mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/02/85)
> I take this to be a more succinct codification of what Charley Wingate > espouses as his construal of the historical process... In other words, > I take Charley to be a "closet" canon critic and canonical conjurer of > "Phamtasma" in the style of Brevard Childs of Yale Divinity School. Not so. I'm not especially interested in canon crticism. What concerns me here are (a) the rationale behind the various systems, and (b) the motivations involved. Gary has consistently identified me with views that I do not hold. Consider the following passage, for instance: > Childs, Sanders and Charley all appeal to "apparition"(=Holy Spookery) > as operative in Christian tradition over against Koester et al and the > historical school who see no such specter at work... Setting aside the silly use of the word "spook", this passage is simply wrong. Since this seems to be a sticking point, I will have to set out Anglican theological principles again. Scripture is not Truth. Neither is tradition (taking tradition in the broadest sense of the historical practice of christianity). Neither is reason (taking reason also in the broadest sense to include what are commonly called "non-rational" ways of considering things). The cornerstone of Anglican theology is the principle that the three of these must be brought together to give even the possibility of deriving something authoritative. Note that this is a quite dynamic approach to theology, because it implies the need for constant reconsideration of issues. In contrast, the scheme Gary supports exalts reason, and a subset of it at that. From the Anglican perspective, the notion that a late twentieth century theologian can sit back and evaluate tradition without consideration of his own position is flatly preposterous. We have no quarrel with canon criticism per se: The canon is misunderstood if it is not seen within the patterns of thought from which it came. This not only applies to what preceded the writing of the books of the Bible, but as well to the contemporary struggle to express the community's experience and the unfolding of the implications of the canon in the centuries that followed. Urban T. Holmes: _What is Anglicanism?_ This, of course, applies to the system Gary proposes as well. Yet those whom Gary quotes appear to think that they have advanced enough to objectively evaluate previous tradition unilaterally, and to stand in judgement over it. Why on earth their new tradition should be held in higher favor, especially in light of their apparent apriori dedication to a sort of agnosticism or even atheism is a question they do not answer. Gary then quotes Cyril of Alexandria as a "proof" against the guidance of the "Holy Spook". But why is this a problem? Anglicanism certainly leads you directly to the conclusion that you don't have to take every (or even any) person or school of theology as the Voice of the LORD. As a matter of course, we assume that anything said by anyone is, at best, an imperfect vision of the godhead, and can be as bad as total delusion. > I could multiply these examples indefinitely. I took these quotes from > various books of the "historical school". The "historical school" > proceeds on the presupposition that one does critical historiography > first, before one does theology despite the "canonical school" who would > hold this to be "backwards". And the Anglican school (which falls into neither class) claims that critical historiography IS part of theology, and that to do it as a prelude is merely to elevate one's own reason above all others. > The final quote comes from Morton Smith (Prof of Ancient History at > Columbia) who wishes to recover the historical Jesus in the face of the > systematic destruction of ancient texts decreed as "heretical" by the > Roman empire. And what historical Jesus is he going to construct? What check is there upon HIS canonization? Certainly this is evidence enough that critical historiography is not prelude to theology, but IS theology. > What the "historical school" would agree on is that the jews as a > people are NOT deranged (contra Xian tradition / Cyril); that women are > not the cause of all heresy (contra Xian tradition / Tertullian & > Jerome); and that "might is not right"(contra the systematic burning > and destruction of "other" Christian texts at the hands of emperor > Constantine and his army of bishops. Well, the Anglicans certainly do, because we don't subscribe to the heresy that the Holy Spirit runs the church like IBM. But neither do we see the many examples of patently unchristian behavior as proofs against His presence either. All we have to offer is our best opinion, as informed by reason, scripture, and tradition; and that's all we will consider anyone else's theology to be. Gary insists on the heresy that the notion "God's truth is worked out in history" is inconsistent with the tremendous output of bad theology from the church. But in fact, this evaluation is dependent entirely on the assumption that one knows HOW the LORD's truth is worked out. Without that assumption, it is impossible to evaluate what those errors mean without falling into an explantion that must itself be judged against the speaker and his own position. > According to Charley Wingate "Gods Truth" is Anglican truth "all along > the path" thanks to the providential acts of God and the Holy Spirit. > Does the Anglican Church allow Women in the priesthood ? Does the > Anglican church think the jews deranged ? Does the Anglican Church > read any other gospels than those allowed by emperor Constantine ? > Does the Anglican Church hold Arian theology to be "heresy" as the > emperor declared ? Well, in fact we do, because we are willing to look back, test reason and scripture against Cyril, Tertullian and Jerome, and and make our own decision, FULLY COGNIZANT OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE MAY BE WRONG. The use of the phrase "Anglican truth" is indicative that Gary either misunderstands or misrepresents our position, because, while we use the word truth, we implicitly acknowledge that we may in fact be wrong, and that there is no obstacle to someone else reexamining an issue and coming up with a different answer. We currently take the Nicene Creed as authoritative; we have decided not to take "Quicunque Vult" with the same authority. We once had articles of religion; these too have been reconsidered, and are now taken not as authority but as tradition. So why is this a problem? What's wrong with a theological system which denies that we can trap truth in an argument? I'm bothered by the fact that Gary has consitently identified me with Sanders's position (or what he calls Sanders position, anyway). I believe Sanders to be wrong, too. One cannot with any certainty point at church tradition and identify where the Spirit has been working (and thus we we can take absolutely with authority). Gary's depiction of the problem as a dichotomy is simply wrong. The only real difference between the two positions, as I see it, is that Sanders thinks that he can identify Spiritual authority within tradition, while Childs denies that there is any there at all; this last conclusion is implied by the criticism of Sanders on the basis of patristic errors. But if one denies the priniciple that one can tell whether the Spirit is at work at any place or time, then there is no need to accept either position. And again, both Childs and Sanders want to place historical criticism outside of theology. Anglicans, however, simply do not accept this; to us it is a part of the thelogical process itself, and subject to exactly the same sorts of criticisms. I will save response to the last of Gary's points for a different article. Charley Wingate