The Cynical Theologian

Solva, Pembrokeshire, Wales (photo from trekearth.com)

The Cynical Theologian

I currently have 161 completed questionnaires in my possession and thank you very much to all of you through email, mail, and in person that have filled out and returned the document. I will likely be collecting questionnaires for a couple more months and so please assist me if you can.

On Sunday after church, I was having a discussion concerning the problem of evil with my pastor and a newer Christian. My pastor stated with a smile that he and I were cynical, unlike the newer Christian. I took this as a compliment. Related to the context of our discussion, The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines a cynic as a person who has little faith in human sincerity and integrity, and cynical as one being incredulous of human sincerity or integrity. Thompson (1995: 335).

Harry A. Ide describes cynics as a classical Greek philosophical school, which featured asceticism and the need for virtue in order to obtain happiness. Also emphasized were the importance of bold speech, and action without any shame. Ide (1996: 174). Ide writes that Socrates was a major influences on cynics. Ide (1996: 174). Simon Blackburn explains that the term cynics comes from the Greek kynikos meaning dog like. Blackburn (1996: 91). Blackburn speculates that the related term dog philosophers comes from Diogenes of Sinope a prominent member and founder. In the ancient world dogs were symbols of lack of shame. Blackburn (1996: 91). For those within the school, the good life consisted of avoiding shame and having mastery over desires and needs. Happiness demanded that a person lacked nothing. Blackburn (1996: 91).

For the purposes of this article, I am not claiming in any way to be associated with classical Greek cynics, but I provide that information for historical background. Back in 1999 to 2001 when I lived in Manchester, England, I split my time between a non-denominational charismatic church where many of my friends attended, and an Anglican church where another friend attended. Both churches, in my view, were Biblically based, gospel orientated churches where Christian love was shown. One night on a Sunday evening service a pastor on stage at the charismatic church looked over at me, perhaps unintentionally and perhaps not, and stated that we should not be cynical as Christians, and I believe the pastor was commenting in regard to God and the miraculous. I had previously discussed this issue with another pastor on staff. I was not and am not a cessationist. I do not reject the idea of God issuing the gifts of the Holy Spirit today. Erickson (1994: 878). My issue is that at a certain point in a service, the pastor assumes that the congregation shall likely hear from the Lord and miraculously someone has a prophetic word. Am I being cynical because I do not think that the sovereign God, in a fallen creation, in light of the problem of evil, will always perform a miraculous sign when a congregation thinks it is time? I do not doubt the sincerity of many persons involved in the charismatic church, and I do not doubt the integrity and consistency of belief of many persons involved. Perhaps in the case of my former church, I am actually sceptical of their claims as opposed to cynical concerning them. The Oxford Dictionary defines sceptical as one inclined to question the truth or soundness of accepted ideas, and facts. Thompson (1995: 1234). This definition appears to fit my approach better.

I firmly believe that only the infinite God can completely and properly judge finite persons, however, in regard to certain televangelists and some others within the cultural Christian community, my opinion of them and their works may move beyond scepticism and into cynicism. Those within the Church who are basically theologically astute will be aware that many persons distort the faith and do not follow the Bible correctly at many points and do not have a proper Biblical theology at many points. I am not stating that any person or organization has perfect theology, but excellent theology by God’s guidance through his Holy Spirit and his Scripture should be the goal. Jesus Christ warned in Matthew 24:24 that many false Christ’s and false prophets would arise. Has this not happened? Is it not happening this very moment? The Apostle Paul spoke against false teaching in Galatians 1:6-9 and mentioned the concept of contrary gospel. The Apostle John in 1 John 2:2:19 mentions persons that were in the church but not really of the church. John goes on to state in verses 22-23 that those who deny that Jesus is the Christ at the same time deny the Father.

There is room to be sceptical of those within religion and cultural Christianity, and error can take place in both legitimate and non-legitimate Christian churches. There is also room within the fallen creation, plagued with the problem of evil, when faced with non-Biblical teaching to at least cautiously question the sincerity and integrity of some, but as Christians we must always be open minded and realize that only God can fully and properly judge religious leaders and movements in regard to motives. I am therefore not primarily a cynical theologian, but cannot deny that a cautious cynical approach is correct at times.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Cynics’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 91. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

IDE, HARRY A. (1996) ‘Cynics’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) ‘Cynic’ and ‘Cynical’, Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) ‘Sceptical’, Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Two types of knowledge

Solva, Pembrokeshire, Wales (photo from trekearth.com)

Two types of knowledge

Concerning my research on the problem of evil, within formal philosophy comes two important terms related to how human beings obtain knowledge. For those not well educated in theology or philosophy, please do not be intimidated by the terms if they are new to you. Remembering the actual terms in my view is not as important as understanding to some degree, the concepts that may arise in discussions concerning the problem of evil. The terms are a priori and a posteriori. I shall review these terms and related concepts in an obviously non-exhaustive manner.

Louis P. Pojman explains that the term a priori comes from the Latin “preceding” and is knowledge that is not based on sense experience but is innate or known to human beings by the meanings of words and definitions. Pojman (1996: 595). Arthur Pap defines a priori knowledge as being independent of experience. Pap (1973: 666). Since this knowledge leads to truth independent of experience, once a concept is understood it will be seen as necessarily true logically, meaning that it will not be refuted at any time empirically (through the use of the senses). Pap (1973: 667). Simon Blackburn notes that a proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known without experience of a certain set of events in the actual world. Blackburn allows for some experience to be obtained in order for a priori knowledge to occur. Blackburn (1996: 21). He explains that this type of knowledge is very controversial and it is not clear how pure thought without the use of experience can lead to any true knowledge at all. Blackburn (1996: 21). Some empiricists have attempted to deny that any real knowledge can be obtained from a priori means. Blackburn (1996: 21). Laurence BonJour notes that many empiricists would hold that all actual philosophical concepts are derived and known through experience. BonJour (1996: 30). Blackburn points out that Immanuel Kant dealt with this issue as it was supposed that a priori concepts cannot be understood from experience alone but come from presuppositions in a mode of thought about reality. Blackburn (1996: 22). 

In the Critique of Pure Reason of 1781 and revised in 1787, Kant explains that the forms of appearance from which sensations can be understood are not themselves the empirical sensations. Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66). BonJour states that a priori knowledge is independent of empirical experience, meaning that something can be accepted as knowledge if it does not depend upon sensory experience. BonJour (1996: 29). Very importantly in my view, BonJour explains that a deductively valid argument can use a priori reasoning, even if the correctness of the argument is challenged. BonJour (1996: 30). This would be very important for non-empirical reasoning in the areas of theology and philosophy in regard to the problem of evil and other topics, but even in other disciplines such as scientific theory where logical and reasonable deductions are at times made without empirical evidence. In other words, it is possible to deduce with logic, reason, and argumentation, truth, even without empirical evidence. BonJour mentions that rationalists that state God exists are using a priori reasoning. I do not deny that human beings have presuppositions in the areas of knowledge, but I reason that experience and God given nature influences those concepts. It seems doubtful to me that human beings can have philosophical presuppositions without some innate understanding and experience to make sense of reality in order to presuppose. It is also Biblical and reasonable to deduce that God creates human beings with certain innate understanding of reality that will be assisted by experience. Romans 1:19 explains that God made human beings with a natural understanding of his existence. Perhaps this would be a priori knowledge and would not exist entirely on human presuppositions. The existence of natural knowledge of God does not necessarily mean that human beings worship or obey God.

Pojman writes that a posteriori comes the Latin “the later” and is knowledge that is obtained from human sense experience only, as in the five senses. Pojman (1996: 595). Blackburn reasons that something can be known a posteriori when it cannot be known a priori. Blackburn (1996: 21-22). From a Christian perspective, God through Jesus Christ has revealed himself to finite humanity in an effective, limited, empirical fashion, and this would be considered a posteriori knowledge of God, although God as pure spirit remains beyond the physical senses.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘A priori/A posteriori’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 21-22. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), ‘A priori knowledge: Introduction’, A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Questionnaire feedback four

San Diego at night (photo from Ron Niebrugge)

1. Pastor Mark Slomka from Faith Community Church in San Diego, California has been nice enough to post an article where there is a link to download my questionnaire and a link to this blog. He also provided an email address where I can be reached.

http://www.pastormarkonline.com/

Thank you very much Mark, this is very helpful and much appreciated. Mark's method is a good way to give persons the option of downloading my questionnaire from a blog. I have not looked into providing this option with either one of my blogs as I have included email interaction in the process. However, if someone returns the questionnaire through Mark's site I am willing to discuss the questionnaire and my PhD work as well. Basically, most of my completed questionnaires have been gathered through email, with some through this blog, and others have been handed out at local Christian churches.

2. My advisor in Wales has not provided me with a firm number of completed questionnaires required, but the 148 I have finished as of this morning is not enough. I am aiming to have at least 200 finished questionnaires within my possession. The amount of questionnaires I need completed and the content of the questionnaire is a joint effort. My previous advisor and my present one assisted me with putting the questionnaire together and the questions are related to my theodicy work with free will, sovereignty, and soul-making views dealing with the problem of evil. I did not review an actual feminism theodicy, but reviewed some feminist material dealing with the problem of evil and therefore included some related questions. The questionnaire is not only a product of my conservative Reformed theology, but also contains requirements from Wales, Lampeter, and a secular University. Therefore the questions are representative of the theodicy approaches I reviewed and cultural Christianity from a broad perspective, and not just my own.

3. Issuing and collecting questionnaires is a lot of work, but since I am presently done my theoretical writing I am not writing academic chapters at this time. Once my data is completed obviously I will need to complete related chapters. I will attempt at times to write some academic articles on this blog, but I have limited time and energy, especially since that even with my two surgeries in 2006, I still have 30% sleep apnea!

Thanks for reading.

Russ:)


A problem of evil...

Questionnaire feedback three

Hawaii (photo from trekearth.com)

As of today I have received 141 completed questionnaires. My advisor at Wales would like several more finished and so I must continue to look for more assistance. Some points:

1. Although I enjoy meeting and emailing with new people, I do not particularly like requesting through this blog, email, phone, or in person help with my questionnaires from people that attend Christian churches. I am moderately introverted and I do not enjoy taking the risk of bothering or annoying someone, but I must add an empirical aspect to my PhD for the sake of originality. I therefore will ask persons for assistance with the questionnaires. The questionnaires are not an add-on to my dissertation but an essential aspect of the work.

2. I therefore am looking not only for individual Christians to assist me with my work but also congregations and college/University classes. If someone can assist me in sampling a congregation or class, please contact me.

3. I have received a fair amount of positive feedback from questionnaire respondents. There are limitations with empirical theology as there is a lack of context for questions and questions can somewhat be interpreted in a variety of ways, but those issues have been discussed in the articles Questionnaire feedback and Questionnaire feedback two. Please scroll down to view, or look in archives. Within the questionnaire I am required to use closed questions that are provided with a set of fixed alternatives from which to choose. Bryman (2004: 145). Open questions in contrast would allow persons to respond in any way they choose. Bryman (2004: 145).

4. I have been asked how I found a particular website or email address which I sent the questionnaire to. I do a general search for a particular denomination in a certain area and if a church is listed I see if I can find a senior minister’s email address. I am doing nothing wrong by sending a respectful email, anymore than someone is wrong by sending me a respectful email through this blog, or by leaving a respectful comment.

5. I have been asked that since my blog biography lists me as attending a Baptist seminary and being a member of a Presbyterian church, why I am contacting persons of other denominations. I am a conservative Christian that attends a secular University. I am not allowed to attempt to stack my questionnaire sample with persons that would agree with my theological views, and rightly so. I therefore within a Christian tradition, besides contacting churches that appear to be conservative, contact churches that appear to be liberal and that may have doctrinal views that I do not necessarily agree with. This approach is academic as I am providing the opportunity for those within Christian traditions that will perhaps not agree with certain theological concepts in my PhD and on my blogs, to provide me with data within the questionnaire. It should not be necessarily viewed as suspicious when I, as a conservative theologian, ask what may appear to be a liberal minister and his/her congregation for feedback, especially when I attend a secular University. This is an opportunity for many within conservative and liberal Christian churches to evaluate and examine theological thought and bias.

6. A comment I have received is that I seem to be comparing conservative and liberal theology. That is an aspect of my questionnaire and dissertation, but primarily I am comparing free will, sovereignty, and soul-making theodicy approaches. In other words, differing perspectives on the problem of evil. Within the study, differences between conservative and liberal theology will arise and be discussed but I have found so far that these three theodicy approaches cannot always be easily divided along conservative and liberal lines. For example, Augustine and Plantinga have primarily conservative free will concepts that are somewhat in contrast to Hick's liberal soul-making view. However, Hick does subscribe to an aspect of free will theodicy in that he states it was not logically possible for God to create human beings so that they would freely respond to him in love and faith. Hick (1970: 308). Hick postulates that God without contradiction could create human beings that would always freely act justly to each other, but the same cannot be guaranteed for a free and sincere human love for God. Hick (1970: 311). I reason that God could make human beings, or a type of human beings that would always freely and with love respond to God and other persons without committing wrong acts, but God seemingly made persons that would fall and planned to save some through his gospel. God willed the fall in a sense but did not coerce or force his creatures to fall. My questionnaire results will not necessarily show that on every key issue discussed the primary theological divide is between conservative and liberal.

Cheers!

Russ

BRYMAN, ALAN (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

We are not that familiar with soccer in Canada. Is that a regulation pitch?