On Venn diagrams and commonalities
Warning: the forecast calls for continuing rains of philosophical musings today!
Yesterday I wrote a strongly theoretical/philosophical discussion of set theory, Venn diagrams, and their application to theology. I had commented that the more sets of beliefs that one adds, the more complex that the diagram would become, to the point where, I think, it would become an impossible task. So, the image today shows a Venn diagram where n=7, or seven different Christian groupings. This might be what one would get if one tried to do a Venn diagram of the overlap between the theological beliefs of the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists. As you can see, it could be a real headache inducer! That clear central area is that area I talked about yesterday, the area of the First through the Sixth Ecumenical Councils. After that, it gets anything but clear.
You may want to look back at the diagram from yesterday. The only additional point that I am going to make is that yesterday’s simple diagram helps to explain some of what we run into in Christianity. All of us are aware that there are certain areas which any Christian can discuss amicably with any other Christian. That would be the area where all Christians overlap, the clear central area in today’s diagram. But, there are areas that we can only discuss amicably with certain Christians, but not with others. Those would be the areas where our beliefs overlap with the beliefs of some Christians, but not other Christians. If we are talking with another Christian about an area in which our beliefs do not overlap, then the discussion may not be as amicable as we would like.
So, if I were going to discuss liturgical theology amicably, my areas of overlap would generally be with any Christian group that overtly uses liturgy in their worship. But, it is not as simple as that. If I wish to discuss which priest presides at a liturgy, the discussion would be less amicable with Lutherans and Methodists, but more amicable with fellow Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and some, but not all, of the Anglicans. And, if I wish to discuss the theological failure of the West with regards to its over-stress on the judicial side of Christianity, my discussion might be amicable only with my fellow Eastern Orthodox and with the Oriental Orthodox.
Yesterday’s Venn diagram also helps to make the point that after we have been Christians for a while, we instinctively get to know which beliefs we can amicably discuss with which Christians. What happens is that we may not be able to diagram our overlapping beliefs, but we instinctively get to know the “map” of Christianity well enough to know which discussions to avoid with whom! [Of course, we have all met the people who instinctively know how to offend everyone around them, but that is another subject. We also all have met people who are fully clueless and innocently bring up all the wrong subjects, but that is another subject as well!] So, another way to put it is that our brains instinctively develop a type of Venn diagram that allows us to navigate the treacherous water of relationships with other Christians. 
Well, I think that is all the time that I will devote to Venn diagrams and Christianity!
Related posts:
- On theology and set theory
- On the Orthodox and economic theories
- Still infallible and imperfect – shh
- Posts from 1850′s southern arguments part 02
- Good enough for government work and science – part 03
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Posted by Fr. Ernesto Obregon on Monday, May 4, 2009profile at 1:10 am
Filed under uncategorized · Tagged with philosophy, theology
Back, after a Lenten absence from the blogiverse.
Two thoughts come to my mind. One is, I’d like to know what key points cause a cascade of other changes. If you mapped out every reasonably clear and consistent position of these groups, could you find capstones that, if removed or altered, caused the building to shift into an entirely new shape?
I suspect that in some cases it’s true, though some folks may be pure buffet-theologians/philosophers. For me, coming to Orthodoxy, there was a key moment when I realized that my notion of the invisible Church, meant that the Church didn’t exist. If I admitted that there were, in fact, Christians in the 2nd, 3rd and further centuries, I had to accept that the Church existed and was therefore visible. There was a cascade of heresies that collapsed in the following few weeks.
Not that I’ll be boxed into the corner on formal logic alone, but it’s a good tool in it’s proper place.
The other thing is, back when I was a Bible-banging apologist it occurred to me that most folks can’t differentiate the discussion of their beliefs with as disclosure of self. Many people feel naked and vulnerable when discussing these sorts of things and when challenged treat it more like it’s about something they *are* rather than something they *have*.
This makes it difficult to even map out a religious topology among friends. I’ve really only seen any comfort level achieved by professional thinkers and dreamers. It occurs to me that while I always looked at those who were sensitive to even a moderate discussion of comparative religion, perhaps I have distanced myself too much at times from the implications of the ideas I entertain all too easily in my investigations into theology/philosophy.
Logically one can look at someone’s beliefs and see what key premises keep one’s beliefs as valid. If those key premises are shown to be logically invalid, then their conclusions are also invalid.
However, most people do not solely function on the basis of the logical self-examination of their beliefs. All of us have areas in our belief structure where we know that it does not fully make sense but we keep our belief in spite of that.
At times there is good reason for that. Some things are mysterious and unfathomable to our human minds. The contradiction we perceive may only be because of our human limitations. To give a silly example, one can be walking through the woods and perceive no way out, but if one were flying above the woods, one would be able to see the way out easily. God’s perspective is so different than ours that what we perceive as an apparent contradiction is not so to Him.
At times we do not have the ability, the time, or the inclination to do the study necessary to resolve the apparent contradiction. But, we are willing to trust someone who has done the study and can assure us that there is no contradiction. To give another silly example, we will trust a physician on certain subjects having to do with disease and its cure, despite the fact that we cannot understand him/her. There are times that we trust the Church or our pastor or our fellow Christian, despite the fact that we do not understand the subject itself.
But, frankly, at times we know that it does not make sense and we need to change, but we refuse to for usually internal reasons. People seldom change simply because you have shown them to be illogical. They may (reasonably) not trust the way you string words together. For instance, a confidence artist can certainly make you believe many untrue things. But, they may unreasonably refuse to change because the closer a belief is to our core image of who we are, the more resistant we are to changing it.
That natural resistance is what keeps our internal stability. When the resistance is too high, however, that can be a problem. And, when, on top of that, you factor in the spiritual warfare that is going on, then change is something in which the Holy Spirit must be involved.