I begin this thought with a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia.
I want the reader to consider the several councils, and multiple decades of controversy, debate, and listening that went into a single word associated with Western Christianity. The short article at this links describes the (dare I use this word?) evolution of the concept of, "homoousious."
There are many answers to why understanding that the trinitarian concept of God did not leap fully formed from the pages of the Bible is worthwhile.
One is simply that it is historically interesting to see the faith shaping the scripture. That is, these same men were not only debating the question of how trinity works, they were debating, at the same time the table of contents for the New Covenant books. (No, they did not call it the "New Testament" back then.) They did not get their conceptions from the Bible, they got their Bible from their conceptions and the oral tradition to which we no longer have access.
Another reason is that it makes it very clear, to me at least, that the idea that the "faith once delivered" a pet phrase among fundamentalists, is simply not what they think it is. Within their definition is the false assumption that the Bible sets the boundaries of faith and that all is answered, all is "inerrant" within it.
The "faith once delivered," as used by fundamentalists means a set of assumed meanings assigned to the various books of the Bible, and in some cases, parts of 'verses.' The phrase also carries a basically wrong assumption, that the faith is limited to the pages of the book. The bible becomes not the record of faith and the revelation of Jesus, but rather the book of rules and limits.
It seems to me that simply looking at one word, "homoousious" and understanding how the early church whose praxis we are told by the fundamentalists was superior to our catholic doings, makes their definition of the Bible's place, and of the faith once delivered, come apart.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Not by announcing such ideas as 'inerrant' or trying to prove in the face of all God's evidence that there is a creation report in Genesis, but by being faithful to God's call to common prayer, and by proclaiming that Jesus is Lord of All.
Profile Information
- JimB
- I am an Anglo-catholic Episcoplain layman, a lay contemplative, a musician, and a completely doting grandfather. New slogan for the election cycle: Vote for Cthulhu -- don't settle for the lesser evil!
5 comments:
I think, Jim, you might be mistaking the use of the term 'faith once delivered' (as are, incidently, the 'fundamentalists' you allude to). This is not meant to apply specifically to the Trinity, but rather to the basic affirmations of the apostles about Jesus. The mistake is the difference between what one might call first order and second order discourse.
First order discourse is directly associated with the apostles,largely, but not necessarily, limited to the Scriptures. This, hopefully, will take us back to Jesus, whose life and example we seek to imitate and live in our life of faith. This is the 'faith once given'.
Second order discourse are things like the Trinity and the Creeds which are meant to explain Scripture, but do not hold the same authority as first order because, ultimately, they derive from first order discourse. Depending on how well they are backed by Scripture, they may be well nigh non-negotiable, but their authority is derivative not unique to itself.
All this is to say that the term 'faith once given' isn't necessarily invalidated by pointing out that Christian doctrine has evolved and altered over time. Rather, we expect refinement in a living tradition, but that a coherent tradition needs some kind of touchstone to come back to in order to regulate how one decides on settling internal debates. If a tradition loses that sense of authoritative appeal, it loses cohesion and becomes something else rather different.
The fact is that the relationship of Scripture and our own struggles to apply it is complex (as you know, of course). Yet, what worries me about this approach is that it leaves our Christian tradition with no way to decide on what is the right Christian course because we get trapped in subjective arguments without recourse to an agreed upon standard of belief. The current crisis shows where that leads: two sides arguing past each other and, finally, throwing their hands up at the inherently insoluable problem and breaking into schism.
Peace,
Phil
Phil,
I rather think you make my point. :-)
I did not set out to invalidate the term 'once delivered' but rather to identify a case where it is miss-applied by the likes of ++Akinola and +Minns. They, not I want to extend it to second and arguably third order (cultural) items they claim are derived from the apostles and Jesus. And they want to claim that all of that is immutable because it was 'once delivered.'
I emphatically affirm the Nicene formula. In noting that the creed and the ideas around it were in fact part of an ongoing process of discernment and evolution, I merely want to set some boundaries.
Much less, of much greater importance, is within the "faith once delivered" than the right-wing would like.
If our mutual friend Robin is to be believed, the entire canon of the NT, and the 1662 Prayerbook might be in there! I submit not.
Indeed, "He is Lord of all" as Paul had it is there. The life, ministry and sayings of Jesus, His death and Resurrection is in there. But we needs must be careful when we try to put more things in that category.
I am reminded when I observe conservative usage of a comment someone published about Churchill's history of the world. Noting that Sir Winston spent only a few pages on all of China's history and chapters on Henry VIII's wives, he suggested the work be re-titled, "What interested me most in history."
In a similar way, when I hear the fundamentalist rants against the left, I frequently think the "faith once delivered" should be retitled, "What God would have said if He knew what I know."
I know you do not fit in that category. Which probably means you will never be a Nigerian bishop (an honor that!) I know my elder, conservative son [Oh where did I go wrong???] does not either.
In fact, I think the great cleavage may well be between those who want the faith to embody their prejudices and those who want it to be what Jesus had in mind, and the Spirit has led us to now. And yes we can certainly argue about what is in the later category! The only good that may come out of the now inevitable schism may be a church within the fellowship of Canterbury that affirms the discussion and has room for conservative and liberal answers to the second order and derivative questions.
FWIW
jimB
Jim, thank you, I enjoy your writing, this is my first time at your site. I like to be mentally challenged and to keep and open mind.
Peace, Joe
Joe,
Thanks!
There are a fair number of blogs that are interesting and challenging. I wish I had more time to read and participate in them. Work and life, alas, make other demands. ;-) In that regard, however, Phil's blog: http://www.uperekperisou.blogspot.com/ is particullarly good and has a great set of links.
FWIW
jimB
intresting.
Post a Comment