Reason, Faith Consequences

This is what I posted on the electronic bulletin board for my Swedenborgian exegesis class this morning. The issue for the week is Epistemology and Biblical Studies. One of Swedenborg's famous dictums is 'Nunc licet' -- short for "Now it is permitted to enter with reason into the mysteries of faith." My suggestion below is that even in a denomination which prizes reason and intellectual inquiry, there is always an inherent tension when doing free-thinking within a faith community.

“[When] it is no longer the reasoning which determines what the conclusion shall be, but . . . the conclusion which determines what the reasoning shall be . . . this is sham reasoning.”

It occurred to me this morning that this sentence highlights an inevitable tension in seminary work – especially when the person who inspired the denomination appeals again and again to reason as he builds his theology.

What happens if a student in the Swedenborgian House of Studies reaches a point where s/he says, “No, I don’t agree with his line of reasoning here? My own reason tells me that B does not follow from A” or perhaps “No, the assumption you begin with, ES, is not ‘clearly evident’ to me”?

This isn’t just an issue in seminary, of course. Each discipline works within a framework of epistemological assumptions (conclusions reached previously by the experts and now taken as givens by those who follow), and a student who challenges those, either from being misguided, mistaken, or mind-bogglingly brilliant, risks becoming a failure in the academy if she does not re-think her position and bring it into accord with the standards.

This isn’t necessarily bad. There are givens upon which disciplines depend, most of which would require genius to re-formulate.

But to get back to my original point: if a theological student applies her own reasoning to the Writings, or to exegesis, but comes up with answers that do not fit the “conclusions” already arrived-at by the theologians who preceded her – or ES himself – what conclusion is drawn from her dissent? Is she well-intentioned, but a victim of faulty reasoning? Are her love and faith not deep enough to gift her with the insight into spiritual truth? These may indeed be true. But what does it do to the intellectual approach of a seminarian to recognize that these are perhaps the judgments that will be leveled – not just on her work, but on her own faith, her own relationship to the Divine, if she does not reach the conclusions that are expected?

To be clear: I am not aware of that judgment being leveled against anyone in any of my classes here – but I do remember being young and being afraid to voice certain questions because I believed that to even ask the questions would put me beyond the pale in my church. Swedenborg was a questioner, a scientist, someone who changed the paradigm for many of us when it comes to our approach to faith. He is now himself a paradigm (paradigmatic?). If he was not, we would not be now studying in a school that bears his name.

What is the relationship between Swedenborg's conclusions and our own reasoning? When we apply our own reason and faith, are we reasoning toward his conclusions, or our own? What are the stakes – intellectually, emotionally, vocationally, and in relationship to our faith community – if we find ourselves in dissent? And how does this impact how we study and "do" theology?

Tempting Thought

Ordinarily I distance myself completely from movie-related hype, but I continue to be fascinated by the variety of thoughtful responses to "The Passion." Which is tricky, since most of them have been written without the author having seen the work in question, and that is usually an excellent reason to ignore any commentary at all.

tamnonlinear, who I have come to rely on for witty, well-written comments on life and events, had this to say this afternoon about why she is not going to see The Movie:

". . . they aren't covering any of Jesus's teachings, his messages about loving and forgiving, about answering violence and hatred with compassion and reaching out to everyone. No, this is about how much he was hurt and punished, beaten, suffered, and died for YOUR sins. In graphic detail. With no whistling. Because you should feel properly guilty and appalled by what the Son of God went through for your sake, and therefore not question what is now being done in his name, you ungrateful sinner.

Personally, I'm taking away the message that if he went through all of that for my sins, I need to do some better sinning to make it worth it."

I Could *Not* Resist This!

"God will not suffer man to have the knowledge of things to come; for if he had prescience of his prosperity he would be careless; and understanding of his adversity he would be senseless."

You are Augustine! You love to study tough issues and don't mind it if you lose sleep over them. Everyone loves you and wants to talk to you and hear your views, you even get things like "nice debating with you." Yep, you are super smart, even if you are still trying to figure it all out. You're also very honest, something people admire, even when you do stupid things.

What theologian are you?

A creation of Henderson

Welcome Topherius!

I want to give a big LJ welcome to topherius, an old college pal of mine, co-survivor of the "Our Pomona" tech rehearsal and Ranelli's Hamlet, and founder of the Cas. Cas's were Friday night - or was it Saturday night? - off-campus gatherings where weary theatre majors gathered to sprawl on couches, listen to music, watch movies, and share stories about rehearsals, theatre profs, and general gossip.

My favorite memory is of getting a four-hand massage while eating fresh-baked chocolate chip cookies -- one of the early great sensual experiences of my life.

Topherius is also the person who served me the first alcoholic drink I actually enjoyed: The Outback -- which was made from vodka, orange juice, and Black Rasbperry New York seltzer. The first time I ever got drunk it was hanging out with him and some other friends in his dorm room ("the Outback") because I knew that it was a safe place and I was curious to find out what it was like. (I was not impressed. It's seldom happened since then.)

We've had only sporadic contact since we graduated in 1988, and I'm looking forward to having him in my life again!