Alister McGrath (Christian Theology, pg. 36) writes that "Scholasticism
is probably one of the most despised intellectual movements in
history." He attempts a definition: "Scholasticism does not
refer to a specific system of beliefs, but to a particular way of doing and
organizing theology -a highly developed method of presenting material, making
fine distinctions and attempting to achieve a comprehensive view of
theology."
It's what happens when philosophers get a hold of theology. They ask funny modal questions like: "Could God have become a cucumber instead of a man? Could God undo the past by making a prostitute into a virgin?" The reason scholasticism was terribly despised during the renaissance is different than the reason we would despise it today. Erasmus hated it because of the frivolous and ridiculous ways it was debated. But today, we have little patience with the questions at all. We are pragmatists of the highest order. How would this help my marriage? How do details of omnipotence re-launch my sputtering career? And in our hyper-practicality we miss how the answer to every practical question really does have deep worldview assumptions. Assumptions the scholastics tried to work though, but never managed to bring together.
The lesson for the scholastics is that ideas, no matter how abstract, have to incarnate themselves into tangible ways of testing and living them out to be meaningful. The lesson for us is that there really is a world of ideas behind every tangible movement and desire (yours included) that demands our exploration.
It's what happens when philosophers get a hold of theology. They ask funny modal questions like: "Could God have become a cucumber instead of a man? Could God undo the past by making a prostitute into a virgin?" The reason scholasticism was terribly despised during the renaissance is different than the reason we would despise it today. Erasmus hated it because of the frivolous and ridiculous ways it was debated. But today, we have little patience with the questions at all. We are pragmatists of the highest order. How would this help my marriage? How do details of omnipotence re-launch my sputtering career? And in our hyper-practicality we miss how the answer to every practical question really does have deep worldview assumptions. Assumptions the scholastics tried to work though, but never managed to bring together.
The lesson for the scholastics is that ideas, no matter how abstract, have to incarnate themselves into tangible ways of testing and living them out to be meaningful. The lesson for us is that there really is a world of ideas behind every tangible movement and desire (yours included) that demands our exploration.
This might be an interesting illustration: We would test every child that came into our little school in India to see what level of they were at, especially in reading. Some kids had attended school up to 3rd or 4th grade. They would confidently read off words like cat, hat, mat. But other words, they would struggle with: pat, rat, bat. Why? Because they had only memorized the first 3 words. There was no foundational understanding of how each letter's sound is pieced together to make a word. I wonder how much we really do know about the foundations of our world view? Have we just memorized it, accepted it because that is what was taught to us- or are we digging down deep to figure out how each piece fits together? I certainly need to do more digging. =)
ReplyDeleteGreat illustration!
ReplyDeleteI think that tendency to just accept the world view we grew up with (that, as Heidi says, we've memorized), is sad. But I think it's also part of the hyper-practical life we lead. It takes much effort to deeply examine your worldview, ask questions about why you do what you do, and how it helps or hinders you, and then make changes.
ReplyDeleteMost folks, I fear, either don't have the tools they need (lower intelligence, lack of education, living in survival mode), or they're just too darned tired.
Cheers!
Matt