The Introduction: My personal Theology is like Art

My personal theology, as all theologies, has been shaped by contexts, experiences, and relationships which make up my very identity. As these are all constantly in flux, so is my theology. It is not a static, fixed, dogmatic system. Nor is it finished nor ever intended to be. It is also not misty, idealistic, and ethereal, but pragmatic, grounded in practice and experience, and adaptable.

Metaphorically, I see my theology like a painting. It starts and is shaped by my own interesting, interpretation, gifts and limitations (experience), it is based in a particular practice or style of painting (tradition), seeks to convey meaning to others (community) of a greater truth (transcendence).



To focus the picture a little more and describe the traditions I come out of, the Roman Catholic tradition could be viewed as the classical style art, conservative  liberal Protestant tradition would be more impressionist, and what I view my style (and the style of the many theologians I’ve read these past years at seminary) as more surrealist. It has elements of all traditions but put together in a new way. This style (and thus the artists using this style) is more interested in imagination, beauty, and mystery; focusing more on questions than answers.

In this paper I hope to explain the four highlighted areas of my artful theology. It won’t be in a linear fashion, but enmeshed integrated as each plays into the other, but I will try to separate them as best I am able. I will first speak of the experience, particularly the human experience.

Ethics 101

In ethics there are three parts to look at: the agent, action, and outcome.


then comes schools of thought which focus on each. here is a super-sloppy and quick intro to each:

the agent: Virtue Ethics like those proposed by Thomas Aquinas and others focus on the person as the source. this then becomes a discussion on the inherent nature of humanity being good or bad? Christians have always been divide on this but Augustinian thought seems to dominate and Calvin and Luther have picked up on the Bad part and run rampant with it. but some secular humanist and other faiths study this way too. like the Dali Lama and Tibetan Buddhism is largely concerned with the private transformation and buddha-like nature of the person.

the action: deontology is the idea that only moral means can make moral ends. you can't steal or kill at all. this can lead to some harsh laws like those followed by Javert in pursuing Jean ValJean and no room for transformation. one proponent of this style is Immanuel Kant. check out this video, it does a decent job, although not altogether accurate introduction (much like this one!):



the outcome: teleology is the idea that the ends justify the means. so one can steal bread to end starvation or murder for self-defense... however, this can also lead to apologetic measures like bombing for peace or conversion by the sword that Mulsim and Christians are particularly guilty of. it's a little more open to transformation and takes into account circumstances and context.

here's Eve explaining Teleology:



what do y'all think? which do you subscribe to?