Firstly, I thank
the Faculty for the honour of the invitation to give this address. Although
there is a lot of interaction between the respective leaders of the various
theological consortia and colleges, there are not so many opportunities for
general faculty members to engage other colleges and their students in events
like this. I am especially grateful for being able to do so.
***
My earliest memory of
attending a graduation ceremony goes back to my oldest brother’s graduation in
the late 1960s. There is a 14 year gap in age between him and me. As a 10 year
old I had no choice but to tag along to what was a significant family occasion.
As it happens, it too was a theology degree – a BD in the then Melbourne
College of Divinity.
What I remember most
clearly about that graduation ceremony is the event that happened mid-way
through the speaker’s address.
Dressed in all their
ecclesiastical and academic finery and seated behind the speaker at the lectern were the
various church and academic leaders. I recall my mother nudging me at one stage
to look at the then Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne. He had very conspicuously
gone to sleep. His head was nodding
lower and lower as he fell ever more deeply asleep. Then with a sudden and
dramatic jolt he woke up and sat up straight. In the process of doing so,
however, he propelled all the books and papers that had been on his lap into
fan-shaped arrangement at the feet of the guest speaker.
I suspect that the
speaker knew at that very moment that it would not be his address that people
were talking about afterwards – let alone 50 years later at another graduation
ceremony at another college of divinity in another city.
I tell this story not
simply to serve notice to the assembled dignitaries not to fall asleep! Instead, I prod all of us to think about what should be memorable about a
graduation ceremony.
Certainly, I do hope I
don’t send anyone to sleep. But at the same time I won’t be at all offended if
this address is not what you most remember about tonight.
What I hope is the most
remembered part of tonight is the sense of achievement that every one of you,
the graduands, is entitled to feel tonight, and which you are entitled to share with your friends,
families, and teachers: those who in some significant ways have made this achievement possible.
The completion of any
tertiary award is a significant achievement.
Regardless of the
different levels of ease with which you've reaced this point, everyone has had to
apply themselves. Everyone has had to wrestle with issues which perhaps they
would have preferred not to. Everyone has had to ask their friends and family
to understand that they just had to finish that essay that night and couldn’t
be interrupted. Everyone will have given up something – whether income foregone,
social life restricted, or career opportunities surrendered.
I don’t say any of this
lightly or simply as the formulaic congratulations expected of a graduation
speaker.
In the 17 years I have
been involved in teaching theology and ministry studies, I have been repeatedly
struck and frequently inspired by the sacrifice that theological students make
to undertake and complete their degrees.
So, to all of you, ‘Congratulations’.
Soak up this moment for all that its worth and for all that it represents.
Remember it and recall it for the rest of your lives.
***
OK, so what now?
What are you going to do with
your theological education?
The question is often
asked.
Often, it is asked from
within the church, for the church has always had its healthy scepticism and
suspicion about the value of academic theology. And it is important to affirm
that there will always be a tension within the Christian faith between action
and reflection, between pragmatics and contemplation. Theology must never be
isolated from the matrix of the activities and practices that make up the life
of faith.
But that tension aside,
there has always been a particular role for theologically trained members and
leaders helping the church develop an informed faith, or perhaps a
self-critical faith, or perhaps a faith more thoroughly prepared to give a reason
for the church’s hope.
Yes, a theological
education can equip you to do all that.
***
You might sometimes be
asked about your degree by those outside the church. And if there’s a measure
of uncertainty from within the church about the value of a theology, that’s got
nothing on the uncertainty you might encounter in the wider world.
“Theology? What’s
that?” is a question I’m often asked on those occasions when I decide that I
have energy to come out as a theologian and then deal with the mostly
predictable conversations that so often follow.
One day I plan on
putting together a collection of my own and others’ experiences of such moments
of self-declaration.
Even just last week at
the hairdresser I had another intriguing encounter around this issue. I took my
seat in the barber’s chair and the conversation unfolded like this:
“What
do you do” asks the hairdresser.
I teach theology in the Uniting
Church
“Oh,
so you are a specialist in rocks?”
No, theology, not geology.
“Oh,
so you study theory.”
No,
I study Christian ideas about God.
“Oh.
So you’re Christian. I’m not. I find that Christians are very judgmental.”
[I’m happy to say that
notwithstanding that rather unpromising beginning, we ended up having a
constructive conversation about Christianity.]
But the most
interesting such conversation was some years ago, at a supermarket check out.
Again, the conversation
began with usual sequence: “What do you do?” “Oh, Theology. What’s that?”
I tried to give a brief summary of the
combination of languages, history, texts and ideas involved in studying theology.
Somewhat surprisingly the young man’s eyes began widening in seemingly
awe-struck anticipation until he burst out: “Oh, you mean like Indiana Jones
and the Temple of Doom. How cool!”
On this occasion I
thought it would be quite wrong to dampen his enthusiasm.
****
But to ask the question, ‘What to do with a theological education?’, today
is to ask it in what has been called the post-truth age.
This is an age in which the structured
and critical enquiry characteristic of an intellectual discipline (and not just
in academic institutions) is being
called into question.
Of course, there have
always been philosophical sceptics. It is a position which has always been part of intellectual discussion in one way or another.
But the post-truth
phenomenon is not simply an appeal to philosophical scepticism and its lineage
of healthy doubters.
The post-truth
phenomenon is a cultural and political phenomenon in which truth claims are not
just doubted. They are mocked. They are ridiculed. They are trivialised. And so too are the
truth-tellers. The symptoms of this are well known.
The dismissal of
journalism as Fake news.
The willingness to deny
outright clear evidence.
The intent to malign
expert knowledge because it is expert.
The normalisation of
spin as a substitute for political debate .
·
And, of course, the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States.
Indeed, it was the year
in which Trump was elected to the White House that Oxford University
Dictionaries announced ‘post-truth’ as the word of the year.
It was defined in these
terms:
I’ll come back to that definition shortly. But let me quote
two other short statements which offer snapshots into our culture’s tenuous
relationship with truth, each of which highlights another edge to the problem
“One gets the sense that post-truth is not so
much a claim that truth does not exist
as that facts are subordinate to our
political point of view”(p.11).
He also says this:
“The question at hand [in this post-truth
moment] is not whether we have a proper theory of truth, but how to make sense
of the different ways that people subvert truth” (p.7).
His point: post-truth
doesn’t signify a total denial of truth, but a political determination to subvert any claims to it.
In many ways, the
Archbishop’s comments suggest an even bleaker situation than described by Lee
McIntrye or even than that implied in the Oxford Dictionaries' definition.
The Archbishop’s point:
there is a fear at large that there might not be anything that we can know as
truth.
If these seem rather
abstract academic definitions, let me say that it is the cultural mood or the cultural
posture captured in them which makes it possible for the phenomena I noted
above: journalism being dismissed as fake news; clear evidence being dismissed outright; expert knowledge being maligned because
it is expert; spin being normalised as a substitute
for political debate.
***
It is a cultural mood,
or posture, or moment where Christians need, I think, to ponder at some depth
how they respond.
Allowing for all the
nuances of Jewish and early Christian concepts of, and language for, truth, it
is something which is not reducible to a theory of knowing. Rather, it is a way of living
that holds together such notions of faithfulness, reliability, correspondence
to God’s reality, straightforwardness, honesty – something that fundamentally
God is long before we share in it.
It is part of being
Christian to care about people, words, actions, doctrine and ethics being
‘true’ in this rich meaning of the concept.
We follow and worship
the one who declares himself to be the way, the truth and the life. (See John
14:6)
We are told that the
truth will set us free. (See John 8:32)
We are exhorted to
think about ‘whatever if true and honourable and noble.’ (See Philippians 4:8)
In claiming to be
people of the truth, we have an investment in, and a vocation to, resisting
the posture and mood of the post-truth culture.
As Christians we share
convictions that means it is not just a matter of emotion or
personal belief when we declare that domestic violence
is simply unacceptable; and when we challenge employers who might
manipulate or exploit employees; and when we argue that reconciliation
between first and second Australians is necessary.
For those of you who
have been called to leadership in the church, you will want to know that it is
not just a matter of emotion or personal belief when you may need to challenge your
community of faith and its members about how and where it invests its money; when you need to challenge a colleague in
matters of their own conduct; when you make a stand in a particular
doctrinal dispute or challenge the misuse of scripture; when you advocate for the poor and
marginalised in societies;when you speak truth to power – either
within or beyond the church.
For all these scenarios
we need operative accounts of truth.
But let me go back to
the Oxford Dictionaries Definition.
...an adjective defined as ‘relating to or
denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping
public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’.
As I’ve already hinted,
there’s a need for Christians to tread carefully when responding to this. There
can be a wrong kind of Christian response to it. There could be a Christian
bravado that actually misses the real challenge that this definition poses.
You see, many of
Christianity’s critics will readily argue that Christianity fits right into the
post-truth world. It is not interested, so they say, in objective facts. Its
only appeal is to emotion and personal opinion.
Most Christians would,
I'm sure, want to resist the idea that Christianity can be reduced to the idea
of emotion and personal belief, even if we will insist that there is a place
for emotion in and personal commitments in our engagement with the truth.
At the same time,
Christianity will not fit into the ‘truth world’ if fitting in depends on
basing its truth claims on ‘objective facts’. After all, it is a theological
insight common to Jews, Christians and Muslims that faith does not rest on
‘objective’ 'facts,' and that when it tries to do so it has probably taken a step
towards idolatry.
So whilst resisting any
attempt to locate Christianity amongst the post-truth realities, it would be a
mistake for Christians to swing over completely to the definition of truth that
many propose as the antidote to post-truth challenges.
Because we understand
God revealed in Jesus Christ to be the truth, our truth claims will not fit
easily into the categories of either truth as defined in modernity or
post-truth as defined in our contemporary milieu.
****
As those who have been
educated theologically, you have been taught to interpret texts; to analyse
ideas; to understand doctrines; to reflect on the church’s practices of love
and mercy; and to have an informed sense of the church’s historical and social
location.
I suggest that in doing
all that you learnt ways of navigating that space between the idea that truth
lies only in objective facts and the idea that truth lies in emotion and
personal belief.
To be
theologically-trained for ministry is to be introduced to a way of thinking
that is humble about the truth claims the church makes but confident in the
convictions of which those claims consist.
It involves an understanding
of truth which has certain virtues attached to it.
If we believed that
objective facts alone were the basis of truth – the seed is sown for arrogance.
If we believe that
emotion and personal belief is the basis of truth – the seed is sown for
indifference.
But instead of between
arrogance and indifference, the Christian operates between humility and
conviction.
Helping the church
navigate its way within this framework is one of the things that you can do
with you theological education in this post-truth world.
In doing so, you might
often surprise both those within and those beyond the church.
It seems to me that
Christianity has been publicly pigeonholed by certain cultural assumptions, by
its own sin, and by its own confusion about how to live in this context.
As the theologically-trained members and leaders of the church help the church negotiate this new
context, you might also help cut through the strictures of those pigeonholes.
Remember the claim of
Rowan Williams that our cultural context is one in which “we don’t know that we
can know”. Perhaps it is part of the church’s vocation to offer a counter
testimony to that situation to surprise ourselves and our world by what we
believe to be true; a counter testimony that reality can be known, that God can
be known.
****
So let me conclude by
drawing your attention to the passage read earlier from the book of Acts (17:
16-21).
After Paul had
discussed the good news about Jesus with the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers
in Athens they were sufficiently engaged to take him to the Areopagus where
they asked him:
“May we know what this new teaching is that
you are presenting? It sounds rather strange to us, so we would like to know
what it means.”
And after he had spoken
some more some of them declared: “We will hear you again about this.”
Paul’s message about
Jesus Christ created curiosity – it cut through the structures and categories
of thought that prevailed in first-century Athens.
As you leave here tonight
with your freshly-minted degrees from the Adelaide College of Divinity, I
encourage you to use your theological education to cut through the categories
of thought that prevail in twenty-first century Australia. Undo many of the
expectations that people have of you and the Christian faith. Break open the
pigeonholes of cultural assumptions.
Follow Paul’s example and the exhortation he gives in his
letter to the Philippians which I alluded to earlier.
...whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever
is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable – if
anything is excellent or praiseworthy – think about such things..
And, if I can add, be
strong in your convictions and humble in how you articulate and embody them. Do
that and you will putting your theological education to good work.
