A Friday footnote in this sequence of posts which may (or may not) lead to an interesting post about the 'other' great issue in Anglican Communion life at the moment.
At great risk of oversimplifying the long and complex story of how the church seeking the mind of Christ came to the conclusion that the God of Jesus Christ is the Trinity, the church reasoned its way through reflection on revelation in Scripture to determine that all christological references in the Old and New Testaments yielded the conclusion, God is Trinity. In turn this meant that the church henceforth reading Scripture would understand individual texts in the light of this conclusion. Texts implying Jesus was God's adopted Son, for instance, are relativised in the light of this conclusion: they only appear to mean Jesus was adopted, they do not determine an adoptionist sonship.
In this process, theology and exegesis engage in a hermeneutical dance choreographed by the Spirit. Theology does not go beyond Scripture in its reflections; Scripture is read in the light of theology's reflections. Further, revelation and reason also dance together. Reason enhances revelation by assisting in understanding the full (or deep, or, somewhat favoured in today's theologyspeak, thick) import of what has been disclosed. Revelation controls reason, restraining it from speculation that represents a move beyond what can be claimed as divine knowledge.
In respect of some Anglican talk about 'Scripture, tradition and reason' which, for some of us, all too readily and loosely claims some kind of foundational basis for positing three authorities of equal status or for promoting three distinct methods of theological investigation, the dance of reason and revelation together is confrontational. If we allow the manner of the church's engagement in theology in the first five centuries to be paradigmatic, then we Anglicans should take care about how we work with Scripture, tradition and reason. On matters of controversy today, our quest should be for what revelation and reason yield as a sure basis for hearing what the Spirit is saying to the church.
8 comments:
"Revelation controls reason, restraining it from speculation that represents a move beyond what can be claimed as divine knowledge." - and:
"On matters of controversy today, our quest should be for what revelation and reason yield as a sure basis for hearing what the Spirit is saying to the church."
- Dr. Peter Carrell -
Both of these theses imply that the Holy Spirit might still be 'saying to the Church' things that, though not inimical to the burden of Scripture, yet engages reason in a renewed understanding of precisely how Scipture is to be interpreted in today's world - the only world we have; in which to bring the empowering message of the Gospel.
For instance, some implied characteristics, e.g. treatment of women and slaves, in the O.T. are not applicable in today's society.
The teaching Jesus in the N.T. is indicative of the need for a new hermeneutic in the matter of the acceptance of 'outsiders' - e.g. the woman at the well, the woman
caught in the act of adultery (what happened to the men, we wonder?) and the Roman Centurion.
Jesus teaching on judgementalism - amongst the Scribes and Pharisees - implies a different view of what constitutes 'righteousness' from that which they saw as 'valid'.
It is quite apt, at this Season of Pentecost, to consider again what Jesus meant when he told his disciples: "When the Spirit comes, he will lead you into all the Truth, about ME and about SIN. In other words; about who Jesus is, and about his treatment of sinners.
Come Holy Ghost, our souls inspire!
“Texts implying Jesus was God's adopted Son, for instance, are relativised in the light of this conclusion: they only appear to mean Jesus was adopted, they do not determine an adoptionist sonship.”
The logic of this post hinges on the belief that nothing in the Bible can differ from an other part of the Bible. There can be no contradictions, development, or differences. We decide what one part of the Bible means and if another part of the Bible disagrees, it must be our reading of it that is confused. Our obsession with the homogeneity of the Bible prevents the Bible from speaking for itself.
There is also, regularly here, a belief that the majority in the end will be correct, and that the correct interpretation of the Bible has and will triumph. This presupposition is held in spite of the fragmentation of Christianity and the inability of Bible-believing Christians to agree on significant, central teachings –disagreement that has not lasted years or decades but centuries.
“If we allow the manner of the church's engagement in theology in the first five centuries to be paradigmatic”
Why would we allow the manner of the church's engagement in theology in the first five centuries to be paradigmatic? Why not the first century? Or the first twenty five centuries? There is nothing in the Bible that requires us to have the manner of the church's engagement in theology in the first five centuries to be paradigmatic.
Alison
I very much like the Trinitarian hermeneutic you are trying to achieve Peter. Robert Jenson’s ‘reading’ of Ezek 1-3 is a case in point in his recent Brazos Commentary: who is the one “in appearance as a man” in the blazing vision?!
Memorable too is Bp Stephen Neill’s insight that Christology and the doctrine of Trinity are but the flip-side of each other. He put it this way: “the doctrine of the Trinity is not so much about the nature of God as about the identity of a particular human being - that he was/is God; and concomitantly, Christology is not so much about the nature of Christ as about God - that God is free/able to become a human being.” [In a course of lectures I attended on the Ecumenical Movement in the 1970s. Man; what a living, walking archive he was - truly, delightfully extraordinary! Thanks be to God!] Just so, the Gospel Story traces the steps of God’s actions towards us AND our representative human mediator’s actions towards God in nuce. Father and Son fulfil BOTH sides/poles of the Biblical Covenant(s). For no-one else is actually free to deliver on such Promises nor to live - or die! - such Torah!
So power to your arm/pen/keyboard on this entire approach - in the context furthermore that James is seeking on another thread: just what do the various ‘parties’ owe to each other and to themselves, let alone to our ecumenical friends? For of course the AC’s ‘dilemmas’ are at root far deeper than his pair of “magnets”, which are but presenting surface issues (awkward and nasty sometimes for all that naturally). The root concerns authority; and its root concerns revelation - and its counterpoint is human sin, incurvatus in se - which last blinds us to the grace of revelation and the need for redemption. So; once more the Grand Story of the Church’s reception of the Gospel’s Revelation of her triune God is necessary and potentially a healing place to start. For, as I am fond of repeating (Herbert Butterfield): those who are ignorant of history are bound to repeat it. In addition (Hegel paraphrased): the one lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. So please keep banging away ...!
“There is also, regularly here, a belief that the majority in the end will be correct, and that the correct interpretation of the Bible has and will triumph. This presupposition is held in spite of the fragmentation of Christianity and the inability of Bible-believing Christians to agree on significant, central teachings –disagreement that has not lasted years or decades but centuries.” Alison
Good to see you pitching in, Alison. While certainly themes and disputes seem to ebb and flow down the centuries, from my own experience there is a wonderful if slow emergence of what some term the Great Tradition. Nor would I foreclose this Tradition as being completed within “five centuries” either. The school of nouvelle théologie extended its scope well into the High Middle Ages, and they have MUCH with which to assist the entire Church, East and West, Roman and Protestant. Nor would I finally say that Nicaea-Constantinople and Chalcedon were ultimate: we have still to contend across the board, East and West, with the anti-Arian backlash curiously but precisely brought about by the Nicene Victory, which has lead to all sorts of mediatorial and so ecclesiological hic-ups and lopsidedness. [At root, it comes from failing to have an operative, functional Trinitarianism.] But for those with ears to hear, this stuff, and with no doubt more to come, is being displayed to an errant broken Body, whose fractured truths do not quite yet make the Bridal Mosaic they should. But we do live in hope, Alison - if only according to Rom 8!
Thanks for erudite comments, Ron, Alison and Bryden (loved the description of Stephen Neill).
My point about the first five centuries is that this is the period in which the church settled, or largely settled the doctrine of the Trinity (i.e. with Chalcedon in 451 A.D.). Five centuries is simpler to write than 4.51 centuries. If we accept that the church got something right during that period, then we might want to learn from its method in that time.
But it is true that the Bible itself doesn't command us to pay attention to those centuries :)
Fr. Ron: You allude here to the Roman Centurion, probably assuming that he was in a sexual relationship with a "pais" (boy, slave ... correct translation here debatable) - also known as the pais argument. Not to dwell on this - but here's a case where Gagnon has contributed an article pointing out why, given context, it's not reasonable to believe that the Centurion was in a sexual relationship: Did Jesus Approve of a Homosexual Couple in the Story of the Centurion at Capernaum? I think you'll find that Gagnon makes the case rather well, that Jesus could not have assumed that the Centurion was involved in sexual relations with the pais.
Alison, "Our obsession with the homogeneity of the Bible prevents the Bible from speaking for itself."
Doubtless, in some hands, this is the case. However, with any text, we seek to understand the parts less clear, by interpreting them in light of those which are resoundingly clear. I am completely in agreement that where there are tensions, we need to understand these and teach them as well. But I think it's simply wrong to say, "The Bible can't contradict itself." Theoretically, yes - it can. But if we are to allege it does, we need evidence, and then interpretation, to make sure we're not simply projecting modern assumptions upon Scripture - e.g., modern expectations about chronology, or practices with regard to specificity and uniqueness in the naming of places. I frequently hear alleged, "The Bible is full of contradictions." But when I ask to hear this substantiated, what's frequently proffered as evidence either seems to me a misapplied projection of modern linguistic expectations in narration, or rather "literalistic" assumptions that all witnesses of a general event observe from the same point in space and time, with the same presuppositions and emotive state.
Also, regarding the assumption that "the majority will be right" - especially thinking of Bryden's apt words regarding sin - we should keep in mind - we might not be the right group of people to decide such things. If we recognize our own sin - e.g., we can't even keep our bishops from lying even when spending $200,000 in vetting - well, why should we trust ourselves in deciding about thornier issues of interpretation in Scripture, instead of asking more virtuous churches to teach us on such matters?
I'm inclined to think: if one wishes to make a major contribution to the world's understanding of Scripture, one does best to go to another church, get one's self checked-out, discipled, spiritually de-loused and de-Anglicanicized as part of the initiation into the circle of those entrusted with teaching duties ... if one wishes to hang with the Anglicans (as I do), one realizes that we're mostly yelling at each other about the fate of a sinking ship (and hopefully ... learning to do such yelling in a more loving way - as I think we're all trying to do here ... succeeding, I might say, in a way quite unusual for Anglican blogs).
"Fr. Ron: You allude here to the Roman Centurion, probably assuming that he was in a sexual relationship with a "pais" (boy, slave ... correct translation here debatable) - also known as the pais argument."
- James -
Now James, it seems that here you might just be guilty of the sin of assumption! Did I mention anything about the 'pais' argument' when I wrote my note about the acceptance of the Centurion by Jesus? - NO!
Did I intend to infer the relevance of the 'pais argument'? Frankly, I did not even think of it. I was merely highlighting the acceptance of cultural outsiders by Jesus. Something we are all bidden by Jesus to consider.
Strange how one's mind can get fixated on a problematic area we think preoccupies someone else!
Fr. Ron -
QUITE RIGHT INDEED. My bad here. It's me here falling to the "sex magnet."
Blessings to you!
Post a Comment