The Predicament of Belief -- A Review
THE PREDICAMENT OF BELIEF: Science, Philosophy, and Faith.
By Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2011. X
+ 184 pages.
Philip
Clayton and Steven Knapp are scholars and persons of faith. Both have impressive academic
credentials. Clayton is Ingraham
Professor of Theology and Dean of the Claremont School of Theology, along with
serving as the founding Provost of newly born Claremont Lincoln University. He has published numerous books and articles
on theology and philosophy. One of his
primary interests is the relationship of religion and science. I’ve previously reviewed two of his books, and
have had the opportunity to personally dialog with him on matters
theological. Steven Knapp is President
of George Washington University and Professor of English at that
university. Although this is my first
encounter with Knapp, this isn’t his first collaboration with Philip
Clayton. Together they seek to address the “predicament
of belief” by taking up the challenges presented by science, philosophy, and
religious pluralism to a coherent and viable theism.
Although brief in scope, this isn’t
an easy read. The reader will need to
have a good grasp of the relevant issues, but then most skeptics and
questioners have informed themselves on the issues. They simply seek a reasonable answer to their
questions. The hope of the authors is
that this is a reasonable response, even though some beliefs will transcend
rationality. This is especially true as
one moves from the general to the more specific. It is one thing to affirm the idea of an
Ultimate Reality (God) and quite another to believe that this Ultimate Reality
was present in and through a particular person in history, such as Jesus of
Nazareth. This is, therefore, why the
authors shy away from calling this book a “manual of Christian
apologetics.” This is an attempt to lay
out a “minimalist personal theism,” rather than lay out a robust orthodox
vision of faith.
The authors recognize that there
are significant obstacles to faith, but they also believe that one needn’t be
content with agnosticism. The Christian
minimalist position, in their
estimation, assumes that the “reasons for affirming Christian claims are
stronger than the reasons for denying them” (p. 18). The faith they offer holds that the natural
world stems “from a not-less-than-personal ultimate reality, a way of conceiving
divine action that is compatible with scientific methods and results, and a way
of interpreting the New Testament resurrection claims that we think remains
plausible for men and women in the twenty-first century” (p. 22). They do this knowing that there are
significant reasons for having doubts about the religious enterprise.
Starting with the objections to
faith and then moving on to a discussion of the nature of the ultimate reality
and the way this reality (God) is active in the universe, while taking into
consideration religious pluralism, they lay out the foundations for a
minimalist personal theism (MPT), addressing along the way continuing concerns
and objections.
It is the two chapters dealing with
the particular that should draw considerable attention, and the authors
acknowledge that this is the heart of the predicament addressed by the
book. One will have had to buy into the
more general arguments for a minimalist personal theism to make it this
far. If you accept the premise that
there is an ultimate reality that is not less than personal, and recognizing
that there are a variety of options available to explain that ultimate reality
(religious pluralism), then perhaps you’re ready to make a home in one
particular tradition. Their
understanding of this reality involves the assumption that God does not stand
outside the universe intervening in supernatural ways. That assumption may not be robust enough for
many Christians, but it fits with their panentheistic understanding of God (the
world is in God). With regard to the
particularities of the Christian faith their focus is on two questions – the resurrection
and the uniqueness of Christ. They deal
with issues such as the Trinity as well, but these are the two topics that draw
their primary attention.
They offer a number of possible
ways of understanding the resurrection, from metaphor to bodily resurrection
(sort of from Borg to Wright). They can’t
affirm the traditional understanding of a bodily resurrection because it is
unsustainable, in their minds, when set against a scientific framework. They also find the metaphorical/symbolic
version less than true to what the early Christians envisioned, and thus they propose
a participatory model of the resurrection.
Human beings share the “Spirit of Christ” insofar as they enter into the same relationship with God that was embodied in Jesus’ self-surrender to the one he called his “father.” The heart of this theory, in other words, is that, in the event that came to be known as Jesus’ resurrection, his self-surrendering engagement with God became newly available, through the agency of the divine Spirit, to his followers, then and since, as the form, model, and condition of their own engagement with the divine.” (p. 90).
This understanding doesn’t address what happened to Jesus
specifically, but it does suggest that the disciples of Jesus, then and now,
participate in his relationship with God in a transformative way.
Further,
the authors address the question of uniqueness of Jesus. How does Jesus embody or represent the ultimate
reality? The participatory theory
involves the assumption that in Jesus we participate in the reality that is
God, through him, but that doesn’t mean that he is the one and only way for
this to occur. The New Testament does
assume that Jesus is the highest and fullest instance of human participation in
the person and presence of God. But, how strong should our claims be? Clayton and Knapp seek a way between the
exclusivist position and one that resist all such claims. They prefer to move beyond an either/or
solution to one that affirms some aspects of uniqueness without ruling out
other ways in which God is present. The resurrection appearances offer a means by
which one can envision the Spirit of God making the presence of Christ
available, even if not in a bodily/physical form. Jesus, by the Spirit, remains personally but
not physically present. It’s not a
metaphor and it’s not a vision, but it’s not Wright’s physical/bodily/tangible
presence. I appreciate their attempt at
finding a middle ground, though I’m left wanting a more robust understanding of
the resurrection.
They
close the book with two chapters that revisit the questions of doubt and
belief, and it’s here that they address issues such as the Trinity. Then they close with a chapter that deals
with the church, and what the church might look like if it allows for a rather
wide spectrum of beliefs. Can the church
survive and thrive if at its heart it requires a minimalist perspective? The authors offer their vision of the church
as the most reasonable way of reaching those who see themselves as spiritual
but not religious (about 72% of millennials).
The reality is that we likely don’t have a choice. We can be hard and fast with doctrinal rules,
but that works only for a rather small number of folks, and its shrinking
quickly. Can the church thrive if
membership doesn’t require that adhere to one particular understanding of God
or of Jesus’ relationship to God?
As we ponder this question the
authors note that in presenting the church in this fashion we must also take
into serious consideration a question raised by John Cobb: does it matter? Cobb is no conservative, but his suggestion
that progressive denominations could be declining because we don’t always seem
to believe that what we’re saying and doing is all that important. Unless
this faith gives meaning to our lives, it won’t live on, especially in an age
where religion doesn’t have much social value.
Ultimately this is the question that
we face. Does it matter whether we
believe or not? Even if we can overcome
the challenges of science and theodicy and religious pluralism, does the
Christian faith offer meaning to our lives?
My feelings about this book are
mixed. Perhaps it’s because I’ve spent
my entire life as a Christian and because I was an evangelical and still have
some evangelical elements to my theology, I’m left wanting more. This is especially true of the
resurrection. I’m not sure that their
solution is sufficient for me. That may
be true for other readers. On the other
hand, I think this would be a most useful book for my friends that are
struggling to accept even a minimalist theism.
I think that it will help move people beyond agnosticism, and maybe even
atheism. So, maybe my mixed feelings
have more to say about me than about the author’s project.
Read the book, especially if you
struggle with doubt. If you’re one who
seeks a more robust view of God and of Jesus’ relationship to God, then you
might be left wanting more, but recognize that the authors really aren’t
speaking to you. It has its audience,
and hopefully it will help draw into the body those who struggle to find meaning
for their lives. One of the reasons why
a book like this may not appeal to everyone is that many people prefer a more
black and white kind of faith. The faith
they offer is rather complex and even messy, and that can be troubling.
Comments
I understand the dilemma (predicament). I'm not sure how this works. Once you let the camel's nose of intervention in, you end up with an open can of worms. That said, my gut wants a more robust doctrine of the resurrection. I don't have a solution though!! Hoping someone else will come up with one.
I will definitely suggest this book to my friends who struggle with belief. You have caught their dilemma well!