Liberal Arts Alive at Carlow University

Today the Carlow University Art Gallery hosted a “Liberal Arts Alive” session in which theology professors Maureen Crossen and Jack Alverson offered theological perspectives on the current exhibition: “Illuminations: Worksby Vanessa German, Peter Oresick, and Christopher Ruane.” Professor Sylvia Rhor, director of the gallery and an art historian in Carlow’s Art Department convened today's session which was followed by further discussion in the gallery.

The exhibit as a whole showcases three local artists who utilize aspects of iconography as they portray contemporary events using iconographic styles, portray biblical and sacred stories in contemporary settings, or portray secular “saints” in traditional religious and iconographic forms.

Maureen’s reflections focused on how these kinds of works “work.” She emphasized in particular the way that icons have the potential to open up a new perspective. The iconographer “would have us see things differently.” This was certainly the case in the works of Vanessa German whose works illuminate newspaper stories with iconic imagery and coloring. In particular, one is struck by the flood of tears surrounding images of those individuals touched by the tragic shooting at the Mother Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston last year. Maureen also cited James Keenan, SJ’s understanding of mercy as “entering into the chaos of another,” and suggested that Vanessa German was able to do that through her art. These were thus “works” of mercy in a very real sense.

Jack provided a philosophical-theological reflection starting with the notion of the difficulty that theology presents. Theology begins with the simplest of expressions: "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1:1). And yet, theology is an impossible task since it is impossible to capture in human words a divine reality that is radically other. At the same time, it is impossible to “image” the invisible God. And this led Jack to a discussion about the difference between an idol and an icon, distilling the insights of Jean-Luc Marion from his God Without Being. In the end, Jack led to the idea that an icon is “a visible mirror of the invisible.” As a biblical scholar, this philosophical-theological approach is very fruitful, especially as I consider the mystery that surrounds the remarkable notion that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). The works on display in this exhibit likewise express a similar paradox: they are human creations, and yet through them one can encounter divine realities.

To me the presence of the gallery in the heart of campus, the nature of the exhibits that have been hosted there, and the engagement of multiple constituents of the campus and community in these kinds of gallery talks has been a signal of the vitality of the liberal arts heritage at Carlow University. The Illuminations exhibit, in particular, invites viewers to see the world differently: to see the sacredness of all of of human life, to feel the pain of others, and to see the breaking in of the divine into the earthly realm. 

Comparing stonecutters and theologians- a quote from Stanley Hauerwas

Here is a very brief excerpt from Stanley Hauerwas's memoir. He writes of theology as a craft requiring years of training in which one, as an apprentice, learns the tools of the trade, and learns to work skillfully with the raw materials one is given. Here is the excerpt:

Commenting on the craft of stonecutting and on the training required to work with stone, Seamus Murphy observes: “With hammer, mallet and chisel we have shaped and fashioned rough boulders. We often curse our material, and we often speak to it kindly—we have come to terms with it in order to master it, and it has a way of dictating to us sometimes—and then the struggle begins. We try to impose ourselves on it, but we know our material and respect it. We will often take a suggestion from it, and our work will be the better for it.” In like manner, I think of theology as a craft requiring years of training. Like stonecutters and bricklayers, theologians must come to terms with the material upon which they work. In particular, they must learn to respect the simple complexity of the language of the faith, so that they might reflect the radical character of orthodoxy. I think one of the reasons I was never drawn to liberal Protestant theology was that it felt too much like an attempt to avoid the training required of apprentices. In contrast, Karl Barth’s work represented for me an uncompromising demand to submit to a master bricklayer, with the hope that in the process one might learn some of the “tricks of the trade.”

Hauerwas, Stanley. Hannah’s Child: A Theologian’s Memoir. (William B. Eerdmans Publishing: Grand Rapids) 2010, 37.

I particularly appreciate Hauerwas's insight about the need to not only know our material but to respect it, as a stonecutter respects the stone with which he works. Not only know it and respect it, but "come to terms with it;" in other words, appreciate the material for what it is, while at the same time learning not to force the material to be something it is not. Further, Hauerwas's comparison raises the idea of apprenticing with a master craftsman, someone who knows the material well from years and years of consistent and good work. This notion reminds me to be grateful for the masters from whom I have learned my trade, the teachers and mentors I have had throughout my training. And it inspires me to think that, though I will always see myself as a learner in the things of God, I have all along been developing some skills, some perspectives, and some valuable knowledge that I can pass on to my own students.

Is More Theological Research Really Needed?

Do we really need more research in Bible and theology?

This is a question that those of us in the academic world find ourselves asking from time to time. Well, at least I know that I ask it of myself. Our students (or families or churches) may ask it as well when they hear about the kind of research and writing we biblical studies faculty do. I found a good angle from which to approach this question in Avery Dulles, The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1992). Dulles provides a compelling case for the ongoing need for more theological research and development, giving both a theological answer and a practical one. He writes,

“Systematization in theology can never be complete, for the true object of theology is the unfathomable mystery of God, attained by tacit rather than explicit awareness. Every theological system is deficient, but some systems are superior to others, especially for making the faith intelligible to a given cultural group at a given period of history.” (10)

Dulles’ comment is an important reminder to me of two important ideas. First, further theological research is a theological necessity: our theology can never exhaust the depths of God, and therefore the subject matter of our discipline is one which is inexhaustible. As a result, theology will always be a work in progress; we will never fully arrive at the final word on God, God’s world, and God’s work in the world.

Second, a practical consideration: time and history never stand still, and new times and new cultural contexts raise new questions that call for fresh and compelling formulations—formulations which of necessity must go beyond the explanations and theological formulae of earlier generations. Thus, Dulles reminds us of the importance of ongoing, careful, and critical work in the field of theology, and, for me, in the sub-discipline of biblical studies. Rather than simply forwarding on the systematized answers of the past, there is a pressing need for a continual process of revisiting and revising our theology, to strive toward a theological system that is (if not complete) at least well-suited for our own particular place and time.

Dulles elaborates on this second point about the need for fresh theology in changing times:

“The questions confronting the present-day theologian arise from apparent gaps or contradictions in the normative sources, or from the deficiencies perceived in past theological syntheses, or from objections arising out of contemporary experience or knowledge. Theology, then, can never be static. It must deal with new questions put to the Church by the course of events and by the circumstances of life in the world. Continual creativity is needed to implant the faith in new cultures and to keep the teaching of the Church abreast of the growth of secular knowledge. New questions demand new answers, but the answers of theology must always grow out of the Church’s heritage of faith.” (11)

With that last sentence Dulles thus brings into view the dynamic tension that exists between tradition and faithful innovation—a tension that Jewish and Christian people of faith have wrestled with for centuries. And of course, this "dynamic tension" would make a great research topic in its own right.