I understand
why you are spiritually dead; you have been preoccupied with the study of God
and you have forgotten God!
--- Glenn Martin, A Biblical Christian Worldview
An
intellectual content without an experiential practice leaves us with an
immobilising scholasticism. On the other hand, an experiential practice not
anchored in an intellectual content leaves us with an impotent mysticism.
The
scholastics […] attempted to shore up a waning Christianity by bringing the
Classical tradition to the rescue of the Christian; […] by bringing the human
intellect and reason to the rescue of Biblical revelation; by bringing a focus
on man to the rescue of the significance of God; by bringing this age and
temporality to the rescue of the age which is to come and so-called eternality;
[…] by bringing Aristotle to the rescue of Augustine.
--- Glenn Martin, A Biblical Christian Worldview
Today I listened to an interesting – and intermittently maddening
–
podcast on ‘Science and Religion’ in the ‘In Our Times’ series by Mervin
Bragg on BBC 4.
Of the three interviewees,
John Haldane impressed me with his eloquence and his brave stand (in the midst of a
predominantly antitheist discussion) for morality, and the mutual congruence of
theism with rationality.
I went ahead and researched a bit about Haldane. He is
Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Ethics, Philosophy and
Public Affairs at the University of Saint Andrews. He was educated by Jesuits
and is a Catholic apologist and prolific author.
Importantly, he is a prominent follower of Thomas Aquinas,
having coined the term ‘
Thomism’,
a school of thought also known as scholasticism, which Glenn Martin refers to and
dissects in his lecture series on the Biblical Christian Worldview (available
from
here).
Scholasticism predominated from the 1200s to the 1400s. Its philosophical
objective was to rejuvenate and perpetuate a dwindling Christianity, and so rationalism
was used to ‘come to the rescue’ of Christian thought through a ‘scholastic
synthesis’.
Scholasticism [is] the attempt to
provide an intellectual basis for something on the ground of the human
intellect without reference to the Word of God [either from direct personal
revelational form or in the written word of scripture], usually in terms of
logical analysis.
Synthesis [is the] combination,
putting together, building up of separate elements, especially of conceptions
or facts into a connected whole.
Thomas Aquinas was the originator of scholasticism, as
expounded in his ‘Summa Theologica’ (1265-74), where he argued the case of an incomplete
fall (whereby the human heart became fallen but the mind remains all-capable),
and attempted to reconcile Classical (i.e. Greek, rationalistic Aristotelian)
thought forms with the Christian worldview.
Through Aquinas’ legacy of the scholastic synthesis, we
inherited philosophical dualism/dichotomy, scholastic Christianity, and
Thomistic Catholicism (to which John Haldane subscribes). The consequence of
these being natural theism, and, historically, the demise of Christianity, which
was evidence by the subsequent period of the Renaissance, with its focus on
classical tradition, humanism and natural philosophy.
Glenn Martin comments on the value of scholasticism:
Of course true leadership
demands, not only that we know what we believe and why, but that we be fully
committed to living existentially, that is, moment by moment, our world and
life view. It is one thing to know; it is another thing to act on the basis of
what we know. We must combine the intellectual content with an experiential
commitment. An intellectual content
without an experiential practice leaves us with an immobilising scholasticism.
On the other hand, an experiential practice not anchored in an intellectual
content leaves us with an impotent mysticism.
John Haldane gives lip-service to an equal tripartite union
of personal revelation (‘experience’), Biblical revelation (‘scripture’) and rationality
as the foundations of faith in an interview titled ‘
Why I am a Theist’:
Religious experience is a part of
what shapes religion, scripture is a part, reflection is a part, and so on. But
one can’t give sole primacy to any one of these. You can’t say that what, in
essence, it is about is scripture, or in essence what it’s about is experience,
or in essence what it’s about is argument and reasoning and so on. Part of the
reason you can’t is that any attempt to do so will find itself foundering, will
find itself looking for support from the other parts.
For example, […] any attempt to
rest on scripture will have to answer the question, which scripture? What is
canonical? Is this to be regarded as apocryphal or is this to be regarded as
part of the authentic scripture? How is that resolved? It’s no good having a
piece of scripture that says, ‘this is the real one’. Several can say that. So
we have to use experience and understanding to determine which scripture is to
be attended to. Along with that, we have to interpret that scripture. And that
interpretation again, brings to bear experience and understanding.
Equally, if we try to rest it all
on experience rather than scripture, famously people’s experiences can lead
them in all sorts of directions. People can just become straight crazy. So
experiences have to be validated and tested, tested against the belief of a community,
tested against scripture, tested against reasoning and so on.
So each of these – scripture, reasoning,
teaching authority, tradition, people’s ordinary experience and their
reflective prayer and so on – all of these come together in a tradition, and
the high points in each then themselves come together to form the core of that
religion.
But look more closely, and he only provides exposés of the
limitations of experience and scripture, but not of reason. Thus he slips in the
underlying notion that rationality is the superior of the three epistemologies,
and illustrates scholastiscism’s foundational notion of rationality coming to
the rescue of any other way of knowing that we know what we know. What is clearer
furthermore is his perfect dichotomy of rationality over and against revelation
– or in the example above, trichotomy of rationality over and against personal
revelation and scriptural revelation. He tries to weave together a synthesis of
supposedly ‘equal’ epistemologies, even though he ultimately upholds one as
truer or more reliable than the others. It looks balanced but it is not.
When rationality is upheld as the superior epistemology,
what ensues is rationalism. And rationalistic theism is ultimately as dry and
spiritless and rationalistic atheism.
In the extract below, Haldane put rationalism to the rescue
of Christianity while he
sparred with Christopher Hitchens at Oxford.
This is a perfect example of the ‘dry-as-dust’ type of intellectualised
Christianity that is characterised by Thomism or scholasticism:
[I would like to address] the
possibility of articulating and sustaining a tolerant humanism [!!!], and I
think that that’s actually something it turns out that we [theists and
atheists] share: a desire to see diversity recognised and celebrated, asking
the question ‘What are the conditions of the possibility of that recognition or
that respect?’. I want to be suggesting that the conditions of that possibility
take us in the direction of philosophy, but also in the direction of a certain
kind of religious worldview.
The question that is before us,
is how to secure a common public life, structured by sharable ideals. […] It’s
pretty obvious […] that we see ourselves confronted by a remarkable range of
ethical disagreements about substantive ethical questions, whether it be
questions about abortion, gay marriage, family life, warfare and so on. When
one looks at those questions, there is an interesting agreement in form in the
ways in which they’re discussed. That is to say, there’s a recurrent tendency
to structure those questions in terms of things like welfare, on the one hand,
and notions of respect on the other. So people will argue that certain economic
policies are justified by the promotion of welfare, but that certain
constraints are required in the count of respect.
There’s a commonality of form,
but what there is beyond that is a disagreement about substance. That is to say
that these notions of welfare, of rights or of respect are themselves disputed,
with regards to what their content is, what their range is and what their
implications are.
Glenn Martin gives an excellent discussion of the scholastic
worldview:
By the time we reach the 13th
century, Biblical Christianity is very clearly on the wane. Whenever one is
attempting to preserve and perpetuate anything, in this case Biblical
Christianity, there are essentially two methods by which to attempt that. The
first is what I call the ‘3 R method’, and the second the ‘1 R method’. The 3 R
method is simply to reaffirm, restate and reapply, in this case, Biblical
Christianity. The 1 R method is an effort to preserve and perpetuate by
bringing that which is becoming pervasive to the rescue of that which one is
proposing to preserve and perpetuate.
During the 13th
century, as lead by Thomas Aquinas, the great schoolman opted for the 1 R
method as they sought to bring the Classical to the rescue of the Christian. Now
Thomas Aquinas was a very brilliant individual who lived from 1224 to 1274, and
his magnum opus was Summa Theologica,
which simply means ‘the sum of all theology’. The schoolmen, or the
scholastics, as these church intellectuals led by Aquinas came to be known,
attempted to shore up a waning Christianity by bringing the Classical tradition
to the rescue of the Christian; by bringing the so-called “natural” to the
rescue of the Biblical supernatural; by bringing the human intellect and reason
to the rescue of Biblical revelation; by bringing a focus on man to the rescue
of the significance of God; by bringing this age and temporality to the rescue
of the age which is to come and so-called eternality; by bringing the Classical
writings to the rescue of the Christian writings; by bringing Aristotle to the
rescue of Augustine.
What was produced was a synthetic
construct which by its very nature was destined to disintegrate. For we
developed a dualism and dichotomy at every level, ontological through
teleological. And instead of shoring up a waning Christianity, scholasticism
actually only served to hasten the demise thereof, and bring on Renaissance humanism
in the form it would take. The reason being this: if one effects an effort to
structure a dualism of the supernatural and the natural, Biblical revelation
and reason as examples, there will be an attempt for a period of time to
maintain that dualism and keep it in “balance”. Aquinas himself argued that, if
reason and revelation appear to disagree, one always goes with revelation. When
there is a dualism and dichotomy, the temptation becomes all but overpowering
to emphasise one at the expense of the other.
The intellectual community
increasingly, under the influence of the renewed preoccupation with the
Classical, would emphasise the natural at the expense of the supernatural,
reason at the expense of Biblical revelation, a focus on man at the expense of
the centrality of God, and thus, there would be the advent of Renaissance
humanism in the form it would take, and the acceleration accordingly of the
demise of what remained of Biblical Christianity.
Aquinas, as we have said, argued
that if reason and revelation appear to disagree, one always goes with
revelation, because the disagreement is only apparent; it is not real. For when
we have finally thought through, reason will always agree with Biblical
revelation. And the logical question becomes, why? What is the epistemological
basis for such confidence?
Well, the basis of Aquinas was
very simple. Aquinas believed in an incomplete fall, holding that the will is
fallen, but not the intellect. And this being the case, there are two pathways
to knowledge and truth. There is most certainly Biblical revelation, but there
is also the human intellect in contemplation of “nature” so-called. And thus,
reason and revelation, when reason has run its complete course, will always be
in agreement. But increasingly, as we have said, those intellectuals in the
train of Thomas Aquinas opted for the human intellect and its conclusions at
the expense of Biblical revelation.
Let me say parenthetically that
whenever we confront the teaching of an incomplete fall, we have a very serious
problem Biblically speaking, because the Bible is very clear that man is
fallen, period. There have been those down the centuries that have taught that
man is fallen in every respect except in his will. Aquinas taught that man is
fallen in every respect except in his intellect. […] But the Biblical view is
that man is fallen, period. It is not possible for man to will his way to God,
think his way to God, work his way to God. He is dependent upon the work and
will of God for his deliverance.
I would make two or three
observations concerning scholasticism. First of all, scholasticism was exactly
that, it was a dry-as-dust, intellectualised, scholasticised Christianity. The scholastics
never returned to the power of the resurrection fo the dead, God’s finished
work in Christ, nor to the dynamics of the in-dwelling and leadership of God
the Spirit. Theirs was, and remained, a so-called intellectualised
Christianity, an immobilising scholasticism.
Secondly, we would recognise that
the teachings of Thomas Aquinas would become the theological basis of Roman
Catholicism. Now there are a number of theological streams in Roman
Catholicism: there are Augustinian Catholics, Thomistic Catholics, liberal
Catholics and, as we know in recent years, charismatic Catholics. But following
scholasticism, most Catholics theologically became Thomistic and scholasticism
became the theological basis of Roman Catholicism.
Additionally, we need to
recognise that with scholasticism, we will shift from Biblical theology to
natural theology. And this is a very subtle and yet very substantial shift,
because the basic study, it was held, was the study of God. And as we know,
theology was the study of God, -ology being the study of theo or theos, God.
But the question emerged, how do we know God? And it was on the basis, prior to
scholasticism, of a Biblical theology: we know God on the basis of his
disclosure of himself to man in verbal propositional form, the Bible.
We want to hasten to add that though
theology is the basic study, theology is not the ultimate. God is. I will never
forget while lecturing in South Africa, an individual approached me and he said
‘I don’t understand why I have become spiritually dead’. And of course, I didn’t
understand either because I had never met the gentleman, and even if I had I
would have made no pretence of understanding, excepting almost in the same
breath he began telling me about himself and what he had been doing, stating
that he was in the process of completing a PhD in theology. I stopped him
instantly. I said ‘I understand why you are spiritually dead; you have been
preoccupied with the study of God and you have forgotten God!’. There is
nothing wrong with the study of God: it is the ultimate study. But it is not
the ultimate. God is!
And we must ever keep in mind
that we can have a personal relationship with God on the basis of God’s
finished work in Christ. But what happens in scholasticism, and this is very
significant, we will shift from Biblical theology, the study of God’s
disclosure of himself to man in verbal propositional form, the Bible, to
natural theology, the view that we know God on the basis of the human intellect
in contemplation of “nature” so-called. […] Now the significance of that is
this: I indicated that scholasticism was a well-meaning attempt to shore up a
waning Christianity, but only served ultimately to hasten the demise thereof
and bring on Renaissance humanism in the form it would take. Thus we need to
examine the Renaissance. […]
Proponents of scholasticism are usually earnest truth-seekers who desire to have science (i.e. 'knowledge') apply to all of life under God. In my mind, this is not only a noble pursuit, but an imperative one if we are to be Christian thinkers applying God and His will to all of life. The following example illustrates this earnest desire for a synthesis of all knowledge under God. Fr. Thomas Joseph White, who teaches at the Thomistic Institute at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, DC, writes:
In the first volume of his Church Dogmatics (1932), Karl Barth provocatively wrote: “Fear of Scholasticism is the mark of a false prophet.” As a well-known critic of modern Catholic theology, Barth was not commending specific Scholastic arguments or conclusions. Instead, he was making a broader point about the intellectual project of Scholasticism, which he thought indispensable. Authentic biblical speculation requires a search for the internal coherence of Christian thought, which, in turn, calls for us to take up the characteristic methods of Scholasticism: rigorous examination of terms and definitions, confrontation, engagement, correction, and assimilation of legitimate secular and philosophical ideas—all in the service of Christian ¬revelation.
However, what is being said by Martin is not that we should 'leave our minds at the door', on the contrary. Martin is one of the firmest proponents of Romans 12:2, and it is safe to say his entire academic career after his conversion was an attempt to reinterpret history from a Christian perspective and to apply the way and will of God to all of life. Nevertheless, the basic point is that our minds cannot be absolutised as the ultimate repositories of knowledge, understanding or wisdom. God must. Where I sometimes disagree with Glenn Martin is where he often pushes the importance of the Bible a little too far. In my view, we must also be careful not absolutise the Bible itself above other forms of revelation from God, nor indeed above God Himself.
I appreciated hearing at least one person (Haldane) in that BBC
interview coming to the rescue of belief in God. I don’t discount John
Haldane’s extensive philosophical scholarship and I get the strong impression he is a deep thinker and earnest in his beliefs. But we must beware of depending on
our intellect to solve all existential probelms. Can we be so arrogant as to
think our minds are so limitless that we could from our own powers deduce or induce any answers to the questions of ontology, epistemology, axiology or teleology?
We
must not fall into the same trap as the majority of atheists and antitheists: although our minds are a great gift from God and must be engaged and renewed (Romans 12:2), our minds cannot not absolutely replace revelation. We must worship God as the ultimate provider of all
wisdom – not our
ourselves.
