Clarity or Vagueness? Issues in Theological Discourse
Imagine for a second that you are somebody who believes in the existence of “something” beyond the physical cosmos. You are not sure how to talk about this “something” but you are confident enough that it is there. Would it be better for you to clarify what you mean by this “something,” or would it be better to leave your belief ambiguous? Could you accept the experiential, existential, and emotive source of this belief without paying attention to the drive for a reasonable explanation? Many people can live with mystery, paradox, and vagueness, but others, including myself, have an irresistible desire for clarity. So which do you prefer: vagueness or clarity?
Regarding religious belief, it seems that many people like to clarify their beliefs about God. This is why, throughout history, there have been calls from religious groups to clarify what they believe. Innumerable councils and synods have taken place for this very reason. Statements of faith, confessions, creeds, and systematic theologies are produced for this reason. Authority and orthodoxy are birthed for this reason. Just think of the titles of these works: The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God (Huldrych Zwingli), The Clarity of God’s Existence: The Ethics of Belief After the Enlightenment (Owen Anderson), and For Faith and Clarity: Philosophical Contributions to Christian Theology (ed. James K. Beilby). But does clarifying your beliefs about God create more problems than answers? In many ways it does.
Firstly, there is the problem of simplification. When somebody clarifies their religious beliefs it often leads to overly simplistic statements. Saying, “I believe God is good,” while attempting to be a clarification, actually muddies up the waters. What do you mean by good? How can you apply a finite idea of good to a supposedly infinite being? I am not advocating the criminalization of religious expression, I am merely addressing the problem of simplification. It should also be noted that simplification is not always a bad thing, but it can often be used to stifle freethinking and courageous investigation. In my mind, there are far too many theological quips and Hallmark quotes that originate in a desire for clarity.
Secondly, there is the problem of settling. Say I have now clarified my belief in the “something” by stating that this something is a personal agent. I have decided this, and I have settled on it. I no longer need to go any further because I have the content of my belief brought to light and wrapped in a neat bow. What then becomes of further investigation and possible reformulation? How often do people settle too quickly and consider their beliefs an “open and shut case?” To me, quickly cementing my conclusions and considering them “eternally settled” is giving up on the joyous and frightening adventure of belief-formation. We have to remember that not everything etched in stone is praiseworthy, and that fallibilism regarding religious beliefs is a virtue, not a vice.
Thirdly, there is the problem of evil. If one is going to clarify their religious beliefs they also have to clarify how those beliefs handle the issue of evil. As my beginning quote from A.N. Whitehead declared, “All simplifications of religious dogma are shipwrecked upon the problem of evil.” Although I consider religious dogma to already be a simplification, I nonetheless can divine Whitehead’s meaning. If we do not have a certain nuance, subtlety, and sophistication, our religious dogmas leave us “shipwrecked upon the problem of evil.” For Whitehead, the notion of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity is an oversimplification and cannot escape the problem of evil. I happen to agree with him on this point. The worry that I have is that while many are happy to express their idea of God, and act as if they are being clear, they simultaneously avoid being clear about the problem of evil and suffering. If we are going to be clear, let’s be clear about all of it.
There have been many responses to the type of theology that insists upon clarification. Apophatic theology, for instance, considers positive statements about God to be unsuitable for such a transcendent and “Other” kind of deity. In this scenario, God is the dues absconditus, the “hidden” God who cannot, like the eternal Dao, be named. This makes for highly vague metaphors about God being “empty” and like a surd. If taken to its logical conclusion, the via negativa would leave one saying absolutely nothing about God. Even chanting “Om” is saying too much. There have also been many “continental philosophers of religion” who are fine with vagueness about God. Jean-Luc Marion, John D. Caputo, and Richard Kearney are good examples of this. They consider the analytic “problem solving” manner unfit for theological discourse. Vagueness about God is just as virtuous, if not more, than clarity.
An interesting mix between vagueness and clarity can be found in process theology. For process theology God can be described in clear metaphysical language, but can also be talked about with vague terminology. This is why there is plenty of common ground between process theology and eastern traditions like Buddhism and Hinduism. The emphasis on interconnectedness, relationality, personal experience, and non-coercive power makes process theology much more fluid and malleable when in discussion with eastern traditions. As Robert C. Mesle says, “Couldn’t we be enriched by learning from the Buddha about the proper place of theology in human life?” Yet, the interesting point here is that process theology often strives for clarity with its metaphysical language and usage of terms like “occasion,” “actual,” “entity,” and “energy-events.” The intriguing fact is that although process theology often utilizes precise language, it also avoids dogmatism, fundamentalism, and rigid certitude. For Whitehead, metaphysical clarity does not entail religious dogmatism.
With these different approaches to theology in mind, it becomes more and more important to find the most beneficial way to do theological discourse and bring about engagement with religious and social pluralism. Can theologians be clear without being overly simplistic, settling on beliefs as “eternal truths,” and avoiding the problem of evil? Are there more merits in theological vagueness and obscurity than in clarity? I cannot provide easy answers to these questions, but I can point out what I consider to be a beneficial trajectory. I am of the opinion that both clarity and vagueness have their respective failures; clarity can lead one to oversimplification, settlement, and avoidance of any idea that suggests the limitations of reason, while vagueness can be a cloak for ignorance and confusion.
Both have their merits as well: clarity helps to facilitate understanding and get to the bottom of what somebody “means” when they say such and such, while vagueness reminds us of the limits of language and reason and the need to think of the world in more existentially robust terms. The goal, I think, is to find a practical balance between these two modes of expression. John Dewey said it best, “Faith in the power of intelligence to imagine a future which is the projection of the desirable in the present, and to invent the instrumentalities of its realization, is our salvation.”
Kile Jones is a contributing scholar for State of Formation.
Comment
-
Comment by Spencer Perdriau on December 24, 2011 at 7:08am
-
.
*
"The one who really knows, knows without books. The so-called learned know nothing."
-- The Tao
*
.
-
-
.
PS: "Defining" and "understanding" (The Divine) are two completely different things. The former is personal claim/attachment, and in many cases, limited personalised beliefs (about That). The latter is "giving-up" and surrender (to That). I do not see the growth into "understanding" (or realization) of God as a negative restriction of further definition(s) about It, continuing afterwards. No. Rather, I see that in the understanding of God, we are/become freely liberated and corrected from our "own" limiting personal "stuff" about It, into It far greater and impersonally as It is, for all of us - most very equally and essentially. Understanding God is very much a positive thing. One good benchmark that we have come into some "accurate" and "clear" understanding about God, is that Its awe profound Presence upon us (when we do achieve mystic union with It) leaves us completely lost for all words, and in total awe, beyond all grasping/questioning of anything that the personal mind can come up about It. Very truly, the mind is completely stilled in amazement (humility and respect) by that Greater Mystery (Government) upon us in union with The Lord. True realization of God is not "vague" or restricted to further personal definitions. No. Realizing God is totally undeniable when It comes upon us, for it is beyond anything we could ever finitely "think" up relatively our self. It is not "our stuff", but rather, how It actually is. This experience of God cannot be taught (or truly expressed) to another, but only experienced directly for one's self - or rather, Self. That is the divine beauty about mystical union with God and His All - It is always there/here to be experienced by all of us, for exactly as "He" Is.
"We are all in 'It' together."
Merry Christmas & Mystic Blessings from Spence = ^
.
-
-
.
Quite the contrary, MT...
*
Belief & The Actuality of God
.
What we humans believe God to be and what God actually Is is probably the most important sacred relationship for our spiritual/mystic growth into full-complete realization & Unity with The Lord.
.
© Copyright 2011, Spencer Perdriau
unauthorized reproduction prohibited
.
-
Comment by Mystic Tourist on December 20, 2011 at 9:18am -
I personally am a fan of vaguity when defining God as God can not be defined but rather defines God's self. There is nothing vague about God's self expression. It is our determination to own God through knowledge that corrupts God's own expression making it, our, or my expression, about what might be God but what is in fact quite separate from God. Genesis alludes to this, as well as the problem of evil, in the story of the Tree of Knowledge. While the fruit of this tree is said to be knowledge of good and evil I have an interpretation that make more sense to me. The fruit of this tree is right and wrong, the knowledge of it. Right is the lie, or the sin, of ownership. To own something by knowledge, or more definitively, through the sophistication of intellect the result of which is to imagine that we are right. It is this inflexibility that creates wrong and evil is born. The truth is things are as they are and knowledge is more an act of acquaintance that anything else. There is no need to be right, it is useless except for the creation of wrong. The tension created by right and wrong corrupts our creative authority and we make a mess of things. After all it is said that we are created in God's image and likeness and that we even have the power to name things.
-
-
PPS: It takes great spiritual mastery to properly explain profound divine principles "simply", clearly and accurately for all to understand, appreciate, learn and develop from. This is certainly not a result of vagueness or over simplification due to lack of unknowing (ignorance), but stating things as clearly and understandable as possible from what we directly (and impersonally) experience about such, whether finite (earthly) or infinite (mystical). And in some, if not most cases, particularly with the spiritual, the shorter the better, when required for the intitial impetus/inspiration for further and greater exploration and discovery/realization/understanding about such.
Mystic Blessings from Spence = ^
-
-
PS: Good (like Love) is an infinite (eternal) principle of The Divine, and everything falls away from that Eternal/Absolute Principle into fragmented dualism (relativity) of various corruptibility (bad/prejudice etc). Do not think it is some "vague" dogmatic religioso belief when the prophets tell us that God is all Good, Wise, Compassionate, Knowing, Loving & Forgiving. That is the very nature of the ever-present boundlessness of The Divine Absolute Self - God. Having said that, I do not agree with you that good is just a finite principle of relative existence. No. Good is an always absolute principle of God, and everything just falls away from That Absolute Good. To use a simple and "accurate" analogy: In pure space, there is the equality of "free" zero gravity (Good), the equal/same state for all as an absolute. Only when mass takes place does gravity become denser, heaver and restricted, such in planet orientation, becoming heavier and heavier, falling away from the original free and equal absolute state which holds, encompasses and sustains all.
Here is one of my own definitions of God and Good for further clarification and understanding...
.
*
The Nature Of The Absolute
The Nature Of The Absolute Is Good.
Being Good, all things and created reality are in essence good.
Evil is nothing more than good distorted, gone wrong and
perverted from its true state of being, that is always Good.
This occurs as a result of ignorance, not knowing that our
true nature is Good. The only way to correct evil is by consciously
realizing our essential state, and adjust our errors back to That.
The Good.
.
© Copyright 1997-2011, Spencer Perdriau
.
Spencer Perdriau is a continuing Mental Health and Human Rights Advocate for Human & Spiritual Ethics
-
-
"Unless you 'know' (realize actuality) for yourself, you don't really know at all." -- Spencer Perdriau
© 2012 Created by The Parliament of Religions.
You need to be a member of PeaceNext to add comments!
Join PeaceNext