daved@westford.ccur.com (508-392-2990) (01/26/91)
Hi Cindy, and group! Thank you for your postings, and pleased be
encouraged to keep up the good work.
Several points in the recent exchange intrigued me.
Cindy wrote,
cms> My professor this quarter (I'm taking him for both NT and American
cms>Religious Thought) emphasizes the concept of syncretism. He
cms>emphasizes syncretism of religious beliefs in my NT class to explain
cms>the development of Christian thought; the Logos being a Greek concept
cms>of the ordering force of the universe syncretized with the Jewish
cms>concept of God, resulting in Logos becoming flesh is God among us, and
To which Phil responded,
pb>I can appreciate the notion of "syncretism" within the history of Christian
pb>doctrine so long as it means roughly what John Henry Newman meant
pb>by "development" in his ESSAY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN
pb>DOCTRINE; that is, so long
pb>as it means that conceptions from various sources are incorporated into an
pb>organically developing current of ideas that nevertheless has its own
pb>distinct sources and substantive identity.
I like this, and I think it can be the basis of an intelligent
response to charges in the form of 'Easter is nothing but a pagan
festival with Christian festoonings.' Walter Kaufmann's book,
Religions_in_Four_Dimensions, goes into the Hellenistic syncretism of
the age of Paul and Jesus; and speculates on the possible influences
upon early Christianity. At the end of the day, however, putative
syncretism only explains so much, historically. Contemporarily, I
think it explains a great deal about the New Age movement.
pb>If "syncretism" meant that there were no substantive identity
pb>to the original "deposit" of faith or an organic and distinctive development
pb>of it within the Church, so that "Christian doctrine" were thought to
pb>comprise an eclectic body of irreconcilable beliefs, that, of course, would
pb>not do.
Here, here!
pb>Have you read John Henry Newman on his reasons for leaving
pb>the Anglican Church? APOLOGIA PRO VITA SUA and AN ESSAY ON THE DEVELOPMENT
pb>OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE are the two classics that come to mind.
IMHO, Anglicans of any stripe, and Episcopalians in particular, who
are of an intellectual bent, owe it to themselves to read the
_Apologia_ - Newman left the Anglican communion, and became an RC,
in part because of arguments involving history and tradition; and he
was well informed about both.
For my own part, I'm walking in the via_media *despite* having
wrestled with Newman. But one does well to let the 'loyal opposition'
take their best shot, so as not to live one's life as a churchy
'hot-house flower' (i.e., protected against the doctrinal and
ecclesiastical storms)
pb>The later 1979 edition omits the emphasized words, and rewords the passage
pb>thus:
pb> Q. What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?
pb> A. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is the bread
pb> and wine, given and received according to Christ's command.
pb> Q. What is the inward and SPIRITUAL grace given in the Eucharist?
pb> A. The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body
pb> and Blood of Christ given to his people, and received by faith.
I remember reading this for the first time and thinking, in effect:
This is in code- they want the Real Absence [Phil: thanks for adding
to the word-hoard!] folks to hear "It's a symbol" and the Real Presence
folks to hear: "He's really there." There's some truth to the jibe:
"The Episcopal Church: If there's a fence, we'll sit on it!"
But I can say that with affection.
Dave Davis
These are my opinions alone.
daved@westford.ccur.com *or* {harvard,uunet,petsd}!masscomp!daved
QOTD:
"Conceit is the regress of progress." -- Heraclitus