The Task of Theology
I wonder what you all think of the following quote. It seems to have some valuable insights on the task facing the theologian and that task's intrinsic difference from what faces the college of bishops.
Theology may be termed, indeed, a ministry carried out in the service of revelation. Theologians have a high calling, and they must acquit themselves with a profound sense of responsibility. They are servants of the divine Word, the Logos, just as much as are the bishops or the pope, though in a different mode. Theologians consecrate themselves to the meaning of revelation, and this suggests a more intimate relation with revelation than that possessed by the Church hierarchy, who are its guardians more than they are its interpreters. Unfortunately, the Holy Spirit has not been vouchsafed to theologians qua theologians, whereas the Holy Spirit has been vouchsafed to the guardians of revelation, the Church hierarchy. The reason for this is simple. If the deposit of faith has not been successfully guarded, there will be nothing there to interpret. If the deposit of faith has not been successfully interpreted theologically, it will still be there for someone else to interpret in another age.
-Aidan Nichols, O.P., The Shape of Catholic Theology, p.33
posted by Jeremiah Kier Cowart at 11:12 AM
6 Comments:
Fascinating quote. However, I don't think guarding the faith and interpreting it are so easily separable. There is a role for the mere interpreter, but is there a role for the mere guardian? I don't think the mere guardian is able to truly guard. This may be one aspect of what the "teaching" qualification of an elder entails. A guardian who can't teach (explain, explicate, respond theologically to challenges and teach into them), isn't qualified to guard.
What do you think?
Hey, stop copying my blog!
;-)
Vick,
Did I copy your blog?! Sorry about that if so. I guess I spend so much time there that it rubs off. :-)
Nelmezzo,
Good insights, and I would tend to agree with you on the ultimate inseparability of interpretation and guarding the deposit of faith (as would Nichols, I suppose). The union of the two though, I think Nichols would argue is in the Church itself. In the Church one finds the dymanism of the union of intepretation and authoritative guarding. The two are sensitive to each other and the goings-on of each camp. The theologians lead the way in the light of Nichols' comments here, but the guardians ever keep that "leading" in check and on the right path. But, this is achieved by both camps being in close proximity to each other and aware of each other's happenings. This would be seen in a radical way in a Council where the theologians often directly advise the guardians.
Nichols is precisely correct, and it is for this reason (among others) that the tradition of man known as "sola Scriptura" fails. Everything built upon such sand eventually gets washed away...
Well, I definitely see the possibility of guardians and interpreters being in close conjunction in the church and that there thus can be two distinct roles at times. However, when an issue is a really burning one for the church, the most effective guardianship may come from the guardian/interpreter, one who has both the authority of the guardian and is a theologian in his own right. Some examples: Augustine and Athanasius, both bishops, both theologians, both involved in some of the most pressing controversies facing the church.
In any case, if the two roles end up having some separation, the guardians still need to be decently skilled theologians in their own right, although they perhaps do not need to be top tier theological experts if they have such to draw on.
In much of Protestantism, both roles typically were thought to be united in pastors/elders. Much of the drift of Protestantism can perhaps be explained as consequences of that system not being strictly followed through (that is whether the system is the best system or not, it only has a chance of working if the pastor/elder genuinely does perform both roles). Much of the drift of Evangelicalism (which I don't hold to be the same thing as traditional Protestantism) can be explained not only as the consequences of that system not being followed within its own logic, but the refusal to maintain even some vestige of the system. Today's Evangelical pastor is often neither guardian nor interpreter (at a theological level). Absent a hierarchy to perform those roles, when the pastor defaults you get the kind of mess Evangelicalism currently is in.
Wow, very good insights. I would agree wholeheartedly that with contemporary Evangelicalism (confining it here as you do, and not branching out to traditional Protestantism), a major problem has in fact been that when a local pastor is defaulted-to as both guarantor of the truth and theologian (which it is not at all plausible that a local pastor could be such, we'd have to admit), problems invariably ensue. The overwhelming majority of Evangelical M.Div.'s out there today (or Th.M.'s) do not have the wherewithal to be both bishop and theologian for their congregations and it is specifically when they aggregate this role to themselves that problems result. I must agree with you in all this.
I guess the bigger question lies in the wondering as to whether the historic system of realizing the two as distinct (ie, the bishop has his place and the theologian also has his own), yet coming together in times of crisis (ie, in the General Councils) is the preferred view.
While it is true that one can find examples in the Church of men who have been both bishops and great theologians, it is not so easy to find these examples, just in terms of numbers. For example, the Catholic Church has officially recognized 33 "Doctors of the Church." How many of these 33 were popes? Only 2--Leo the Great and Gregory the Great. How many of the great theologians, during the height of Scholasticism in the Middle Ages, were bishops? The answer is...not very many. You've got St. Anselm of Canterbury and a couple others. But, the universal doctor of the Church - St. Thomas Aquinas - was a consecrated theologian and never made a bishop. But, point well-taken, at times one can find the union of the two in great representatives--St. Augustine probably being the best example of the union. But, it also needs to be borne in mind that the bishops exist in college with one another. Never has their binding authority been viewed as ultimate except when they decree in college with one another (eg, in the Councils). Therefore, even though Sts. Augustine or Anselm may also have been bishops, it is important to recognize that they are most remembered and venerated in the Church not for their jurisdictions over Hippo and Canterbury but for their theological contributions -- that is, not necessarily insofar as they were bishops but as they wrote as theologians.
Post a Comment
<< Home