He who places his hope on thee, O Virgin all-glorious, will prosper in all he does.

Inscription on Byzantine coin during reign of Romanus III



Thursday, January 15, 2009

Is Theology Just Another Subject?

Bishop Hilarion doesn't think so:

One of the tragic consequences of the divorce between Christian theory and praxis, between faith and knowledge, is that nowadays knowledge about theological subjects does not necessarily presuppose faith. You can be a theologian and not belong to any church community; in principle, you do not need to believe in God to receive a theological degree. Theology is reduced to one of the subjects of human knowledge alongside with chemistry, mathematics or biology.

5 comments:

orrologion said...

A friend that had attended the Catholic seminary at Harvard for a year noted that the Harvard Divinity's seemingly preferred candidate was a black, lesbian atheist. Don't know if things have changed since then. He married a Buddhist novelist from Minnesota, which is how I knew him.

Visibilium said...

LOL. One of the funny things about the Western churches is how seriously people take theologians who are, in effect, only hypothesizing about a God in whom they don't believe. Heck, they know as much about God as anyone else, don't they?????

ailhadosamores said...

I'm totally without time, but this is a most wise post. Right on.

It's not only western churches versus theologians. Btu western society versus academics.

I love academic studies and their people are the most tolerant and pleasant, but only, for the maximum, a half of them. The other part, wch is, at the minimum, a half (actually, the majority), has precisely the opposite views!! lolol. Meanwhile the market and the evil grows sitting on the fact that the establishment just ignores the differences...

Excuse me if the post doesn't imediately make sense - plus the mistakes in english.

The Ochlophobist said...

What are your thoughts on "ordoliberalism" as an economic school of thought, especially with regard to Wilhelm Röpke?

I have been reading Röpke again of late.

Visibilium said...

I'm fine with Roepke as an Austrian School economist.

Also, I'm fine with Roepke's political economy, i.e., his normative propositions regarding society, state, and economy. He was in favor of private property rights, free trade, and localized self-government in the form of a confederation. He used Switzerland as an example of a desirable governing structure. He was against state monopoly privileges, collectivism, protectionism, autarky, and Bismarckian welfare statism. What's not to like about that?

The free market presupposes a legal system that protects property rights since the market is nothing more than the means by which property titles are exchanged. Roepke correctly recognized the role of legal, cultural, and religious norms as market presuppositions, rather than as market hindrances.

You may want to be careful about Ordoliberalism. That label applies most aptly to the Freiburg School, of which Roepke was not a member. I'm agin it.

Here's some free Roepke stuff to keep you busy: http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=author&Id=448