A New Theology

10 Failings of Theological Scholarship in the Modern World

That above Time magazine cover is from 1966. Time magazine’s religion editor, John T. Elson, wrote the 5,000-word cover story titled “Toward a Hidden God” for the April 8, 1966 Easter issue, which asked the question, “Is God Dead?”

It’s not an original question.

The article evokes the “God is dead” statement made by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in 1882. Nietzsche wrote, “The belief in the Christian God has become unbelievable.” In the wake of Darwin’s theory of natural selection, Nietzsche asserted that both science and reason sufficiently answered life’s greatest questions without the need for the religious notion of “God”.

The Time magazine article also mentions a group of radical theologians who were proposing to “… carry on and write a theology without theos, without God.”

Wait. What?!? How do you do theology without God??? Theology IS the study of God. That would be like making a peanut butter sandwich without the peanut butter. Right? All you’d have is two pieces of bread. Take “God” (theos) out of theology, and you have nothingology!

Or.

Maybe nothing is actually something and could still be called theology. Sounds weird, I know. But not only do I believe that nothing is actually something and could be called theology, but I assert that unless theology makes this pivot it may become obsolete as a pathway for understanding ultimate reality.

My Theological Road Trip

I never questioned the theology I learned in divinity school until my faith crisis as a megachurch pastor 25 years ago. Even then, my questioning was more practical. Despite the outward signs of church success, my seminary-approved biblical teaching wasn’t making a dent in the brokenness and dysfunction of people’s lives, including my own. Ultimately, I walked away from my Christian faith and ministerial career to figure out what went wrong.

After leaving religion, I made short shrift of large swarths of my Evangelical theology, starting with the doctrine of Hell. A dose of biblical criticism led to my re-thinking my entire framework for interpreting the Bible. A journey through philosophy, including Nietzsche, Spinoza, Russell, Derrida, and Hegel, spawned my discovery that classic Christian theology may not be the gospel truth in all things God. Ultimately, I concluded that “separation theology” is at the core of classical Christian Theism, which perpetuates a core falsehood (separation from God) upon which all of traditional Christianity is built.

I have discussed many of these topics previously in articles such as:

• Is Christian Theism Dead?

• Which Bible Should You Read? How religion messed up the significance of the Bible

• Philosophers You Have Never Heard Of: Which “God” should you believe in... or none of the above

• The Pretty Jesus

• The Christian Nationalism Problem: Would Jesus be a Christian Nationalist?

In my work as a religious deconstruction and religious trauma counselor, I often see people who are experiencing existential crisis and dismantling their theological beliefs and views of God. In addition to training others for this work, I founded the Center for Non-Religious Spirituality for people interested in community and resources to support their leaving religion journey and the cultivation of a post-religion spirituality. All that to say, I often have one foot in religion, and the other in Atheism.

Maybe you consider yourself a Christian, maybe you are an Atheist. Perhaps you attend church, or you think of yourself as one of the nones. Either way, whatever your religious, spiritual or philosophical orientation, it’s my conviction that we all have something to learn from each other in the interest of discerning and living the highest truths.

In more recent years I have done extensive exploration in anthropology, Existentialism and the Philosophy of Religion. My first Substack series of articles was, The Evolution of Religion. In my theological and philosophical exploration, I began spotting this strange connection between Christianity and Atheism that I had never considered before. I published an article entitled, What Christians Can Learn from Atheists: Can Bertrand Russell Save Religion? My most recent published book is titled: Inner Anarchy: Dethroning God and Jesus to Save Ourselves and the World. The book offers a radical alternative to the meaning and significance of Jesus, in defiance of traditional Christian teachings.

I was invited to give a presentation at ORTCON24 (Open and Relational Theology Conference) in the Grand Tetons. In my presentation, I shared for the first time publicly my thoughts about a “Christian Atheism”. I published an article about the ways postmodernity and the deconstruction of language destabilizes the core of Christianity, as a logocentric religion. I followed this up with a preview of my ORTCON24 presentation, and after the conference posted the actual presentation with further commentary. The last couple weeks, I have written two other pieces related to Christianity and Atheism:

• What if God disappeared? The Bond Between Christianity and Atheism

• The Death of God in Jesus

Though I may have stumbled upon atheistic themes in the biblical metanarrative and the origins and historical evolution of the Christian religion on my own, I humbly soon discovered that I’m not the only one. A thorough reading of people like Nietzsche, Hegel and Blake will take you there. Though “death of God” theology isn’t prevalent, it shows up in more recent writings by people such as Slavoj Žižek, Thomas Altizer, Lloyd Geering, Jean-Luc Nancy, and Georges Bataille.

A few books of interest for exploring death of God theology are:

• Radical Theology and the Death of God by Thomas J. J. Altizer & William Hamilton

• The New Gospel of Christian Atheism by Thomas J. J. Altizer

• Christian Atheism by Slavoj Žižek

• Christianity Without God by Lloyd Geering

• Dis-Enclosure: The Deconstruction of Christianity by Jean-Luc Nancy

• The New Apocalypse: The Radical Christian Vision of William Blake by Thomas J. J. Altizer

• On Nietzsche by Georges Bataille

I’d like to share a few thoughts related to this article’s title and sub-title, taking the latter first.

The Failings of Theological Scholarship in the Modern World

Notice that the sub-title doesn’t say, “The Failure of Theological Scholarship in the Modern World.” Theological scholarship has had some monumental successes, biblical criticism and liberation theology quickly come to mind. The fact that theological scholarship has had some blunders shouldn’t be such a surprise. Nothing is perfect, right? Even Michael Jordan wasn’t perfect, which his baseball career and second unretirement demonstrated. Perhaps the most sobering critiques of traditional theological scholarship has come from the work of feminist theology and black theology, which I will not elaborate upon here. Reading Phyllis Trible and James Cohn are a couple places to start in exploring these themes.

With respect to this article, I will share the “10 Failings” I see in traditional theological scholarship, based upon my experience. What I mean by “traditional theological scholarship” is the study of God by concentrating primarily upon the texts of the Old Testament and New Testament, as well as on Christian tradition. Not all theology is Christian. There is also progressive theology/Christianity. By “traditional theological scholarship” I am speaking of theological work based in orthodox Christian doctrine. I break down my “10 failings” into two lists: the “Too Much List” and the “Not Enough List”.

Too Much List

1. Too God-Positive

Traditional theological scholarship is too focused on God. Yes, I know this may sound strange, given that the term theology literally means “the study of God.” When I say that classic theology is too “God-positive”, I’m meaning that it exclusively addresses the subject of “God” as something present, as opposed to something absent. For example, a person could study a school classroom with no students in it. In this case it would be exploring everything that could be known about a school classroom in the absence of students. Likewise, we can study the human need for meaning in the absence of an absolute reference point such as “God”.

Another example comes from modern physics. Antimatter is defined as matter composed of the antiparticles of the corresponding particles in “ordinary” matter, and can be thought of as matter with reversed charge, parity, and time. Likewise, I use the word atheology to refer to the study of antigod. In other words, what can be learned, gained and realized by completing reversing the entire construct of God in any sort of separate objectified existence like a deity.

2. Too Theistic

Within it’s God-positive framework, too much of traditional theological scholarship makes a second mistake, which is being beholden to theism as it’s go-to conception of God. Virtually every conception of God in traditional theology is based in theism: polytheism, monotheism, pantheism, and panentheism. Theism posits that there is something called “God”, which is either a deity or divine spirit that is different from or greater than the natural universe and scientific structure of reality. At the most fundamental level, “God” is a word that points to or references ultimate reality. Theism (God as supreme being) is but one of many ways of conceiving such a reality. Traditional theology too often assumes that anything that can be called “God” must be some version of theism.

3. Too Logocentric

Traditional theological scholarship is too logocentric, meaning that it has an unreasonable faith in language. We assume that the meaning of a word has its origin in the structure of reality, as if a word directly corresponds to a concrete, objective and factually verifiable thing. Of course, we have to use language in any field of study, but traditional theological scholarship has not adequately accounted for matters of deconstruction into it’s process. When I speak of “deconstruction”, I am not referring to how the term is popularly associated with “religious deconstruction”, but the original use of the word as the analysis of the relationship between text and meaning, for example in the work of Jacques Derrida.

4. Too Biblical

Within its logocentricity, traditional theological scholarship is too dependent upon the Bible. Traditional theology is still squabbling over how to interpret ancient biblical writings from 2+ thousand years ago, as if it’s possible to come to a definitive or authoritative conclusion. Bibliology (the study of the Bible's nature, character, and authority) should not be confused with theology (the study of God), which is larger than the Bible. Anthropology, philosophy, psychology, natural sciences, physics and neuroscience are but a few other branches of knowledge related to the exploration of ultimate reality.

5. Too Binary

Traditional theological scholarship is rooted in an antiquated binary that classifies Atheism and Christianity as opposites. Right? YouTube is chockful of debates between notable Atheists and Christians, with the expectation that a “winner” will be declared. Atheism and Christianity should not be a zero-sum game, and until modern theological scholarship embracers this, it will become increasingly irrelevant in the modern world.

Not Enough List

1. Not Jesus Enough

In my view, traditional theological scholarship is too removed from Jesus. On the one hand, traditional theology fails to fully embrace and articulate the significance of the humanity and lived human experience of the historical Jesus. It is striking that the oldest and most foundational Christian creeds jump from Jesus’ birth to his death and resurrection, entirely skipping over his life. I find it curious that practically every creed of the Church, whether the early ecumenical creeds, the Roman Catholic creeds or the Protestant creeds are statements that outline the theological positions and doctrines of the Church, but hardly have any of the teaching of Jesus in them. On the other hand, traditional theology posits a shallow understanding of the spiritual and transformative meaning of the incarnation, crucifixion, kenosis and resurrection of Jesus. You would think from a lot of Christian theology that the significance of Jesus is being a ticket-puncher to heaven for penitents.

2. Not Apocalyptic Enough

I don’t mean “apocalyptic” in terms of some cataclysmic end-times Armageddon where everything goes up in flames. “Apocalypse” can also be defined: “the complete final destruction of the world; an event involving destruction or damage on an awesome or catastrophic scale.” The actual etymology of the term means “revelation” or “disclosure.” Putting it all together, in my view the Christian message is the disclosure that the world as we know it - governed by a separate “God” in the sky - has been destroyed, giving birth to an entirely new order. Traditional theological scholarship fails to discern the apocalyptic ethos of the biblical metanarrative, which asserts the end of the current world as the catalyst for a new one.

3. Not Philosophical Enough

Traditional theological scholarship has failed to adequately incorporate the philosophical insights and contributions in areas such as existentialism, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, phenomenology, and deconstruction. Were Aristotle, Plato, Nietzsche, Spinoza, Hegel, Camus, Sartre, Descartes, Derrida and Wittgenstein philosophers or theologians? They were both. Yet, they never appeared on my seminary reading list. For example, in my view, not consulting Hegel, Spinoza or Blake in the work of theology seems highly negligent.

4. Not Eastern Enough

Traditional theological scholarship has failed to adequately consult Eastern philosophy, religion and spirituality in its theological pursuits. Case in point: you would think that Alfred North Whitehead pioneered process philosophy/theology. Meanwhile, 2,500 years ago Buddhism held the concept of Pratītyasamutpāda (“dependent origination”). Likewise, you would think that Jean-Paul Sartre created the fields of existentialism and phenomenology, meanwhile, thousands of years ago Eastern thought already had a comprehensive ontology of being. In my view, it may not even be possible for a person to properly understand Christianity without understanding Buddhism.

5. Not Radical Enough

Traditional theological scholarship is not radical enough, and has failed to adequately explore the universally relevant and revolutionary implications of the study of God and ultimate reality. “Scientific Revolution” is the name given to a period of drastic change in scientific thought that took place during the 16th and 17th centuries. It replaced the Greek view of nature that had dominated science for almost 2,000 years. The “Industrial Revolution” transformed economies that had been based on agriculture and handicrafts into economies based on large-scale industry. The “Technological Revolution” is the period characterized by novel technologies and accelerated technological progress, creating innovations whose rapid application and diffusion caused a radical change in society.

What is the “theological revolution”?

A New Theology

At risk of being critical without offering an alternative, I offer this summary of a “new theology”, characterized by:

• Consilience - linking together knowledge and experience from the Eastern and Western worlds.

• Metamodern - operating beyond the customary labels, distinctions, definitions, binaries, categories, traditions and structures of theological thought.

• Interdisciplinary - incorporating a wide spectrum of different fields in the sciences and humanities.

• Inclusivity - inviting all people to participate in the continual evolutionary process of understanding and appropriating ultimate reality, including black theology, feminist theology, and queer theology.

• Liberative - forming a deeply meaningful, liberating, unitive and transformational way of being in the lived human experience, and more robust and resilient existential health. .

Look, I get it. I admit to being an idealist. Perhaps this “new theology” sounds utopian, and the music single “We Are the World” the soundtrack. It’s just that I believe that whatever labels we use to identify how we are different, that at the core we are all 100% human, and that seeking the highest truth and the ultimate reality should be something we all can do sensibly and lovingly together.

In Summary

• The question “Is God dead?” resurfaces at times when we know we must evolve further in our efforts of seeking the highest truth.

• I never studied Nietzsche, Hegel or Blake… and a long list of other philosophers… in seminary.

• “New Theology” should be an endeavor that every human being can participate in.

• Atheists and Christians have more in common than they think.

• We are all 100% human.

“Re-examine all you have been told in school or church or in any book, and dismiss whatever insults your own soul; and your very flesh shall be a great poem, and have the richest fluency, not only in its words, but in the silent lines of its lips and face, and between the lashes of your eyes, and in every motion and joint of your body.” - Walt Whitman