Steven S Veach

As part of my Doctor of Theology program at Forge Theological Seminary I am completing several preliminary foundational “seminars,” including writing several articles on various topics.

This particular article focuses on the often touted but (I would say) misguided axiom in graduate work and the academy overall concerning “New Research.”

So, let’s find out what research I’m considering not only for my Dissertation but also afterward in my future work as an independent researcher for the Church and why “new” is not always best.

What is “New Research?”

There are few rules to follow in graduate school, especially once a student reaches the doctorate level and is working on their dissertation. But there is one guiding principle that seems ubiquitous in both graduate programs and in academia generally: research is only valid if it makes in some way a new contribution.

Unfortunately, this now blindly accepted axiom simply does not work for most graduate work and has been responsible for all kinds of insanity in the name of “newness” or students attempting a unique contribution.

As Lovitts points out in reference to philosophical study (and the same goes for Theology, too), “it is much harder to come up with an original contribution…the way Spinoza or Nietzsche did, “you can’t ask…students to do what we ourselves can’t do” (Implicit, 362). He was referring to the expanse human knowledge now has. Philosophy itself has a 2500 year history, and as Solomon wrote, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiasties 1:9).

There are areas of philosophical research that still have questions to be answered. This is one of the reasons why I chose a philosophy of death as one of my subjects of interest simply because it is one area that we still don’t really understand. We have no knowledge of what comes after death if anything, and we are still no closer to the mechanisms that cause death universally in all living creatures.

Don’t misunderstand. I am not arguing that for research to be effective it must be practical or serve a purpose. But, in fact, I would argue these qualifications should trump the idea of “new.” Instead, though, in academia today, we too often see the exact opposite happening – where new fads, new ideas, politically correct theorizations, no matter how fanciful or insane they might be, tend to rise to the top over more conservative, more reasoned contributions simply because they happen to be popular at the moment. Let me elaborate.

Going Too Far

The quest for knowledge is certainly subjective. Many things we know to be true or false are indeed based, organized, sorted on how we or others perceive them. But, research in many fields have gotten to the point where no rational person can honestly say things haven’t gotten a little out of control.

Let me ask, is there a valid point to a dissertation titled, “Do chickens like attractive humans?” What about an article published in a peer reviewed journal titled, “Does country music mae people suicidal?” Is there any practical use in research about “Bees on cocaine?” This is just the top of the iceberg. Most dissertations completed today in graduate programs will be read only by their dissertation committees (if even then) and will then be shelved forever. They contribute nothing to knowledge and are based on no rational logic at all.

And there are more.

In 2011, Cheung Wang wrote an article for PLoS ONE titled, “Why Don’t Woodpeckers Get Headaches?” Really? Is this what scientific inquiry has come to? Must we sacrifice practicality and reason for novelty? Worse, in 2018, three scholars set out to expand on the 1990 Sokal Hoax by submitting over twenty articles to academic journals disguising rubbish and illogical argument with gender and deconstructivist jargon and buzz words. In this new operation, of the 20 articles submitted, seven were accepted for publication, seven more were in review, and only six had been rejected. The results of this operation proved the questionable nature of the current state of academic study to begin with.

Universally, the goal of academic study, of philosophical inquiry, was the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. But, as is common for the human condition (Genesis 6:5), this valiant original pursuit is often eroded by self interest, competing worldview propaganda, and sinister intent of the supernatural realms (Ephesians 6:12).

Of course, it get’s even worse.

In 2014, Lee Walters wrote an article for Analytic Philosophy title, “Possibility of Unicorns and Modal Logic,” where he presented an argument for and against the existence of unicorns! And there is no end to the insanity that is passed off as academic inquiry in this day and age.

Aim of Theological Research

But, this is not my aim and should not be the goal of theology or philosophical inquiry into theological topics. Instead of seeking the new and the dramatic for its own sake, Christian Philosophers may engage knowledge for several purposes but should ultimately seek, above all else, to build up the body of Christ.

It is, in my opinion, a mistake to tell graduate students they must seek new knowledge that has never been considered, established or covered before. To do so is to push students to automatically forsake what Paul called the “first principles of the oracles of God” (Hebrews 5:11-14). There is within the statement itself the fundamental concept of God’s “oracles,” in which does God possess all the secrets and imaginings and considerations and blueprints of creation and all that is contained within it and all that is located outside that substrate. Likewise, this statement insists these “oracles” not only contain within them a set of principles (or guiding operations), but that there are a subset of these principles that are to be incorporated and learned first before all others (the first principles).

This is the aim of my own research: uncovering the “Oracles” of the Creator of this physical, dimensional, spatial reality, as well as inhabitor of the larger subsuming spiritual reality that Paul defines as the “supernatural realm.” This would cover the “first principles” of that set of Oracles. But, as Lovitts already pointed out above, human inquiry into knowledge (more properly here, the knowledge of God – the Oracles of) has a long stretching history and much has been covered.

Theology proper is the study of none other than these Oracles, though many (most) tend to diverge into distraction from God knowledge and replace it with what Paul described as, “philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to basic principles of the world” (Colossians 2:8). I would predict the true motive for this is an overall uneasiness with the reality of those “first principles” to begin with. By stepping into human knowledge, into philosophies, humans can quickly short-circuit the effectual nature of those “first principles” and eventually abandon them altogether.

The ultimate aim of academic inquiry, at least for the Church or within the Church or by its members therein, is first the sanctification of the research conducting that research. It is the stated aim of the traditional monastic – to study, to pray, to fail – all for the purpose of drawing closer to and allowing God to transform the individual into the likeness of Christ in preparation for the day of Redemption. Second, and as a natural outpouring of the first, the researcher’s goal within the Church is to aid the body universal in her sanctification, for each man, each woman, each child, until all are brought into the fullness of the perfect man.

This aim, this goal, cannot be achieved through seeking after the new, the attractive, the controversial. It can only be completed by submitting to those first principles of the Oracles. Once those things have been apprehended, then the human can proceed into the mysteries that remain unexplored. Paul called the first empty deceits. He called them philosophy. Traditions of men. Basic principles of the world. These things we cannot remain obsessed with. They are a distraction from the true sight ahead. We make a mistake if we abandon the true and complete transformation for these first abstractions. These things the world chases after in a desperate attempt to deceive themselves into believing they need not God and have no God other than their own seared and marred fallen will. But, the Christian Philosopher seeks to venture beyond those firsts and seeks not the new but the ancient, the foundations.

Lovitts, Barbara E. Making the Implicit Explicit: Creating Performance Expectations for the Dissertation. Stylus Publishing, 2007.