Michael Sudduth and Lord Krishna

The philosopher of religion Michael Sudduth has sent a letter to his friends and colleagues explaining that he has changed his religious/faith position from Reformed Christianity to Hindu Vaishnavism.

In 2009, Ashgate published a book written by Sudduth entitled The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology, which was positively reviewed by Alvin Plantinga, Alister McGrath and James Anderson. Anderson said in his review: "Sudduth presents a meticulously researched and compellingly argued case for the historical pedigree and philosophical legitimacy of Reformed natural theology".

During 2011, Sudduth gradually moved closer to Vaishnavism. His letter, which is full of praise for the Bhagavad Gita, explains how and why he found Krishna irresistible.

The full text of Michael Sudduth's letter is available at Maverick Philosopher.

Joe Carter has a brief discussion on the TGC blog.

Here is a website about the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition.

Here is a summary of Gaudiya Vaishnava beliefs.

James Anderson discusses Sudduth's panentheism.

Information about Swami B.V. Tripurari (the guru who guided Sudduth on the Gaudiya path) is available on these three websites:

(1) Swami Tripurari

(2) Swami Tripurari: a topical index of Gaudiya Vedanta

(3) Sri Caitanya Sanga.

Count Me Out

According to Garrison Keillor, there are basically two types of Americans:

(a) Americans who when the big smiley preacher stands in the pulpit and says, "How about everybody turn around and shake hands with the person behind you and give them a big howdy!" they all turn around and shake and say howdy and feel sort of uplifted by this.

(b) Americans who would do anything to avoid this, including staying away from church entirely.

I identify fervently with the second group.

Another irritating thing that comes to mind was the habit at certain Christian meetings back in the 1960s and 1970s; the meeting could not possibly get under way until we had gone round the circle and everybody had had a chance to say something about themselves. The one or two audible and articulate show-offs were always heavily outweighed by the stumblers and the mumblers and the whisperers and the ones who blushed and addressed all their remarks to the carpet. One fellow I knew was a stutterer, and he would far rather have had root canal work done than endure this stressful ordeal.

Sayers on Christianity

Dorothy Sayers:

"The thing I am here to say to you is this: that it is worse than useless for Christians to talk about the importance of Christian morality, unless they are prepared to take their stand upon the fundamentals of Christian theology. It is a lie to say that dogma does not matter; it matters enormously. It is fatal to let people suppose that Christianity is only a mode of feeling; it is vitally necessary to insist that it is first and foremost a rational explanation of the universe. It is hopeless to offer Christianity as a vaguely idealistic aspiration of a simple and consoling kind; it is, on the contrary, a hard, tough, exacting, and complex doctrine, steeped in a drastic and uncompromising realism. And it is fatal to imagine that everybody knows quite well what Christianity is and needs only a little encouragement to practice it. The brutal fact is that in this Christian country not one person in a hundred has the faintest notion about what the church teaches about God or man or society or the person of Jesus Christ...

The task is not made easier by the obstinate refusal of a great body of nominal
Christians, both lay and clerical, to face the theological question. 'Take away
theology and give us some nice religion' has been a popular slogan for so long that we are apt to accept it, without inquiring whether religion without theology has any meaning. And however unpopular I may make myself I shall and will affirm that the reason why the Churches are discredited today is not that they are too bigoted about theology, but that they have run away from theology."

[Dorothy L. Sayers, "Creed or Chaos?": address delivered on 4 May 1940]

Old Princeton

Have a look at Andy Jones' piece on Old Princeton. Here is an excerpt:

"Though governed by Presbyterians, Princeton Seminary welcomed students from diverse backgrounds. It graduated men who became leaders in Presbyterian, Episcopal, and Baptist churches. Among Princeton's first graduates was Charles Hodge, who would become the seminary's leading influence in the 19th century. Another early graduate and Hodge's best friend was John Johns, a leader among Episcopalians and ultimately the president of William and Mary. One of Hodge's students, James Petigru Boyce, became the founding professor of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary."

Spencer's Ministry Blunders

Michael Spencer (of "Internet Monk" fame) in self-critical mode:

"In the following paragraphs, I am going to rescue those of you in ministry from the feeling you have that no one could ever be as bone-headed as you. From the annals of my own life and ministry, I share with you now the following true stories meant to encourage you to start tomorrow with a smile, saying 'I may be an idiot, but I'm still way ahead of Spencer'."

Helm on Presuppositionalism

In October 2009, Paul Helm said:

"...in Reformed theology 'presuppositionalism' is a striking novelty. Historically speaking, Reformed theology has been somewhat relaxed on the question of offering the arguments of natural theology to prove the existence of God. But presuppositionalism as an apologetic outlook is a complete novelty in the history of Reformed theology. It is strange, then, that the need to hold this outlook has come to be, for some, a test of orthodoxy, even in circles which uphold the Westminster Confession which perhaps is silent on the question but if anything appears to deny it."

I am aware that the novelty/antiquity of a particular position in the field of Apologetics has very little to do with the rightness or wrongness of that position. Nonetheless, as someone whose knowledge of the history of Apologetics and the history of doctrine is weak, I would like to know whether the claim Helm makes is a controversial one or something that everyone would happily concede.

Can some kind and learned soul throw light on this issue?

Presuppositions and Objectivity

Paul Helm:

"Sometimes one encounters the following kind of argument: (1) It is impossible to get back to 'pure objective truth' which is free from the subjectivity of personal experience and interpretation. Therefore, (2) We should not try to get back to objective historical truth, since it is impossible to do so.

But why does this follow? Why does it follow that because something is impossible to achieve we should not try to get as near to achieving it as we can? If you were a defendant in court, convinced of your innocence, it would hardly be a comfort to be told by the judge that since it is impossible to achieve 'perfect justice' the court would make no effort at all to establish the facts of the case. While pure truth and pure justice may be for us unattainable abstractions, there might be considerable advantages, perhaps even a duty, to strive to get as close to the truth as possible...

But how is it possible to make every effort to get at the objective truth, in the light of what we have learned about presuppositions? Do not the existence and the inevitability of presuppositions make striving for the objective truth a nonsense? For is not 'the truth' simply dictated by one's presuppositions? Is not all
argument and all enquiry ultimately circular? No. Because one has presuppositions it does not necessarily mean that they dictate one's conclusions...

All presuppositions, and especially those of any Christian enquirer, ought to be kept fresh and in trim by being kept under review...

It may be objected that the last thing that the Christian ought to want to be is objective. For when Christ calls a person into his service then, it might be said, he calls him to a life of commitment. And can commitment walk hand in hand with objectivity? Here I think that it is helpful to distinguish between objectivity and neutrality. They are frequently confused. Objectivity (at least as I am using the term here) is concerned with procedures, while neutrality is concerned with outcomes. Objectivity in Christian scholarship is crucial; the need to weigh evidence, to observe the appropriate investigative procedures, to distinguish what is relevant from what is irrelevant, to be self-critical about one's presuppositions, and in one's reasonings and conclusions — all these procedures are part of what is meant by being objective."

["Understanding Scholarly Presuppositions: a crucial tool for research?", Tyndale Bulletin, 44.1, 1993, pp.143-154]

Here is an earlier post (1st March 2010) by Paul Helm on presuppositions and presuppositionalism.