Theology for Non-Theologians

 I almost brought it up a few posts ago -- the question of how to read theology when one isn't a theologian. 

  The answer is that you read as a reader, and as a Christian, if you are one; at least, hopefully, you read as a truth-seeker.    Perhaps GK Chesterton's words apply here, as they so often do to so many situations in life:

I think a man may praise Pindar without knowing the top of a Greek letter from the bottom. But I think that if a man is going to abuse Pindar, if he is going to denounce, refute, and utterly expose Pindar, if he is going to show Pindar up as the utter ignoramus and outrageous impostor that he is, then I think it will be just as well perhaps--I think, at any rate, it would do no harm--if he did know a little Greek, and even had read a little Pindar.   

There's a more general point here.   Theology, the endeavor to know the truth of divine things, is too important to leave solely to theologians.    Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- I'll stop before this becomes a simple hash of Chesterton epigrams.

In this context it is useful to read Chapter 7 of AG Sertillanges' book The Intellectual Life.   The whole book is well worth reading, but this part applies in particular:  

An essential condition for profiting by our reading, whether of ordinary books or those of writers of genius, is to tend always to reconcile our authors instead of setting one against another. The critical spirit has its place; we may have to disentangle opinions and classify men; the method of contrast is then admissible and needs only not to be forced. But when the aim is formation of the mind, personal profit, or even a teacher’s exposition, it is quite a different matter. In these cases it is not the thoughts, but the truths, that interest us; not men’s disputes, but their work and what is lasting in it. It is futile to linger endlessly over differences; the fruitful research is to look for points of contact. Here St. Thomas gives us an admirable example. He always tried to compare doctrines, to illustrate and complete them one by the other. ....   The man who wants to acquire from his authors, not fighting qualities, but truth and penetration, must bring to them this spirit of conciliation and diligent harvesting, the spirit of the bee. Honey is made of many kinds of flowers. 

This, of course, brings St Basil's famous exhortation to mind -- after some words on the less savory parts of pagan literature and rhetoric and philosophy, he goes on to say:  

But on the other hand we shall receive gladly those passages in which they praise virtue or condemn vice. For just as bees know how to extract honey from flowers, which to men are agreeable only for their fragrance and color, even so here also those who look for something more than pleasure and enjoyment in such writers may derive profit for their souls. Now, then, altogether after the manner of bees must we use these writings, for the bees do not visit all the flowers without discrimination, nor indeed do they seek to carry away entire those upon which they light, but rather, having taken so much as is adapted to their needs, they let the rest go. So we, if wise, shall take from heathen books whatever befits us and is allied to the truth, and shall pass over the rest. And just as in culling roses we avoid the thorns, from such writings as these we will gather everything useful, and guard against the noxious. So, from the very beginning, we must examine each of their teachings, to harmonize it with our ultimate purpose, according to the Doric proverb, 'testing each stone by the measuring-line.'

There is far more to be said, obviously.  Sertillanges qualifies his advice, as St Basil does his.   Neither of them are talking about having a mind like a fishing-net that catches junk and toxins along with the good things.   

What they both seem to be indicating is what used to be called "remote preparation".     I don't seem to be able to sum it up in a few words, which would be what is needed here, but it is indicated in Basil's language:  "taking whatever befits us", "guard against the noxious", and so on.  And much of the earlier chapters of Sertillanges' book discusses how to order one's life towards more fruitful and thoughtful reading and writing, and indeed, living in general.

But back to the point about theology, or indeed, theologies and theologians.   Almost every idea or doctrine, when tugged, brings a whole chain of other ideas with it.   This is because truth is interrelated -- it is basically simple, but we approach it in different ways.   You see a small child with a toy -- pounding it, putting it in his mouth, dropping it, turning it around and around, stacking it on something else -- until it is familiar.    This is a simple model of how all humans learn -- by testing, interacting, putting something together with something else.   

The child's first impression of, say, a rattle or block, or water or dirt,  is not the final one.   But it's not untrue in itself, unless the child somehow gets locked into seeing something only in a very limited way -- this usually happens with the wrong kind of education, based on brainwashing or coercion or flattering the child's vanity, so he sees the thing only through fear or pride or through someone else's eyes.   

When a non-theologian reads something about theology, there will be a lot that seems baffling, but maybe a couple of things that make sense, seem true and profound.   One may grasp onto those things, test them out, inquire into them further; the rest may be left for the time being.  Sometimes it makes more sense on the next read-through, because you understand those early things better.  

To generalize even more:  the inquiry into the BIg Things is too serious to leave to the experts, the specialists.   The non-specialist has a potential advantage in that he or she can immediately spot jargon, leaps of logic and less-essential points.   Less-essential, that is, to the truth the reader is looking for, even though no doubt important to the furthering of that scholarly field.    

I would like to test the rather general things I've said here by reading through an article with these principles in mind and applying them.   As is perhaps obvious, I'm writing this mostly for myself.