Authority Dilemma IV: Reason
October 5, 2008
NOTE: This post is part of a larger series discussing Ecclesial Authority
Part I: Introduction
Part II: Scripture
Part III: Tradition
Part IV: History/Reason
Part V: Personal and Communal Experience
Part VI: Authority Revisited (UNFINISHED)
III. History/Reason as Chief Authority
Faith Traditions: Liberal Protestants, Some Anglicans, Conservatives (to a point)
Argument: “Historical Jesus” While any alternative will use history, holding up historical criticism as the chief authority means backing up everything with evidence and reason. On the small scale this might be something as simple as Tradition saying that Paul wrote Hebrews even though History tells us a different story. More considerable are some of the conclusions claimed by the Jesus Seminar (i.e. the Gospel of John is largely theological fabrication, Jesus did not resurrect from the dead, no walking on water, no loaves and fishes, Thomas and Peter have as much merit as the four Evangelists etc…) I included “Conservatives to a point” because most Apologists and Conservative Historians ultimately arrive at the conclusion that at some point faith takes over. Part of Christian faith requires belief in things that defy the senses. This sacrifice is what makes it worth it.
Nice Quote: Help me find one!
Pros:
1. Truth can be discussed and debated using evidence and reason: Liberated from what are seen to be the limitations of Tradition and Scripture, Historical inquiry is free to arrive at its own conclusions. (rather than, say, starting from the indisputable fact that Jesus saw himself as the second person of the Trinity, and then seeking a way to show it through historical criticism.)
2. Intellectually Conscientious: Any freshmen undergrad taking an Introductory Religion course at a secular college will tell you it’s tough to be a fundamentalist Christian in that environment. The revealing studies of New Testament scholars over the last 200 hundred years pose difficult questions to the modern Christian: “Is the state of the Church today really what the historical Jesus and his followers had in mind?” Further, “Is what they really wanted even beneficial or possible today?” Worse, “How can we trust our historical sources in describing what might’ve been intended?”
3. Broad Agreement With Other Academic Disciplines: This one is kind of an extension from #2. An example would be to claim that dead people don’t rise from the dead and that religious experiences can be delusionary experiences fabricated in the mind is to be in agreement with contemporary biology and psychology respectively.
4. New Goals, Reform: When the ordination of Women and Homosexuals came to forefront of controversy in Episcopal church, the advocates turned to Historical Criticism and cultural anthropology to argue what the Bible really said, and what being a Christian really meant. Despite almost 2000 years of Christian Tradition, Historical criticism and modern Psychological research were able undermine its authority on these issues.
Cons
1. Faith of the Elite: In many ways this is similar to Con #1 for the Tradition Alternative. There is potential for Christian faith to become unintelligible to all but those with a Ph. D. in New Testament Studies. Can we read our Bibles? Can we pray? Can we even attempt to make a difficult moral decision when everything must be considered within its historical and sociological context?
2.Concensus is Impossible: It’s hard to find two historians who agree on everything—even those who work together on the same project or publish the same paper. This is because interpretation of history is subjective and vague. To go back to the example above, history can tell us Paul probably didn’t write Hebrews, but it can’t prove who did. Some say Apollos, some say Priscilla but ultimately these are just good ideas—something we’d like to be true. I’ll paraphrase Crossan here when he said that studying the historical Jesus is often like staring down a very deep, dark well only to find a reflection of yourself at the bottom.
3. Potential for the Abandonment of Orthodoxy: At some point one must ask themselves if a “reasonable and historically conscientious Christian” who denies the bodily resurrection of Christ, the influence of the Spirit at all in the formation of Scripture, and the resurrection of Christ’s followers can really be called a Christian anymore.
reed
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
November 14, 2008 at 0:03
An expression my father used to like to offer is “It all depends on whose ox is being gored.”
“Right reason” is the lynch pin for many theological arguments, problem is (as I see it) is that the ox being gored is the ox that the reasoner is generally indifferent to.
More plainly, the consensus reached by people who are just reasoning their way through something without reference to a higher authority, is often at the whims of the cares, concerns and prejudices of the parties doing the reasoning.
In the Anglican world today, for example, a number of prominent theology-makers have reasoned their way into near-agnosticism with denial of the Virgin Birth, resurrection, Divinity of Christ, necessity to adhere to natural law in carnal relations. Bps. Spong, Robinson, and Schori (to name a few) find this all very reasonable.
November 14, 2008 at 10:35
Additionally, extremely liberal theology really seems to be a church killer. Perhaps someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but in the USA, the Episcopal Church has seen drastic decline (more so than the national average since all churches are in decline) since this whole ordination of Gay Clergy business.
Shoe and I just had coffee with a Conservative Methodist minister last Wednesday night who talked about how the Liberal Methodist Churches are declining while more Conservative wings are actually planting more churches.
Is this just coincidence? What’s the explanation for this? Would the Liberals just say that they’re pruning their congregations of the Conservative folks?
November 14, 2008 at 11:25
Messiah is one of the only growing churches in the MN Diocese of TEC
November 14, 2008 at 19:17
The double edge of the liberal sword, (my 2¢ here) is that the conservatives get run off, and the folks who are not the most ideologically committed find themselves rather unchallenged by a Christ that expects little, demands even less, and leaves one only with the vaguest suggestions on how to fulfill the one true command – be nice. (To people who deserve it at least.)
One can do that (be a nice person) and sleep in on Sundays.
From there we can observe a few other issues. Questions about obligation and what attendence and membership entails, offers and even means come to mind. As a priest friend of mine who was raised between his dad’s Anglican parish (which is now no longer TEC) and the Catholic Church once put it, “Catholics have to go to Mass on Sunday, Protestants choose to.” (A sweeping generalization, I know, but allow me some lattitude for a moment.)
Without reference to or concern about how the active participation in the worship and sacramental life of the Church is either demanded or benificial in a real and metaphysical way that echoes in the light of eternity… What are the obligations and benefits for Protestants to attend any given house of worship among the various and sundry sectarian groups that (nowadays) no longer claim (1) exclusivity in correctness of doctrine or (2) make demand and obligation of participation?
I contend that a big reason for the mega-church movement and growth of Evangelicalism has been that folks, without need or understanding of a need or demand for membership and worship in a particular communion, are increasingly “consumer oriented” in their needs and demands of a community. With entertaining and invigorating styles of worship better found in congregations percieved (sometimes) as more conservative, folks who are inclined to be believers and have formal affiliation often drift in that direction.
I would like to note that in my experience among a lot of working class Evangelicals, not all of them attend congregations that would be well defined as “conservative”… “Not liberal” would be perhaps more accurate. Joyce Meyers is coming to our city to speak to a sold-out house at one of these rather large churches in the very near future…. She is a big hit among a lot of the folks with whom I work. I don’t think I would describer her as “conservative” but she is NOT cut of the progressive clothe that the mainliners have gone down…
Wow, I rambled on FAR MORE than I had meant to!