Augustine for Adventists: More Thoughts on Faith and Reason
image:
One of my favorite prayers is one penned by St. Augustine:
"Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved you! You were within me, but I was outside, and it was there that I searched for you. In my unloveliness I plunged into the lovely things which you created. You were with me, but I was not with you. Created things kept me from you; yet if they had not been in you they would not have been at all. You called, you shouted, and you broke through my deafness. You flashed, you shone, and you dispelled my blindness. You breathed your fragrance on me; I drew in breath and now I pant for you. I have tasted you, now I hunger and thirst for more. You touched me, and I burned for your peace."
My goal in this post is to look at Augustine’s biography, and the story behind this prayer, more than his actual philosophical and theological thought, with the hope of finding more resources to address the question of the relationship between faith and reason.
Augustine was born into a family of mixed religious convictions. His mother was a devout Christian, but his father was a pagan. Early on, Augustine was unimpressed by Christianity and the Bible. Aesthetically, he found the prose of the Bible to be awkward and clumsy. (He preferred the much more elegant prose of the Latin classics and went on to study and teach rhetoric.) Morally, he found himself struggling with his physical drives. Before his eventual conversion to Christianity, he had a mistress and had a child out of wedlock. (One of his famous prayers is his cry to God: “Give me chastity and continence, but not yet!”) Intellectually, the main problem that befuddled him was what today we might call “the problem of evil.” He could not reconcile the idea that a benevolent God had created everything with the reality of pain and suffering in the world.
Trying to satisfactorily untangle this conundrum led Augustine to reject the Christianity of his mother, and on an intellectual journey, which I will now oversimplify to make my point.
His reading of the author Cicero, through his study of rhetoric, gave him some familiarity with Stoic philosophy, which emphasized self-mastery, and this provided him with some resources to explain and deal with his sensual desires.
However, Augustine needed more; he wanted an explanation about reality and this led him to Manichaeism. He spent nine years as a hearer of Manichean teachings. Simply put, the Manicheans taught that here was a perpetual struggle between two eternal, equal, and opposing forces—light and darkness. Our souls, comprised of light particles, had become entrapped in the darkness of the world. Through ascetic practices one could overcome the powers of darkness, and eventually, join the greater Light.
This explanation initially made a lot of sense to Augustine. It explained, perhaps in an inelegant way, the source of evil in the world; it also helped him make sense of his moral struggles. Eventually, however, Augustine became dissatisfied with this explanation. He recalls a disappointing meeting with a leader of the Manicheans, whose simplistic and unclear answers left him with questions about the ultimate origin of everything.
Augustine left Manicheanism behind and, for a short time, became a skeptic.
Then he met Ambrose, the Christian leader of Milan, who interestingly, introduced Augustine to writings of some Neo-Platonists. The Neo-Platonists had an explanation of evil that Augustine found very compelling. Simply put, evil was understood to be a privation of the good. In other words, evil does not exist on its own, as an independent entity apart from the good, but is parasitic on goodness. Evil is a lack of goodness.
This way of thinking about evil opened Augustine to theism and the God of Christian Scripture, the God, who in the beginning, creates everything ex nihilo and declared it good. I won’t recount his conversion to Christianity here (which had mainly to do with his moral struggles and his discovery of a spiritual power beyond his personal efforts), but eventually Augustine became an influential Christian leader and author, and beyond the confines of Christendom, has done much to shape Western culture.
This, critics will say, was a negative development for the church. Augustine gets a bad rap in many contemporary circles for introducing “errors” into Christian thought. One of them, with which, many of us are familiar; he’s the guy who brought Platonism, with its erroneous dualistic anthropology, into Christian theology.
The other, more charitable way to read him, however, is seeing him as doing the same thing Aquinas was doing in his own day (see my previous post) - making Christianity intelligible to the reigning intellectual framework of his day. (Many people in his day found neo-Platonism to be a very convincing way of explaining reality and the self.)
Augustine’s thought, in a vivid way, reveals the double-edged blade of the theological endeavor. On the one hand, one of the positive things good theology does is making the truths of Christian Scripture relevant and comprehensible to contemporary culture. The downside to this is that culture changes and once the reigning intellectual framework of a respective culture shifts, the theology that has been developed to address it becomes outdated.
Ultimately, however, I believe Augustine’s biography shows us something valuable about the relationship between faith and reason. It’s common to pit faith against reason. Reason, philosophy, science, etc. is seen as getting in the way of faith and leading away from devotion to God. Augustine story demonstrates the opposite. First, we learn that reasoning can prepare the way for faith. Ambrose used the ideas of neo-Platonism to answer Augustine’s very valid intellectual questions. Secondly, however, Augustine’s story shows us how reasoned inquiry can eventually lead us to God, the source of all truth, and the journeys each of us undergo can serve to eventually deepen our understanding of and service to God, who transcends, and is the source of, the created order.
__________
Zane studies and teaches philosophy at Fordham University in New York. (He is not a secret member of the Jesuit order.)
Search
- pat travis on Time for Lent: Economic Justice II
- pat travis on Time for Lent: Economic Justice II
- Sirje Walkowiak on The Exalted Father (The Question of God - Alt. S.S. 4 of 11)
- David Read on Sabbath Sermon: Celtic Christian Theology - The Goodness of Creation
- bevin on Adventism's Impact
- bevin on Time for Lent: Vegetarianism
- Bill Cork on The Exalted Father (The Question of God - Alt. S.S. 4 of 11)
- Kenneth James on Adventism's Impact
- Maggie on Time for Lent: Vegetarianism
- Maggie on Time for Lent: Vegetarianism
Comments
Thanks Zane!
I sometimes feel like we have thrown out the baby with the bath water when it comes to Catholic theology.
I like Augustine's writing on literalism. However, never cared for the Just War Theory.
>> He is not a secret member of the Jesuit order.
LOL
Paul
Augustine gave the world two great ideas in direct opposition to each other. 1. Righteousness by Faith--that produced Martin Luther. 2. The City of God --that produced the Vatican.
The just war, idea was a wash. If one had the heart and mind of Augustine it was a great idea. If one had the heart and mind of Cheney is was dumb as dirt. Tom
"On the one hand, one of the positive things good theology does is making the truths of Christian Scripture relevant and comprehensible to contemporary culture. The downside to this is that culture changes and once the reigning intellectual framework of a respective culture shifts, the theology that has been developed to address it becomes outdated."
A very profound statement in my humble opinion. A great example of why theology should not be codified in stone or creeds and "present truth" should be valued rather than discarded. Problem is that too many religions have taken what the founding fathers/mothers have spoken and codified them as the only way to reach God.
Zane, many thanks for your post.
Zane:
Thank you for these insights; you seem to be someone who has studied Augustine deeply and knows him well.
Can you explain to me the relationship (if any) between the core of Augustine's beliefs and his advocacy of persecution for nonbelievers, which surfaced during the Donatist controversy? Was this an aberration, or was it congruent with and somehow tied into the rest of his thinking?
I'm trying to gain a better understanding of this concept, especially given Augustine's importance for Western civilization and the longevity of Christian justifications for religious persecution.
Thanks.
Regarding Augustine and his theory of just war, I think that it is important that we realize what a huge moral step forward this theory was. An attempt was actually being made to regulate the excesses of warfare. Just as the laws of the Pentateuch endeavoured to mitigate the excesses of injusice inherent in institutions such as slavery and polygamy, Augustine saw war as inevitable and endeavoured to find ways to regulate it and mitigate its excesses.
Regarding Cheney: well you have to actually understand the theory of just war before you try to implement it!
Leigh,
This is conjecture, but I think Augustine's willingness to politically persecute those he believed to be a threat to Christianity could be linked to his Platonic anthropology. In other words, you can torment the body to save the soul.
This, unfortunately, is one of the negative practical implications of bad anthropological beliefs.
Ironically, Augustine was willing to do this to protect what he believed was the essence of the Christian gospel--God's grace. He viewed the Donatists (and the Pelagians) as threats to a true understanding of grace and salvation.
If my memory serves me correctly, the Donatists refused to recognize the authority of a bishop that had been ordained by someone that had surrendered Christian Scriptures to authorities under persecution, but had been reinstated when the persecution ceased. They wanted a church free from taint. (An early version of "remnant" theology?) Augustine thought this was puritanical. He believed "in the forgiveness of sins". (I believe this is where the line in the Creed comes from.)
The Pelagians, according to Augustine, had a overly robust view the human ability to improve themselves, apart from God's grace.
I deplore HOW Augustine went about trying to defend his faith, and how he viewed his theological opponents. However, I think WHAT he was trying to defend is important and reveals his picture of the human predicament and God's grace for people...as incongruent as this sounds.
I don't know how much of this set the precedent for the religious persecutions that followed in Europe. I don't read these persecutions as mandated by Christian theology, though, but more indicative of what humans are willing to do to each other in the name of any ideology--religion becomes a tool we use to exert our power and will over others, but so can almost any other ideal!
But definitely another lesson/warning, largely negative, to draw from Augustine.
Paul, Tom, and David,
Cheney needs to learn the difference between the meaning of the words "defensive" and "preemptive"! =)
And his boss still needs to learn how to pronounce nuclear!:)
But seriously, great article, Zane.
Thanks...
Frank
Zane -- thanks for the series. Hope there's more to come.
One of my best friends is a philosopher and has inspired me with a great deal of respect for the discipline over the course of our relationship.
You have also raised the bar on amusing byline parentheticals, and so I will be looking for more of those as well. ;-)
Thanks Zane, for another insightful commentary... hope to see something on Ambrose next! I love Augustine's Confessions with its incisive dissecting of human psychology and exposure of the struggle we all experience between good and evil in our hearts (remember his story about stealing pears as a youth not because of the taste of the fruit so much as the taste/pleasure of stealing/sinning itself in the company of one's friends? - brilliant). I also love that prayer you quoted, which might end up somewhere on my facebook wall. Note how he starts with beauty and ends with peace -- a way of reasoning that Hart would fully agree with :) I have issues with Augustine's attempts elsewhere to develop a Christian politics (which Niebuhr and others have seen as offering a constructive "realism" but which leads to all kinds of moral ambiguities, contradictions and conflicts in light of the New Testament witness of nonviolence to the state). Still, I agree -- we have a lot to learn from Augustine and your post makes me want to re-read and go deeper.
good article-I would like to know more about Zane-what were your experiences training that led you to know so much about Augustine and to be teaching philosophy at Fordham I assume you are or used to be a SDA and wonder what your journey was to where you are now
How does your backgrund impact on your current position and if you were/are an SDA does it make for any interesting dialogue with the faculty who I assume have a Roman Catholic bias
Regarding the double-edged sword of the theological endeavor, I think we're forced to participate in it. What other choice do we have? And even if we attempt a minimalist, "objective", timeless theology we can't escape the influence of present culture. (I can't help but imagine Adventist church leaders' belief in the timelessness of "simple dress" in fundamental belief #22.) But this simple fact which seems so obviously true to me is vehemently denied by pretty much every seriously minded Adventist thinker I can think of.
Am I the only postmodern in this church?
KM,
This didn't start off with the plan of being a series, but I'm working on one more post on St. Anselm. We'll see how this goes!
Ron,
Thanks for the idea for this post, but sorry, I don't know much more about Ambrose.
Thinking about Augustine's biography, after your post on Hart (and the discussion that followed), I was struck at the similarities between what Hart was claiming and Augustine's prayer, as well as his life. The aesthetic, rational, and moral all come together and play differing roles in Augustine's conversion story.
BTW, it'd be great to see a post on Augustine's political theory. I have not had the chance to read his "City of God" in its entirely, but have read, and really like, the section on the "two cities" with "two loves.")
David H.,
Thanks for your interest in my story. With the interest of not boring other's with it, I'll keep it very brief.
I'm still an Adventist. =) I got interested in philosophy as an undergrad studying theology at an Adventist university. At first, I thought I had to chose between the two disciplines, but now I see them as complementary and the two sides of the same coin.
Some of my profs, as well as classmates, are Catholic. Others are not. In other words, the university is very pluralistic. There is no overt pressure for anyone to adopt theism, Christianity, or Catholicism, although there are probably more resources to explore the intersection of philosophy and these issues than, let's say at a state university (or an Adventist one).
Hey Robert,
Great to hear from you! Yeah, I don't think there's anyway to avoid the human aspect of doing theology. We are limited by our finitude, location, and historcity (amongst other things).
If you mean by "post-modernism" acknowledging this (epistemological constraints), I agree with you. I think people get nervous that post-modernism entails a denial of the truth. I don't think it does. Truth still exists. I, or other humans, however don't "possess" it in its entirety. In other words, I am not God.
The tricky think is still affirming that our theological affirmations still say something about God, although we may be grasping this truth very provisionally. I think one can speak, very broadly, of "the Christian tradition" and of the things Christians of affirmed/believed in many places and times, i.e. the ecumenical creeds and believe the content of these affirmations is important to preserve and to pass on.
Zane, your wrote: "Augustine’s thought, in a vivid way, reveals the double-edged blade of the theological endeavor. On the one hand, one of the positive things good theology does is making the truths of Christian Scripture relevant and comprehensible to contemporary culture."
Is it not more correct to assert that Augustine and Aquinas, as well as most good theologians in general and laypeople alike, actually do the exact opposite of what you suggest? That, with all the best intentions, we consciously or unconsciously interpret and make the "truths" of scriptures comprehensible to ourselves by applying a philosophical framework (presupposition), or plain commonsense, that seem best suited to our own situations? I could be wrong but this was my reading of Aquinas and Augustine.
Joselito,
I agree with you that this is what usually happens. I do think, however, that some people are more of aware of their prejudices than others and more intentional about trying to put this in dialogue with the understanding of others.
Have you heard of/read any Gadamer? He's got a really nice description of the interplay between text, tradition, and reader. Some call this "the hermenuetical circle." I think Gadamer's account is basically right. (It sounds a lot like yours!)
No, I haven't read (neither heard of!) Gadamer until you mentioned him. I had to look him up on the web. He died in 2002 at age 102!
Not sure that Augustine is such a great defender of the role of reason. He certainly had it in for the mathematicians: "The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell."
Sadly there have been all too many ready to ditch reason and promote the idea that the more bizarre and against reason "faith" is, then the more it should be believed: "If the work of God could be comprehended by reason, it would no longer be wonderful, and faith would have no merit if reason provided proof." Pope Gregory I. Or how about: "“And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And he was buried and rose again; the fact is certain because it is impossible." (Tertullian)
As I say, not too sure where Augustine really stands on this. But a faith that is based on unreason doesn't tempt me at all!!!
Best to all,
Jonathan
"a faith that is based on unreason doesn't tempt me at all!!!"
While such an unreasonable faith may not be tempting, how is faith reasonable? Evidence facts requires no faith.
To claim that resurrection from the dead is reasonable is no less preposterous than Tertullian's claim.
Faith needs no explanation to fellow believers; to everyone else, it is anything but reasonable. If faith means hope, then we all need hope, but are faith and hope used interchangably? One can hope to winn millions in the lotttery. Is that faith or hope?
Do we no longer believe the explanation given in the Letter to the Hebrews: "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."? Or, according to one dictionary definition, is it: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence: faith in miracles"? For those who believe in resurrection, it surely must be the latter.
Elaine! How could you? You of all people--having evidenced on many threads here your commitment to the use of reason and logic--now so willing to accept such a misguided (but all-too-common) definition of faith!
The NT word for faith is really trust, which because of today's misuse of the concept of "faith" is surely preferable. Trust implies you have sufficient evidence to do so, not that you choose to believe without reason.
Next you'll be telling me to accept Mark Twain's definition of faith as "believing what you know ain't so"!
And if we're basing our faith on miracles, as per the dictionary you cited, then we'll be well prepared to receive that angel of light when he comes, aka Lucifer...
Kindly,
Jonathan
Elaine,
I think you raise some interesting points about the definition of the word "faith."
My point with this post didn't deal with reconciling the content of faith with the content of reason, or if the claims of the former are "provable" in terms of the later.
Rather, I am simply claiming that reason can play a role in clearing the way, by answering objections, clearing up misunderstandings, etc. for one to accept the claims of faith (which exceed the capacities of our natural reasoning alone).
For Augustine, the problem of evil was an intellectual stumbling block. A good dose of Platonism cleared this up.
Post new comment