I am a Protestant. In principle and in practice, I am committed to the authority of scripture - wherever that may take me. That means living with some doctrinal and hermeneutical difficulties, perhaps - but there is a humility in saying that no system or institution is paramount here. In principle, I am open to being convinced that the Bible is saying something other than what I - and perhaps even a large swathe of Christians through history - thought it always had.
The christian academic/theologian is given the gift of time by the church - time to think and write and articulate the great truths of the Christian faith. Necessarily, he or she is given a certain freedom of inquiry - to follow where the scriptures may lead as much as possible without fear or favour. But he/she also exists and teaches within a community of context, to which he/she is responsible, and for whom practices and confessions have been framed in order to preserve true teaching from false.
So: consider this possibility: the theologian/biblical scholar becomes convinced in the course of his/her study that Scripture teaches something that doesn't seem to be reflected in the teaching and practices of the church to which he or she belongs. Romans 7 is really about the pre-Christian life (for example). Or, say, annihilationism is theologically and scripturally justified. Or, the Lord's Supper is a fellowship tea. (NB these are not necessarily positions I hold).
What, then to do?
I would like to think that a Protestant and Reformed mentality allows for the discussion of idiosyncratic positions, so long as there are held to be Scriptural. But (I this is the point of the post) they ought to be recognised as idiosyncratic by the holder of them. The teacher of an idiosyncratic point of view ought to have the integrity to admit to the idiosyncratic and untested nature of the position, until he or she can convince others.
Right?
19 comments:
Dear Michael,
Two thoughts:
[1] The idea of developing an idiosyncratic element in one's theology needs refinement. The issue is how central or peripheral is the idiosyncratic idea? The more it tends toward the centre of the historic Christian faith, the more serious it becomes, and the more the novel position becomes serious. The more serious the less idiosyncratic and the more dangerous it *potentially* becomes.
[2] I'm uncomfortable with the word "theologian" and the definition you provide. You fail to say that "theologians" need to immerse themselves in practical ministry as well. To take them away from this will higly likely produce idosyncractic ideas because that's what the academy is all about. In Scripture, good theology is only done by those who through "constant use" of doctrine are able to discern between "right and wrong" (Heb. 5:14). This is precisely the problem with the academic theologian--they must have time to practice their theology otherwise they won't be able to distinguish between good and ill. Discovering it in a study is not enough. And I suspect that this observation stands behind why many academic theologians have led legion into a shipwrecking of faith. At the end of the day, is a "theologian" as you define it here a biblical concept? I doubt it. The concept needs to be brought to Scripture alone. Perhaps we should dumpt the word "theologian" and rather use "pastors" or "teachers" or "evangelists" (Eph. 4:11), all who were immersed in practical ministry (not simply to eager tertiary students). Christianity must involve the head, heart, and hands. All three are *absolutely* necessary for good theology. Take one of them away, and wheels fall off.
Every blessing,
Marty.
Come now, Marty: if your point is that you cannot discover the contemporary category of "theologian" in the Scripture, then this is trivial. You seem to be eliding the question of whether something is "biblical" in this sense — present in its full dress in the Bible — with whether it is "biblical" in the sense of being respectable by Christian standards. I would like to call you on this.
As for the academy's obsession with novelty and idiosyncrasy: I must say that this all looks a little different from inside the scientific arm of the academy. (I can't speak for my brothers and sisters over in the humanities; they might have their own comment.) The sort of obligation to acknowledge the idiosyncrasy of an espoused position, that you (Michael) mention, also binds the scientist or other academic. If one is pushing a line that cuts across the accepted conclusions of the field, and is still failing to convince one's colleagues, then one must not disguise this fact in front of the uninformed (or for that matter anywhere).
The media and political practice, of sponsoring and giving a megaphone to dissidents who pretend not to be dissidents (or who spin some story of conspiracy to explain away their status) afflicts the sciences too ... not just Christian theology. This shows that the issue is not necessarily specific to theology, but to knowledge and the sociology of enquiry, and its place in society more generally. (Polanyi is interesting on this, by the way.)
Sounds good to me.
It also goes a long way to helping relationships. Admitting the idiosyncratic nature of the position helps those they are in relationship with. Sometimes if feels that everyone claims their position as THE reformed position - even when it fundamentally claims the reformers had it wrong!
Mike
I agree with Mike Doyle. Relationships suffer when idiosyncratic understandings are used to exclude.
Where to draw the line, though, that's a tough one.
@ Marty - I think you are asking more than a blogpost is meant to give! I think what holds for 'theologians' holds for pastor/teachers anyhow. And some of the most idiosyncratic views I know emanate from the pastorate!
You are right of course about the 'which truth is it?' question. What I am trying to do is to separate a reformed, scriptural but conservative position from sheer liberalism. If my position is weird, I ought to acknowledge that it is so, even though I think it is right.
@ Bruce: Dear Bruce, I don't really understand the point you're trying to make or what you're attempting to "call me" on. God has set up the church to be equipped by particular "word" gifts so that the rest of the body will be thrust into works of service (Eph. 4:11-12). I struggle to find the concept of "theologian" amongst "word" gifts. However, ever since the invention of the theologian in the 12th and 13th century it has assumed a certain pride of place in putative church life. This has immense implications as a little knowledge of church history will confirm.
I've been ruminating about this question for the decade I've been attempting to do the work of a "theologian" and my doubts grow stronger each year. If you think my questioning is "trivial" that's your call, I beg to differ.
@ Michael: Perhaps you're right. However, I suspect our language could do with an overhaul. I'm continuing to grow more and more uneasy with the way the theology guild apes the secular academy. "Studying" or "researching" God is going to have elements of great discontinuity with studying physics or biology.
Marty - I think we are talking at cross purposes a bit. As I said - I have seen plenty of pastoral idiosyncrasy! And I am particularly talking about our own context here at Moore, where we have rather encouraged bold idiosyncrasy - usually starting on exegetical grounds. This is not done for academic gain, or because of 'research' in the academic sense - not at all. This is done in the sure conviction that we go wherever the text leads us with fear or favour, and that tradition really is rather bunk. Some views on the Holy Spirit, and church and on sacraments in particular spring to mind. I happy to acknowledge that my 4 point Calvinism is rather a minority report among the Reformed, but I am no less convicted of its rightness. I think it is just a matter of integrity (academic or not) to tell my students that there are others who are 'goodies' who hold a very different view, and they probably ought to give them a hearing as well.
The teacher of an idiosyncratic point of view ought to have the integrity to admit to the idiosyncratic and untested nature of the position, until he or she can convince others.
Right?
Absolutely. If you are advocating a position that runs against the tradition, this ought to be noted.
Is this about your own practices in class, or are you looking for ammunition/moral support in raising this issue with how others put forward their idiosyncratic positions?
Sorry if that question wasn't clear. I guess I wonder whose idiosyncrasies are you most concerned about - your own, (y)our sub-tradition's, or your neighbours'?
Michael: Fair enough.
Marty: Give me a break. I am "attempting" to say the following:
When you ask, in a tone of significance, "is a "theologian" as you define it here a biblical concept? I doubt it ..." and draw conclusions from it, you are doing two things: (1) You are pointing out that the historical and contemporary category of "theologian" is not in the Bible (as that of doctor, accountant, church warden, high school teacher, archdeacon, fireman, church secretary, and truck driver is not). And sorry, but this is a trivial point, just as it stands. (2) You are trying to sneak in, without argument, the idea that something not being in the Bible makes it suspect as such. Now if the regulative principle were generally accepted in the church, or if it were part of the mental furniture of this blog, then you might expect to get away with this sort of thing. But as it is neither generally accepted nor part of the furtniture here: sorry again, but I am going to call you on it.
Is that clear enough?
To the extent that you have a bone to pick with academic theology as generally practiced, well, you are thoroughly within your rights, and there is plenty of warrant for such concerns. But I did not call such questioning trivial, as the record shows, so please don't quarrel with me. If you want to attack me on my argument: then, by all means, that's fine.
From my (distant) viewpoint what you propose sounds spot on. It sounds like it is about finding a way to balance competing imperatives: of being respectful to colleagues and students, but also being fearlessly honest to ones own intellect and relationship with God. You are kind of weighing the value of "idiosyncrasy" as part of the language required to create an environment in which Jesus' two commandments can be fully and simultaneously obeyed. I suppose its a given that a college such as yours needs a safe zone of trust in which honest difference is neither marginalised or overplayed, and I expect its both a practical struggle and exponentially rewarding to describe it.
@Bruce: Dear brother, yes I agree 100% with your point, however I was saying something different; it wasn't about vocation in genere but the specific word gifts Christ has placed in the church (Eph. 4:11) and the role of the theologian (or lack thereof) among them.
@Michael: yes, we are speaking past each other perhaps because of our different contexts; in mine it's the theological academy that is consumed with novelty. The pastors are too busy attempting simply to lay foundations--there is not time for theological novi.
I agree fundamentally with your point re idiosyncracy--although from your illustration you may be happy to know that the Owenian doctrine of limited atonement does not have quite the hegemony many say it does--see www.calvinandcalvinism.com).
However, my point re the role of a theologian is genuine and I do wish we'd speak more about being pastors / teachers / evangelists, at least in the churchly context. The chasm between church and academy in the West is way too large.
I agree that idiosyncratic views should be flagged as such. (As a holder of a few, I hope I do this. I'm particularly conscious of mentioning it if I'm teaching people for whom I'm not primarily pastorally responsible, and gainsaying their leaders.)
I'd be interested to hear how this ties in with your post on being Anglican (http://mpjensen.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-evangelical-anglican-vision.html). Clearly signing up with a denomination limits your range of idiosyncracies. (You mention church and sacraments, for example, and while I hold views on these which might be 'mainstream' in a certain evangelical subculture, they are 'idiosyncratic' in the context of the 39 Articles. So I couldn't sign up as an Anglican.)
Is there also an obligation for the ordained to put aside their orders if they think the Bible is contradicting their foundational documents — that is, if you no longer believe what you once signed off on in order to be ordained?
You all are talking way over my head at this point as I just started on my seminary/theologian career, but I'm fascinated by your writing as someday, this is a course of study/work I am very interested in. For what it's worth, I think you're right, and I look forward to more writing on the matter.
@Stuart - Anglicanism limits your range of idiosyncrasies, yes, but less so than many other denominational structures. The 39 Articles are quite robust as a confession, actually. And their status is not quite the same in Anglicanism as the Westminster Confession is in some Pressie circles (though I was intrigued in talking to Carl Trueman to learn about the concept of 'scruples' with the WCF! Turns out people believe less of it than I thought!)
This is one of the ways in which the much derided denominational fellowships may be very helpful, actually: in helping to assess and to contain the spread of idiosyncratic views.
@ Byron - you are asking me to say what I was deliberately not saying! But - I do think our sub-culture is prone to idiosyncrasies (no use of the word 'worship' to refer to church, anyone?), and even encourages them - as I said before, because it is proof of determination to follow scriptural authority wheree'er it leads (at least on some things!). HOowever, this leads to an anabaptist (ie, scripture alone = NO tradition) rather than a magisterial (scripture alone = helped by tradition) hermeneutic.
It is easier, I might add, for the exegete to get away with idiosyncrasies. In Biblical Studies you can offer all kinds of novel readings of texts and maintain a conservatism at the level of doctrine/confession. This is a luxury that the teacher of doctrine isn't afforded.
I think all I read "the Lord's Supper is a fellowship tea" and started feeling nautious.
Actually, I find that many Sydney-Anglican ideas that seem taken for granted to be quite idiosyncratic.
The Robinson-Knox church thesis, or Knox's view on Baptism and Woodehouses' view of the Lord's Supper, come to mind.
I like the post, especially the concession that there may be other 'goodies' that disagree.
How could we stop it becoming a statistics game though?
50.0000005 of christians have agreed with me in the last 2000yrs, so 'your' reading is idiosyncratic!
Surely the person with a 90% view can also affirm some of the other 10% as 'goodies' too.
Keep raising this issue, it is incredibly important for our churches.
Too many of our lay people have been beaten up, stifled or self selected out of churches based on the idiosyncrasies of their minister (some personal, some learnt at college)
Hi Michael,
I'd love you to specify what idiosyncratic views you hold. This blog post is a teaser - and I want to know more.
cheers,
Kate
If I told you I'd have to kill you!
Contact me privately and I'll tell you.
Post a Comment