I have previously stated that no one does theology in a vacuum. That is definitely an impossible task. Every theologian approaches the subject with a prior set of assumptions and presuppositions.  In other words, there is a baggage of premises and axioms that each theologian brings to the table of discussion. 

What I'v stated above is nothing new. Prior assumptions have always characterized the theological enterprise.  Since ancient times, theologians have always worked with a set of prior assumptions that undergird their work and outlook.

How did Christianity come to accept and modify the Judaic understanding of Scripture? In order to answer that question, we must first attempt to undercover the presuppositions and axioms  that are implicit in both the Judaic scripture principle, whose origins we have already examined, and the developed criteriology of Christian faith.  

There are two basic presuppositions.  They are:

1. Salvation History- Salvation history is a comprehensive interpretive framework implicit in the religious thought of Israel, Judaism, and Christianity.  Salvation history interprets the past, present, and future of a particular people (Israel and the Church) as a sequential story whose development and outcome is determined by God. God, the transcendent world-maker, also exercises world-governance, construed on the political model of the rule of a monarch over a realm. God exerts causality over world affairs by means of specific and decisive interventions, including not only global historical events but also specific theophanies, miracles, acts of inspiration, and punishments and rewards of individuals.  The two themes of governance and interference are intertwined, since governance requires activities of governance and thus some capacity to intervene-to punish, to correct, to maintain, to inspire (Edward Farley and Peter C. Hodgson in "Scripture and Tradition."  Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, pps. 64-65). 

The salvation-history scheme yields certain axioms that prove indispensable to the Scripture principle. One of these can be described as the "logic of sovereignty" or the "logic of triumph." God, the infinitely powerful world sovereign, is always able to accomplish the divine will either through the contingencies of nature and the finite purposes of human beings or, when necessary, by means of a direct causality that assures the the attainment of divinely inspired ends.  A second axiom has to do with the periodization of history and the fixing of the time of revelation.  History unfolds through distinct stages, each of which has its place in the overarching teleology, while revelation is confined to a particular period in the past. The latter claim would not seem to  be required by the salvation-history scheme, since revelation, as a concomitant of divine redemptive activity, could be construed as an ongoing process.  After the Diaspora, however, Judaism looked back to the preexilic history of Israel as the time of the giving of Torah,  which made it normative.  Under the conditions of dispersal, there could be no new revelation to the people as a whole since the people no longer existed as a landed nation; thus cultic and social life must be governed by a previously given law, now continually to be reinterpreted and applied in new circumstances, while waiting for the return of the people to the land, and the coming of the messianic king.  Christianity adopted, uncritically it would seem, the axiom of a past epoch of definitive revelation, although it had to reperiodize salvation history in light of its belief that the Messiah had appeared.  We say "uncritically" because the logic of ecclesial existence, oriented to the experience of the continuing redemptive presence of the risen Christ, would seem to require a different understanding of revelation (Ibid., p. 65).  

2,  The Principle of Identity- The principle of identity is that which describes what God wills to communicate, and what is, in fact, brought to expression in the interpretive act of a human individual or community.  The locus of identity is sacred scripture, along with the laws, doctrines, and teaching authority pursuant to it.  The qualities of inerrancy, infallibility, and absolute truthfulness are ascribed both to the locus of identity, and to its content.  A synthesis is presumed to have occurred between the divine communicator and human recipients, a synthesis brought about by the causal efficacy of God in the form of "inspiration."  Thus an identity of content is assured between what is divinely willed and what is humanly asserted.  The content is primarily of cognitive character, containing information about God's nature, activity, and purposes. Clearly underlying the principle of identity is the logic of sovereignty: if God wills to communicate information about divine things, God has the means to insure that the information is correctly received and handed on (Ibid., p. 66).  

Three critical axioms follow from the principle of identity.  They are as follows:

1.  Secondary representation- Since definitive revelation is restricted to a brief period of past history, a means must be found to insure that the original deposit is preserved and handed on.  The salvation-history framework justifies giving secondary representatives authoritative status comparable to the original bearers, for it sets in motion an inexorable teleological logic of fulfillment which requires perpetuation.  Thus divine providence oversees the transition from charisma to tradition, from oral tradition to written deposit, from written deposit to definitive commentary, from commentary to institution (Ibid.).

2.  Leveling- Originally, the identity resided in the content of the message, but later the focus shifts from the message to vehicle, and the distinction between vehicle and content collapses.  Now the whole of the contents and the vehicle itself are regarded as divine.  Divine truth, in other words, is equally distributed throughout the vehicle, all parts of the latter are afforded equal status (Ibid.).

3.  Immutability- The identity cannot be occasional or provisional; rather it is universally applicable. What was given as true for the charismatic prophet or original apostle is immutably valid for all future generations. Tradition consists in the application of an unchanging law, gospel, or teaching to new times and places, an application requiring legal interpretive ingenuity, i.e. the work of rabbis, theologians, church councils and the like (Ibid., pls. 66-67).

In summary, I pose the following questions for you and your community, regardless of whether you are an ordained clergy person, or a lay person, whether in leadership or auxiliary positions.  

1.  What set of assumptions and presuppositions do you and your particular community of faith operate with relative to your theology?

2.  Do you and your community treat your theology as if it were "God-given"? 

3.  Do you ascribe to the doctrines of your church the same divine status as you ascribe to Scripture?

4.  Does your community allow for members to call into question the theology of the community, or would that be considered blasphemous and heretical?  

5.  What elements of your theology do you and your community consider as universally valid in all times and in all places?

6. What elements of your theology do you and your community consider "open to negotiation?"

These questions are not intended as "trick" questions, but rather an attempt to motivate you and your community to think critically and analytically about the implications of your faith.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 THE DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE IN ITS CLASSIC FORMULATION 

Formation of the Scripture Principle in Postexilic Judaism

Scripture-oriented Christians tend to think that the "scripture principle" has existed in the Church since day one.  In other words, they believe that the Church has always held to the notion that "the Scriptures are the primary or sole authority for faith and practice." They believe that the Bible has always been the "final court of appeal" for Christian doctrine, theology, and practice. The notion of Scriptures being "the only rule of faith and practice" was a subsequent development in Christian history.

What is called the "Scripture principle" originated as a solution to a major crisis in Israel's history, the dispersion of the Jewish people following the Babylonian Exile.  This event significantly modified Israel's social institutions, separated a portion of the Jewish from those institutions, and brought about an acute threat of cultural and religious assimilation.  The Diaspora Jews, now lacking the land, temple, and priesthood, created two new institutions for preserving their socioreligious identity: the synagogue and the written Torah (Edward Farley and Peter C. Hodgson in "Scripture and Tradition, p. 63). 

Under these circumstances "scripture " came to mean a written deposit of the complete and definitive revelation of Yahweh to the people, functioning as the primary source of cultic and moral regulation for the community.  Three basic convictions came to be held about the Torah:

1.  It is the exhaustive location of a now past divine communication, relevant to all present and future times and places, containing at least implicitly an answer for every need and crisis (Ibid.).

2.  It is totally and equally valid in all its parts and details (Ibid.).

3.  It contains symbolic references to the nation, land, holy city, and temple, permitting the endurance of a people whose self-understanding remained that of a dispersed nation, a quasi-political and religious entity, having as its regulative law what was originally given for its life as a nation in possession of its own land (Ibid., p. 64).

Thus a written vehicle became the locus of revelatory divine presence.  Theologically speaking, this represents a tremendous advance over the localization of divine presence in natural objects, historical places, or heroic figures.  It represents a liberation and humanization of religion, which enabled Israel to survive as a distinct people.  Language, the most spiritual form of human creative imagination, is probably also the most appropriate medium for experiencing and and expressing God's transformative presence.  At the same time, however, it is a fragile medium peculiarly susceptible to distortion- to being reduced, for example, to a fixed code or set of doctrines, taking on some of the characteristics, of physical objects or fetishes (sacred things worthy of veneration, containing magical power).  The constant temptation of Judaism and Christianity has been to objectify their scriptures in this fashion, although the prophetic, critical power of both religions has also resisted this temptation and to some degree overcome it (Ibid.).  

We encounter this tendency to engage in what 20th century pastor and theologian Karl Barth referred to as "bibliolatry (worship of the Bible as opposed to worship of the one who speaks through it)."  In essence, we find that the notion of the Scriptures as the "Supreme Court" of Christian theology came later on in the historical development of Christianity.  We must never forget the role of the pre-biblical traditions in both Judaism and Christianity in the construction and development of Judeo-Christian theology.  

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 THE ROLE OF SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION IN THE FORMULATION OF THEOLOGY 

I begin this essay by intimating as I did in the previous one, that Christian theology did not emerge in or was constructed in a vacuum. There were historical antecedents that gave way to the formulation of theology.  For those who insist that theology must be based on "what the Bible says," I will point out that the theology of the Early Church was not based on "what the Bible says."  Granted that the Early Church was primarily of Jewish background in the composition of its membership, and therefore, relied to a large extent on the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) as well as their own oral traditions in order to construct a theology. 

It must be noted that the notion of an "inerrant and infallible Scripture" was not even alluded to in the initial stages of the Early Church's theological construction.  This was a much later development.

Up until recently, almost the entire spectrum of theological opinion would have agreed that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, together with their doctrinal interpretations, occupy a unique and indispensable place of authority for Christian faith, practice, and reflection.  But this consensus now seems to be falling apart (Edward Farley and Peter C. Hodgson in "Scripture and Tradition."  Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks, Peter C. Hodgson and Robert H. King, eds. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 61)

For one thing, biblical scholarship, increasingly influenced by history-of-religions approaches, has questioned the uniqueness of biblical writings as compared with other ancient texts.  By insisting that the  meaning of texts can be properly construed only in their specific linguistic and historical contexts, biblical criticism complicates the use of such texts as authorities in preaching and theology.  In the second place, systematic theology has most freed itself from the impact of the neo-Reformation movement that dominated Protestant thinking for half a century and that subscribed to the principle of scriptural authority with great intensity. Catholic thought, meanwhile, has experienced a similar liberation from the authority of doctrinal tradition since Vatican II.  Thus we are able to acknowledge that scriptural authority, while it may be indispensable to Christian theology, also has a dark underside in it potentiality for obscurantism, resistance to science, authoritarianism, and "book religion"-veneration of "the book" as a holy object.  Finally, and perhaps most important, we seem to be passing through a new wave of critical consciousness in which all authorities are being questioned, especially those associated with the dominant Western cultural and religious tradition.  For example, the more radical wing of the liberation theologies has raised disturbing questions concerning the ideological abuse of Scripture and tradition by the Church, and some critics have wondered whether these authorities are not in fact patriarchal, sexist, indifferent, to the realities of oppression, and class-oriented to the point of being no longer usable.  If we are to recognize scripture and tradition as authoritative, it will apparently have to be in a much more relative sense then before (Ibid., pps. 61-62).

Just what does recognizing something as "scripture" entail?  An ambiguity emerges  that may account for some of the confusion surrounding questions concerning the "necessity" and "authority" of Scripture for Christian faith. In the history-of-religions, "scripture" refers to to the existence of a normative collection of writings, and their function in the origin and perpetuation of a religious faith.    In this sense, there are Hindu scriptures, Buddhist scriptures, and so on, with no particular theory of their inspiration, authority, or validity implied. On the other hand, a more determinate sense of "scripture" is associated  with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In  this view, the collection of writings called scripture contains a unique deposit of revelation-a deposit whose special qualities are due to the inspired origins, and which is to be handed down through the ages by an authoritative teaching tradition. This second sense can be referred to as the "scripture principle," in order to distinguish it from "scripture" in the first generic sense (Ibid., p. 62).

While primary attention is given to the theme of Scripture, we do not neglect tradition, since in both classic and modern formulations the way that Scripture has been construed as authoritative in the life of the Church has been applied to tradition as well.  This may be appear surprising in light of the commonly perceived rivalry among Christian confessions over the primacy of scripture in relation to traditions, but the issue as so stated is misplaced (Ibid., p. 63).   

 

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN ITS HISTORICAL FORMATION 

It is very easy to assume that Christian doctrine and theology have come down to us "prepackaged" from Heaven in all its neats forms and nuances.  Christians may find it hard to believe that there was a time that there was no such thing as "theology" or "doctrine" in the Church.

I contend that the Early Church did not have the luxury of constructing theology as we know it today. The Early Church was a community "on the run," if you will. In addition to its internal battles with heresy, the Church had to contend with persecution by the Roman Empire.  Though it has been said that there was "religious toleration" in the Empire similar to what we have today in the U.S.A. and other Western European countries, as soon as the Church began to proclaim that "Christ is Lord," that was, in essence, the end of religious liberty.  The notion was, you can believe and practice anything you want, but don't put the authority of Ceasar into question."  

Even with its battle with heresy, there was the possibility of physical injury and even death. As the second and third centuries dawned, and the Church became more numerous and more powerful, the doctrinal and theological "status quo" was not looked at kindly. Being banned or excommunicated from the Church was not the only punishment for deviation from the "faith that was once delivered to the saints."  As the Church became more powerful, the death penalty, just like in the times of ancient Israel, became an option for castigating those who tampered with its theology.  

We will look in vain for anything in the first century of the Church remotely like a fully articulated theological system.  The literature of this period primarily takes the form of letters and occasional treatises answering the critics of Christianity.  It does not include any major work of a comprehensive or systematic sort.  Still there is to be found within these "confessional" and "apologetic" writings, the beginning of systematic reflection upon the central content of the Christian faith (Robert H. King, "Introduction: The Task of Theology," in Christian Theology: An Introduction to its Traditions and Tasks. Peter C. Hodgson, Robert H. King, eds. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 3). 

Systematic theology, as we have come to know it did not spring forth full-blown at the beginning of the Christian era.  It was built up gradually over time. Only with Augustine in the fifth century did the key elements come together to form what with justification can be called the "classic paradigm."  Its most distinctive feature was its historical framework: the attempt to view the whole of Christian doctrine from a "history of salvation" perspective. The result was a powerful teleology, one which has penetrated deeply into the Western consciousness, yet which in the modern period has been met with severe criticism (Ibid, p. 24). a

The Enlightenment challenged the feasibility of any kind of teleology.  In particular, it exposed the mythic character of the history of salvation teleology.  The creation story might be symbolic of God's relationship to the world; it could not be taken as a literal account of the actual formation of the world.  Likewise the fall could be regarded as expressive of the human predicament, but not as an actual historical occurrence. Even the Gospel accounts of Jesus came to be seen as having "mythic" elements, so that there was no longer one sure point on which to fix the history of salvation. The disintegration of this long-established framework is clearly one of the major factors in the present theological crisis, though not the only one (Ibid.). 

Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics, on which Thomas Aquinas relied for much of his systematization of Christian belief, has also been largely discredited. The hierarchy of being, the pattern of emanation and return, and the ideal of perfection implicit in his system would be challenged by most of not all contemporary philosophers. Indeed, even the possibility of metaphysics has been questioned, so that looking to any metaphysical scheme to provide backing for a theological system would seem to be a dubious undertaking.  If Christian theology is to achieve coherence and comprehensiveness, it must be on some basis other than metaphysics or history (Ibid.).  

The early nineteenth century was a major turning point for theology not only because most of the critical issues had emerged by then, but also because the construction of an alternative paradigm was well under way. The distinguishing features of this "new paradigm" included: the prominence given to subjectivity, the acceptance of historical criticism, a developmental view of human nature, and the presumption of a close alliance between religion and ethics. The key figure in the transition was in the transition was undoubtedly Friedrich Schleiermacher, for he both accepted the challenge of the Enlightenment and sought a constructive reformulation of Christian theology that would be faithful to tradition. Along with G.W. Hegel, he recognized the need for a unifying principle that would hold together the disparate assortment of beliefs held by encompassed by traditional theology: beliefs about God, the human condition, Christ, the Church, the ultimate end of life. He found that principle in the religious self-consciousness. Because the Christian self-consciousness, as he understood it, was profoundly shaped by the community and its history, he was able to incorporate into his new paradigm many elements of the old paradigm, including the teleology of redemption. In light of the massive shifts in assumptions, came the question of what was to provide Christian theology with its overall unity, coherence and meaning (Ibid., p. 25)?  

A century and a half after Schleiermacher, is still with us. The major theological systems of the modern period all address it in one way or the other. The Christocentricism of Karl Barth, with its elevation of of one of the traditional items of belief to the status of chief organizing principle for the system as a whole, offers one kind of solution. Paul Tillich's method of correlation,with its appeal to the exisential situation of the believer as a constitutive element in the structuring of theology, provides a different kind of solution. Yet important and influential as these proposals have been, none has prevailed. If there can be said to be a single overriding task for theology at the present time, it is to recover a sense of wholeness, the unity, and integrity of the Christian witness. The factors that mitigate against this effort are probably as powerful now as they ever were.  In some respects, they may now be even more powerful for they have penetrated more deeply into our thinking. In addition, there are new factors present that challenge not only the classic paradigm, but also its modern successors (Ibid.).

One of these new factors is the encounter with other religions on a global scale. Traditions that were only theoretical alternatives at one time, are live options for many present-day Christians-even traditions as far removed from Western experience as Hare Krishna and Zen Buddhism. These religious traditions challenge some of our most firmly held beliefs and assumptions. Traditions with their origins in India, for instance, are singularly indifferent to all issues relating to history. Their "theological systems," if we may speak of such, bear no trace of a historical framework-cosmological perhaps, but not historical.  Zen, in particular, is very radical by our standards, challenging any sort of teleology and even calling into question the substantiality of the self. We have scarcely begun to respond to this challenge (pp. 26-27). 

Closer to home there have been a number of events in this century that have served to undermine confidence in the Christian interpretation of history and the teleological framework on which it is centered. The Holocaust is one of them, the ecological crisis another. Can we assume divine sovereignty over history when history issues in the mass extermination of innocent men and women? Can we assume that all things are ordered to human good when the relentless pursuit of human goods leads to the destruction of the environment and disruption of the ecological balance in nature? Even the theologies of liberation offer no real answers to this challenge, for though they are critical of fall forms of social oppression-and of the complicity of the theological establishment in that oppression-they rely for their criticism to a large extent upon a theology of history that is itself problematical (Ibid., p. 26).

So we may after all be in the midst of another paradigm shift. If so, the task of systematic theology will be more than a constructive task. The responsibility of the theologian will be to help us discern what is essential to our faith and to express it in ways that are both comprehensive and comprehensible (Ibid.).

En fin, as my theology mentor and professor, the late Dr. Paul Fries would always say, "Theology is tentative."  We can never claim to have it "all together."  Since it is a human endeavor and construction, we can never claim that theology is "infallible" or "God-given."  Indeed, we seek to comprehend God's self-disclosure in history, but given the human condition, and what Fries would call the "noetic effects of sin," we can never pretend that we have God "in our pockets."

I close by reiterating what I said at the beginning, i.e. that we cannot treat theology as if it were something that came pre-packaged from Heaven and given to the Church "for once and for all."  Theology is a human construct, reflective of our condition, including our arrogance, flaws, quirks, and propensity to sabotage God's self-disclosure to suit our own ends.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen. 

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 

WHY THEOLOGY? IS IT REALLY NECESSARY?  

As we encounter different claims regarding doctrinal and theological perspectives, we can't help but ask if it is really necessary to have a theology in the life of the Church and of the individual believer.  We might ask "What is the use?"  Many consider theology a total waste of time, and others consider it something that is totally unnecessary. 

As I continue to hear of and witness so much atrocity, suffering, and tragedy in the world, though I have always loved the study of theology (God-talk), I sometimes become discouraged and disillusioned, and even adopt the attitude of "what the hell?"  I say to myself "let's just focus on suffering, and the hell with all this theological razzle dazzle." I ask myself, "Does God even care whether or not we have a theology?"

Some would say that theology is in a state of disarray. There are no commanding theological figures on the level or order of Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Rudolf Bultmann, etc.  But I wonder if that even matters, given the issue of the relevancy or non-relevancy of theology in our time.  

While there have been battles in history surrounding certain issues such as fundamentalism vs. liberalism, biblical literalism vs. biblical criticism, etc. it appears that there is an apathy, not only in the world, but also in the community of believers, towards things theological. It appears that the average person sitting in the pew does not know about or even care to know about these theological controversies.  The attitude is one of "let's prepare ourselves for Christ's second coming," or "let's commit and dedicate ourselves to eradicating social ills."  

I personally, see the importance of the role of theology.  The reason for this is because I believe that we have to be clear as to what we believe and why.  Indeed, there is suffering going on in the world, but I think that having a well-thoughtout  theology, will enable us to deal with that suffering in a manner which is both effective and faithful to the message of the Gospel.

There are some advantages in the present situation. For one thing, there is greater ecumenicity (interfaith relations among Christians of different orientations and traditions).  A person beginning the study of theology now is free as never before to draw upon the resources of many different traditions-Catholic as well as Protestant, Calvinist as well as Lutheran.  Even the Eastern Orthodox tradition has become accessible to theologians from the West, as it was not in earlier times. In fact, if there is any one characteristic that sets the present situation off from all previous ones, it is the manifest pluralism of religious traditions.  Christianity is conceived far more broadly today than at any time in its history, and traditions outside Christianity are taken more seriously than they once were.  It is not inconceivable even that a Christian theologian should learn from a Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic thinker (Robert H. King, "Introduction to the Task of Theology," in Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks., Peter Hodgson and Robert H. Kings, eds.  Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 1).

Another positive feature of the present time is the increased recognition that theology, for all its reliance upon tradition, is a constructive undertaking.  What has previously been set down cannot simply be taken for granted.  The tradition we have received has evolved over time, and we ourselves contribute to its further development by the way in which we appropriate and apply it. We had therefore, best take responsibility for what we say and in the way we say it.  That is especially true if what we seek is a "systematic theology," for whatever else that term may mean, it surely connotes a deliberate ordering of ideas, the self-conscious articulation of a theological position (Ibid., p. 2). 

Still there is no real consensus about either the substance or the task of Christian theology. The tendency is rather toward a kind of laissez-faire eclecticism, with theologians pursuing various thematic interests, but no one undertaking a genuinely inclusive, unified approach to the exposition of Christian doctrine. Even a serious and sustained critique of traditional positions is difficult to mount, because it is not at all clear from what stance or on what grounds such a critique would be carried out.  We are, for the most part, uncertain even  as to what the options are (Ibid). 

So perhaps the best approach would be to review how we have arrived at where we are: to examine what have been the paradigms for systematic articulation of Christian faith in the past, and the ways in which these paradigms have been challenged, transformed, and replaced in the modern period (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970) 

We are, in other words, called to tell the story of Christian theology, with a view to better understanding the present exigency.  This approach ought not to be expected to resolve the outstanding issues, but it should put us in a better position to appreciate what those issues are and to take the measure of the task before us (King, op. cit., p. 1).

In summary, the task of theology, if I may say so, is to retrieve to the extent possible, "the faith once delivered to the saints."  Theology is a hermeneutical task, i.e. seeking to effectively and faithfully interpret the experiences, traditions, and scriptures which shape and form it. 

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen!

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary