Rector’s Reflections
Friday 12th July 2024
What do Theologians think about?
Today’s reflection is the last in the current series. Over the last few days, I have been sharing some reflections on the world of Theology. I have provided a brief overview of some of the different areas of theological study. I have stressed the importance of understanding the context in which Theology is written, and that it is also important to consider how each theologian engages with the Theology produced by earlier generations. Men and women have been engaging with theological issues for thousands of years, and so each generation inherits a vast body of theological literature. Much Theology is actually an exercise in footnoting the Theology of the past, although from time to time fresh developments do arise, and these produce new perspectives. What usually happens is that the main body of theological thought remains more or less the same, but the emphasis changes, to reflect the attitudes and priorities of contemporary society.
But before I draw the current series to an end, I wish to share some thoughts on a third issue which most theologians need to consider as they go about their theological work. The issue is this: to whom are theologians accountable? Are they accountable to the wider Church, and if so, what does this mean in practice?
It will not surprise you to learn that theologians give different answers to this question. Some theologians would say that they are accountable to no one other than themselves; and for those theologians who hold a personal belief in God, some might add that they are also accountable to God. They see their Theology in terms of their personal academic integrity and sometimes also in terms of their own relationship with God. They do not see that they have responsibility to the well-being of the wider Church – even if the wider Church is in fact paying their wages. Such theologians write what they want to write, on the subjects they want to write about – or on the subjects which will get them a job in the academic world and ensure that their articles and books find favour with potential publishers. There is much to be said for such a culture of academic freedom. I would also add that the tensions in an individual’s relationship with God can generate profound Theology, which can benefit the wider Church. For example, some of Martin Luther’s Theology came out of his personal struggles with God.
Other theologians would say that they are accountable to their particular religious denomination. They see their theological explorations as serving the needs of the Church. But what happens if their Theology knocks up against the traditional beliefs of the Church? How do they handle the conflict? Churches vary as to how they handle such conflicts. Some Churches have courts and similar proceedings designed to enforce official doctrine; other churches give their clergy and theologians the widest possible liberty of belief. And in practice, much depends on the attitudes and approaches of those in authority within the Church. Some Church leaders are wary of drawing attention to heretical teaching, perhaps because they themselves share the beliefs which are considered to be objectionable. The Roman Catholic Church has, in general, been fairly strict about enforcing correct doctrinal belief. For at least the last hundred years or so, the Church of England has, in practice, been relaxed about the enforcement of doctrine. Some would say that the Church of England has been far too relaxed for its own good; others would say that there’s rarely an issue, because most clergy and most theologians hold fairly orthodox opinions. While some theologians push the boundaries of traditional theological understanding, they tend to write only for fellow theologians, and so their scope to damage the Church is limited. For example, there has been a Church of England theologian , Don Cupitt, who has promoted the idea of a “Non-Realist” God; this is a complex concept, but it might be interpreted as meaning that God doesn’t really exist as a separate being or person. The man or woman on the pew might well interpret Cupitt’s theology as saying that God doesn’t exist. So why doesn’t the Church brand him a heretic? I suspect it’s because the Church authorities know that hardly anyone has even heard of Don Cupitt, and even fewer have chosen to read what he has written.
I should add that theologians are human beings, and bring their personalities to their work. Some theologians are convinced they are always right, and everyone else is wrong. So if the Church authorities criticise their writings, they assume that Church authorities are misguided and they refuse to be silenced. Other theologians have great humility, and they do not see it as their role to go against the Church authorities: if their teachings are criticised, they will apologise and accept correction. And for some theologians, it’s all a matter of personal conscience and integrity: if there is a serious tension between their own beliefs and the official beliefs of the Church, they will leave the Church. Some such partings are more amicable than others.
So what do you think? Are theologians accountable to others, and if so, to whom? Should they be accountable to the Church? And in the event of a major conflict between a Theologian and the official teaching of the Church, who should give way? Or should we take the Church of England approach, which is to ignore theological disputes as much as possible, and let sleeping dogs lie?