Re: [asa] an Archimedean point in theology? (was: natural theology, bad and good)

From: Cameron Wybrow <>
Date: Mon May 11 2009 - 04:27:23 EDT


"The anti-spanking lobby" was meant as a joke -- a parody. I trust that humour is allowed in posts to this list.

I wasn't saying that your particular theology resembled the picture I painted. You had complained that I didn't read enough modern theology, and my remarks were meant to explain why I didn't. Much of the modern theology that I've read -- by Hartshorne, Teilhard de Chardin, Harvey Cox, J.A.T. Robinson, Haught, Pannenberg, and others -- seems to me to be a desperate attempt of liberals to justify why they don't believe what centuries of their Christian ancestors believed, while still taking a salary from Church-funded institutions for teaching Christian theology. In this light, can you blame me for preferring to breathe the cleaner, purer air of Etienne Gilson, Thomas Aquinas, and C.S. Lewis -- people who were actually proud of traditional belief, rather than embarrassed by it? I have no disrespect for thoughtful infidels, and I have no disrespect for thoughtful conservatives. My quarrel is with the liberals, who appear eager to serve two masters. It is impossible to accept or reject Christianity when presented with a mushy liberal picture of it. On the other hand, when one contrasts C.S. Lewis's *The Abolition of Man* with Bertrand Russell's *A Free Man's Worship*, what is at stake is perfectly clear. I don't know why post-WW II Christian believers have such difficulty thinking out the basic questions, but certainly the obfuscations of liberal theologians haven't helped matters any.


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: George Murphy
  To: Cameron Wybrow ; asa
  Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 8:26 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] an Archimedean point in theology? (was: natural theology, bad and good)

  I'm surprised by this. You asked what, in my view, was the "Archimedean point" in theology and I think my answer was clear - "True theology and the recognition of God are in the crucified Christ.". Of course that needs to be expounded more fully & that's the task of doing theology, but what I was stating with appropriate brevity (though I did go on at greater length than that one sentence) was a "point." & instead of any response to that you launch into a criticism of modern theology. I have no desire to defend the type of theological smorgasbord that you caricature (the anti-spanking lobby?) & certainly don't regard my own theology as anything resembling that. Nor do I think that I've given anyone any reason to think that it does.


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 11 04:29:25 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 11 2009 - 04:29:26 EDT