interpretation – ever occurred. I say, of course not! American liberals and conservatives surely are not the first groups ever to approach interpretation in this sort of way! We have carried on like this from the very beginning. So, I would suggest that this is not the first time but rather a continuation of how we humans have always interpreted. If this is true, then the same thing can be found in our scripture. This requires a different approach and a lot more work. And yes, it’s theology.
That realization opens things up a lot. I guess I’m saying the methods and terms (like pomo) point to ways in which we consciously or unconsciously act.
If you look at the question concerning the seeming change of mind by God regarding the punishment of certain women, you can see this active. Calling for the inspection and the stoning of a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night and refraining from pork are two vastly different things, ethically speaking. Add to this the fact that God seems to have changed his mind about the stoning of “impure” women in the NT and we have a conundrum of major proportions. To suggest otherwise would be a bit odd. Do you seriously see not divergence in a god expressed as one who on one hand demands the inspection and stoning of “impure” women and on the hand rips the stones out of stoners hands by telling them that only those with no sin can cast one? Seriously? I bet those woman who were inspected and stoned to death in the OT would have pretty strong objections to all of this flip-flopping. I would, for sure. So, what’s the deal with this seeming flip-flop?
Think about all that we are talking about right now for a bit, and then take another hard look at my question.
help with physics…
Explanations YOU can understand of a variety of math and physics topics at the high school and college level….