In the last week a couple of posts from Tripp and Todd have got me thinking about doctrine and belief, and the relation between borders and doubt.
There are those, in concert with Descartes, who would subscribe everything to radical doubt--but not so as to reject it, rather to get to the heart of that which is true. And, like Descartes, they want to deal with clear and distinct ideas. Those fuzzy areas are fine and dandy, but we don't need to make shibboleths out of them. This is seen in the well-intentioned desire to get to the "core of the Gospel." If we're not talking about "Gospel matters," then we can leave things in the realm of the less-than-clear and focus on what really counts. There may be more subtle and interesting nuances than my overbroad generalization indicates, but this seems to me to be the prevailing mindset.
The problem is: What are the Gospel matters about which we should be definite, and which demarcate out those things with which we can live in fuzzy diversity? In the sexuality debates (by way of example, but a topic about which these thoughts are not), it is asserted by some that Jesus never said a word about sexuality (minus a passage or two on adultery), and therefore we are free to find our own way and come to our own conclusions. (No matter if they coincide or conflict with Paul, say.) Others, however, assert that sexuality (even if Paul the repressed homophobe is the locutor) is mentioned in Scriptures (a normative set of writings by the by), and is therefore "Gospel matter"--even if it isn't in the Gospel texts per se.
I utilize the sexuality question simply because it is so clearly illustrative of what I think is going on regarding these matters of relativism, borders, belief and doubt. What determines the evaluation of core matters? It seems to me the answer is relatively simple: one's own presuppositions. If one assumes Scripture to be the norming influence on Christian thought, then Scripture will determine the core matters. (I leave out for the moment questions of hermeneutical stances.) If one assumes that human history has revealed the dubiosity of most (if not all) external sources of determinate importance, then it is pretty much up to the individual (the Protestant notion, for example, of soul competency). Then there are those who are of the mind that one's group (here in my discussion, the church) is the only realistic starting point for evaluative thinking.
The difficulty, however, is the relative blindness to the already-given nature of our presuppositions. So much goes on in our thinking that gets little attention. Epistemic humility is rarely the order of the day. Take for example those who dismiss Paul with even a most articulate version of "Well, we know so much more than did he." Hmmmm. No presupposition there? What is it that we "know"? That which has been scientifically "proven"? But what gave to scientific endeavor that authority? And will science ever discover the core explanation for why it is I love my wife--even when she most exasperates me? (Freud has his answers. But sometimes love is just love.) Further, how is it our knowledge privileges us to disregard Paul? Has there really been that much positive evolution in the last two thousand years? How do we know? Even something so "objective" as science cannot provide us with determinative answers.
So are we left with solipsism? It's my way, baby, right or wrong? Rightly, some reject this sort of individualistic notion. They want to affirm and assert that there is a reality: Truth is, Agent Scully, out there. So how do we find it?
Scripture? The Protestant sola scriptura doesn't, it seems to me, have worked very well, despite its hopeful promise. After all, which hermeneutic does one choose? How do we know we have the right interpretation? Those are questions that do not seem readily answered by Scripture alone.
Human reason? But reason, if it can be asserted to be pure, is all too often perverted by human evil. How can we purify reason in such a way that it would instill a good will in us? To ask that question, however, is similarly to step outside reason. If something can purify reason, it must be greater than reason and able to tell reason where it is corrupt.
The church? But which one? Can the Southern Baptist Convention tell the Episcopal Church where it is wrong? Will the non-denominational Stone-Campbell churches accept the decrees of Rome?
[I'll have to finish this later: Plato awaits]
Posted by Clifton at November 26, 2002 05:00 AM | TrackBack