In the Beginning

A few years ago, when I first tried writing a theology blog, I'd had few conversations outside seminary, and I had difficulty imagining an audience for the blog. It didn't get beyond a couple of posts. As of today, I've had many theological conversations in Unitarian Universalist congregations, and several years of exploring Unitarian Universalist Christianity. I think I have some idea of a likely audience. There will be other liberal Christians trying to make sense of traditional affirmations in a modern (post-modern?) world; there will be atheists trying to understand how this Unitarian Universalist can call himself Christian; and there will be seekers, not quite sure what they believe, but looking for something. On a more contrary note, there may be atheists concerned that religion (as they understand it) is encroaching on a secular (as they understand it) world view; and more traditional theists concerned that secular (as they understand it) ideas are encroaching on their religious (as they understand it) values.

Welcome, one and all! I encourage comments (which are moderated, by the way), so long as they are civil, and aimed at fostering understanding. Hey! You may even change my thinking. Another line of comments I would appreciate are those pointing toward writers, who have already explored points I raise in the blog. There is always more reading to do, and, even if I've read them I may not remember how they influenced me.

Why, More Than Theology? In part, because "More" refers to something deeper than we see at first glance of the world. William James, I think it was, used the term to describe the sacred. This describes well how I think of the religious: there is more to life than death; more to ethics than enlightened self-interest; more to our inner purposes than survival. As I investigate that "more", it seems to me beyond any finite formulation, which at least gives it some sense of transcendence.

Also, More Than Theology, because our words of faith are more than theological discourse. St Anselm of Canterbury famously described - although in Latin - theology as "faith seeking understanding". Theology is the more or less systematic description of what we believe. For example, in Christian language, to say that Christ is our Lord and Savior is a devotional declaration. To explain what we mean by the terms "Christ", "Lord"' "Savior" is theology, which may be dogmatic (i.e. believe it this way and you're in), or apologetic (i.e. when I/we use the phrase, this is what I/we mean). There may not be an entirely clean break between devotional language and theological language, since historically theological language has turned into devotional language (just look at the early creeds).

Programatically, I am interested in how devotional language may be understood in philosophical and everyday terms; also in how devotional language inspires action or gives solace in ways everyday and philosophical language do not. I am interested in what keeps people out of churches; and what might bring them in. And I am interested in diffusing the barriers to conversation across faiths and with those who say they have no faith.

My theological temperament - at present - requires understanding theologies in terms that are experiential, skeptical, pragmatic and pluralistic.
     Pluralistic: while it is obvious that some worldviews are clearly wrong, it is not obvious that only a single description of religious ends is correct. I use the analogy that a religion is like a language. there are many languages, and nobody would say that English is right and everyone else is wrong; it is possible that some concepts are better explored in some languages, and that might be true of religions as well. This is primarily why I am a Unitarian Universalist.
     Pragmatic: I mean this in the philosophical sense, that what is important to me is the usefulness of theological description in shaping behavior, rather than in describing the universe "as it is". This is the influence of William James. But I also understand the appeal of philosophical realism, so I'm not abandoning it entirely!
     Skeptical: skepticism is most commonly exercised today against faith, but I am thinking more generally than that. In the seventeenth century, skepticism was also directed at science and human ways of understanding as a bolster to faith. My skepticism originally came from a scientific perspective. But now for me, the two kinds of skepticism go together; whatever is transmitted to us as faith (and science) has been transmitted by other people who are fallible. I want to see evidence of and for faith (and science), and be aware of its limitations.
     Experiential: theology must make sense of our experience. It cannot simply touch us in some spiritual realm that is only tenously linked to reality. I am influenced by the writings of Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr on account of this kind of grounding, also the Unitarian Universalist James Luther Adams.

As for recent authors, I could cite as influences are Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, NT Wright, and Mark Heim. There are certainly others, and they will become apparent as I write more.

So, there you have it! As Luther declared: "I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen."
(Although, I would add, I reserve the right to change my opinion!)