Perhaps the only connecting point between two posts I want to draw attention to this week is that I studied at Knox Theological Hall for my first degree. The two posts are on fellow Down Under John Sandeman's blog, The Other Cheek. The first is about Thomas Muntzer and Martin Luther. In today's political speak, if Martin Luther was "centre-right" then Thomas Muntzer was "extreme right" or, maybe, "extreme left." The second is about NZ's most famous ever home grown theologian, Lloyd Geering, who died a couple of days ago at the age of 108 (and holding the then title of "NZ's oldest man"). The connecting point - and it is a very loose connecting point - is that Lloyd Geering's first teaching post was at Knox Theological Hall, Dunedin, which was where he became famous for being tried for heresy, and one of my most memorable courses when I was a student at the same Hall (but well after Geering had moved onto his second teaching position, at Victoria University, Wellington) was about Thomas Muntzer. Maybe the stronger connecting point is that both Geering and Muntzer have been viewed by others as heretics!
"Stranger than you thought: Luther, Muntzer and the Peasant Wars" is the title of The Other Cheek's post (actually written by Charles Brammell) about a new consideration(s) of what Muntzer was about when he led the so-called Peasants Rebellion. I will leave you to read the post (because it is a bit complicated and time-consuming to neatly summarise the various new considerations) suffice to say that when we survey what is going on in some streams of global Christianity, we could deduce some parallels in the age old tension between theological and political differences among Christians.
"Once tried for Heresy: NZ's Oldest Man Lloyd Geering Meets Jesus" is the title of the second post. The title picks up on something I have noticed elsewhere on social media, that when a theologian's main thesis is that God is not a being separate to the earthbound experience of life, there may be a bit of a shock when God, met in the risen Jesus, after death, clearly is separate from the horizon of this life. Unless Geering is correct! My reflection here, however, is first on Sandeman's observations about the state of Anglican and Presbyterian denominations here, and then on Paul Morris's observations about Geering's effect on liberal Christianity in these islands.
On the first, we read:
"New Zealand’s scene bears the marks of Geering. The traditional protestant churches- Methodist, Presbyterian and Anglican are dominated by progressives or liberals, with evangelicals in a (small?) minority.
There are large Pentecostal churches, but there is a tendency for these to be aligned with right-wing politics, with Destiny Church, for example. Nelson Diocese in the Anglicans in the Province of Aotearoa New Zealand remains a Kiwi echo of the Diocese of Sydney. The Open Brethren, organised as the Christian Community Churches of NZ, have 170 to 202 assemblies. Baptist Churches of New Zealand (Te Hāhi Iriiri o Aotearoa) draw some 25,000 people each Sunday to their 250 evangelical churches. Conservative Presbyterians joined various breakaway churches into the Grace Presbyterian Church in NZ, which is similar to the Presbyterian Church of Australia, in 2002. The GPs have 27 local churches."
I think Presbyterians and Anglicans here would be bemused by the thought that we are "dominated by progressives or liberals". That is not to say that we are, conversely, dominated by "conservatives" such as conservative evangelicals. It is just to say that (1) we are a mixed bag (if looking at us through lens of "progressive/liberal/conservative") and (2) the style of liberalism/progressivism associated with the Lloyd Geerings of old is out of favour within the life of NZ churches.
The latter, incidentally, is a point within Paul Morris's observations, as cited by John Sandeman. Whether that going out of favour in NZ is as much of a responsibility of Geering himself as those observations adduce is, I think, a moot point. Liberal theology - arguably reached a highpoint in the Western world in the 1960s and 1970s - as it led ways of thinking about being Christian which diminished the importance of miracles for establishing the divinity of Jesus (cf. Geering's own published work on the resurrection). But (as Morris notes) heading along that pathway also raised the question, Why bother with church? If Christianity is essentially ethical rather than encounter with the divine (with corporate worship as a response), there is no need to go to church. Fast forward 50 or so years and we see the effects: people in church, any church, are predominantly not liberal/progressive.
I met Lloyd Geering once. He was one of the nicest people I have ever met in my life. I would not care to have met with Thomas Muntzer. He seems like one of the scariest people you could ever meet!
I noticed the passing of Lloyd Geering also. Muntzer I have no knowledge of : ) ..
ReplyDeleteWhen I was in Wellington Lloyd Geering was still active in St Andrew’s on the Terrace and academic circles into his 90’s. It was only at this time when I was what I term on the journey to own the Christian faith for myself as an adult. At this time the thinking and perspective of Geering was still very present, perhaps more so as it was entrenched further or further entrenched by the popularity of books by Spong. Which I irreverently termed Sponge in most popular bookstores.
At the time I attempted to read one of the books I by Spong but I got too bored to make it through more than a few chapters. By the time I did EFM (the old testament year) at Wellington Cathedral about half of my group of 20 would have fallen into the “Jesus didn’t physically rise rise from the dead” belief category. I suspect the Dean who took our group likely also shared that viewpoint.
It was in doing EFM and the 8 hours of reading (so I am conscientious) per week of accompanying material including the document theory of the writing of different books of the Bible that I noticed something. As I read the Bible and then the commentary purely for ‘homework’ and ‘study’ it started to be purely an intellectual exercise. There wasn’t the comprehension or meaning or ‘life’ that I had found when I was reading the Bible in my regular life. It did make me wonder even at the time if that is what had happened regarding the faith of the likes of Geering, if one could become so lost in theorising scripture itself starts to be absorbed and referenced like an encyclopaedia.
I have decided I am no longer buying into this left and right thing, I think it’s an American invention. My views both theologically and politically could be said to be conservative on some things and liberal on others. When it comes to theology for me it’s holistic, the holy spirit and scripture together with the same voice becomes my point of reference. I am not entirely sure where I sit on the Anglican and tradition part, aside from acknowledging some of tradition comes from well thought out saints and the wisdom gleaned by them is often-times worthy of preserving.
Geering and Spong, however nice as people I suspect appealed to many because it gave them a get out of jail free card. They could think and do as the ‘world’ thought and did and feel like they had the credential’s to say they were good people. The need for righteousness through Christ was unnecessary if it could be gained through being a good human being - notwithstanding human values can be arbitrary depending upon the society. Geering said he found more hope without the resurrection, however, he was unable to believe it was true. Personally in my life the most poignant times when I have been confronted with grief the resurrection of Jesus and salvation seems a lifeline, going to be a star in the sky doesn’t do it for me.
Well said, Jean, and particularly that it is easy to think one’s way out of faith. That seems to have been what Lloyd did.
ReplyDeleteI have found the same with a biblical historian, Bart Ehrman, whom I saw in a YouTube debate with Richard Bauckham, who wrote ‘Jesus and the Eye Witnesses’. At the time, I thought that Bart didn’t believe so I have recently read his book, ‘How Jesus became God’, in order to see where he stood.
He was an active evangelical in his early years, later became a liberal and now says very definitely that he is not a believer. When he spoke in a liberal church which used the Nicaean Creed, in talking to the pastor afterwards, he said ‘The only things I can say honestly is that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified and died. The pastor said that probably most people in the congregation would agree with him! That’s so sad and is a result of overthinking and analysing intellectually without recognising where that is heading.
It seems to me that Iain McGilchrist was right when he said the loss of right hemisphere thinking has led to an arid society which has no sense of awe and wonder at the glory of creation. I found in Volume 2 of ‘The Matter with Things’ more delight and excitement at the wonder of creation than I have found anywhere else.
McGilchrist isn’t a Christian but knows whom he calls Being, as the source of everything there is, including purpose and consciousness in the universe.
Somehow our culture has become blind to God and, in some ways, uninterested in Jesus. The early Christian centuries were passionate about him and God and how they were to be understood, even though they came up with a wide variety of forms of faith. We have lost the passion in becoming too reliant on what we know and have lost the Mystery.
That is due to popular theologians and historians who provide what Jean calls ‘a get out of jail free’ card, for everyone who wants to dismiss the Scriptures and Jesus and the Creator as in any way relevant to living, let alone containing anything of truth.
Hi Moya, applying rigorous intellectual analysis to a belief system is not a tragic over-complication; it is an act of fundamental honesty. If a worldview or a historical claim collapses under the weight of close scrutiny, it is because the claim itself was flawed, not because the tools of reason are broken. Choosing to ignore historical contradictions or scientific impossibilities for the sake of emotional comfort is a form of self-deception. When a congregation or an individual acknowledges that the historical evidence for ancient miracles is lacking, that should be met with respect for their candour, not sadness over a loss of faith.
DeleteThis is especially true when evaluating the foundational claim of the Christian faith: the physical resurrection of a corpse. From a scientific perspective, a literal bodily resurrection is pure fantasy. It violates the most fundamental, unyielding laws of biology, physics, and thermodynamics. Human atoms are recycled across the biosphere; cells decay, and brain function ceases permanently at death. To claim a body reversed this irreversible process requires abandoning the entire framework of modern science.
Historically, the foundation for this claim is equally flimsy. There is an astonishing lack of contemporary, first-hand evidence for the event. The accounts we do have were written decades later by anonymous authors, based on oral traditions and hearsay passed down through a highly superstitious ancient world. Ancient literature is filled with claims of virgin births, walking on water, and figures rising from the dead—none of which we accept as historical fact. To demand that we accept this specific biological impossibility based on ancient texts comes nowhere near meeting an acceptable standard of proof. A foundational rule of reason applies perfectly here: what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
The argument that a rational, evidence-based approach to reality strips life of its depth, awe, or "Mystery" is entirely backwards. One does not need to subscribe to ancient dogmas or an intentional Creator to experience profound wonder at existence. The universe as revealed by deep inquiry—the vastness of the cosmos, the complexity of consciousness, the beauty of the natural world—is far more awe-inspiring than any provincial mythology. Anchoring human wonder to specific, dogmatic claims actually shrinks our horizons rather than expanding them. We can experience deep fulfillment, connection, and ethical purpose purely within the framework of reality.
Furthermore, a nostalgic longing for the "passion" of early theological centuries overlooks the reality of what that passion produced. History shows that intense obsession with doctrinal purity frequently manifested as brutal sectarian violence, inquisitions, and the ruthless suppression of free thought. Moving away from these theological battlefields is not a sign of cultural blindness or apathy; it is a sign of moral and intellectual maturity. We have simply outgrown the need to litigate the nuances of ancient creeds.
Finally, treating historical scholarship or rational philosophy as an easy excuse—a "get out of jail free" card to evade accountability—completely flips the narrative. In truth, doctrines of divine intervention, substitutionary atonement, and an eternal afterlife function as the ultimate cosmic escape hatches. They allow individuals to defer the heavy, immediate consequences of human suffering and moral action to an imagined next world. Recognizing that this life is the only one we are certain to have does not diminish our responsibility; it makes our ethics, our treatment of one another, and our stewardship of this world infinitely more urgent and meaningful. Lloyd Geering got it right! Regards, Thomas