Theology in relation to other disciplines

Introduction:  As an intellectual discipline, theology is part of the whole intellectual enterprise of mankind, and must therefore stand in relation to other disciplines.  Now we are selecting for closer study some sensitive points and such points will be briefly discussed-those at which theology comes into relation with philosophy, art and science.

1          Theology in relation to philosophy:  Of all the disciplines, philosophy seems to be the one that stands nearest to theology.  Theology and philosophy are parallel enterprises.  More specifically, Christian theology is a species of the genus philosophy.  On the basis of the faith which it explicates, theology expounds convictions about God, man, and the world.  During most of its history, philosophy has treated of the same themes, though it does so not on the basis of faith; rather it claims reason and ordinary experience for its guide.  The constructive function of philosophy is the attempt to organize and interpret the data of human experience in the light of some key-category or organizing principle, namely, matter in motion, nature, life, organism, process, mind or spirit.

             From the beginning, theologians have held divergent views on the nature of the relationship, and even on whether it is desirable that any common ground between their own discipline and philosophy should be recognized.  The two points of view on the place of reason in theology have typically found expression on the specific issue of the relation of theology to philosophy.  In the early days of the church, we find on the one hand advocates of an alliance between theology and sympathetic philosophy.  For instance, St. Justin Martyr, speaking about Pluto and Stoics, claims that they shared in the Word (λογος) that was in Jesus, and that “whatever things were rightly said among all men are the property of us Christians”; and Clement of Alexandria holds that philosophy “assists towards true religion as a kind of preparatory training for those who arrive at faith by way of demonstration.”  On the other hand, Tatian ridicules and abuses the philosophers, sometimes in a crude fashion.  When we discussed reason in theology, we found that the mainstream of church’s thinking had favored the alliance with reason and therefore with philosophy, but conceded that there has always been an opposition.

             However, the fact that there may have been distorted relation in the past does not mean that there cannot be healthy relations.  There are nowadays some philosophers engaged in the construction of all embracing systems, and the prevailing tendency is analysis rather than synthesis.  Logical analysis contents itself with the critical scrutiny of our different modes of discourse and considers itself a formal discipline, aiming at the detection and removal of confusions in our discourse about any theme whatsoever.  Similarly, existentialism is analytic; what is analyzed is human existence in its manifold modes of being; some philosophers develop an ontology or philosophy of being.

             A positive relationship between theology and philosophy is good for both theology and philosophy.  John Macquerrie says, “I do not believe that any theology can stand without philosophically defensible foundations, and so, no worthwhile theology can be delivered from the duty of conversing with philosophy.”

2          Art- History:  History is one of the branches of arts discipline.  History is another discipline with which theology stands in relation, and this relation world seems to be specially important in the case of Christian theology which takes its origin from a revelation given in an historical person (Jesus) rather than in a dateless myth or timeless corpus of philosophical truths.  But the relation between theology and history seems to be a very complex one.  Thus the theologian would think of the area where theology and history interact as quite definitely limited and circumscribed.  There are several such areas:

             (a)          History of religion:  First may be mentioned the general history of religion and the comparative study of religion that has been made possible on the basis of this history.  Only in recent times has there been opened up to research the panorama of the world’s faiths both living and extinct.  Since theology explicates the particular faith within which it arises and continues to move, it cannot relate itself to the whole spectrum of the world’s faiths.  Nevertheless, it must take note of those parallels to its own faith which the history of religion has shown to abound in other faiths.  This history shows that the faith of one’s own community is not an isolated phenomenon.

             (b)          History of Christian Origins:  This history of Christian origins is another area of historical inquiry that has a bearing upon theology.  One must notice how historical research and criticism has resulted in a changed attitude to the Bible.  One might claim that just as a direct result of historical  research, theology can never again be constructed by the citing of so-called “proof-text”, chosen more or less at random from the Bible as a whole; as one finds the practice in the confession of faith in the period after the Reformation.  But historical research has gone sp far in eroding the record of events contained in the NT that much more than an attitude to the Bible is at stake.

             What is left of our knowledge of the historical Jesus, after form criticism has done its work?  How important for theology is it that we should know something about the historical Jesus?  Is it of any theological importance that, as many historical scholars now claim, Jesus may never have thought of himself as Messiah?  These questions are mentioned here to show how theology and history are bound to find areas of common concern, where the theologian will have to take note of what the historian is saying.

3          Science:  Some theologians claim that theology is one of the special sciences because, they claim, theology applies the empirical scientific method to its special area of investigation, namely, the biblical events or the contemporary church.  But this claim seems not to be convincing.  For a particular science is the investigation and interpretation of a limited body of facts.  It is, therefore, descriptive rather than normative and is not concerned with the larger context of its purview, with questions of value, or with religious questions about the ultimate origin and destiny of the universe of humanity.  On the other hand, theology is concerned not simply to describe them but to ascertain their significance as the organizing principle of the Christian world view.  Further, theology is normative rather than descriptive, dealing with religious questions and is concerned in its larger task to interpret all areas of human experience, including science, in the light of the biblical revelation.

             Everyone knows the story of the great battles of the past between scientists and theologians.  First, the new theory of the universe developed by Copernicus and Galileo pushed the earth out of the center of things and set in motion, and this was bitterly contested by the theologians who believed that a geocentric universe was part of their revelation.  Second, the discovery of the geologists that the earth had been in existence for millions of years led to a new dispute, because this stretching of the time-span upset the scheme of so-called “sacred history” that claimed to trace the course of events from the creation down to our Christian era.  Third, perhaps the greatest battle of all was fought with Darwin and his followers over the question of evolution from lower forms of life, because in the eyes of the theologians this was a further blow to the Christian faith.

             The disputes ended with the retreat of the theologian.  These scientific findings, backed by evidence, were accepted and most theologians adjusted themselves as well as they could to the new situation.  But we should not think of these disputes as leading to the victory

of one party and the defeat of the other, but rather in terms of both sides coming to a clear understanding of where the boundary between the two disciplines lies.  This is a face-saving kind of statement, but up to a point it is true.  The old quarrels had to do with the scientist’s contradiction of the revealed truths set forth in Scripture.  The theologian of today would say that the statements in the Bible that conflict with the findings of modern science are not part of revelation to which the Bible bears witness, but simply reflect the current scientific thinking of the biblical times.  The theologian would accept that on empirical matters of fact we must be guided by science and that neither theology nor the revelation which it professes to explicate can have anything to say on such matters.  On the other hand, it is claimed that science cannot pronounce on matters of faith, which are not based on the empirical world

             But to conclude from such considerations that the battle between science and theology is over or that the two have arranged terms for coexistence would be premature.  Further quarrels may not be so crude as those in the past, but the underlying tensions could be even severe.

Conclusion:  We conclude then by reiterating that theology has a duty to maintain contact with the secular disciplines, both by learning from them and by sharpening and defining its own point of view in relation to theirs.

*******