Does Theology really matter?

An article I ready last week reminded me of the reason that theology matters in so many areas of life. Specifically, the article was titled, Why the Arabic World Turned away from Science.The article concluded that the reason the Arabic World turned away from Scientific development was that a certain form of Islamic theology became dominant that opposed secular scholarship for theological reasons.

To understand this anti-rationalist movement, we once again turn our gaze back to the time of the Abbasid caliph al-Mamun. Al-Mamun picked up the pro-science torch lit by the second caliph, al-Mansur, and ran with it. He responded to a crisis of legitimacy by attempting to undermine traditionalist religious scholars while actively sponsoring a doctrine called Mu’tazilism that was deeply influenced by Greek rationalism, particularly Aristotelianism. To this end, he imposed an inquisition, under which those who refused to profess their allegiance to Mu’tazilism were punished by flogging, imprisonment, or beheading. But the caliphs who followed al-Mamun upheld the doctrine with less fervor, and within a few decades, adherence to it became a punishable offense. The backlash against Mu’tazilism was tremendously successful: by 885, a half century after al-Mamun’s death, it even became a crime to copy books of philosophy. The beginning of the de-Hellenization of Arabic high culture was underway. By the twelfth or thirteenth century, the influence of Mu’tazilism was nearly completely marginalized.

In its place arose the anti-rationalist Ash’ari school whose increasing dominance is linked to the decline of Arabic science. With the rise of the Ash’arites, the ethos in the Islamic world was increasingly opposed to original scholarship and any scientific inquiry that did not directly aid in religious regulation of private and public life. While the Mu’tazilites had contended that the Koran was created and so God’s purpose for man must be interpreted through reason, the Ash’arites believed the Koran to be coeval with God — and therefore unchallengeable. At the heart of Ash’ari metaphysics is the idea of occasionalism, a doctrine that denies natural causality. Put simply, it suggests natural necessity cannot exist because God’s will is completely free. Ash’arites believed that God is the only cause, so that the world is a series of discrete physical events each willed by God.

As Maimonides described it in The Guide for the Perplexed, this view sees natural things that appear to be permanent as merely following habit. Heat follows fire and hunger follows lack of food as a matter of habit, not necessity, “just as the king generally rides on horseback through the streets of the city, and is never found departing from this habit; but reason does not find it impossible that he should walk on foot through the place.” According to the occasionalist view, tomorrow coldness might follow fire, and satiety might follow lack of food. God wills every single atomic event and God’s will is not bound up with reason. This amounts to a denial of the coherence and comprehensibility of the natural world. In his controversial 2006 University of Regensburg address, Pope Benedict XVI described this idea by quoting the philosopher Ibn Hazm (died 1064) as saying, “Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry.” It is not difficult to see how this doctrine could lead to dogma and eventually to the end of free inquiry in science and philosophy.

The greatest and most influential voice of the Ash’arites was the medieval theologian Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (also known as Algazel; died 1111). In his book The Incoherence of the Philosophers, al-Ghazali vigorously attacked philosophy and philosophers — both the Greek philosophers themselves and their followers in the Muslim world (such as al-Farabi and Avicenna). Al-Ghazali was worried that when people become favorably influenced by philosophical arguments, they will also come to trust the philosophers on matters of religion, thus making Muslims less pious. Reason, because it teaches us to discover, question, and innovate, was the enemy; al-Ghazali argued that in assuming necessity in nature, philosophy was incompatible with Islamic teaching, which recognizes that nature is entirely subject to God’s will: “Nothing in nature,” he wrote, “can act spontaneously and apart from God.” While al-Ghazali did defend logic, he did so only to the extent that it could be used to ask theological questions and wielded as a tool to undermine philosophy. Sunnis embraced al-Ghazali as the winner of the debate with the Hellenistic rationalists, and opposition to philosophy gradually ossified, even to the extent that independent inquiry became a tainted enterprise, sometimes to the point of criminality. It is an exaggeration to say, as Steven Weinberg claimed in the Times of London, that after al-Ghazali “there was no more science worth mentioning in Islamic countries”; in some places, especially Central Asia, Arabic work in science continued for some time, and philosophy was still studied somewhat under Shi’ite rule. (In the Sunni world, philosophy turned into mysticism.) But the fact is, Arab contributions to science became increasingly sporadic as the anti-rationalism sank in.

The Ash’ari view has endured to this day. Its most extreme form can be seen in some sects of Islamists. For example, Mohammed Yusuf, the late leader of a group called the Nigerian Taliban, explained why “Western education is a sin” by explaining its view on rain: “We believe it is a creation of God rather than an evaporation caused by the sun that condenses and becomes rain.” The Ash’ari view is also evident when Islamic leaders attribute natural disasters to God’s vengeance, as they did when they said that the 2010 eruption of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull volcano was the result of God’s anger at immodestly dressed women in Europe. Such inferences sound crazy to Western ears, but given their frequency in the Muslim world, they must sound at least a little less crazy to Muslims. As Robert R. Reilly argues in The Closing of the Muslim Mind (2010), “the fatal disconnect between the creator and the mind of his creature is the source of Sunni Islam’s most profound woes.”

This is an example of how theology has affected science in Islamic societies, but theology/philosophy has just as profound an affect on all areas of life for Christians. The apostle Paul was keenly aware of this and is the reason why he structured his epistles (letters) to the different churches in the New Testament in the form of Theology followed by Application. The theology he discusses in the first portion of this letters goes hand in hand with the specific instructions that he gives for living godly lives in the second portion of this letters. Even Paul's Epistle to the Romans, follows this model, though many might assume that the book is simply a presentation of higher theology. The theology section is very large but it is to support his call for unity between Gentile and Jewish Christians.

FRONTLINE Documentary on Jesus

Here is a new for-TV documentary that NBC Frontline has just come out with called From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians. The second portion will air in a week or so. I haven't yet watched the whole thing but I am interested to see it - most definitely don't agree with everything from reading the synopsis.

What is the biblical perspective on marriage and children?

At my work place many of my peers discuss marriage, dating and future family life, some of whom do not want to have children. To be fair I agree that children are a challenge to raise, nurture and disciple (not to mention discipline). It is no easy task, but I believe the biblical perspective challenges Christian couples have children. Some would argue differently, and it is worth taking a quick look at one of the issues.

Do Old Testament commands have influence into the New Testament era? If so which ones and to what extent? I think that we have to look at how the apostles interpreted Old Testament law, commands and covenants. I have started reading a Counterpoints: Bible and Theology book called Five Views on Law and Gospel which I recommend. Law and Gospel is the discussion of the relationship between Old Testament Law and the Gospel (Law that Jesus gives). As Christians we believe that Jesus did not remove the authority of the Old Testament law,

¹⁷ "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. ¹⁸For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,^c not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. ¹⁹Therefore, whoever breaks^d one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ²⁰For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. -Matthew 5:18

where as Judaism would say that Jesus and Christianity has broken from the Law. 

Continuing our discussion, does the command from Genesis 1:28,

²⁷  So God created humankind^e in his image,

       in the image of God he created them;^f

       male and female he created them.

²⁸God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." ²⁹God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. ³⁰And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.

have a literal interpretation in the new covenant? (Also see Genesis 9:1) Are we still called to "multiply"?

It seems that not every Christian is called to do "multiplying". As Paul personally recommends, 

⁸ To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. ⁹But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. -1 Corinthians 7:8-9

But Paul is only talking to singles in this statement, not to those already married. Since this command is given to Adam and Eve, and affirmed again to Noah (Gen 9:1) and we are all descendants then one might argue that this command is still for us. One might also argue that the context of the command was one in which there was only one couple, in the case of Adam and Eve, or only four couples, in the case of Noah and his sons and daughters-in-law, therefore the command was for such a context.

From just the above passage (1 Cor. 7:8-9) we might think that he doesn't care much whether Christians are busy about procreating. But Paul is not addressing a society in which contraceptives are used (It would be interesting to find out if Roman society used any form a natural family planning). Paul is a big advocate for sex in marriage,

¹ Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is well for a man not to touch a woman." ²But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. ³The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. ⁵Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ⁶This I say by way of concession, not of command. ⁷I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind.  -1 Corinthians 7:1-7

Its important to note that the concession that Paul is speaking of in verse 6 is referring to the command for each man and woman to have their own spouse (verse 2), not a concession about each couple should not abstain from sex. If Paul desires that each married couple in the church has a healthy, robust sex life, then children would be the natural outcome of this command in the early church. Lets note that in this passage Paul is not asking couples to have sex in order to have children, but he is not calling for sex without children. I think that it is not wrong to use contraceptives (personally, my wife and I use them). But one should search their heart if they don't want children. What are the motivations? Are those motivations based on faith?

A secular article I just read was encouraging for couples who are concerned about keeping "parenthood from making [their] marriage miserable."

"Our findings go beyond the tired, old debates about gender roles and marriage. In the 1960s and '70s, in part as a consequence of the feminist movement and the therapeutic revolution, many wives understandably rejected what was then a heavily-gendered ethic of marital sacrifice and instead took a more individualistic approach to marriage, focused on meeting their own needs. But if the 1970s divorce revolution taught us anything, it was that heavy doses of individualism and a good marriage aren't very compatible.

Our report suggests, in contrast, that in today's marriages both wives and husbands benefit when they embrace an ethic of marital generosity that puts the welfare of their spouse first. That is, both are happier in their marriages when they make a regular effort to serve their spouse in small ways -- from making them a cup of coffee, to giving them a back rub after a long day, to going out of their way to be affectionate or forgiving. So the lesson here is not for wives now to throw off an other-centered ethic as a relic of an ancient era, but rather for contemporary husbands to embrace this ethic for themselves and their families."

Marriage has to be "other-centered" (selfless), this is the reason the "individualistic approach to marriage" cased a "divorce revolution." Parenthood must also be "other-centered" and this same individualistic approach to parenthood has, among other things, cause population deficit.

Is choosing to have less or no children because we are "focused on meeting [our] own needs" wrong? Is it the Jesus way?