Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!jwg From: jwg@duke.UUCP (Jeffrey William Gillette) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: (Holy) Ghost Busting the Christian Tradition Message-ID: <6540@duke.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Nov-85 00:13:02 EST Article-I.D.: duke.6540 Posted: Tue Nov 5 00:13:02 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 06:49:00 EST Organization: The Divinity School, Duke University Lines: 152 [] Can a Christian (or anyone else for that matter) believe in both history and providence? That appears to be the question Gary Buchholz has raised, and responded in the absolute negative. How foolish of Charley Wingate and his "canon critic" friends to invoke the oversight of the Holy Spirit in the development of the Christian canon and early creeds, when the political intrigues of Empire and Church are more than adequate an explanation. I really do find it difficult to believe that the article in question actually originates from Gary Buchholz's terminal. There is little of the scholarly sympathy (that is intellectual understanding, not necessarily agreement) and critical thought that generally characterize his contributions to this forum. And the persistent reference to the "Holy Spook" is sophomoric at best. Yet it is the substance, not the style, to which I wish to address a few points. First, is "canon criticism" compatible with history? I suppose that depends on whom one reads. Brevard Childs of Yale University, in many ways the father of canon criticism, defines his approach as concerning itself with the actual text of Scripture, and the process by which it became canonical [=authoritative] for the Christian community. There is an organic continuity in the historical process of the development of an established canon of sacred writings from the earliest stages of the New Testament to the final canonical stabilization of its scope. [Introduction to the New Testament as Scripture, p. 21] The historcizing which Childs rejects is that of form and redaction critics, who insist on looking behind, beneath, and through the text to some hypothetical pre-textual referent. Claims Childs, the real story in Scripture is the way the community of faith came to grips with the existence of four Gospels, or the way the particular and contextual letters of the Apostle Paul were made relevant to churches many miles and many years removed from their author. Is Child's canon criticism historical? To my mind the answer is clearly yes! Thus he claims that canon criticism will give a more genuinely historical understanding of the formation of Christian scripture. While Child's clearly invokes the providence of the Holy Spirit in the evolution of the canon (see esp. p. 40), he just as clearly does not wish to assert providence as a substitute for historical study! The second point I wish to raise is whether those "historicists" whom Gary cites with favor would like to argue that their historical insights render irrelevant or tendentious the oversight of the Holy Spirit in the development of Christian scripture and doctrine. I really do not know the faith orientation of Helmut Koester, but I am quite certain that his longtime collaborator and friend James Robinson would not wish to remove the Holy Spirit's providence from the realm of history. I strongly suspect that Professor Fiorenza would likewise wish to maintain at least the traditional formulation of the Catholic church. The same can be said, I would wager, of almost all churchmen who have written extensively on the development of the canon - Bauer, Campenhausen, Flessmann-Van Leer. Perhaps Gary would benefit from a theological discussion with the illustrious church historian from his own university, Robert Grant. If I have made my point that a theological confession of the providence of the Holy Spirit in the development of the Christian canon is not incompatible with a scholarly investigation of historical / political / social factors, I may bring up the third issue: how do providence and history interrelate? On the one hand, does the presence of a political cause (e.g. Constantine's official denunciation of Arianism) make theological causality irrelevant? On the other hand, would the abuses of power, lack of tolerance (as Tertullian railing against female leadership in the church), or sheer bigotry (presumably Cyril's anti- semitism) tar the Holy Spirit as the overseer of hatred and intolerance? To take up the second question first, I doubt that this issue will prove decisive for any reader. There is plenty of evil in the world, and the theological claim for God's providence extends much farther than the development of the canon. If one thinks a satisfactory solution to the problem of evil can be found, than the circumstances Buchholz cites will surely not be sufficient to shake that conviction. If the reader is already predisposed to see the problem of evil as insurmountable, these particulars will be seen as just so many more examples of the more general problem. It should be noted, however, that in none of the two examples mentioned by Gary (Tertullian's polemic concerning the involvement of women, and Cyril's antisemitic statements) have the opinions in question evolved into enduring positions of the Christian church. Although the ranks of ordained clergy have generally been closed to women until this century, the opportunities for involvement in church affairs by women have never remained fixed, but have waxed and waned with the renewal or lack thereof in the church. I recommend the book of Elizabeth Ann Clark (herself no defender of Christian orthodoxy) on the subject of women in the early church. Regarding antisemitism, there is no point in attempting to deny that some prominent leaders in the church throughout the centuries have fallen into this attitude. But virulent denunciation of the Jewish race has not been the abiding and official position of the church. Shall we tar the Holy Spirit's providence with the hasty and extreme statements of men, even prominent men, when these opinions have not stood the test of time? But, if providence is capable of withstanding the onslaught of evil, is it able to survive the challenge of apathy? I take it as a statement of faith that God works through the events of history - the mundane as well as the miraculous. If it is possible to see acts of God in natural events, is it impossible to see his providence in sociological, economic, or political events? May the providence that used the Israelites to destroy their Canaanite predecessors (for such is the witness of Hebrew Scripture) not use the interdict of a bishop to ban the use of a non-canonical Gospel? I am not now arguing the morality of either claim, but merely the logical consistency of the position. Yet regarding the Arians opposed by Constantine, or the Syrians for whom Tatian's Diatesseron (Gospel) was scripture, neither the Emperor nor the Bishop were the instruments of orthodoxy's triumph over heresy. Arius and Constantine were reconciled, and their relationship remained a complex one. Arians remained a powerful force well into the fifth century, and probably died out more because of shifting philosophical fashion, and the theological efforts of the Cappadocian triumvirate, than the overt political repression of the ecclesiastical hierarchy [see Robert Gregg, Arianism, and Thomas Kopachek, Neoarianism, for excellent discussions of the subject]. Likewise portions of the Syrian church continued to use the Diatesseron well into the sixth century, and its fortunes seem far more linked to feelings of ethnicity vs. catholicity than to the efforts of individual censors. Again the point is made that the "triumph" of orthodoxy is generally much more complex than a historical methodology of skepticism would like to admit. Whether this complexity renders a belief in providence more or less likely, I leave to the reader to decide. To bring the issue to a head, I make my final point: is the historical insight of the professional acamedician or the faith commitment to providence on the part of the "laity" the controlling theological expression of the church? I suppose it is too facile to point out that the church got on well enough for centuries without historicists. Remarks from Schleiermacher aside [apart from the question of the context for his oft misused lectures on religion, one must still ask whether his approach has stood the test of time], Christian theologians from the first century through the twentieth have not put themselves above or against the "laity". Rather, I take it, Christian theology has always preserved some type of egalitarian element, at least in theory, so that the most profound thinkers have generally been also most concerned to submit their theology to the faith of the church. A parting shot! I also am a member of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature [and am leaving for California in a few days to attend the annual convention]. Will "Hell freeze over before 'we' become the SERVANTS of believing communities"? I suspect that when I put the question, I will find more than adequate numbers of my colleagues who will reply, "Hell will freeze over if the believing community becomes the SERVANTS of the ivory tower." Jeffrey William Gillette uucp: duke!phys!lisa The Divinity School bitnet: dybbuk @ tuccvm Duke University -- SUPERCHICKEN