The next couple of Articles concern Scripture. I already have had some things to say about Scripture and Tradition , so I am going to take a slightly different tack on Article VI, which still may result in much lambasting of hermeneutics. But before I do, I want to talk about blogosphere stuff, some relevant and some not.
1.: The Scotist Speaks
The most relevant item is Anglican Scotist's recent piece called "Comments on William Witt's Exchange with Tobias Haller." Scotist basically concludes that this debate suggests that both sides of the sexuality debate lack intellect and imagination, especially when it comes to exegetical issues.
Three parts of Scotist's analysis really struck me: First, his identification in Haller's analysis at one point of "A and B" moments where it appears Haller is simultaneously A. reading Scripture as a lens through which to gaze at the reflected glory of God and B. reading Scripture as an entity wherein that reflected glory is contained. On one hand, Haller sees God through the box. On the other hand, Haller sees God in the box. Scotist is troubled by the schizophrenia of the approach, but it is a key part of our sanctified inheritance. Think on this maxim, "The Bible is not the Word of God, Jesus is the Word of God." And yet from the days of the Apostles, the Bible has been revealed and unrolled to us as the door whereof Christ is the key, the story whereof Christ is the protagonist, the prophecy wherein Christ is prophesied, the vehicle whereby in words Christ is made manifest to us. Throw the problem of Christ as Logos into the midst and strange signs and wonders are seen. In some cases, the text is deconstructed so far that the lens no longer seems to form a coherent image. In other cases, the Bible becomes Christ or vice versa . The fact that Haller is trying so clearly to keep those ideas in tension may represent some sort of failure of imagination (but certainly not one of faith), but if so, I know of no one who has succeeded.
Then we get to this:
"The Bible has no intrinsic meaning, I insist--whatever meaning it has it owes to its relation to other items: ultimately and primarily God, but more immediately and secondarily the Church, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which ECUSA is a part. Witt's talk of worlds within the text is so much mush, worlds apart from what is actually the case."
All right, I'll make one little hermeneutical comment here... There comes a time in all forms of deconstruction (and not merely textual) that nothing to appears to exist. Meaning is utterly vanquished. A few months ago, a class I was in had reached that point too many times for my comfort. The first time I tired of it, I asked him "Well, we really know nothing then?" And he said, "If that were true, I would walk out of that door and leave history for the rest of life. And as far as I am concerned, you could leave too. But I don't..." It was a long day, so I let him go. The next time it happened I said, "Why isn't this exercise [the kind of critique we'd been doing for nearly three months] some secular version of the silly women, always learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth?" He answered to the effect that he's pretty sure that some things happened, some people lived, and they wrote texts that tried to explain their doings and their lives with more or less coherence. We break down texts in this way because it is good to help us think about the text, link apparently unrelated texts, and to think outside of the world of the text. Yes, the text creates a world, but it's not the real one. No world is fully real but the world we and ancient peoples share though dispersed throughout time. It almost seemed as if he were saying, "We deconstruct out of humility, to show how little we know and how little we can know for certain."
Thus, Scotist believes he (or someone else) has fully deconstructed the Scriptures. And thus, we would presume that the Scriptures stripped of intrinsic meaning still possess that which those texts I read in the spring possess. A. The text comprehends or is evidence for realia and B. The text possesses a group of interpreters who read in humility not in search of the world created by the text but in search of a second world mutual to both the realia of the text and the realia of the interpreters. The glorious thing about the Bible for those who believe is that we know what A and B are by faith. We have no need (nor does Scotist) to invent them. The Church therefore ultimately is victorious against both literalism and historicocriticism in this postmodern deconstructed world. Funnily enough, I do not think any of this really tells the Church anything it didn't know before the Reformation, but as my next post hopefully will show, the exact particulars of A. and B. have become a little nebulous. (Key to this paragraph: A is God, B is the Church (Militant and Triumphant Branches). But I do wonder what someone with some knowledge of Zen would have to say about having confidence in realia because of the mere existence of a text or vice versa .
Finally, Scotist serves as a perfect encourager for next post's offerings:
Both of them also err in agreeing that the authority of the 39 Articles is so great as to suffice to alone settle matters of theological dispute among Anglicans. Where on earth do they get this confidence? It is not the considered opinion of the place of the Articles in the Anglican Communion voiced in "The Study of Anglicanism" for instance--their agreement is tendentious at best. But it goes to show that both of them--not just Witt as Haller seems to think--are guilty of "begging the question" in the sense of merely reasserting what needs to be proven on the basis of contested authority. Why should anyone now assent to Articles VI and VII? Don't be shy: go ahead and argue your case.
A conservative Catholic friend of mine started reading Pontifications some time back. He commented to me that, "You Anglicans all argue in the same way no matter if you're liberal or conservative." I asked him what way he meant. He danced around that great mythos of Anglicanism, "the three-legged stool." I gave a name to his dance and agreed with his observation. It seems wherever you go you hear that the Elizabethan Settlement was a great thing. The 39 Articles therefore seem like our common deposit of faith. But ask deeper questions and you find tension underneath the surface. The present thalamofetishistic tendency in conservative theology and objections to women's ordination enter less favorable theological territory if Matrimony and Holy Orders are not "really" Sacraments. Liberals must contend with the particular church-state landscape on which the Articles are premised if they can get past the good and hearty catholic faith present in many of the Articles. The Scotist is right to ask who really believes in the authority of the Articles. In what does our Historic Faith and Order really reside or of what does it really consist?
Stand Firm, West Virginia!: "It's Not About Interpretation," It's About Misinterpretation
The idea of this piece is that our present unpleasantness stems from much of ECUSA's leadership not believing in the core tenets of the Christian faith and being idolaters and apostates of every variety. It's not just that they interpret the Bible differently. The only thing I can say about the piece is that it prooftexts people. It takes isolated quotes and uses them to make a point. In some cases, I see a clever attention to picking those phrases that directly contradict "the plain meaning of Scripture." In other cases, I see valid critiques of overenthusiastic social justice or ecumenical practice. In other cases, I see willful ignorance of the important work of God this church has done (even in the midst of iniquitous collaboration with the lusts of American civilization) in incorporating Native American spirituality into the Body of Christ. I also see other work of God unfolding. I can see we're sick. But we're not alone, nor do I see the causes of our malaise very clearly in this piece.
The HOBD Listhost Works in Mysterious Ways
Any visitor to the Anglican blogosphere starts noticing that a few General Convention deputies have blogs. Tobias Haller, Mark Harris of Preludium, and Louie Crew of Random Natter are probably the most notable examples. Are there others? Every once in a while, these bloggers will talk about threads on the House of Bishops and House of Deputies (HOBD) listhost. I do love how our church is embracing technology. But from my own experience with listhosts, they often descend into loci for strategic exchange of insults. HOBD listhost, however, does seem to have some interesting but often very heated debates. Through the Deputy bloggers, some information about what goes on circulates through the Internet in a variety of forms. Mrs. Leander Harding, wife of Rev. Dr. Leander Harding of his eponymous blog, referred to the members of GC2003 as 'church rats.' Well, if you want to know what the church rats are doing, I guess you are stuck gleaning tidbits from their blogs about the HOBD listhost.
Another Thought on the Problem at Hand
Another little musing about the exegesis problem from a blog with connections to AKMA. I like the color scheme on this blog.
ECUSA Turns Into Bad Word: IRD Named Thinktank of Interest
I have an Orthodox acquaintance of much blogging experience, one of whose passions in life is to find a wife who bakes good banana bread and will ensure he gets a proper Orthodox burial. He has other passions, but I think this is a sweet sentiment for a guy of my age. He apparently is joining a new liberal Christian group blog with folks he describes as "ECUSA types." One of these ECUSA types apparently is Chuck Currie. Chuck Currie, if you don't know, is the world's most famous UCC seminarian. But for an unreconstructed monarchist to the right of Montesquieu, ECUSA now represents all that is bad in the world and secretly in league with cosmic evil.
This would be disturbing if I didn't remember where I had seen the Episcopal Church called ECUSA. I first saw it in a little booklet not stylistically dissimilar from the Stand Firm piece linked above I read in 1998 or so. Until then, I always thought of the Episcopal Church. Now, ECUSA has become a bad word in the mouths of other Christians. Which is doubly funny to me because the old acronym would be PECUSA. One of the complaints of the booklet was about the P being dropped. I wonder if they complained because they realized that PECUSA could be turned into an object of derision more easily...
It's All Vain
bls in a recent post entitled "Friday Miscellany" noted how the current unpleasantness became really silly and unbloggable when Akinola threatened to discipline the Church of England. God, I think, recognizes the farcical nature of the business and in both perfect grief and perfect humor seems to have tried his "Surprise!" brand of humor so famous from the New Testament: Cleric's bishop post riles African critics . Until I see evidence to the contrary (open simony etc.), I am going to suspect the Holy Spirit is involved here as in so many episcopal elections you read about in hagiography. This, my friends, is what some good friends of mine call the Chiquita Banana aspect of the Holy Spirit.
Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that you all may be fools for Christ and not merely foolish.
4 comments:
On one hand, Haller sees God through the box. On the other hand, Haller sees God in the box. Scotist is troubled by the schizophrenia of the approach, but it is a key part of our sanctified inheritance.
I have to wonder why he is so troubled. During the fourth century we lived with at least three distinctive theological approaches, often side by side, to understanding the Real Presence. Could not each reveal some partiallity of the whole Truth? Why one meaning? Or one hermeneutic? Why not levels and permutations of Truth? Isn't this more catholic? It's certainly more consistent, if such could be said, of Patristic ways. But that's the liturgist in me speaking...
Is deconstruction the only way to go? I recognize its importance and it can be a via negativa, but what about a lectio approach alongside? A poetic approach? Too often deconstructionist approaches in seminaries tear down and never provide ways to build up. Not good enough, IMHO. Derek? These stories and psalms and proverbs speak to my condition, read my condition, and help form much of how I look upon the world...they even help with shaping a gay Christian story to the shock of others...
The Church therefore ultimately is victorious against both literalism and historicocriticism in this postmodern deconstructed world.
Because we can return to meaningS (my emphasis) and What is Jesus Doing? Not only what did Jesus do? But what are we called to do? Historical criticism is helpful, but it can be the flipside of a fundamentalist literalism. They both have roots in allowing only one meaning and interpretation.
I understood the Articles to be historical documents. Helpful in reflecting on where we've been, in thinking theologically, as you're doing, but not our Summa?
Was ist das? thalamofetishistic
We don't ask ourselves enough, what does G-d find funny in a given situation? I suspect G-d has quite a funny bone...
Christopher, as always, you flesh me out rather nicely.
Is deconstruction the only way to go? I recognize its importance and it can be a via negativa, but what about a lectio approach alongside? A poetic approach? Too often deconstructionist approaches in seminaries tear down and never provide ways to build up. Not good enough, IMHO. Derek? These stories and psalms and proverbs speak to my condition, read my condition, and help form much of how I look upon the world...they even help with shaping a gay Christian story to the shock of others...
The question I essentially want to ask everyone is "who reads, who hears, who thinks, who teaches?" Part of me wants to take the Gospel from yesterday as a model (but not as it often is read), i.e., the Scriptures are read by faith in "the Messiah, the Son of the Living God," there is no higher standard. The trouble is that many call Jesus Lord and yet have very different readings of the Scriptures. How is this to be mediated? Much of the talk about the Scriptures becomes bogged down in texts and context, but these are but methods of individual exegesis. What I think we should seek are modes of communal exegesis.
How I am to receive you reading yourself as "a dry tree"? And if I receive you, how am I to receive the incredible promise of God about what that will mean? Part of this is about text, but most of this is about relationship, begun in the mutual profession of faith, but built up in a Eucharistic and Baptismal life in the light of the Scriptures. What worries me is that the profession of faith seems increasingly less mutual.
Thalamofetishism is my highly critical name for certain explications of the theology of the body, which often seem to be constructed with the intent to arouse single straight guys like me. I hate these explications because they make sexual satisfaction (posed with more or less daintiness) grossly teleological and encourage me to see all women either as potential wives or valueless. Next time I see a good example, I'll point it out.
Caelius,
I will disagree with you on one point, they are not matters necessarily of individual exegesis, mine certainly isn't. Just as African slaves read themselves into the Exodus story and made it their own communaly in contrast and subversion to white Church masters, many Episcopalians btw, reading myself as a "dry tree" has a growing tradition amongst queer Christian folk. So it is communal but it is subversive of a wider (often oppressive) context. Just as the great Spirituals were or liberation theologies have been. That profession of faith has always been more tendentious than our Tradition has wanted to admit, or at least parts of it. Context shapes how we will live out our common profession, and shapes it profoundly.
As I see it, ulimately, the promise (to the eunuch) is not just about me, it's to all of us, because we only are trees of life, living rooted in G-d, whether we produce offspring or not.
I would hope that our general profession of faith is mutual, as I suspect we could say the Creeds together and sup together on the Lord's Body and Blood, but our contexts will even in relationship together shape our spiritual lives and understandings in Christ differently. And I wish we could see this as a challenging gift of living in a Body (rather than a liberal tolerant diversity or a conservative uniformity) rather than merely a problem to be uniformatized or blended.
Do point out an example next time of Thalamofetishism. I wonder if I don't do the same with men?
Oops. That's me being unclear. I'm well aware of the significance of gay folk in general reading Isaiah in that way (and I actually agree with it, but the whole 'eunuch' thing is hard to prove definitely). There was a complaint voiced at church recently about that particular reading being omitted from the Lectionary. And I always liked African-Americans seeing themselves as the children of Israel (many meanings, many meanings). But we must be careful. The Boers saw themselves as Israel cleansing Canaan.
In other words, correct to:
How are straights (being dominant in numbers and other forms of power) to receive gays reading themselves as "a dry tree"? And if straights receive them, how are they to receive the incredible promise of God about what that will mean? Part of this is about text, but most of this is about relationship, begun in the mutual profession of faith, but built up in a Eucharistic and Baptismal life in the light of the Scriptures. What worries me is that the profession of faith seems increasingly less mutual.
And yes, we are all dry and we are all foreigners. But God promises us good.
Post a Comment