Theology Matters
In philosophy there are roughly two schools of thought when it comes to the relationship between ideas and reality. (This, by the way, is a HUGE oversimplification that would gall my philosophy professors, but they're not likely to be reading this, so I'm going to push forward anyway!).
One school (we'll call them THE IDEALISTS) says, "ideas shape reality." Just as a flower is the unpacking of the potential found in its seed, so reality (at least the humanly constructed parts of it, like government, art and family life, etc.) is the unfurling of the potential present in an idea. A straightforward example of this is the U.S. system of government. The Constitution is the "idea;" the Presidency, the Congress and the Supreme Court are the reality the idea gives rise to.
The other school, (we'll call them THE REALISTS), sees things the other way: reality shapes ideas. Ideas describe the "reality on the ground," but are more the product of real-time forces than the driving force. For example: a Realist might say the idea that the"nuclear family" is the basic unit of society didn't actually create that kind of family. No one said, "I have an idea a family ought to consist of a Dad, Mom and 2.2 children," and then went out and starting building families like that. Economic forces which took families off the farm and into the city (far away from extended family) are largely responsible for the nuclear family. The "idea" of the nuclear family describes the way things are.
Obviously, the truth lies somewhere between these two schools. But as a crude "measuring stick," I think these two perspectives can help us take a look at the different ways Borg and Wright envision the Church. Again, this is an oversimplification (which this time would rankle my theology professors), but I'd characterize both of these authors as "Idealists." In fact, during the last several weeks, those of us who've been reading their book have mainly been getting our minds around their ideas or theology.
In these last two chapters, Borg and Wright offer us a look at the "flower" their ideas might produce, i.e., what kind of Church their ideas give rise to.
My two questions (to which I'd love your comments!) are:
One school (we'll call them THE IDEALISTS) says, "ideas shape reality." Just as a flower is the unpacking of the potential found in its seed, so reality (at least the humanly constructed parts of it, like government, art and family life, etc.) is the unfurling of the potential present in an idea. A straightforward example of this is the U.S. system of government. The Constitution is the "idea;" the Presidency, the Congress and the Supreme Court are the reality the idea gives rise to.
The other school, (we'll call them THE REALISTS), sees things the other way: reality shapes ideas. Ideas describe the "reality on the ground," but are more the product of real-time forces than the driving force. For example: a Realist might say the idea that the"nuclear family" is the basic unit of society didn't actually create that kind of family. No one said, "I have an idea a family ought to consist of a Dad, Mom and 2.2 children," and then went out and starting building families like that. Economic forces which took families off the farm and into the city (far away from extended family) are largely responsible for the nuclear family. The "idea" of the nuclear family describes the way things are.
Obviously, the truth lies somewhere between these two schools. But as a crude "measuring stick," I think these two perspectives can help us take a look at the different ways Borg and Wright envision the Church. Again, this is an oversimplification (which this time would rankle my theology professors), but I'd characterize both of these authors as "Idealists." In fact, during the last several weeks, those of us who've been reading their book have mainly been getting our minds around their ideas or theology.
In these last two chapters, Borg and Wright offer us a look at the "flower" their ideas might produce, i.e., what kind of Church their ideas give rise to.
My two questions (to which I'd love your comments!) are:
- what main ideas about Jesus are behind each man's vision of the Church and the Christian life?
- how "reality-based" are their respective visions? Every seen a church like they describe? Would you like to?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home