Ship of Fools: Great Christian thinkers

Thread: Great Christian thinkers Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027724

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

On 'Prayer for the day' this morning, Monday, BBC Radio 4 at 05:43, the speaker started by saying that on this day in 189?, one of the greatest christian thinkers of all time, John Henry Newman, ...'. I turned off at that point, but I've been thinking since then: what is the difference in general terms between a great christian thinker, and, say, philosophical thinkers, scientific thinkers, etc?

Now, you may think that, as an atheist, why am I asking this question?! But I'm wearing an 'enquiring minds want to know' hat; and this is the place where I have confidence in finding very interesting answers. So I do hope you don't mind my posing the question! [Smile]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

By saying that someone is a great Christian thinker, you typically mean that what they are doing their great thinking about is strongly influenced by and/or related to being Christian. It's not enough to be both a Christian and a great thinker, one must significantly have to do with the other.

Werner Heisenberg, for example, was clearly a great thinker as physicist. He was also a dedicated Lutheran Christian, who publicly talked about the relationship between his science and his faith. But he was no great Christian thinker, or at least is not recognised as such so far, since his great thoughts advanced the understanding of physics not of Christianity.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Do you mean- did the speaker mean- thinkers who happen to be Christians, or thinkers who think through a Christian paradigm (as one might speak of, say, a Marxist or liberal thinker)? If the latter, I would say that was the distinguishing mark- one whose thinking is based on the assumption, or at least incorporates the idea, that Christianity, in some form, has an explanatory or interpretive value, or reflects some truth about the world.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Assuming you mean what IngoB and Albertus think you mean, I'd suggest Dallas Willard without a moment's hesitation. C.S. Lewis as well maybe...?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

J. H. Newman was one of the greatest Christian thinkers of his time.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
J. H. Newman was one of the greatest Christian thinkers of his time.

I think he was the greatest of the 19th century (whose name is widely known). His intellectual rigour and integrity are inspiring. He pursued the truth, as he perceived it, no matter what the cost. His sermons are beautifully crafted theological miniatures and still have the power to humble and surprise.

When his intellectual integrity led him from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism, he went. And it's to the shame of the Anglican Church that I don't think we ever took to heart his critique of us.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
what is the difference in general terms between a great christian thinker, and, say, philosophical thinkers, scientific thinkers, etc?

No difference. Just different fields of contribution.

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

When his intellectual integrity led him from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism, he went. And it's to the shame of the Anglican Church that I don't think we ever took to heart his critique of us.

What was his critique of us?

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

Almost any field will have great thinkers of their time. Newman wouldn't jump to my mind precisely because his crossing the Tiber calls into question the quality of his thinking. I wouldn't deny he was a force to be reckoned with, but his conclusions were certainly questionable.

Others that come more readily to mind would be Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Menno Simmons, C.H. Spurgeon, Karl Barth and I think Tom Wright might well be one of the recent thinkers who could be added to that illustrious group.

Of course, anyone's choice will be influenced by those they've been exposed to, what tradition (if any) one belongs to.

Though, of course, one needn't agree wholly with them to have due respect for them.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

When his intellectual integrity led him from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism, he went. And it's to the shame of the Anglican Church that I don't think we ever took to heart his critique of us.
What was his critique of us?

This'll have to be a brief, broad-brush sketch, and is also partly my interpretation of how I read Newman. For more of the story, go to his Apologia pro Vita Sua. (The title's Latin, but the book is in English!)

During his Tractarian period, it was Newman's hope to demonstrate that the Church of England possessed continuity with Patristic Christianity, and, to an extent, with pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism. This continuity was what allowed the Church of England to call itself "Catholic".

Some people take Tract 90 as the high-water mark of this project. In that work, he sought to reconcile the 39 Articles of Faith with mainline Catholic teaching. (Personally, I think he massively over-pitches his argument and loses credibility. There are bits of Tract 90 that to me begin to look like desperation - and suggest that he was beginning to lose confidence in his own argument.) However, around that time he also began to have doubts about the Church of England as an institution. I think his biggest problem was the CofE's relationship with the State, and it's primarily this point that I would describe as the core of his critique of Anglicanism. In the Apologia he describes looking back on the CofE - with a rare and disappointing hint of bitterness - as "a mere national institution". I think that perception was one of the prime factors that convinced him that he belonged elsewhere.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

In the last century I'd list C.S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, and Charles Williams.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Many thanks for the responses and sorry I had to go out unexpectedly this morning , so couldnt be here to see them sooner. I'll have a proper read this afternoon.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

'Thinker' is an interesting term. I think it corresponds to 'public intellectual', but sounds less pretentious. It implies less formality and involvement in the academic process than philosopher or economist or theologian; but more intellectual rigour than a newspaper columnist.

'Christian thinker': well, it could mean, a thinker who is Christian, or a thinker who thinks from the Christian tradition, or a thinker who thinks primarily on behalf of other Christians, or a thinker who thinks from the Christian tradition about Christianity.
If you think much of Dawkins' thinking (when he isn't talking about biology) you could call him an atheist thinker. I think that even were one inclined to call Dawkins a thinker one wouldn't call him a thinker at all when he's doing actual academic scientific work, though one might do it when he's doing public understanding of science. If you're thinking within an actual discipline, you're not a thinker - a thinker is primarily directed at the public.
John Gray is perhaps a more unqualified example of an atheist thinker.

In so far as philosophical or scientific thinkers are genuine categories, I doubt they and Christian thinker are exclusive categories.

I suppose the work of Newman that most qualifies him as a Christian thinker would be the Idea of a University, which I believe was a major influence on the philosophy behind university education in England at least, until Thatcher and Blair.

[ 11. August 2014, 17:39: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

I suppose one of the problems of giving people a title including the word ‘great’ is that it is often applied after the person has died! My task for the week will be to look up all the people who have been mentioned here, and learn more about their thinking. The phrase, great Christian thinkers’ is one I don’t remember coming across before, so it caught my attention.

I wonder how the thinkers themselves assessed their influence for good.

[ 11. August 2014, 17:57: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

From the liberal camp, Rudolf Bultmann, Paul Tillich and John Macquarrie are good candidates.

Popularizers like Richard Holloway and John Shelby Spong are thinkers in different sense, in their application of their wide pastoral experience. (Another popularizer, John Robinson, was of course a scholar in his own right.)

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Tangent alert: was the primary difficulty or problem that. Newman had in his Tractarian project that he was trying to reconcile the CofE of the 39 Articles with Patristic and Pre-Reformation Christianity? IOW, his starting place was impossible. The 39 can only be reconciled with the historic Church by twisting some of them all up in a way that just isn't congruent with "original intent". ISTM that the project only has some chance of success when the 39 are cast aside and the historic continuity of the CofE and Anglicanism with the Patristic Church is defended on the basis of more organic grounds. This seems easier to do today in TEC, where the 39 have never had authoritative standing and have now been relegated to the status of mere "historical documents", and where catholic Eucharistic theology has been in semi-official ascendency for a century or more.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Almost any field will have great thinkers of their time. Newman wouldn't jump to my mind precisely because his crossing the Tiber calls into question the quality of his thinking. I wouldn't deny he was a force to be reckoned with, but his conclusions were certainly questionable.

This argument seems close-minded and a bit arrogant, IME.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

I would consider T.S.Eliot's later poetry examples of considerable Christian thought.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
On 'Prayer for the day' this morning, Monday, BBC Radio 4 at 05:43, the speaker started by saying that on this day in 189?, one of the greatest christian thinkers of all time, John Henry Newman, ...'. I turned off at that point, but I've been thinking since then: what is the difference in general terms between a great christian thinker, and, say, philosophical thinkers, scientific thinkers, etc?

Now, you may think that, as an atheist, why am I asking this question?! But I'm wearing an 'enquiring minds want to know' hat; and this is the place where I have confidence in finding very interesting answers. So I do hope you don't mind my posing the question!

t's not an uncommon expression to describe somebody as an atheist thinker or a Christian or Jewish thinker surely, its self-explanatory terminology. If you google it you find lots of information, so what's really at the heart of bringing the issue here, it must be more than just definitional? I do admit to being a bit defensive when somebody who appears to sit within the Dawkins school of atheism asks such a question, I expect their assumption is "Christian thinker" is an oxymoron.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Kierkegaard and of course travelling back through history Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Almost any field will have great thinkers of their time. Newman wouldn't jump to my mind precisely because his crossing the Tiber calls into question the quality of his thinking.

Oh wait, were you serious?

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

Some people have great thoughts but don't live long enough to become 'public intellectuals'.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
It's not an uncommon expression to describe somebody as an atheist thinker or a Christian or Jewish thinker surely, its self-explanatory terminology. If you google it you find lots of information, so what's really at the heart of bringing the issue here, it must be more than just definitional? I do admit to being a bit defensive when somebody who appears to sit within the Dawkins school of atheism asks such a question, I expect their assumption is "Christian thinker" is an oxymoron.

I think one of the reasons the phrase 'great Christian thinkers' caught my attention was the word 'great'. I googled 'great atheist thinkers', but none of the links used the word 'great'. There were no links to 'great x, y, z thinkers' either. I assure you that my OP does not have anything cynical about it! I have a lot of respect for posters here and their extensive knowledge of the subjects in Purgatory. and I learn a lot.
Thank you for the suggested names to look up.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think one of the reasons the phrase 'great Christian thinkers' caught my attention was the word 'great'. I googled 'great atheist thinkers', but none of the links used the word 'great'.

Yes, atheists tend to use words like "bright" or "free-thinking" or "rational." Same diff.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
'Thinker' is an interesting term. I think it corresponds to 'public intellectual', but sounds less pretentious.

That whole post of yours was most interesting; thank you.

Posted by Bene Gesserit (# 14718) on :

Watchman Nee? I haven't read any of his stuff in donkeys' years but when I was a teenager his writing seemed very deep.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There were no links to 'great x, y, z thinkers' either.

There is a distinction between 'being good at thinking about X' and 'being good at doing X'. A lot of actors seem surprisingly unthoughtful about their craft but do it superbly. On the other hand some subjects demand, primarily, thought: philosophy or mathematics for example. Their subject is thinking. You could however be a great Christian without being a great thinker.

Whether you read any theology or not, I'd recommend Richard Holloway's "Leaving Alexandria". It's the usual story: kid from working class slum becomes Bishop of Edinburgh and then resigns. Well not that usual I guess.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bene Gesserit:
Watchman Nee? I haven't read any of his stuff in donkeys' years but when I was a teenager his writing seemed very deep.

Many teenagers think Ayn Rand is really deep.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Many teenagers think Ayn Rand is really deep.

*shudder*

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

I am tempted to name Martin Buber as a great Christian thinker, despite his being Jewish rather than Christian. I think - like Gandhi - his influence goes well beyond the religious community with which he was associated.

And, of course, Gandhi himself, for similar reasons.

So perhaps they rate as great religious thinkers in a more generic sense - and available to Christians for that reason.

I remember CS Lewis pausing in one of his books to note briefly "Buber is so good".

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Wikkipedia has been very helpful - and I have enjoyed looking up all the names and reading a little about each one mentioned. I can seee there is plenty more for me to read and think about. However, I think I'm going to be a bit busy for the next week or so, as even though my aortic valve replacement really gave me a whole new lease of life, the right carotid artery has become somewhat furred up and, after a couple of brief but noticeable warning symptoms, the NHS have decided to sort me out ! [Smile]

Well, tap dancing starts again in a few weeks, so I've got to be fit for that!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
I am tempted to name Martin Buber as a great Christian thinker, despite his being Jewish rather than Christian. I think - like Gandhi - his influence goes well beyond the religious community with which he was associated.

And, of course, Gandhi himself, for similar reasons.

I think this is (1) cultural/religious appropriation and thus morally indefensible, and (2) twisting the meaning of the term. Great Christian Thinkers ought to be Christians. It's what the term means. Sure there are great thinkers who are not Christians. They would fall under the term Great Thinkers. The "Christian" has to mean something other than "Christians could learn something from them." That is true of virtually all Great Thinkers (I'm having a hard time thinking of a Great Thinker who isn't a Christian and from whom Christians couldn't learn at least a little something.)

But even though we (meaning we people who refer to ourselves as Christians) bicker about the meaning of the term, it is unwise and rude to apply it to someone who does not, and indeed would probably be averse to applying it to themselves (as we know Ghandi was).

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Almost any field will have great thinkers of their time. Newman wouldn't jump to my mind precisely because his crossing the Tiber calls into question the quality of his thinking. I wouldn't deny he was a force to be reckoned with, but his conclusions were certainly questionable.

There's something that seems off about this, and not just because I'm Catholic. I was at a talk L.T. Johnson (who happens to also be Catholic) gave once and he made a remark along the following lines: "Even though Tillich was right about more things, there's no question that Barth was the greater mind."

I happen to agree entirely with Johnson. I don't put this forward to discuss those particular convictions, but that my evaluation of someone as a "Christian thinker" is pretty disconnected from how many of their conclusions I think are right. This would be very different from my evaluation of someone, say, as a "mathematical thinker."

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I agree with Mousethief about the appropriation, was trying to think how I would say it but MT did it better than I could.

Susan Doris, hope the NHS sorts you out appropriately and quickly.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
I am tempted to name Martin Buber as a great Christian thinker, despite his being Jewish rather than Christian. I think - like Gandhi - his influence goes well beyond the religious community with which he was associated.

And, of course, Gandhi himself, for similar reasons.
I think this is (1) cultural/religious appropriation and thus morally indefensible, and (2) twisting the meaning of the term. Great Christian Thinkers ought to be Christians. It's what the term means. Sure there are great thinkers who are not Christians. They would fall under the term Great Thinkers. The "Christian" has to mean something other than "Christians could learn something from them." That is true of virtually all Great Thinkers (I'm having a hard time thinking of a Great Thinker who isn't a Christian and from whom Christians couldn't learn at least a little something.)

But even though we (meaning we people who refer to ourselves as Christians) bicker about the meaning of the term, it is unwise and rude to apply it to someone who does not, and indeed would probably be averse to applying it to themselves (as we know Ghandi was).

Please also quote my final paragraph - otherwise you are distorting my post:

quote:
MSHB also wrote:
So perhaps they rate as great religious thinkers in a more generic sense - and available to Christians for that reason.
(my emphases)

You see, I revised my train of thought and classified them as "religious" - the "available to Christians" clause would also apply equally well as "available to Muslims", "available to Buddhists", etc.

I have often given fellow Christians books about Buber. We are allowed to read him.

Leaving out the final paragraph distorted what I wrote. It is selective quoting.

I began with "I am tempted ..." (note: not committed) - I was thinking out aloud - and ended up with "So ... they are great *religious* thinkers". But you stopped at the initial temptation and didn't quote the conclusion.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

I think what I am trying to point out is expressed well in this quote:

quote:
http://www.gratefulness.org/giftpeople/martin_buber.htm:
Martin Buber, a Jewish philosopher and theologian, was one of the great religious thinkers of the twentieth century. Among Jewish thinkers he had a particular impact on many Christians, stimulating an appreciation for the Jewish origins of Christianity.

Buber was not only a great Jewish thinker (and there have been quite a number of these), and a great religious thinker (he was, after all, a professor of comparative religion, and even wrote some passages about Buddhism and about classical Greek religion), but also he has had a significant impact specifically on a number of Christian theologians. The connection between Buber and Christianity is more than just "Christians can read him with profit".

quote:
same page: Among modern Jewish religious thinkers, none had so great an impact on Christian theology as Martin Buber.

To address the point of the thread:

If someone who identifies as an atheist wanted to read great Christian thinkers, and was willing to broaden that scope to include great religious thinkers in general (in this instance, I am referring specifically to people who have been influential beyond their own religious community, and who have been influential with many Christians), then I think Buber and Gandhi would be worthwhile suggestions for that person to read.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Leaving out the final paragraph distorted what I wrote. It is selective quoting.

No. Let's get over this absurd notion. It leads to people quoting entire gigantic nested passages and adding a single line to the end. I don't have to quote everything you wrote. If I left out something you wrote in my reasoning, then point it out to me. I really don't have to quote what you wrote at all; I could write "MSHB in his post of 17:25 said blah blah blah". The quoting thing is an easy way to show what I'm responding to. But the idea that somebody has to quote an entire post or they are "distorting" what you wrote is absurd. Tell me I missed something. Tell me I overlooked something. Tell me I need to take into account what came after the bit that I quoted.

But don't tell me I'm "distorting" what you wrote. That's BS.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Great Christian Thinkers ought to be Christians. It's what the term means. Sure there are great thinkers who are not Christians. They would fall under the term Great Thinkers. The "Christian" has to mean something other than "Christians could learn something from them." That is true of virtually all Great Thinkers (I'm having a hard time thinking of a Great Thinker who isn't a Christian and from whom Christians couldn't learn at least a little something.)

Sorry to sound a bit cynical. 'Great Thinker' means either 'someone who does it for the speaker', or sometime 'somebody the speaker wants you to think they've actually read'. 'Overrated Thinker' means 'someone other people go on and on about who doesn't do it for the speaker'.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Leaving out the final paragraph distorted what I wrote. It is selective quoting.
No. Let's get over this absurd notion. It leads to people quoting entire gigantic nested passages and adding a single line to the end. I don't have to quote everything you wrote. If I left out something you wrote in my reasoning, then point it out to me. I really don't have to quote what you wrote at all; I could write "MSHB in his post of 17:25 said blah blah blah". The quoting thing is an easy way to show what I'm responding to. But the idea that somebody has to quote an entire post or they are "distorting" what you wrote is absurd. Tell me I missed something. Tell me I overlooked something. Tell me I need to take into account what came after the bit that I quoted.

But don't tell me I'm "distorting" what you wrote. That's BS.

The issue is not the physical quoting of text.

If I say "I am tempted to think A ... (hmmm, thinks more) ... so maybe I'll think B", it is selective to quote "I am tempted to think A" and then criticise A as though that were my decided position. To do so ignores my actual conclusion B: it ignores the progression of my thought. You quoted A, you failed to quote B.

I did not maintain that Buber is a Christian thinker. I explicitly said I was tempted to maintain that, but then I actually proposed that he was a great religious thinker in the generic sense - and "for that reason" he was available to Christians: we actually read him as a great generic religious thinker, not as a Christian thinker.

The improper temptation was avoided, there was no actual decision to name Buber as a Christian thinker, no appropriation.

[ 14. August 2014, 14:40: Message edited by: MSHB ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
The issue is not the physical quoting of text.

Then why did you make that an issue?

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

WTH: I'll go with Rush Limbaugh.

I once heard him say his Christian faith is 'profound'. Personally I'm in no position to argue. [Paranoid]

And when you listen to him trying to tune out the bombast you do hear glimmers of someone who has been there and done that and lived to tell about it, with an enthusiasm few could continue to muster had they achieved what he has.

(Probably the most important thing for his critics to recognize is he is arguably one of the best marketers extant.)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
(Probably the most important thing for his critics to recognize is he is arguably one of the best marketers extant.)

Is he? He is losing advertisers faster than he can count his illegal pain pills.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is he? He is losing advertisers faster than he can count his illegal pain pills.

You're responding to him. [Biased]

And I suppose he's somehow managed to provide for his familial obligations.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is he? He is losing advertisers faster than he can count his illegal pain pills.
You're responding to him.

And I suppose he's somehow managed to provide for his familial obligations.

One needn't be one of the best marketers extant to have these things true of him.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One needn't be one of the best marketers extant to have these things true of him.

Fair enough.

But I thought you were intent on trashing Rush?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One needn't be one of the best marketers extant to have these things true of him.
Fair enough.

But I thought you were intent on trashing Rush?

I was intent on calling out a grossly absurd claim.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
WTH: I'll go with Rush Limbaugh.

I once heard him say his Christian faith is 'profound'.

I'm subjected to three hours a day of Lush Rimbaugh, and I've never heard him refer to his faith as "Christian"; never heard him reference Christ; never heard him reference the teachings of Christ, the apostles, or the fathers; and I've never heard him discuss spirituality at all.

The only references I've heard him make to Christianity at all are the power of the Con Evo voting block and how Pope Francis is a (evil, implied) socialist.

I can't for the life of my understand how you'd define him as a "christian thinker" much less adorned with the adjective "great".

Care to clarify, Moron?

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
WTH: I'll go with Rush Limbaugh.

Uh.

Words fail me.

Please tell me you're joking.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm puzzled by the direction this thread is going in. I've never heard of Rush Limbaugh. Looking him up on Wikipaedia, he appears to be rather a loud mouthed chat show commentator. Leaving aside the Christian question, is that likely to mean he's likely to be a 'Great Thinker'?

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've never heard of Rush Limbaugh.

OMG you're lucky.

I'm sorry, but is he really truly being seriously suggested as a ... hell, as a "thinker," much less great or Christian?

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Here are the sorts of things Limbaugh is known for.

On Robin Williams' death, followed by this.

And the Malaysian airplane crash.

And comparing Obama to Hitler and Stalin.

And his disgusting attacks on Sandra Fluke.

And claiming that climate change is a hoax. And that "if you believe in God then intellectually you cannot believe in man-made global warming."

And accusing Pope Francis of "pure Marxism."

And that the US Republican Party isn't conservative enough.

And how the name of the character Bane, dating back to the early 1990s, who was enough of a Batman villain to put him out of commission for a year or so in the comics, was put in the Batman movie as part of a liberal media conspiracy to attack Mitt Romney's Bain Capital company durng the 2012 presidental elections and I just can't go on any more, the guy is insane, so I'm going to just stop now. Feel free to do your search of various news stories aggregated here by HuffPo.

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm puzzled by the direction this thread is going in. I've never heard of Rush Limbaugh. Looking him up on Wikipaedia, he appears to be rather a loud mouthed chat show commentator. Leaving aside the Christian question, is that likely to mean he's likely to be a 'Great Thinker'?

Mr. Limbaugh is not a (great) thinker.

But he provides what (in 2012) 15M listeners wanted to hear.
He's just big business, pandering to people who like to think themselves decent, or even Christian, without having to act decent or Christian, see examples provided by ChastMastr.

He is just another example of your financially successful corrupt tvangelist, propagandist "news" channels like Fox News, etc.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Here are the sorts of things Limbaugh is known for.

On Robin Williams' death, followed by this.

And the Malaysian airplane crash.

And comparing Obama to Hitler and Stalin.

And his disgusting attacks on Sandra Fluke.

And claiming that climate change is a hoax. And that "if you believe in God then intellectually you cannot believe in man-made global warming."

And accusing Pope Francis of "pure Marxism."

And that the US Republican Party isn't conservative enough.

And how the name of the character Bane, dating back to the early 1990s, who was enough of a Batman villain to put him out of commission for a year or so in the comics, was put in the Batman movie as part of a liberal media conspiracy to attack Mitt Romney's Bain Capital company durng the 2012 presidental elections and I just can't go on any more, the guy is insane, so I'm going to just stop now. Feel free to do your search of various news stories aggregated here by HuffPo.

Well, I said he knew marketing. [Razz]

-----

And I've heard him say he is a Christian and who is qualified to deny it?

(Feel free to call him sometime and tell him you are a greater Christian thinker. If you get through you might also want to compare the amounts of charitable giving you've done to his... time well spent, I think.)

Do you really want to go there just because you think you disagree with his politics?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I'll take his word that he believes that he is a Christian and I wouldn't set myself up to judge whether he was or not. It's the thinker, let alone great thinker, thing that I have doubts about. I do not mean this in any derogatory sense. Few people, I suspect, are really thinkers- all too busy getting on and doing- and very few are great thinkers.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Few people, I suspect, are really thinkers- all too busy getting on and doing- and very few are great thinkers.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Could you please define 'great thinkers'?

TIA.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Well, not really, but I'd say we are talking people of the calibre of- among others mentioned on this thread- Newman, Augustine, Buber (leaving aside the 'Christian' thing), perhaps Bonhoeffer. Rowan Williams would get in there too, pretty certainly. People who think hard and analytically and inform their thinking with theoretical perspectives and come up with something original. I wouldn't, by the way, rank CS Lewis as a great Christian thinker: a very clever man and perhaps (I'm not able to judge) a great thinker in the discipline of English. But as a Christian thinker I'd say he was a good thinker and a very able populariser - and thank God for that.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Why is originality a virtue in something which is, at least in theory, timeless and permanent? Not that there are not new truths to discover, but...?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Now you're getting all Ad Orientem-y on me, aren't you? [Biased]

Originality as it is generally understood in the humanities and social sciences: that is, of approach or synthesis or application or expression.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

(Hosts: please would you delete the first sentence of the above? On reflection, it might cause unintended offence to Ad Orientem. Thanks)

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Originality as it is generally understood in the humanities and social sciences: that is, of approach or synthesis or application or expression.

I'd chuck Paula Gooder in the mix on that definition.

Brilliant way of making the scriptures come alive and be relevant.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
(Hosts: please would you delete the first sentence of the above? On reflection, it might cause unintended offence to Ad Orientem. Thanks)

We have very strict guidelines as to what we will (or more usually will not) delete. What you posted does not qualify: in this case, what you have written, you have written.

/hosting

[ 16. August 2014, 11:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

William Booth and Samuel Logan Brengle

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
(Hosts: please would you delete the first sentence of the above? On reflection, it might cause unintended offence to Ad Orientem. Thanks)
We have very strict guidelines as to what we will (or more usually will not) delete. What you posted does not qualify: in this case, what you have written, you have written.

/hosting

OK. Didn't want to (i) cause offence and (ii) breach the rules/ guidelines by doing so.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Now you're getting all Ad Orientem-y on me, aren't you? Originality as it is generally understood in the humanities and social sciences: that is, of approach or synthesis or application or expression.

Wouldn't that mean that eventually we can't have any more great Christian thinkers anymore?

In any case, yes, I absolutely think of Lewis as one of the greatest Christian thinkers of the 20th century. Of course he was standing on the shoulders of giants like Boethius and many others. But I don't intrinsically see "originality" (when it comes to truths, not the arts, in which it can be a great thing (though again not always)) as necessarily a virtue at all--which is indeed one of the principles that I believe Lewis held, and with which I agree, but then that might start getting recursive so I shall stop now.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
And I've heard him say he is a Christian and who is qualified to deny it?

That's entirely beside the point. He does no significant amount of talking or writing on the Christian faith or teachings of Christ: to do so would greatly contravene most of the positions and attitudes he holds on just about everything else.

What are people's thoughts on Kalistos (Timothy) Ware as a GCT? He's certainly one of the minority of people today who write actual theology (as opposed to pastoral or devotional Christian literature).

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Do you really want to go there just because you think you disagree with his politics?

The actual disagreement over things which are only politics (which economic policies and laws will be best, etc.), even though those are very important even in terms of moral implications, pale into insignificance with his sneering, venomous, spite and hatred for other people. And the latter are very definitely not fruits of the Spirit. Or fruits of the Holy Spirit, rather.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I was going to nominate Bohoeffer, but see he has been already taken. So instead I will nominate Oscar Romero. 'Great thinkers' don't necessarily have to be 'deep thinkers', often it is enough that they dare to think what others dare not think. And continue to think, and act on, those ideas, even in the face of strong persecution.

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

Time will tell whether they will have permanent influence, but right now I would say Richard Rohr and Brian McLaren are great Christian thinkers.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Is this thread supposed to be about Christian thinkers who are still alive? I've noticed J H Newman and C S Lewis mentioned so presumably not. And if not, why has nobody mention Thomas Merton?

Not an academic theologian (some would say that's an advantage) but definitely a theologian in the Orthodox sense of one who prays. And definitely a thinker, a man in tune with the great currents of thought from medieval philosophy to 20th century politics, one well-versed in literature from many cultures, and deeply sympathetic to other religious traditions from his own. Also a poet, and a (good amateur) photographer. In all, one of the most influential Christians of the 20th century.

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

From the OP:

quote:
what is the difference in general terms between a great christian thinker, and, say, philosophical thinkers, scientific thinkers, etc?

So strictly speaking, naming favorite Christian thinkers -as I did- doesn't cut it, but being alive or not is -I think- irrelevant for the question asked in the OP.

Merton indeed continues to be enormously influential, directly through his books and indirectly through the writers/thinkers he has influenced.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I would add Austin Farrer, and maybe Dorothy L Sayers too.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0