Michael, I also appreciated your blog post. I am curious about the danger you see in studying too deeply the arts of the Enemy. Do you mean something along the lines of what Jerome meant when he dreamt that Jesus told him, "thou art not Christian, thou art Ciceronian?" Do you think there's danger in learning about Greco-Roman culture because it can lead to what happened in the Renaissance, a turning away from Christian orthodoxy to classical ideals? (Extreme, gross simplification, but just wondering if that is kind of what you meant.) Or do you mean we should be careful about immersing ourselves too deeply in contemporary culture or philosophy that is un-Christian or anti-Christian, in secular learning, etc? I think that would be a very fascinating discussion!
Yes. Haha! I think all of those are dangers because there as many ways to stray as there are people! The way of truth and life is narrow and found in a person. Jesus was scrupulous, ethically and philosophically. It behooves us to mimic him.
Lara, generally speaking, I'm thinking of what we often do to quantify sin and measure our success in overcoming it. Some groups I've been in seem to be preoccupied with sin and cannot seem to get past staring at the thing as they fall into it.
As regards intellectual pursuits, specifically, I must warn that nothing is ingested without some influence. Maybe I'm easily influenced or maybe I'm very sensitive to feeling the influence.
I've read things from secular philosophy or eastern religions that I thought presented interesting (dare I say useful!) categories of thought. The danger here is in the framing of the discussion, what we might call presuppositions. If the enemies of God are allowed to dictate the field of battle, they are nearly ensuring a short term victory.
We know God wins ultimately, but why should we lose so many battles? If God is for us, who can be against us?
I prefer, where possible, to get my categories of thought from scripture. I like to start with a holistic philosophy that is theologically informed and a theology that is philosophically valid (factually true and internally consistent).
There are only two holistic philosophies that can be derived from scripture. All others entertain inconsistencies in order to present as suitable alternatives. To illustrate, at the root, you must ground your holistic view in God's foreordaining of all things or not foreordaining of all things.
Whichever starting point you choose, a consistent philosophy will develop along certain lines detailing the implications of these starting points. Many people like to include in their thinking ideas that come from both camps.
This undermines consistent reasoning. If we had all of the time in the world, I would love to sit with everyone and work through the implications of what they believe, but alas we don't have that time.
Given limited time, I say start with scripture and go to the furthest extent possible without consulting extra-biblical sources because you will be grounded with ideas that conform to a consistent worldview even if not interpreted in that manner.
In an even more dramatic way, secular philosophies or eastern religions, which do not acknowledge God, do not reason out conclusions that consistently conform to the idea of the existence of the Christian God, let alone debating over whether or not he foreordains all things.
If we have a hard enough time as Christians figuring out a rigorously consistent theology with the biblical account, how much more difficult will our task be if we fill our minds with the vain philosophies of the world?
The task of filtering and integrating is one best left to those specifically called to it. They have to be mature Christians, who will not lose their faith as they read through literature produced by fools and scoffers.
I made the decision at 18 to delay reading Greek philosophy to ground myself in the word of God. I'm not saying I've lived perfectly because of that decision. I have succumbed to worldly pressures in my twenties, but otherwise held onto my faith even in the darkest days.
I still don't think I am ready to enter a PhD program. I want to be so thoroughly grounded, that as I learn the Greek categories of thought at the highest academic levels, I can challenge them and propose alternates.
I would still be required to be conversant with accepted theological definitions of words, but they are so inadequate sometimes. As an eschatological postmillennialist, I believe the church will be around for millennia more. Let's fix our categories of thought in scriptural (more or less, Hebraic) ones instead of Greek ones.
After we have exhausted resetting the ancient landmarks, we may begin the task of filtering and integrating. This is in part a speculative tasking, but one that derives from empiricism. In the world of cause and effect, we can apply theology and see if it works.
If it doesn't work, then our theology is bad or the way in which we applied it is bad. That will teach us to improve our theology and/or how we apply it. This nets us, relevancy and efficacy, which is not something we have to strive for singularly. Instead it will be a by-product.
As regards intellectual pursuits, specifically, I must warn that nothing is ingested without some influence. Maybe I'm easily influenced or maybe I'm very sensitive to feeling the influence.
I've read things from secular philosophy or eastern religions that I thought presented interesting (dare I say useful!) categories of thought. The danger here is in the framing of the discussion, what we might call presuppositions. If the enemies of God are allowed to dictate the field of battle, they are nearly ensuring a short term victory.
We know God wins ultimately, but why should we lose so many battles? If God is for us, who can be against us?
I prefer, where possible, to get my categories of thought from scripture. I like to start with a holistic philosophy that is theologically informed and a theology that is philosophically valid (factually true and internally consistent).
There are only two holistic philosophies that can be derived from scripture. All others entertain inconsistencies in order to present as suitable alternatives. To illustrate, at the root, you must ground your holistic view in God's foreordaining of all things or not foreordaining of all things.
Whichever starting point you choose, a consistent philosophy will develop along certain lines detailing the implications of these starting points. Many people like to include in their thinking ideas that come from both camps.
This undermines consistent reasoning. If we had all of the time in the world, I would love to sit with everyone and work through the implications of what they believe, but alas we don't have that time.
Given limited time, I say start with scripture and go to the furthest extent possible without consulting extra-biblical sources because you will be grounded with ideas that conform to a consistent worldview even if not interpreted in that manner.
In an even more dramatic way, secular philosophies or eastern religions, which do not acknowledge God, do not reason out conclusions that consistently conform to the idea of the existence of the Christian God, let alone debating over whether or not he foreordains all things.
If we have a hard enough time as Christians figuring out a rigorously consistent theology with the biblical account, how much more difficult will our task be if we fill our minds with the vain philosophies of the world?
The task of filtering and integrating is one best left to those specifically called to it. They have to be mature Christians, who will not lose their faith as they read through literature produced by fools and scoffers.
I made the decision at 18 to delay reading Greek philosophy to ground myself in the word of God. I'm not saying I've lived perfectly because of that decision. I have succumbed to worldly pressures in my twenties, but otherwise held onto my faith even in the darkest days.
I still don't think I am ready to enter a PhD program. I want to be so thoroughly grounded, that as I learn the Greek categories of thought at the highest academic levels, I can challenge them and propose alternates.
I would still be required to be conversant with accepted theological definitions of words, but they are so inadequate sometimes. As an eschatological postmillennialist, I believe the church will be around for millennia more. Let's fix our categories of thought in scriptural (more or less, Hebraic) ones instead of Greek ones.
After we have exhausted resetting the ancient landmarks, we may begin the task of filtering and integrating. This is in part a speculative tasking, but one that derives from empiricism. In the world of cause and effect, we can apply theology and see if it works.
If it doesn't work, then our theology is bad or the way in which we applied it is bad. That will teach us to improve our theology and/or how we apply it. This nets us, relevancy and efficacy, which is not something we have to strive for singularly. Instead it will be a by-product.
Knowing that secular philosophies are like bad maps from the outset should always allow us to have a healthy skepticism of every aspect they present. Do leftist ideologies really result in saving the world? Do far right ideologies preserve a holy way of life? Only Christ does these things and yet you will find Christians on both sides of the political divide saying "Yes" to one my questions.
Secular philosophies and eastern religions are even more treacherous. They tend to "feed our flesh" and seem 'so right' at times. When they do, we tend to be disarmed and accept what is being presented. Rhetoricians have been practicing these methods for thousands of years.
Do we fashion ourselves to be too clever to be beguiled? You betcha! And it is then that we are taken. Every time. Whether as an individual "Hey look guys, we were wrong this whole time..." or as a body "Miracles were their way of explaining..." (at least the part of the body that chose "science").
Some may consider me uncultured. Sour milk is cultured, well, it's on its way to be! But I believe strongly in reading the bible devotionally, primarily and critically in support of devotion. And I am a critic. I will take the word of God to task, but as a son demanding to understand his father.
That is the only safe premise, or as safe as we can be with the God of the universe! Academic theology is a waste of our resources when we are producing PhD theses on the "cutting edge" which are not internally consistent. These guys are convinced they are right because of their much studying.
Their depth exceeded their breadth. I am too broad, which is why I am trying to gain some depth by working through the MDiv (and a masters of theology? I don't know).
I know what I subscribe to and I have barely plumbed the ideas core to my theological camp. I may never get around to reading the pagan literature myself. I trust those whom I read who have done so. If God sees fit to promote me to the service of slogging through the swamp to rescue some pearls, I will do so.
But we have so much work to do with what we already know we are supposed to be doing. Why entertain fantasies? Are we so good with love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness, meekness, faithfulness, and self-control (did I get 'em all? ha!).
Once we have mastered (as a church) all virtues, let the speculative theology begin! We will be so grounded in the truth that we will never accept speculations which would turn our hearts away from God. But maybe I'm describing our life in glory.
I think we should be very careful how much time we spend advancing our knowledge while our character remains underdeveloped. Character first; knowledge second! Tree of life first; tree of the knowledge of good and evil second (if at all).
Our thought life has a very real impact on our moral life. If we cannot discern truth well, we have a good chance to be swept with every new teaching (Eph 4:14, the first part of that chapter is on 'unity in the body', which should be our premier task).
I do believe we should interact with the world, but how we interact matters. We should influence, not be influenced. This proposition is not a simple one to implement.
--
Peace and Grace,
Michael Sei Davis
St. Charles Anglican, Bremerton
Diocese of Cascadia (ACNA), Washington
