27 Sep 2008 @ 7:29 PM 
 

A ‘Pedigree Collapse’ Within Modern Theological Education?

 
Black Blood Jesus Picture Here

Theological education, both academic and pastoral, are in a state of crisis.  Theological education is specializing itself out of ideas, and in doing so confines its ability to comprehend and explain the content it hopes to teach.  Though, for the sake of understanding, lets begin on the less volatile topics of psychology and color theory.

According to William James, specifically from his ‘Psychology: The Briefer Course’, knowledge of an object is derived directly from its known relations.  That may seem like an abstract Idea at first, but it’s surprisingly easy to grasp.  Take for instance the color orange.  How do we know that it is orange?  I can already hear some people saying ‘Because we were told what orange is.’, and they’re correct- but lets take that a step further.  We know what ‘orange’ is because we know what ‘Red’ and ‘Yellow’ are.  We know what ‘Orange’ is because we know that it is not ‘Red’, ‘Yellow’, ‘Blue’ or ‘Green’.  We can identify the color ‘Orange’ by being able to identify what colors it is not.  Once we grasp that concept we can see how we can then begin to discuss variations of shade within a single color.  We cannot separate ‘Crimson’ from ‘Red’ without being able to also differentiate ‘Magenta’ from ‘Red’.  The more diverse my knowledge of ‘colors’ becomes, the better I can understand each individual color.  Conversely, with a limited framework of knowledge to filter information through we can only identify new things as ‘not old-things’.  ’Orange’ then becomes ‘Not-Yellow’ or ‘Not-Red’ (or in some circles, ‘Post-Yellow’ or ‘Post-Red’)

Believe it or not, this is how the mind makes sense of the world around it.  We interpret new things by comparing them to old things.  New information is understood and categorized according to old information.   It seems to only be sensible then, that the fewer the varieties of knowledge we possess the more our ability to define the world around us is impeded.

But what does this have to do with theological education?

A ‘Pedigree Collapse‘ is a marriage of “relatives, deliberate or unknowing, make family trees smaller than they theoretically could be.”  This term is generally used to refer to human relationships, often referring to the inbreeding that occurs within royal families or in isolated areas such as removed islands or other locations.  Pedigree Collapse is where, due a lack of new information, the existing genetic information gets combined repeatedly to the point where it begins to collapse and function improperly.  This may seem unrelated, but I assure you that many aspects of modern theology are in the midst of a pedigree collapse.

Theology students often only read theologians that appeal to them (or their professors).  Schools promote a single perspective in theological education (Methodist/ Catholic/ Baptist/ Pentecostal).  Pastors read other pastors and theologians that appeal to them.  Sometimes pastors have been trained in traditions that teach them to ‘only read the Bible’ and too often our religious leaders become students of students of students and fail to offer much to the conversation other than a new perspective of a dead idea.  Because of this our religion becomes stale.

Many theological reforms were started by individuals with an interdisciplinary education.  Martin Luther and John Calvin were lawyers before they were reformers.  Alister McGrath (yes, I had to fit him in somewhere) was a Biologist before he was a Historian.  St. Augustine was a neo-platonic philosopher before he became theologian.  St. Ignatius dreamed of being a knight long before being a priest.  Greggory the Great wanted to be a monk, not a Pope.  The list goes on and one.  The most influential are all students of theology as well as students of the culture they found them self placed into, drawing upon diverse religious and non-religious influences to frame their ideas.

So what does this have to do with ME?

I don’t know your place in the Christian community.  Whether you are a theologian, a theology student, a pastor or just a Christian trying to find their place in the world I pose this challenge to you:

Imagine your niche of ‘theology’ as the color ‘orange’.  When was the last time you reminded yourself of what ‘Red’, ‘Green’ and ‘Blue’ were?  Better yet, when was the last time you explored what you ‘shade of orange’ is compared to the larger color spectrum?  Maybe it’s time to take a second look?

Lean a new ‘shade’ or ‘color’.  Theology students- Go read some philosophy, anthropology or even an introduction to a new religion.  Pastors- Go read a solid piece of fiction, or maybe put down the Biblical commentary and read Rowan Williams, Karl Barth or even pick up Pope Benedict XVI- something outside the usual thinking you’re exposed to.  The important aspect is to broaden your ‘list of colors’, however this needs to happen, because without new ways of thinking our religion runs the risk of becoming so specified that it just becomes and inbred rehashing of someone else’s thought’s that our ideas become ‘second-hand religion’.

So what are your thoughts?  What extra-disciplinary literary or cinematographic works have offered you a wider perspective through which to interpret faith?  What would you suggest that a young pastor or theologian read to help them break out of the ‘indoctrination’ of college or seminary?

Earl

*Note- I’m borrowing the phrase ‘second-hand religion’ from William James’ ‘Psychology’.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark
 

Responses to this post » (7 Total)

 
  1. Earl Barnett says:

    I actually go back to Star Trek: Deep Space 9 and The Planet of the Apes series for inspiration and new perspectives on old ways of thinking.

    But I think we all knew I was a nerd by now.

    How about y’all?

  2. hail, hail young Earl!
    I could not agree any more. This is why I’m making plans to give myself a “classical education” of sorts. I know that doesn’t answer everything you hint at here, but it does allow me the opportunity to systematically read works by the original ideators instead of the students of the students of the students…. And why I’ve taken the advice, recently, to read outside of my own tradition.
    And, frankly, why I have had actual moments of true mourning about my lousy education.
    And, now that I think of it, why I’m one of your blog fans…

  3. Earl Barnett says:

    Well, I appreciate having you around. I wouldn’t mourn your education too much, you’ve still got a lot of time to make up for it… besides, most good things (including education) are usually wasted on the young.

    Thanks for giving me feedback on the post!

    Earl

  4. Andy Hurst says:

    Good one, Earl, and so true! One must remember that until recently… oh, 150 years, most scholars were also classicists and took it upon themselves to read philosopy, etc…, theologian or not. Also, they didn’t have tweeter dee, facelift, and channel surfing hadn’t been invented yet. They were readers for god’s sake! It’s hard to match that, but I’m trying… good to know there are others in the hunt.

  5. Earl Barnett says:

    Thanks for the comments, Andy!

    I try to read, although the internet does provide me with quite the distraction. At least I still don’t have a TV :)

    Earl

  6. Seth Walters says:

    Interesting reading, though I have some questions. What is meant by “new ways of thinking”? I’ve always understood there to be but two, logically and illogically. Is there another? If not, assuming I think logically, are you advocating I think illogically for a time? To the illogical, are you advocating they think logically for a time? The former is ridiculous and the latter insufficient.

    As for color theory, if we only know orange in relation to red and yellow, how do we know red and yellow? In relation to some other color I must assume. But how do we know those colors? Where can this go but circularly back to orange or to another color ad infinitum? Neither of which is sufficient to provide real knowledge. We must at some point have an original concept of color, but since your theory denies that, we cannot know any color. While my argument is I believe sufficient to show your theory results in skepticism (which appears to be the complete opposite of your entire point in writing), regarding color it is a minor thing. But if your epistemology is “knowledge of an object is derived directly from its known relations” and is applied not only to sense objects but suprasensible objects as well, then you have a real problem. If we know justice only in relation to injustice, and conversely injustice only in relation to justice, then in reality we know nothing. But even more destructive than that example is the inherent contradiction in the statement itself. How can we derive knowledge of an object directly from its known relations if we don’t know it’s known relations? But if we know its known relations then we already have knowledge of the object which we got before we knew its known relations and could derive it. The method only works if we already have a priori knowledge. Now admittedly, my interpretation may be incorrect because James used ambiguous language. By “knowledge” did he mean “all knowledge” or just “some knowledge”? Since it is unqualified and strictly speaking any knowledge is a form of “knowledge” “all knowledge” seems to be the correct interpretation. If so, not to be rude, but a philosopher who makes that blatantly contradictory of a statement is an idiot. The only value I can see is as a test for beginning philosophy students to try and spot the self-contradiction. But if he meant it as just “some knowledge”, while he escapes my original critique, I have to question his usefulness in philosophy. The goal of philosophy is not to make particular propositions about some things but universal propositions about all things. So with this interpretation, while he avoids being an idiot, he also avoids being worth listening to. Of course, the third alternative (which honestly I think is least likely) is that you misinterpreted him and besides poor scholarly skills, you also deserve whichever of the above mentioned condemnations applies.

    There’s much to be said about your application of the Pedigree-Collapse (dealing with genetics subject to degradation) to the realm of ideas and truth (not subject to degradation), but I’ve already had to retype this thing once and it’s 2:30 in the morning. My apologies for any grammar errors. I haven’t proofread it, and I always throw in a couple ‘there’ for ‘their’.

    If you are willing to follow your own advice, if you haven’t read Gordon Clark’s A Christian View of Men and Things, it’s the best thing I’ve read. I’m certainly nowhere near as well-versed in philosophy as you are, but he’s helped me to think more clearly and equipped me to better evaluate those things “outside the usual thinking [I'm] exposed to”. This blog post being a good example of those things.

Post a Comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

\/ More Options ...
Change Theme...
  • Users » 1
  • Posts/Pages » 227
  • Comments » 673
Change Theme...
  • VoidVoid « Default
  • LifeLife
  • EarthEarth
  • WindWind
  • WaterWater
  • FireFire
  • LightLight

Photography



    No Child Pages.

Contact



    No Child Pages.

About



    No Child Pages.