illusion or objectivity
I have been looking forward to working on the final project for my writing class all semester. We were assigned all kinds of simple writing assignments including a summary, an analysis, and an persuasive argument... and all of this has been building up to a research paper. It may seem a little strange to be looking forward working on a research paper, but in this instance it was true, because we were given the freedom to choose our own topic.
Just this week I submitted my proposal, and it shouldn't be a surprise that I chose a theological topic. After all, I have been writing history papers all semester and I felt the need to dust of some of my theology books. I suggested an exploration of the implications intrinsic within the Christian belief that "God is love" in light of the resurgence of Christological debate in the 20th century.
This three word biblical quotation from 1 John 4:8 may seem to be simple enough but it has vastly different meaning depending upon who God is understood to be. The "classical" view of God is one who is wholly other, completely sovereign, a God who loves strictly as an expression of his character - a love that is in no way a 'response' to the created. From this perspective God has been described as the "Un-moved Mover". In his book The Crucified God, published in the late 20th century, Jurgen Moltmann argued that having a conception of a 'loving' God understood in terms of classical theism is increasingly difficult in a "post-Auschwitz" world. How could a God who is unaffected by suffering be called loving? He argues that not only did Christ suffer as a man, but also as God.
In response to this issue Moltmann goes on to say, "There is no suffering which in this history of God is not God's suffering; no death which has not been God's death in the history on Golgotha." (pg 246).
We hear this kind of theology from the pulpit all the time today, but only a few hundred years ago this kind of a notion would have been considered unthinkable heresy. Thomas Weinandy addresses this issue from the other side in his book Does God Suffer? I won't go into the details of his argument at this time, but essentially he suggests that any understanding of the incarnation in which God suffers in any form but as a man mitigates the reality of the divine to a lesser form. In other words if God is "moved" in any way by the created, the divinity of God is threatened.
Now I must come back to the beginning of this post and explain why I am now speaking of this research topic in the past tense. My writing professor and I had, shall we say, philosophical differences regarding the legitimacy of the thesis I proposed. It was my desire to explore the following questions, "Is there room within this mystery for an understanding of a God who is both sovereign while at the same time capable of opening himself to the suffering world? Could this provide a fuller understanding of the statement 'God is love'?" My professor argues that this thesis falls too much into the realm of "faith" and not in the realm of arguable "fact", which is necessary for a scholarly research paper. Now I must say that I have nothing but respect for my writing prof and I have gotten a lot out of her class, but in this one respect I couldn't disagree with her more.
I must give her kudos for suggesting a modified paper topic that would allow me to compare the implications of Moltmann's and Weinandy's Christology, however she held to the position that in order for me to create research paper that is both scholarly and "removed" I could not suggest a synthesis of their theological positions. In my opinion line of thinking removes any legitimacy from a study of this kind altogether. For theology to be scholarly must it be dissected in the laboratory? For research on a topic such as this must the author be so far removed from his or her personal beliefs that no bridge remains between the subject and the real world?
Once again I must say that I truly respect my writing prof, and trust me, everything I have included in this post has been the subject of our discussion. However, in the end I felt as though I could not publish a paper on this subject with the kind of restrictions that I would have been forced to follow. (So fancy this, I am writing another history paper.)
Ultimately, I would suggest that the objectivity required for this project is nothing more than an illusion. Which writer can completely remove his or her own personal beliefs completely from their writing? How is an argument in a history or philosophy paper any different from a theology paper? Are they not all - at least on some level - a product of a faith based world view?
Just this week I submitted my proposal, and it shouldn't be a surprise that I chose a theological topic. After all, I have been writing history papers all semester and I felt the need to dust of some of my theology books. I suggested an exploration of the implications intrinsic within the Christian belief that "God is love" in light of the resurgence of Christological debate in the 20th century.
This three word biblical quotation from 1 John 4:8 may seem to be simple enough but it has vastly different meaning depending upon who God is understood to be. The "classical" view of God is one who is wholly other, completely sovereign, a God who loves strictly as an expression of his character - a love that is in no way a 'response' to the created. From this perspective God has been described as the "Un-moved Mover". In his book The Crucified God, published in the late 20th century, Jurgen Moltmann argued that having a conception of a 'loving' God understood in terms of classical theism is increasingly difficult in a "post-Auschwitz" world. How could a God who is unaffected by suffering be called loving? He argues that not only did Christ suffer as a man, but also as God.
In response to this issue Moltmann goes on to say, "There is no suffering which in this history of God is not God's suffering; no death which has not been God's death in the history on Golgotha." (pg 246).
We hear this kind of theology from the pulpit all the time today, but only a few hundred years ago this kind of a notion would have been considered unthinkable heresy. Thomas Weinandy addresses this issue from the other side in his book Does God Suffer? I won't go into the details of his argument at this time, but essentially he suggests that any understanding of the incarnation in which God suffers in any form but as a man mitigates the reality of the divine to a lesser form. In other words if God is "moved" in any way by the created, the divinity of God is threatened.
Now I must come back to the beginning of this post and explain why I am now speaking of this research topic in the past tense. My writing professor and I had, shall we say, philosophical differences regarding the legitimacy of the thesis I proposed. It was my desire to explore the following questions, "Is there room within this mystery for an understanding of a God who is both sovereign while at the same time capable of opening himself to the suffering world? Could this provide a fuller understanding of the statement 'God is love'?" My professor argues that this thesis falls too much into the realm of "faith" and not in the realm of arguable "fact", which is necessary for a scholarly research paper. Now I must say that I have nothing but respect for my writing prof and I have gotten a lot out of her class, but in this one respect I couldn't disagree with her more.
I must give her kudos for suggesting a modified paper topic that would allow me to compare the implications of Moltmann's and Weinandy's Christology, however she held to the position that in order for me to create research paper that is both scholarly and "removed" I could not suggest a synthesis of their theological positions. In my opinion line of thinking removes any legitimacy from a study of this kind altogether. For theology to be scholarly must it be dissected in the laboratory? For research on a topic such as this must the author be so far removed from his or her personal beliefs that no bridge remains between the subject and the real world?
Once again I must say that I truly respect my writing prof, and trust me, everything I have included in this post has been the subject of our discussion. However, in the end I felt as though I could not publish a paper on this subject with the kind of restrictions that I would have been forced to follow. (So fancy this, I am writing another history paper.)
Ultimately, I would suggest that the objectivity required for this project is nothing more than an illusion. Which writer can completely remove his or her own personal beliefs completely from their writing? How is an argument in a history or philosophy paper any different from a theology paper? Are they not all - at least on some level - a product of a faith based world view?
posted by Jason at 5:25 p.m.
3 Comments:
"For research on a topic such as this must the author be so far removed from his or her personal beliefs that no bridge remains between the subject and the real world?"
Being a religion major at Concordia I have written a few papers in the last two years. It is difficult to write a scholarly paper on a Topic that steps outside the realm of "provable" science.
Writing straight history does not give ones reader, some profs know what they are talking about, and some I would question where they come from.
It would be a task to step OUT of your religious brain/faith and write a paper that takes YOU on a journey of exploration. but maybe that's what she is asking of you.
I've learned enough at this point that my romantic/hagiographic view of God has changed. Maybe you can approach this topic from a different angle and find an answer that meets both your requirements.
I'd like to read whatever you write.
Peace,
Jeremy
Religion Major
Concordia University
Montreal
Jeremy,
You address a good point. I must confess that much of my education falls under the so called "confessional" tradition. A background that has not provided me as much of an opportunity to delve deeply into issues that are ouside the realm of my personal belief system, but that is certainly not to say that by beliefs have not changed or grown.
Ultimately, my arguement would be that the scientific method is in a system of beliefs and assumptions, which are recongized and understood by the author and the readers. I believe that writing that delves into areas, let's say "outside the realm of 'provable' science", can be just as scholarly as long as the assuptions of the author are explicitly expressed and understood. When this is the case the strength of the arguement is not based upon its "truth", but rather upon how well it defends its proposition based upon teh assumptions that have been expressed and upon other material that has been written in the same field of study.
I have decided to write my paper on another topic for this class, but if you are interested, when the semester is done, I will flush out my thoughts on the topic I suggested and post it on my blog when the semester is done.
Peace
Jason
Writing papers are funny birds. Why would a paper "not" be scholarly even if science cannot prove the existence or a point.
Sometimes a prof needs to step "outside the box" and maybe you both might learn something about the topic. Religion is such a "RICH" field of study and there are no rules, unless your prof governs by rules.
Expanding YOUR horizons is why we are in school, I mean that's my take on my education. To challenge everything I know and coming to
know about God in his/her many forms.
Good religious "scholarly" papers do not ALways have to follow the code of science and "provable" equations.
Where would religion be, without the man or woman who once asked...
"But what If...?"
I have learned in these past couple of years to take the braces off my own brains and explore areas that are outside my perview of religious knowledge and tradition, and you know what I grew and continue to grow in that space quite well I might add.
Good luck and please keep in touch.
I found you by way of Jayson... I find it important to touch base with other men of religion. One cannot have too much God in ones life.
Peace,
Jeremy
Post a Comment
<< Home