Apologies to theologians and some clarifications

I found out today from some theologian friends at ACU that the "Working Assumptions" post that started this blog might have been offensive to them. To them, I appeared pretty dismissive. And, reading that post again, they have a point. So, I'd like to apologize.

To prevent misunderstandings, I'd like to clarify what I was talking about. Here is the offending excerpt of that post:

"Current theological formulations have failed to deal directly with human nature. That is, most theological accounts tend to work with an ancient and scientifically out-dated view of humanity, one based in both dualism and a radical vision of human agency (i.e., free will). Further, current theological formulations frequently fail to provide theological tools regarding the "stuff of life" (e.g., my students and I often stumble across some human trait or inclination, but we often fail to find theological support for how to think about this facet of our nature)."

First, I state that "most theological accounts tend to work with an ancient and scientifically out-dated view of humanity." Well, that is a bit overstated. But here is the point I was trying to get at: It doesn't seem to me that theologians are wrestling with the cutting edge findings from the human sciences. For example:

1. Behavioral Genetics: Did you know that religiosity is heritable? That your belief in God is partly genetic?

2. Evolutionary Psychology: Are you aware of how an adaptive history might have shaped your mind? Affecting everything from sexuality to how you read the Bible?

3. Neuroscience: Did you know that an appeal to the "soul" or "free will" is scientifically untenable?

I know there is some work on these issues, but, by and large, the theological literature, a literature that I also need to see as psychologically respectable to be of any use, is slim in these areas. So, in the grip of a crazy idea, I thought I'd try to address these kinds of questions.

I further state that "current theological formulations frequently fail to provide theological tools regarding the 'stuff of life'." Here is what I mean. Frequently in class I reveal some nugget of data about human nature. And students often ask, "How does theology interact with this?" I'm no theologian, so I try to refer them to good theological sources. But there are just not many good materials out there on topics like this.

Now, don't get me wrong. That is not an insult or an indictment. It just reflects what I'm trying to argue here: Theological training and scholarship doesn't deal with the minutiae of human psychology. That's no crime. But it is a gap. And I'd like to fill that gap. Want some examples? Here's one:

Data tells us that humans lie all the time. And I mean ALL THE TIME. It's not often big lies, but we tell small lies constantly. About 10 a day to be conservative. And that isn't counting dishonesties such as laughing a co-worker's joke that isn't funny. What is interesting is that most of these lies, like laughing at the poor joke, are meant to be acts of "service," dishonesties meant to protect another person's feelings. Psychologists call these "other-oreinted lies."

So, my students ask: Are all these lies sin? I'd like to answer that question. They don't seem like sins to me or my students. But it is hard to find sources with good theological discussions about such topics. You could take an ethics class, but that isn't really theology.

Again, this isn't meant to be an insult. Theological training and scholarship doesn't focus on the micro-issues of psychology. But that is the world I inhabit and I want to populate that world with theological insights. That is the point of this blog.

To conclude, note also I use the words "most theological accounts" and "frequently fail." Yes, there is some theological work in many of these areas. But there is not a whole lot out there. Nor is that work commonly discussed. So, insofar as this blog gets that work into the public consciousness, it has accomplished its job.

And now, as I read all this over, it doesn't look like much of an apology.

For that, I'm sorry.

Really.