charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (10/04/85)
I'll have to admit I'm only an amateur theologian, and I find gary buchholz's posting a bit confusing. Perhaps he (or someone else) could clarify some points for me. > It is interesting that Wingate states the 1886 Anglican "confession" >implying that this may be valid in the contemporary context. Are you implying that it is not valid? If you are, please explain why. If it is because it is "old" (and 100 years isn't really very old), are all old confessions and documents invalid? To what extent, why? > J. Dunn in Unity and Diversity in the New Testament speaks also of >this "freezing of tradition" . . . . >. . . that it calls into question any lasting >significance of canonical, creedal or doctrinal authority. Are you (or he) saying that the Canons, Creeds, and the like are *not* of "lasting significance"? Is their anything of lasting significance? The Church itself? The Gospel? > Koester et al would like to dissolve the question of truth altogether >understanding "orthodoxy"(truth) and heresy in terms of political >"winners" and "losers" of history. "The formation of the canonical >Gospels simply served to establish the superiority of those writings >which were prized by that party which had won political hegemony." "...dissolve the question of truth altogether..."? Do you say that there is no absolute truth? Isn't it possible that the "losers" "lost" because they were *wrong*? Is the Church not more than a human organization? If it is, can't the Head of the Church make His organization bend to His will? Or is He at the mercy of the local politics as well? > This is the heart of the matter. Every modern theologian since >Bultmann (The NT and Mythology) has taken up this problem - how does >one deal with the mythological categories of thought in the NT that, >in Bultmanns words, "no modern man can accept" as Reality. Could you specify the "mythological categories of thought", please? I'm afraid I haven't read Bultmann. It sounds like you're saying that "no modern man" *really* believes that some aspects of the NT were true. Which aspects are those? >Simply *asserting* things like [Anglican and RC doctrines] >these days and claiming some transhistorical authority for them >will get you nothing but the condemnation of ideology by the >contemporary theological community. I don't understand this statement at all. What are you defining as the "contemporary theological community"? I'm certainly no fundamentalist, but I know many, both clergy and lay, who will claim transhistorical authority for the Scriptures, Creeds, and doctrines of their churches. And what do you mean by "the condemnation of ideology"? Do you mean that the "contemporary theological community" will denounce the Scriptures and Creeds as being idiological and not spiritual? Or what? >The historical reality of theology moves by passing through criticism not >by passing around it, or by ignoring it, or by refuting it by simply >asserting traditional creeds. But isn't the purpose of the Creeds to give us the means to refute heresy? Or do you imply that there is no such thing as heresy? > "Tradition frozen in time" does not easily equate with the type of >"Truth" that Christians want to claim for it. Why are the "losers" in >history always "heretics". > Again, isn't the Church the Body of Christ? Isn't it given the Holy Spirit to lead it into Truth? Can we not trust God to make sure that the Truth "wins"? Sorry this is so long. I usually try to keep my postings short, particularly responses, but I want to make sure I understand Gary's posting. charli
gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) (10/07/85)
I've been following these remarks by Wingate and Tinkham on "correct doctrine" and thought I might make some comment. The "problem" becomes a problem in at least two ways. 1) Religious pluralism. 2) Theological reflection on recent historiography. Wingate takes up the former and *asserts* the Anglican position. Tinkham points out the latter but does not follow out the implications of what he says. It is interesting that Wingate states the 1886 Anglican "confession" implying that this may be valid in the contemporary context. By doing this he predates the entire "german revolution" in philosophy of history and critical biblical scholarship that "makes" the problem that Tinkham tries to address (ie historical relativism). Historical relativism is a favorite topic of discussion treated in NT "Introductions" used at the seminary and divinity schools. A short survey is given below. E.Best in Scripture, Tradition and the Canon of the New Testament wants to view the creeds, doctrines and dogmas of the church (as well as canon) as the "freezing of tradition in particular contexts" which serve "as an illustration of what the norm meant in certain particular <historical> contexts". J. Dunn in Unity and Diversity in the New Testament speaks also of this "freezing of tradition" more fully drawing out the implications that it is so "contingent on the particuliarities of the particular historical circumstance" that it calls into question any lasting significance of canonical, creedal or doctrinal authority. Koester in Trajectories Through Early Christianity is probably the most radical. Koester with J. M. Robinson and the "Harvard School" following the history-of-religions approach of F. C. Baur have added to the above the "critique of ideologies" calling for the "radical dismantling of the New Testament categories which would eradicate the last vestiges of canonical (ideological) bias." Koester et al would like to dissolve the question of truth altogether understanding "orthodoxy"(truth) and heresy in terms of political "winners" and "losers" of history. "The formation of the canonical Gospels simply served to establish the superiority of those writings which were prized by that party which had won political hegemony." For all of the above "sola scriptura" is replaced by "sola traditio". "Sola scriptura" is really the hidden ideology of the political winners raised to divinity. Tinkham has well understood the historical problem. He writes - >Although the church (hopefully) grows in its understanding of God and >his work on earth, it is not safe to trust our present understanding >too completely as being the best possible description of Christian >doctrine. All cultures and times have flaws and biases, our own >included, and these flaws and biases can distort our understanding of >God. One way to try to compensate for these biases is to compare our >present understanding with the beliefs held by the church in different >times and places. The creeds provide valuable information for making >this comparison: they tell us what, in a given time and place, was >considered to be orthodox by the church. The response from Koester might be this. Why exclude anything from the critique ? Extending Tinkhams insight one might say that a culture in any particular time has an "idiom" (=interpretive system) for construing Reality. If as Tinkham says, these "idioms" are in question then why limit the criticism to post-biblical times. Why not center the critique on the NT itself. This is the heart of the matter. Every modern theologian since Bultmann (The NT and Mythology) has taken up this problem - how does one deal with the mythological categories of thought in the NT that, in Bultmanns words, "no modern man can accept" as Reality. What does Tinkham have after his survey of history tells him "what, in a given time and place, was considered to be orthodox by the church". What I think he has is the history of Christian thought (modern academic discipline of Historical Theology). But does he have any "truth". He has only succession of one thing replacing another. >... One way to try to compensate for these biases is to compare our >present understanding with the beliefs held by the church in different >times and places... What does one do with a "history of biases". Can we extend it to the NT. Is "to believe" a bias ? What does "compensation" mean here. Do we want a "value neutral" judgement on the "objective realities" of an experiential religion. What place does "value free" have in religion. Is not the name of the game value as significance for human being. Is the NT mythology the order the physical world or is it rather the ontological order of human being projected onto the physical world - a problem of ontological not ontic reality. As for Wingate, what does citing an 1886 Anglican formulation have to do with the 20th century. For that matter, the RC church can cite its 1865 position of papal infallibility. Simply *asserting* things like this these days and claiming some transhistorical authority for them will get you nothing but the condemnation of ideology by the contemporary theological community. You can go two ways on this. You can utter the Anglican ideology and say this is the way you *define* reality to be. Contemporary theology will have no argument with you. Or, you can offer Anglican theology as *description* of the way the world is. In the latter case you better be ready to address the contemporary historical/theological questions that Dunn, Best, Koester and the rest are going to raise. The historical reality of theology moves by passing through criticism not by passing around it, or by ignoring it, or by refuting it by simply asserting traditional creeds. "Tradition frozen in time" does not easily equate with the type of "Truth" that Christians want to claim for it. Why are the "losers" in history always "heretics". "True doctrine" is the shifting images of phantasmagoria manufactured in the historical process by those parties who reach political hegemony in any historical epoch. Gary