Rector’s Reflections
Thursday 11th July 2024
What do Theologians think about?
In yesterday’s reflections, I wrote about the important of looking at the context in which Theology is written and circulated. What sort of people produce Theology, and what audience do they have in mind? What sort of topics do they choose to write about? Do they engage with issues of politics and social justice, or do they keep their head down, and carefully avoid anything which might be a tad controversial? The nature and content of Theology is, in general, driven by the context in which it is produced. There are a multiplicity of contexts, and hence a multiplicities of Theologies. It is not that one type of Theology is better than another: it is just that contexts differ, and different types of Theology suit different types of context.
But there is more to understanding Theology than understanding the context in which it is written. It is also important to consider how each theologian engages with the Theology produced by earlier theologians. Men and women have been engaging with theological issues for thousands of years, and so we inherit a vast corpus of theological writing from the past. What do theologians do with this inheritance?
Some theologians choose one particular period of history and declare that that period is definitive for all time. Theological writing which pre-dates the chosen period is seen as leading up to it, and theological writing produced subsequently is considered to be dependent upon it. Before modern times, the majority of Christian theologians have tended to choose the Early Church period, up to the mid Fifth Century AD, as the period which explored and defined orthodox Christian belief. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those Christian churches founded during the Reformation period tend to see the 16th century as the time when Theology has been set in stone. Reformed Churches look to the writings of John Calvin, and Lutheran churches look to the writings of Martin Luther. And what of the Church of England? Traditionally, Church of England doctrine has been also been founded on two texts from the 16th Century: the Book of Common Prayer (1549, with amendments in subsequent editions) and The Thirty-Nine Articles (1571). However, both these doctrinal foundations are today given little more than mere lip-service. I still remember the occasion when as an ordinand I said to my bishop that I was interested in doing some research on the Thirty-Nine Articles. He gave me one of those looks which made it quite clear that he thought the choice of this subject of research was at best curious, and at worst an indulgence in irrelevance. So if the traditional doctrinal statements from the 16th century are largely irrelevant to the current Church of England, have they been replaced by something else? The answer is no – or not yet. However, those more Catholic minded clergy within the Church of England would go back to the Early Church, and would say that the boundaries of orthodox Christian belief were established by the mid 5th Century. It is not for any other century to seek to re-define the Faith, at least with reference to fundamental beliefs. It won’t surprise you to know that not every theologian agrees with this position.
Some theologians refuse to accept that any one particular period of history is definitive for all time. They would say that Theology develops overtime, just as every other area of human endeavours grows and changes over the years. Science, philosophy, and the Arts do not stand still; and so why should Theology be the exception? Some theologians would say that the development of Theology is not just a fact of human history. It’s more than that: it’s the work of God’s Holy Spirit, working in and through the minds of men and women down the centuries. So each generation is free to accept or reject previous theological insights, as it sees fit to do so. The advantage of this approach is that it keeps Theology up to date and relevant to the particular needs of each generation; but the danger is that it surrenders the intellectual integrity of Theology as a separate discipline, and makes it no more than a vehicle for some non-theological agenda, however fashionable and commendable that agenda may be. The other danger is that it produces uncertainty among the faithful. I think many churchgoers appreciate some sort of clear statement of official Christian belief, and the reasons for that belief. They might not agree with it, but at least they have been told what Christians are meant to believe, and the grounds on which that belief is based. I think many people probably find it unhelpful if they are told that it's ok for Christians to believe anything they want to believe, provided they remember that God is Love. However, other Christians will find such openness refreshingly liberating. It shows that the Church is seeking to live in the modern world, and trying its best to keep up to date. Others challenge this assumption, asking why should the Church seek to keep up to date? Contemporary beliefs and attitudes are not always to be preferred to the beliefs and practices of previous generations.
A third position lies somewhere in between these two approaches. Much, but not all, of the Theology of the Church of England takes this approach. It recognises and accepts most of the traditional doctrines of the Church, as they were established by the mid 5th Century AD. But at the same time, it seeks to be open to new ideas and developments. It recognises and values Church tradition, but at the same time it allows itself some wiggle-room for change. This approach seems eminently pragmatic and sensible – it recognises the value of the Christian tradition, in all its diversity, but at the same time it allows the Church to evolve in order to meet the changing needs and attitudes of society. It means that the Church of England is not some museum piece – it is always alive and always changing. This seems to be all for the good. However, I should add that not everyone would agree with the Church of England’s pick and mix approach to Christian tradition. Some find it far too open-minded , as it allows the Church to create its own doctrine. Meanwhile, others would say that the Church of England’s approach is not open-minded enough, as it still refuses to abandon the doctrinal statements of the Early Church, at least officially. In what other area of life is it considered a virtue to bow down and worship the 5th Century AD? The rest of the world has moved on since then, and it is time that Theologians woke up to this fact.
I wonder what you think about all this? Can theological insights from the past still have relevance for us today, or should they be confined to the attic?