Theo-ology: Faith Seeking Understanding
11 May 2006
England manager, Sven-Goran Eriksson, has picked a virtually unknown player, the 17 year old Theo Walcott, as part of his squad for next months World Cup in Germany. When asked why he had gone for a teenager he hasn’t seen play and who hasn’t started a Premiership game for his club, Arsenal, Sven replied with what for many must have been a rather inadequate answer – ‘sometimes you just have to go with you’re instinct. Trust your intuition that this is right.’ This is hardly a sound epistemology on which to base player selection for such an important tournament. Fans and press alike want facts, statistics, evidence of ability and quantifiable experience, not an intuitive hunch. It would seem that Sven’s critics prefer more enlightened methodologies in order to choose a World Cup squad.
This ‘little’ story caught my attention because what bothers me at the moment is whether it’s appropriate for me to get all ‘Sven’ about my faith. Can I develop an intuitive theology or an instinctive missional and ecclesiological response to the world I find myself in? Or is such talk inappropriate, or worse, oxymoronic? I was discipled in a church culture that was (and perhaps in many ways still is) very rational in its approach to faith, theology and praxis. Any notion of intuitive responses to faith and culture or instinctive thoughts about God would have to brought into line with more ‘appropriate’ methodologies for knowing who God is and what God requires of us. But more and more I feel this suppresses something of my humanity and my ability to respond to life and to God. Theology may be faith seeking understanding – but understanding, it would seem, is a wholly rational endeavour.
21 comments
Trackback
Comment by brett jordan
10.20 am on 11 May 2006
Intuition is a useful part of our critical arsenal. However, like most other critical tools, it has to be used with great care.
I would consider myself an ‘intuitive’ person, but have learned (from bitter experience) that it is a tool that can be severely blunted by tiredness, emotions and previous experiences.
My tendency is to take note of what my intuition is saying, then to measure it against the other ‘evidence’ before taking any action… even when it can make me look as if I am being indecisive and difficult.
Comment by geoff
11.13 am on 11 May 2006
There’s no doubt in my mind that being intuitive is most effective and most valuable when you are in close relationship with people who can slap you back into line when intuition goes (or is going) wrong.
Comment by Alan Mann
1.14 pm on 11 May 2006
I suppose my question would then be – what processes are we using to define my intuition as wrong? Is there a hierarchy to human knowing within which intuition is at best secondary to the higher forms?
Comment by brett jordan
1.23 pm on 11 May 2006
Hi Alan, my (non-exhaustive, not got much time) hierarchy would include, in no particular order, logic, evidence, wise counsel, scripture, scientific facts, history, my emotional involvement, how much sleep i’ve had recently, how much alcohol i’ve consumed recently…
Comment by Paul
1.39 pm on 11 May 2006
I find that i actually do more stuff on instinct than i do if i rationalise about it first – maybe cos all the time gets used up with umming and ahhhing… Instinct maybe is shaped in time from somewhere – experience/reflection/transformation but seems to be released in a moment. For Sven it was something telling him to take theo, for me it could be crossing the road to say hi to a new neighbour…
Of course that means that if i operate on instincts i can do things for the wrong reasons – things that operate out of the depths of me that make me act in a certain way for bad as well as good…
which i guess takes it back to also having rational practices which lead lead to unrational acts of love/service/giving/faith… etc
Comment by Alan Mann
2.12 pm on 11 May 2006
Thanks for this Paul – I really like the idea that intuitive response isn’t birthed ex nihilo, but comes out of our entirety as a human being. Therefore, while it may have an indirect realtion to all the things Bret lists, it isn’t constrianed by them. I really found this helpful and I shall ponder it further.
Comment by Alan Mann
2.14 pm on 11 May 2006
PS – Sorry for the typos in the last post!!!
Comment by brett jordan
2.23 pm on 11 May 2006
Hi Alan, surely intuition, by its definition, is the sum of a wide range of mental processes, fuelled by our experiences and ‘personality’… and, like our personality, needs to be channelled and guided by a wide range of external criteria… including the items in item 4?
Comment by Alan Mann
2.30 pm on 11 May 2006
Not according to my dictionary it isn’t – that’s why I like the idea that it is – if that makes sense.
Comment by brett jordan
2.55 pm on 11 May 2006
OK… just heaved my Collins off the shelf, and you’re right, my definition is almost the opposite of what the dictionary says! And I really DON’T like the dictionary definition! So, I guess I’m also looking to redefine it!
Comment by Scott Baxter
9.59 pm on 11 May 2006
“I really like the idea that intuitive response isn’t birthed ex nihilo, but comes out of our entirety as a human being”
I think there is a basis for this view, though from experience there have been times when faced with situations that I have had no previous experience or knowledge of yet had some intuition within it.
I am sure others can testify to this also?
Comment by Jim Bonewald
10.56 pm on 11 May 2006
Jason,
Thanks again for your post! Your blog is one of the first ones I check every morning…
I grew up in fairly conservative evangelical circles and have often felt ‘bad’ because, especially since seminary, I’m not willing to precisely nail down my beliefs.
I think I’ve always had a fairly intuitive rather than a systematic approach to faith, which is probably why I’ve always felt a bit of discomfiture in the evangelical church.
I especially try to hold this same approach when it comes to interpreting the scriptures, if we don’t we often end up reading the biblical narrative in all sorts of screwy ways that it was never meant to be read. (This is one reason why I generally avoid expository preaching.)
I do have certain bounds in my theology (there are indeed some places where I just won’t go) but within those bounds I see a pretty large breadth in what for me constitutes genuine christian faith.
Comment by alan mann
9.46 am on 12 May 2006
Jim
Thanks for your post.
I was wondering if you could say more about how you an intuitive approach to reading scripture, rather than a systematic one, keeps us from reading the biblical narrative in all sorts of screwy ways that it was never menat to be read.
My guess is this is the polar oppoiste to the view taken by most Christians – i.e. sytematics and expository preaching is what prevent misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Scripture.
Comment by Dave
10.04 am on 12 May 2006
The disciple Peter had a ‘Sven’ moment…
‘You are the Christ, the Son of God’
Would Peter have taken Walcott? Maybe, or possibly he would have took out his impetous knife, chopped of Walcott’s foot and stiched onto Wayne Ronneys leg.
Comment by Paul
12.29 pm on 12 May 2006
…or would Peter just say jules rimme I care not, in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk…? :)
Comment by Simon
2.02 pm on 12 May 2006
As a medic, I take quite a bio-physical approach to intuition in the sense that it is the brain quickly cycling through the logic pathway subconsciously and arriving at the solution before you realise it. I know that in my revision that intuition kicks in in stressful situations when you need a fast response (e.g. oral exams) and it is very much dependant on the work you have put in: if you know the topic well, your ‘gut response’ will most likely correct. However, if you dont, it will be wrong unless you take the time to think it through. In the arena of faith, the same principles apply. Early on we need to put effort into forming the logic pathways in our brain and cannot rely on blind faith or intuition. However, I have lots of respect for people who are far on in their faith journey: their intuition may not have complex arguments attached, but they are the product of years of questioning and experience.
Comment by alan mann
3.40 pm on 12 May 2006
Simon
Thanks for this. Really interesting angle. My wife did the physiology degree in our house so I’ll seek her thoughts on this one.
Do you knwo anythig about Polanyi’s Personal Knowledge theories and his ideas about tacit knoweldge? If you do, are such things relevant?
NB: Anyone else – come in on this one if you know about Polanyi.
Comment by graham
4.07 pm on 12 May 2006
I think it’s essential that intuition plays an element in our theologizing, hermeneutics and ethics.
Is that one way that we know we’ve genuinely ingested the stuff we rabbit on about?
Comment by Jim Bonewald
5.47 pm on 12 May 2006
I wrote that I have “an intuitive approach to reading scripture, rather than a systematic one, keeps us from reading the biblical narrative in all sorts of screwy ways that it was never menat to be read.”
Now I have to explain myself….
I guess what I mean is that you can do all the historical-critical research, you can filter the scripture through whatever hermeneutical lens you happen to be wearing, but in the end you have to put that away and ask “Where I am at this point in my life, what is it that God is asking of me (or my church if you are a preacher) through this particular passage?”
My concern works this way…you can come to the Genesis 1 & 2 story with a presupposition of biblical innerancy. But then you usually end up totally missing the point of the narratives as they are told.
Instead of asking what is the text telling us or asking of us, you spend so much energy trying to make the text fit into your preconceived notions. You end up spinning your whells getting caught up in trying to say “a day is a day” and in harmonizing the two accounts.
Likewise in expository preaching, you end up spending lots of energy dissecting the text, either word by word or verse by verse(which is an artificial addition to the text in the first place.) I would argue that in this approach you end up making the text say much more than it was ever really intended to say, (often making it say whatever YOU want it to say.)
Instead…Let the story be the story and then ask how is God inviting me into this story? How is God inviting me to re-shape my own life through this story?
Perhaps this is not a particularily intuitive approach, maybe there’s a better word. I suppose some might think its just sloppy. Thoughts?
Comment by Dana Ames
12.43 am on 16 May 2006
I don’t know much about Polanyi but he came to mind as I was reading this. He’s a recurring subject on Mars Hill Audio. http://www.marshillaudio.org/
No relation to Driscoll’s church or Jason’s graduate school. But they put out good stuff.
Dana
Comments are now closed.