Faith and History (Main Forum)

by Ian Elmer, Brisbane, Australia, Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 11:17 (1185 days ago)

Hi All,

In recent weeks, Vynette and I have locked horns over various aspects of the scriptures. I congratulate Vynette on her challenging posts; even if, at times, I get a bit stroppy with her. I apologise for any nastiness on my part. But I have found on self-reflection that this debate raises larger issues that might profitably be debated in wider forum, given that so much discussion here centres on issues of interpretation.

When it comes to the Bible, Catholic scholarship, as practiced by the likes of the late Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmeyer, J. P. Meier, Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, Luke Timothy Johnson, and myself (if I may be so bold to add my name to this list of august scholars), always views scripture through the perspective of the living tradition of the Church. Or to put it another way we engage the texts of scripture as only one facet of an ongoing and dialectic relationship between ourselves and God.

Hence, we begin our investigation with certain assumptions that are part and parcel of the great intellectual and spiritual traditions of Catholicism - that Jesus is God, Incarnate Word who is the Second Person of the Trinity, and that this is the same Jesus whom we meet and in prayer and sacrament. Our investigations are pursued, not for titillation or historical curiosity per se, but as part of our own faith journey.

Of course, I am happy to entertain the question: is such an approach legitimate? Should we not simply allow the biblical texts to stand on their own as historical documents? My additional question would: can they stand on their own as historical documents?

The texts of the Bible are not simply historical artefacts. They are, first and foremost, liturgical products – dare I say religious mythology – which were developed as components of communal prayer and worship. They express both the beliefs and the spirituality of the communities of faith that brought them to birth. These particular texts ultimately made it into the canon – that is they were canonised by being added to a list of exemplary texts, much as we canonised Mary McKillop as an exemplar of saintliness – because they continued to inform the ongoing faith and worship of the community.

They weren’t the only texts; just as there are many saints other than Mary McKillop who were not canonised. These texts made the list because they were found to be the most efficacious for “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17). Therefore, the primary context against which we should read such documents is the living faith of those communities that produced, retained and canonised the texts.

The same line of thought might profitably be pursued in relation to doctrinal development and theology per se. It is important to go back to the original sources, to try and find out how our doctrines developed; but we cannot simply reduce our doctrine to its historical antecedents. If, for example, we could argue (and I strongly doubt we could argue) that the early Church did not believe that Jesus was God, that would not mean that later Christological developments are illicit.

By the same token, we cannot shut the door on further developments. Theology is an ongoing process; just as the Church should also be in a state of constant renewal. But, ultimately, we can never go back; we can only go forward.

Godspeed,

Ian

Ian J. Elmer

I am prepared to press onto the end along a path on which each step makes me more certain, towards horizons that are ever more shrouded in mist (Teilhard de Chardin)