Sometimes I Think Math and Theology Don’t Mix
Years ago I was a Mechanical Engineer. I had to study a fair bit of calculus, up to partial differential equations. I studied far more than I needed for my job. I also studied statistics, but far less than I needed. It is interesting to me that people like to pull in math into the seminary. Some of this is pretty reasonable. There are forms of theological or ministerial research where quantitative analysis is done. Some of these are relevant. Some seem almost ludicrous. I am not convinced that understanding an Old Testament passage is enhanced by finding out the median and standard deviation of perceptions as to that passage from a group of religious leaders. I have seen that done. I feel like seminaries have gone through a time of insecurity where they felt they needed to use a lot of unnecessary math in their work to show they could stand toe-to-toe with the secular sciences— both hard and soft sciences. Personally, I think that statistics isn’t helpful very often in theological research. If you disagree… I can’t say you are wrong. However, I am reminded of what my dissertation supervisor said as it pertains to theological or ministerial problems— “Quantitative analysis is good at answering the questions that people are NOT asking, and the answers given typically aren’t very helpful.”
However, this is not my only problem. Sometimes, people throw in some math to make it sound like one has debunked a position, or proven another. Very often it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Let me note two arguments I have heard that utilize “infinity.”
Case 1. I heard an argument for how it is just that God would send a sinner to eternal conscious torture, ECT— time without end. (I am not making an argument here for or against the theory of ECT… I am noting an argument where a person assumes ECT and then tries to use math of sorts to justify the position, and in so doing justify God).
First though, an argument against ECT is that our sins are finite and limited while the punishment (if ECT is correct) is nigh unto unlimited. The punishment does not fit the crime. In the Old Testament there is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life. Some see this as extreme, but this is actually meant to portray justice by providing limitations. The punishment exacted should not be more severe than the offense.
An argument in support of ECT is that God is infinite, while sin is an offense against God— an infinite being. That makes the offense, in essence, infinite— thus justifying an infinite punishment. It sounds like good math— Character of the punishment should be proportional to the Character of the offense times the One Offended. If the one offended is ‘infinite’ then the punishment should be ‘infinite.’ Of course, mathematically that makes no sense since infinity is not a quantity. One cannot speak of proportionality to infinity. (I am not going to get into Cantor’s work with infinites. I don’t think it would add to either side’s argument. I will, however, use it in the next case.)
But suppose you tried to utilize proportions while dealing with infinites— what happens? Well, people are finite, so if God is infinite, then people are infinitessimal in comparison. Thus, any offense we could possible make against an infinite God would be infinitessimally insignificant. One cannot determine the appropriate punishment by trying to multiply infinites with infinitessimals. A similar problem comes up in terms of punishment. If the punishment is infinite but the one punished is infinitessimal in contrast, can one even answer questions of proportionality from any angle? In the end, IF ECT is correct, it cannot be justified by how big God is. Perhaps one might support it from God’s sovereignty without trying to argue that it stands up to a human understanding of justice. Or perhaps if one finds Biblical support for ECT, then once can simply point to the authority of Scripture and ignore the rest. Regardless… math is no help.
Case 2. A different angle comes to Evangelism. While I will leave the question of ECT to other people, I will come out and say that I absolutely support Evangelism and consider it vital in the Christian and the Church. However, one argument I heard is that hell is infinite punishment and the only way to avoid it is through salvation, and salvation only comes through response to the proclamation of the Gospel. Therefore Evangelization (proclamation of the Gospel) is infinitely more important than anything else we can do. I can’t remember who made this argument. It might be Trevin Wax… but I could be totally wrong.
This argument at first appears to make more sense since we don’t try to pull an infinite God into the mix. Our post death life is “infinitely longer” than are current life so any activity that has direct bearing on the afterlife must be infinitely more important than anything we do that only relates to our present life. Although this seems to hold… it starts to fall apart when one goes through the process. Consider three people. I can choose three random people— Moe, Larry, and Shemp.
Moe: “Evangelism is all that matters because it relates to eternity and anything else I do now that pertains to our present life is finite and thus trivial in comparison.”
Larry: “So breathing is trivial, correct? It only pertains to this present life, which is finite.”
Moe: “Uhhh… yes, I think.”
Larry: “Oh but wait! If I stop breathing, I will die and be unable to evangelize. So if breathing is necessary to evangelize and evangelization is infinitely important, than breathing is infinitely important as well!”
Moe: “I hadn’t thought of it that way, but I can’t argue with the logic. And by extension— I suppose eating and drinking must also be infinitely important as well.”
Curly: “Don’t forget wearing clothes! In many places not wearing clothes would lead to exposure and death. Besides who is going to listen to a naked person sharing the Gospel?”
Moe: “Wearing clothes… Hmmm…”
Larry: “Hold on for a second. I just had a thought. Speaking of the afterlife we are talking about results… the output of evangelism… not the input, but the activity itself.”
Curly: “Certainly! Evangelizing a brick wall has no impact on eternity. Therefore, it is the results of evangelism that is important, not the activity itself.”
Moe: “Hold it there. Are you saying the end justifies the means? That doesn’t sound very Christian…”
Larry: “Moe, you started it. You were justifying actions based on ends. If our ethics states that our future state determines what activities are more important now, then aren’t we justifying our actions by teleological ethics?”
Moe: “I feel like we have gone off course. I wasn’t trying to compare proclamation evangelism to eating or drinking. I was really comparing it first to activities that have no eternal value… like browsing the internet or playing sports or something. Secondly, I am suggesting that proclamation evangelism is infinitely more important than other types of ministries like feeding the hungry or building houses for the poor or such. Those are not bad… but simply cannot be compared in importance to proclamation of the Gospel.”
Curly: “Why stop there? Suppose one form of evangelism is three times more effective than another form. Does that make it three times better than the other? Perhaps meeting felt needs of the people combined with proclamation is three times more effective than proclamation alone. Does that make holistic evangelism three times more infinitely important than proclamation alone?”
Larry: “Curly, you numbskull! Don’t you know what Georg Cantor demonstrated? Any finite number multiplied by infinity would simply be infinity. It would not be three infinities!”
Curly: “Ahhh… then if one has a form of evangelism that is only 1% as effective as another, each are equally infinitely important. One cannot compare or contrast them!”
Moe: “Shut up, and get back to work.”
If the above conversation sounds non-sensical… that is because it is. But I have heard the argument of the superiority of proclamation over other ministries done with variations of this logic. Of course, one does not need to fall into a game of math. Often the argument collapses simply because ministry work is NOT dichotomistic. Arguing which is more valuable— Proclamation Evangelism or Social Ministry is a strawman. Combining the two into holistic ministry seems more likely to be valuable (and certainly more Biblical) than either one separate.
Case 3. I suppose I could add a third one here… Not related to the infinite. Often I have heard that certain types of ministry are more important because they are “faster.” They get the message across faster and can achieve exponential growth more quickly. If one’s ethic is that speed and efficiency are better than slow or inefficient, then I suppose the argument stands up. Certainly the Church Growth Movement has often supported such an ethic. However, that ethic is questionable at best. It can be too pragmatic, and can even support things that are demonstrably unethical based on the idea that it “works.” However, there are other issues. Community Development tends to start out much slower, but often can transform communities in a holistic and exponential manner. This may well have long-term impact than a saturation evangelistic strategy would. Further, some methods can actually drive people away. Listening to a street preacher one time literally screaming at people… my suspicion is that if he did indeed have anyone respond positively, it is likely he had many more people who felt a great aversion to the individual and, by association, the message he conveyed. Taking these into account… even if one finds value in math, one must be careful not to be simply picking and choosing data to support a claim, while ignoring things that undermine one’s thesis.
SO… does math and theology mix? I suppose it does. However, when one is trying to use math to justify methods or theological positions… I do think one has to be careful. It is tempting to get to the QED too fast and not open oneself to doubt that math can encapsulate God’s truths.
