Folks, it is official. An on-line quiz proves that I'm 100% Catholic. Finally, an independent instrument confirms what we all suspected, including myself, of what my theological worldview really is. There you have it, in black-and-white!
You scored as Roman Catholic. You are Roman Catholic. Church tradition and ecclesial authority are hugely important, and the most important part of worship for you is mass. As the Mother of God, Mary is important in your theology, and as the communion of saints includes the living and the dead, you can also ask the saints to intercede for you.
What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com |
Now, seriously, the quiz, as devised, screened for certain theological "inclinations" in each respondent. What fascinated me was the runners-up. What is this Neo Orthodox view for which I rated 86%? Has nothing to do with Eastern Orthodoxy, mind you. According to the Wikipedia,
Neo-orthodoxy is an approach to theology that was developed in the aftermath of the First World War (1914-1918). It is primarily associated with the Swiss Protestant Karl Barth (1886-1968). The other significant theologians in this movement were Emil Brunner (1899-1966) and Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1966).Now, it's not that I buy completely on this worldview. I am with Brunner against Barth regarding the value of natural theology. Heck, natural theology was enshrined in the First Vatican Council as one of the cornerstones of Catholic theology and I accept it. I find rational to believe in God and to respond in grace to Him. I think that's the most rational act of which men are capable to do. A "leap of faith" does not deny one's reason, but definitely tests it. The Christian faith is not true because is absurd, pace Tertullian and Barth. It is true because it's historical claims can be apprehended and in this, I also part with Bultmann and his attempts to demythologize the New Testament.
The neo-orthodox thinkers had strong disagreements between themselves and so neo-orthodoxy cannot be considered to be a unified system. Nevertheless, this type of theology has a number of distinctive traits:
* Revelation
* Transcendance of God
* Existentialism
* Sin
Firstly, there is a strong emphasis on the revelation of God by God as the source of Christian doctrine. Natural theology states that knowledge of God can be gained through a combination of observation of nature and human reason. Barth totally rejected natural theology. Brunner believed that natural theology still had an important role and this led to a sharp disagreement between the two men.
Secondly, there is a stress on the transcendence of God. Barth believed that the emphasis on the immanence of God had led human beings to imagine God to be ourselves writ large. He stressed the infinite qualitative distinction between the human and the divine. Bultmann coined the description of God as being "Wholly Other".
Thirdly, the neo-orthodox theologians made use of existentialism and in particular Christian existentialism. Bultmann was strongly influenced by the philosophy of his colleague Martin Heidegger. Barth was strongly influenced by the writings of the 19th century, Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. Kiekegaard was a critic of the liberalChristiann modernists effort to rationalise Christianity. Instead he maintained that Christianity is absurd and presents the individual with paradoxical choices. The decision to become a Christian is not a rational decision but a leap of faith. This was the foundation of Barth's theology of crisis.
Fourthly, there was a stress on the sinful nature of humanity. The neo-orthodox believed that the First World War had discredited any notion of inevitable progress; i.e. the idea that good people and good societies would ultimately evolve. Although pessimistic about human nature, many in the movement were involved in political activism. Barth was expelled from Germany by Hitler because of his anti-Nazi stance.
Fifthly, neo-orthodoxy is distinct from both liberal Protestantism and fundamentalism. This can be seen in Barth's understanding of the Bible. He rejected the fundamentalist claim that the Christian scriptures are infallible. He rejected the modernist liberalChristiann claim, of that time, that God could be known through human scholarship. He believed that the Bible was the key place where the Word of God can be revealed to human beings. An existential leap of faith is required by the individual to hear what God has to say.
I am however, captured by the ethical dimension of the movement, as Christian orthopraxis is a pet peeve of mine. Now, these authors rejected or minimized the value of doctrine and dogma in favor of Christian action, being evangelization or social justice or both. Again, I hold doctrine and dogma in the highest esteem, for they inform my actions in the world, as we're called to be "salt of the world." Catholic Action uniformed by doctrine and dogma would lack direction and reduce my appreciation of Jesus' claims to mere subjective feeling, confining my response to that of an emotional, aesthetic apprehension of his moral teachings, and that's now what Christianity is all about.
I have to say that I've never read these neo-orthodox writers directly, but always through others--although I have a short bio of Karl Barth which I still haven't read. Apparently, I've been affected by their outlook through osmosis.
Oh, the other runner-ups denote that I would never have made a good strict Calvinist of the Reformed persuasion, nor a fundamentalist, nor a theological liberal of any kind. Deo Gratias.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment