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