by Thomas Scarborough

It has been said that one may be so heavenly minded as to be of no earthly good  ¢â‚¬“ and similarly, that one may be so earthy minded as to be of no heavenly good. Theologians have described these two extremes as a  ¢â‚¬Å“purely religious salvation ¢â‚¬  and a  ¢â‚¬Å“purely politico-social liberation ¢â‚¬ . I refer to them here  ¢â‚¬“ perhaps too simply  ¢â‚¬“ as  ¢â‚¬Å“personal faith ¢â‚¬  and  ¢â‚¬Å“social action ¢â‚¬ .

For many a lay person, this issue may not present a particular problem. Through simple obedience to Scripture, one may indeed be both heavenly minded and of earthly good. Theologians, however  ¢â‚¬“ from a conceptual point of view  ¢â‚¬“ have found it particularly awkward to find a basis on which to combine these two extremes. Madeleine Cousineau notes that it is  ¢â‚¬Å“not always easy ¢â‚¬   ¢â‚¬“ while Jos ƒ © Comblin asks:  ¢â‚¬Å“How to connect eternal salvation to temporal liberation, and salvation in heaven to liberation on earth? ¢â‚¬ 

In a recent paper, I sought to provide concepts for reconciling personal faith and social action  ¢â‚¬“ a paper which began its life as an assignment under Veli-Matti K ƒ ¤rkk ƒ ¤inen, Professor of Systematic Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. However, as tends to be the case with papers, it was dense writing at an abstract level. The purpose here is to repeat it  ¢â‚¬Å“in simple English ¢â‚¬   ¢â‚¬“ or something like it. At the end of this article, I provide a link to the paper  ¢â‚¬“ which will provide citations in particular.

1. THEOLOGY AS PERSPECTIVE

According to theologian Stanley Grenz, there are two ways in which one may approach issues such as the above. The first is to work from specific sources  ¢â‚¬“ such as the Bible, or past theological discussions. The second is to order the Christian faith around a  ¢â‚¬Å“thematic perspective in light of which all other theological concepts are understood ¢â‚¬ . That is, a simple perspective will inform the way in which one understands the whole theological enterprise.

Some of the best known theologians have made use of perspectives in this way: Martin Luther  ¢â‚¬Å“theologised ¢â‚¬  from the perspective of justification by faith, John Calvin from the perspective of the glory of God, John Dewey from the perspective of religious values,  J ƒ ¼rgen Moltmann from the perspective of a theology of hope,  Stanley Grenz from the perspective of the community of God  ¢â‚¬“ and so on.

Such perspectives are well developed, and have stood the test of time, as being worthy of theological discussion. The purpose here is not to embark on any similar great ambition, but merely to seek to reconcile, conceptually, personal faith and social action. With this in mind, I here suggest a perspective which has its source in one of the great emerging tides of history:

Through the power of the natural and human sciences, there has been a growing awareness that this world is fundamentally relational. Our world today has come to be seen as  ¢â‚¬Å“an inseparable net of endless, mutually conditioned relations ¢â‚¬ . Not only have relations themselves received closer attention, but so, too, has the uniquely human practice of articulating such relations. The philosopher and linguist Max Black notes that language is about  ¢â‚¬Å“the apprehension of relationships in general ¢â‚¬ . Therefore whether one should say,  ¢â‚¬Å“H ƒ ©lo ƒ ¯se loved Abelard ¢â‚¬ , or  ¢â‚¬Å“Mass and energy are equivalent ¢â‚¬ , or  ¢â‚¬Å“My equities fared better than my stocks ¢â‚¬ , one traces relations.

Such relations, in turn, have everything to do with perspectives  ¢â‚¬“ the purpose of which is to get a grip on  ¢â‚¬Å“worlds ¢â‚¬  of relations. This applies not only to theological perspectives, but to perspectives in general  ¢â‚¬“ such as politics (relations between people and public policy), trade (relations between imports and exports), or even a tube map (relations between tube lines and times). One further finds perspectives of great scope (the New World Order), or of very personal purview (my personal ambition).

With this in mind, I shall here seek to reconcile personal faith and social action through a perspective which I call  ¢â‚¬Å“Relations ¢â‚¬ .

2. THE PROBLEM OF PERSPECTIVES

A crucial feature of relations is that they are potentially infinite. Fritjof Capra notes that  ¢â‚¬Å“to explain something means, ultimately, to show how it is connected to everything else ¢â‚¬ . Similarly,  Arthur  Peacocke has described  theology as  ¢â‚¬Å“the intellectual discipline whose subject matter is the relation of God to everything else ¢â‚¬ .

However, here a fundamental problem arises. It is impossible that a single mind should grasp how anything should be connected to everything else  ¢â‚¬“ let alone any combination of minds. Perspectives, by their very nature, involve finite arrangements of relations. No perspective can encompass all relations, which are potentially infinite.

This problem has at least four major aspects:

2.1. Arbitrariness

In principle, since anything is related to everything else, it should be possible to select any perspective at all  ¢â‚¬“ any starting point at all  ¢â‚¬“ and relate it to all things. That is, any and every perspective  ¢â‚¬Å“should do ¢â‚¬ . It is arbitrary. Or to put this a little differently, it would seem impossible to prove that it is not.

Theological perspectives share much the same problem. S ƒ ¸ren Kierkegaard, in his classic work Either/Or, pokes fun at perspectives. He notes:  ¢â‚¬Å“Experienced  people  maintain  that  it  isvery reasonable to proceed from a principle. ¢â‚¬  Thus he proposes boredom as a starting point  ¢â‚¬“ questioning first whether anyone might be so boring as to dispute this. The creation of the world, he writes, may be accounted for by Divine boredom. The creation of Eve may be accounted for by the boredom of Adam in his loneliness. The building of the (pointless) Tower of Babel may be explained by the boredom of all humanity  ¢â‚¬“ and so on.

In short, any perspective is by its very nature suspect, and should be treated as temporary and tentative at best. A postmodernist would say that one should not be  ¢â‚¬Å“enthralled by metaphysics ¢â‚¬   ¢â‚¬“ or to put it rather too simply, one should not be duped by perspectives, as if they were in any way ultimate.

2.2 Exclusion

A second, related problem arises. If one selects any particular perspective by which to arrange a  ¢â‚¬Å“world ¢â‚¬  of relations, this tends to  ¢â‚¬Å“drive out ¢â‚¬  other perspectives. To use postmodern terms, a perspective is likely to exclude, marginalise, or repress the Other. Economic policies may compromise the environment, political ideologies may lead to social inequalities, idolatry may lead to persecution  ¢â‚¬“ or, on a smaller scale, the emotional well-being of one’s spouse may be sacrificed to one’s personal ambition  ¢â‚¬“ and so on.

Theological perspectives present much the same problem. Grenz’s community of God tends to  ¢â‚¬Å“drive out ¢â‚¬  Luther’s justification by faith, Dewey’s religious values tend to  ¢â‚¬Å“drive out ¢â‚¬  Calvin’s glory of God  ¢â‚¬“ and in connection with this article, John Gladwin notes that  ¢â‚¬Å“a number of views … do not accept that it is possible to relate the gospel directly to the social order ¢â‚¬ . That is, the social order is  ¢â‚¬Å“driven out ¢â‚¬  from certain perspectives of the gospel.

This  ¢â‚¬Å“driving out ¢â‚¬  of perspectives other than one’s own chosen perspective is well illustrated by what is known as  ¢â‚¬Å“textuality ¢â‚¬ , or  ¢â‚¬Å“the property of written material to form a coherent whole ¢â‚¬ . For example, if one were to drop a nursery rhyme into the middle of this article:  ¢â‚¬Å“Two little kittens, one stormy night, began to quarrel, and then to fight, ¢â‚¬  there would be bafflement and confusion. That is, perspectives have a natural tendency to  ¢â‚¬Å“drive out ¢â‚¬  other aspects of reality  ¢â‚¬“ other  ¢â‚¬Å“worlds ¢â‚¬  of relations.

2.3 Totalising Tendencies

There is a third problem  ¢â‚¬“ again related to the potentially infinite number of relations in this world. Because perspectives are capable only of encompassing finite arrangements of relations  ¢â‚¬“  ¢â‚¬Å“worlds ¢â‚¬  of relations  ¢â‚¬“ this means that there will always be relations which lie beyond the understanding and control of a given perspective. Stephen Toulmin notes:  ¢â‚¬Å“All abstraction involves omission, turning a blind eye to elements in experience … ¢â‚¬  Any given perspective, therefore, has its natural limits.

To put this a little differently  ¢â‚¬“ because perspectives cannot encompass all relations, they will never yield total understanding and control. As a result, they frequently create unintended historical consequences  ¢â‚¬“ some examples being ozone depletion, biodiversity reduction, and global poverty.

At the same time, perspectives are prone to totalising tendencies. In order to master infinite relations, infinite understanding and control is required. This tends to drive humanity to achieve the unachievable  ¢â‚¬“ namely  ¢â‚¬Å“systematic totality ¢â‚¬ . Surveillance of the populace is never enough. The rigour of fundamentalism is never enough. Management of the environment is never enough.

2.4. Trauma

Fourthly, the arbitrariness, exclusion, and totalising tendencies of perspectives all tend in reality to do hurt or harm to people. John Caputo notes:  ¢â‚¬Å“Exclusion and marginalization are never merely formal ideas (but) always have to do with damaged lives and disasters … ¢â‚¬  Where the environment becomes irrelevant to business interests, the environment suffers degradation. Where people’s personal well-being becomes secondary to industrial production, people’s quality of life is compromised. Where one’s spouse becomes secondary to one’s personal ambitions, one’s spouse suffers neglect  ¢â‚¬“ and so on.

David Korten observes, in an oft-quoted passage:  ¢â‚¬Å“In the name of modernity we are creating dysfunctional societies that are breeding pathological behavior  ¢â‚¬“ violence, extreme competitiveness, suicide, drug abuse, greed, and environmental degradation  ¢â‚¬“ at every hand … The threefold crisis of deepening poverty, environmental destruction, and social disintegration manifests this dysfunction … Corporate globalization is being advanced by the conscious choices of those who see the world through the lens of the corporate interest. ¢â‚¬ 

It is interesting to note Korten’s specific link between  ¢â‚¬Å“the lens ¢â‚¬  of corporate interest (a perspective) and pathological behaviour. This applies not only to the lens of corporate interest, but to many other lenses, too.

I now turn to the theological significance of the above:

3. APPLICATION TO THEOLOGY

On the one hand, there has been a growing awareness that this world represents  ¢â‚¬Å“an inseparable net of endless, mutually conditioned relations ¢â‚¬ . On the other hand, it would seem that any attempt to develop a perspective within this infinity of relations is bound to be pervaded by arbitrariness, exclusion, totalising tendencies, and trauma. To put it simply, no matter what humans do, their perspectives  ¢â‚¬“ theological perspectives included  ¢â‚¬“ are bound to do hurt and harm to others.

This may now serve to integrate the personal and social dimensions of the gospel  ¢â‚¬“  firstdrawing  a  parallel  between   ¢â‚¬Å“perspectives ¢â‚¬   and   ¢â‚¬Å“original  sin ¢â‚¬ ,  then  exploring  despair  ¢â‚¬“ herelikened with repentance  ¢â‚¬“ as  the  only  appropriate  response:

3.1 Original Sin

 ¢â‚¬Å“Original sin ¢â‚¬  is described as  ¢â‚¬Å“the state of alienation from God into which all humans are born ¢â‚¬ , and is based chiefly on the doctrine of the inheritance of sin. This can now be accounted for theologically as the adoption of perspectives  ¢â‚¬“ many of which one is born into, and cannot evade.

Whether one participates in the perpetuation of an unequal society, or inherits a lifestyle which plunders the environment, or defrauds one’s employer, or neglects one’s children, all of these acts and more require the adoption of perspectives  ¢â‚¬“ which by their very nature hold negative consequences. That is, through the adoption of perspectives, one does hurt and harm to one’s fellow humans.

Cast in these terms, original sin includes a great deal more than one might typically imagine. No matter whether one adopts the perspective of the national interest, or of corporate advancement, of personal ambition, or of any of the countless perspectives that there are, one does hurt and harm to others. In short, original sin is not only personal  ¢â‚¬“ it has to do with each and every perspective that people hold. Any  ¢â‚¬Å“unhealthy separation between social and personal sin ¢â‚¬  is thus done away with.

3.2 Repentance

At the same time, it may be one of the most daunting challenges for people to abandon their perspectives, as this may threaten the loss of meaning  ¢â‚¬“ in fact, may seem to threaten their very existence.  ¢â‚¬Å“Plausibility structures, ¢â‚¬  writes David Bosch, are the means by which  ¢â‚¬Å“reality is managed and pursued ¢â‚¬ . In keeping with this, Paul Hiebert notes:  ¢â‚¬Å“People are willing to die for beliefs that make their lives and deaths meaningful. ¢â‚¬  That is, when people sense that their perspectives are threatened, they may struggle with might and main to protect them.

In contrast, I here suggest that it is precisely despair which needs to be embraced. Unless one is ready to despair over one’s perspectives  ¢â‚¬“ including those which seem closer to one than life itself  ¢â‚¬“ one cannot be saved. Unless one is ready to despair, one cannot be set free  ¢â‚¬“ nor can one set others free. One needs, wrote Paul Tillich,  ¢â‚¬Å“the courage of despair ¢â‚¬ . One needs to despair over one’s perspectives without partiality  ¢â‚¬“ not only at one’s conversion, but in the words of Veli-Matti K ƒ ¤rkk ƒ ¤inen,  ¢â‚¬Å“even Christians have to be open to conversion, conversion to a fuller truth ¢â‚¬ .

To cast this in Biblical terms, one needs the courage of repentance. One needs to be  ¢â‚¬Å“cut to the heart ¢â‚¬  over that which one could not see, and move beyond it. Thus as one despairs over all the  ¢â‚¬Å“worlds ¢â‚¬  of relations which are one’s perspectives, this must necessarily have consequences for the personal, social, and environmental dimensions of the gospel.

4. PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS

In closing, it would seem that a few comments on philosophical questions would be in order.

Firstly, an assumption of this article is that perspectives  ¢â‚¬“ and with them  ¢â‚¬Å“worlds ¢â‚¬  of relations  ¢â‚¬“ are inherently flawed, and inescapably lead to human trauma. If, however, it should be the case that perspectives are not inherently flawed, one would then need to determine what it is that distinguishes good perspectives from bad. This, in my own view, is impossible, as persepctives cannot aspire to total understanding and control, and cannot therefore be judged by unknown consequences.

Secondly, the question arises as to whether it is possible to escape perspectives. Are they not absolutely necessary to the management of life? In this regard, it may be helpful to think of perspectives as being  ¢â‚¬Å“always-in-flux ¢â‚¬ , as opposed to being ultimate. That is, one accepts their arbitrariness. In much the same way that postmodernism proposes a  ¢â‚¬Å“play of opposites ¢â‚¬ , so one may think of a  ¢â‚¬Å“play of perspectives ¢â‚¬ . The same would apply to theology. Postmodern theology has suggested that Scripture should become a decentralised buzz of revelation which one leaves  ¢â‚¬Å“as is ¢â‚¬  with minimal interpretation  ¢â‚¬“ a  ¢â‚¬Å“postmodern Bible ¢â‚¬ .

Thirdly, it may be asked whether one should distinguish between the laws of nature as being universal in their application, and perspectives as  ¢â‚¬Å“finite arrangements of relations ¢â‚¬ . Here, David Barrow reminds us:  ¢â‚¬Å“It is one thing to know the laws of Nature, but quite another to know the outcomes of those laws. ¢â‚¬  To put it simply, the apparent universality of laws does not help us much further. Also, if  arbitrary  perspectives  are  viewed  as  axiomaticsystems, then   ¢â‚¬Å“only  in  exceptional  cases ¢â‚¬   can  the  results  of  their application  be  predicted.  

Finally, the question arises as to whether the repentance described above represents a natural transition in one’s life, or a supernatural one  ¢â‚¬“ generated, as the Bible has it, by the Holy Spirit of God through Jesus Christ. Since repentance has been here described as the abandonment of perspectives which seem closer to one than life itself, it needs to be considered whether this represents a  ¢â‚¬Å“shift ¢â‚¬  that lies beyond the natural  ¢â‚¬“ that is, whether such a shift requires a Divine impulse or influence.

5. CONCLUSION

We live in a world which is fundamentally relational. However, the way in which people trace this infinity of relations through perspectives  ¢â‚¬“ that is, through  ¢â‚¬Å“worlds ¢â‚¬  of relations  ¢â‚¬“ is inherently flawed, and is akin to original sin in its personal, social, and environmental implications.

This article therefore proposes a theological perspective without a perspective, as it were  ¢â‚¬“ a perspective which is not  ¢â‚¬Å“enthralled by metaphysics ¢â‚¬ , but removes the central idea  ¢â‚¬“ leaving behind it relations per se. It  ¢â‚¬Å“imposes [no] artificial viewpoint instead of allowing [the Bible] to speak for itself ¢â‚¬ . However, in removing the central idea  ¢â‚¬“ in fact, by despairing over and repenting of the central idea  ¢â‚¬“ one creates a kind of perspective that is an anti-perspective. As this perspective of  ¢â‚¬Å“Relations ¢â‚¬  challenges all perspectives, it promises to address not only the personal dimensions of the gospel but its social and environmental dimensions, too. Thus personal faith and social action are reconciled.

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY  

The original paper was published in the theological journal Conspectus, and may be accessed at  http://www.satsonline.org/userfiles/Scarborough,%20Reconciling%20the%20Personal%20and%20Social%20Dimensions%20of%20the%20Gospel.pdf

It cites, among others: Black M, Blackburn S, Bosch DJ, Capra F, Caputo JD, Chandler D, Christmas WJ, Comblin J, Cone JH, Korten DC, Cousineau MR, Dewey JF, Gladwin JW, Guti ƒ ©rez G, Hart K, Hiebert PG, Hillyer PN, K ƒ ¤kk ƒ ¤nen V, Kierkegaard S, Mautner T, McClendon JW, Murphy N 1996, Parratt J, Schwarz H, Teilhard de Chardin P, Thompson M, Tillich P, Toulmin S.

Thomas Scarborough is the minister of an urban, cosmopolitan Congregational Church in Cape Town, where he has ministered for nearly 20 years. He holds an MA from Fuller Theological Seminary, and an MTh from the South African Theological Seminary.