mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/02/85)
In response to a longstanding criticism of mine, Gary writes: >Charley Wingate has remarked several times in response to my postings >that I would set "theology" above the laity and out of their reach. In >Sanders work Charley may find the peaceful union of Church and theology >that he seeks. Sanders declares quite explicitly: > "Canonical criticism may perhaps be the corrective to what happened > because of the Enlightenment, when the Bible was taken from the > church lectern into the scholars study. The movement of canonical > criticism is that of the scholars being openly willing to be a > SERVANT of the believing communities" [ emphasis mine ] For the moment, I'll ignore the question of whether I agree with the kind of criticism Sanders proposes. But I will say that to a great extent I don't agree with his servant idea-- not unless you are willing to consider the President of the USA your servant! >Now here is where Sanders and a great many theologians and biblical >scholars come to a parting of the ways both in what counts as >"theology" and what counts as "biblical scholarship". >Why should any theologian or any biblical scholar be constrained or >answerable to believing communities ? What sort of "theology" or >"biblical scholarship" could this be that acquiesces to the whim of >an uneducated and theologically oblivious lay community ? Well, we'll get to the second question in a minute. As for the first, the answer I would give is, "No indeed, they should not be answerable; but neither should they expect to be accepted uncritically." >Here is where I must appeal to an 1806 work by Friedrich Schleiermacher >who has been called the father of modern theology. He writes "Speeches >on Religion to its Cultured Despisers" as an apologetic for religion to >the heirs of the Enlightenment. Schleiermacher knows "religion" looks >"silly" to the educated but what is "silly" is not religion itself but >religion in the hands of the laity. >Schleiermacher writes... > "...This at least is certain, that all truely religious men, as many as >there ever have been, ... have all known how to estimate the church, >commonly so-called, at about its true value, which is to say, not >particularly high. > <the church> ... is very far from being a society of religious men. It >is only an association of persons who are but seeking religion, and it >seems to me natural that, in almost every respect, it should be the >counterpart of the true church <true Christianity / Schleiermachers >theology> > ...They <people in church> cannot be spoken of as wishing to complete >their religion... for if they had any religion of their own, it would, >by necessity of its nature, show itself in some way... They exercise >no reaction because they are capable of none; and they can only be >incapable because they have no religion.... I would say that they are >negatively religious, and press in great crowds to the few points where >they suspect the positive principle of religion... In entire passivity >they simply suffer the impressions on their organs. > ...In few words this is the history of their religious life and the >character of the social inclination that runs through it. Not >religion, but a little sense for it, and a painful, lamentably >fruitless endeavor to reach it, are all that can be ascribed even to >the best of them, even those who show both spirit and zeal" Well, I can well understand the felling behind this passage, and there are indeed many churches which inspire the the same repugnance in me. But 179 years have gone under the bridge now; the whole Oxford Movement was years in the future; the theologians of responsibility and justice (the Neibuhrs, for instance) had yet to pen a single word. My experience of ordinary parish theology is quite different. There is a lot of interest in practical theology, and thus in invigorating both Word and Deed; the number of people who hear the cries of Kierkegaard ringing in their ears is quite large indeed. There are of course many people whose participation in their religion is quite minimal, and they are indeed much like those of whom Schleiermacher speaks. But the ravenous devouring of the debased product offered by Fundamentalism is to me a sign of interest. My experience is that, taken as a general principle, Schleiermacher's criticism simply isn't true. As for the apparent "silliness" perceived by the educated, why is this perception above criticism? >I can readily identify with those in academic theological community who >are quite willing (contra Sanders) to let the laity fall by the wayside >and to disengage theology both from the Church and from a "biblical >revelation". Fine. I assume you are willing to prune yourself from the vine then. >'We" know that Sanders "spooky" meta-history is silly. And "we" know >that canon criticism is the dead corpse of secular "New Criticism" >whose obituary was filed long ago. So do "we" ("we" in this case being the body of Anglicans). But, of course, on different grounds. I see no answer to my complaint here. Gary continues on to drag out a whole list of credentials. Conspicuously absent in the list is any kind of spiritual experience, even so feeble as that of church membership. Gary and his compatriots fit C. S. Lewis's "erudite limpets" analogy to a T. And Gary conveniently ignores the fact that the various churches have their own theologians and scholars. The churches in fact have every right to be critical of this attack: spiritually and intellectually. I don't see them rushing out to toss christianity in the trash. Charley Wingate
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/07/85)
>>Charley Wingate has remarked several times in response to my postings >>that I would set "theology" above the laity and out of their reach. In >>Sanders work Charley may find the peaceful union of Church and theology >>that he seeks. Sanders declares quite explicitly: >> "Canonical criticism may perhaps be the corrective to what happened >> because of the Enlightenment, when the Bible was taken from the >> church lectern into the scholars study. The movement of canonical >> criticism is that of the scholars being openly willing to be a >> SERVANT of the believing communities" [ emphasis mine ] > For the moment, I'll ignore the question of whether I agree with the kind of > criticism Sanders proposes. But I will say that to a great extent I don't > agree with his servant idea-- not unless you are willing to consider the > President of the USA your servant! [WINGATE] That's the idea behind democracy, Charles: the government is supposed to elected to serve the people, not the other way around. You have a very weird perspective on scholarship and authority. -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr