"One of the weaknesses of conservative Christianity is the claim that there is only a single version of truth and teaching. There is a single way of reading the Bible and the leaders and their group possess it and proclaim it. This ‘truth’ is completely above any need to debate or even discuss. Such a claim is extraordinary when we think about it. It totally ignores the wide variety of cultural and historical manifestations of Christianity that exist. The expression the Bible ‘clearly teaches’ is also palpable nonsense for those who actually take the trouble to read the text for themselves. Consistency and clarity are not there to be found in the Bible, but only in the imagination of one who keeps the book firmly closed. Only in the context of a carefully supervised reading of selected passages during a sermon on Sunday mornings, can this illusion of coherence and consistency be maintained. For the rest of us who study it for ourselves with the help of commentaries, the Bible turns out to be a highly complex work, full of insight, nuance, paradox and mystery but not clarity. It does not suddenly become easy to understand, just because a preacher declares it to be the infallible word of God and makes numerous selected quotes to back up a line of teaching."
Of course, Mr Parsons is reacting to the deeply troubling abuse to be found committed by Jonathan Fletcher, a Conservative Evangelical who has been a leading figure in the CofE, and whose behaviour towards those in his care has been appalling.
Mr Parsons' view of Conservative Christianity is coloured by his rejection of abuse. He sees Evangelical interpretation of scripture as being more absolute than Is justified by history and culture.
I must confess to sharing the dis-ease with certain groups of Evangelicals who act as if the first 1500 years of the Church never happened. My main worry is that Mr Parsons is doing something similar.
Mr Parsons is saying that history and culture need to be involved in interpreting Holy Scripture and yet he does not say which version of history and culture he is using. There are different histories and different cultures. There is a version of history that says that women were ordained Catholic priests from the word go but their ministry was suppressed by a misogynistic regime. There is another version of history that says that the only women to be ordained in the Early Church were ordained in the Montanist sect. Likewise, we can read scripture in our own culture but this is vastly different from the culture of Africa where persecution is very, very real. To say that Conservative Evangelicals ignore 1500 years of Christianity on the grounds that they do not take into account other histories and cultures is to ignore the context of the Bible and the Church in which it grew up and influenced.
If one must take into account other cultures, then one must allow slavery, otherwise one is imposing one's culture of anti-slavery. Why is one right and the other wrong? Why is slavery obviously wrong in all cultures if one believes that another's culture should be respected.
Mr Parsons is setting up his own interpretation of Holy Scripture up against Mr Fletcher's under the assumption that his is right and Fletcher's is wrong. To what authority is Mr Parsons appealing? I suspect that he chooses the commentaries and studies that "challenge the system" which is all well and good but on what authority do they challenge the system. This seems more inconsistent and incoherent to me than Biblical Literalism because the only authority that is appealed to is one's own which is a bit problematic when one is supposed to be appealing to God's authority.
This is why I find Catholicism much more appealing. St Vincent of Lérins explains that Christian Doctrine develops organically and thus transcends History and Culture. The Bible has a context within the Church. While there are a lot of interpretations of the text they differ, not in doctrine, but in sense. I do not believe that the Bible is always literally true but rather that it is theologically inerrant which must take into account other senses than just the literal. The Catholic Church as a whole has been given the charisma of interpreting doctrine.
It is true that there is plenty of wiggle room, especially in the doctrines of eschatology, atonement and anthropology which are without clear position. However, the moral theology has more consensus than Mr Parsons will allow and, if Mr Fletcher is guilty of abuse (which is true) then Mr Parsons is guilty of promoting a morality based on emotional need and the authority of the present moral culture rather than that found in Christ's Church. To say that the idea of clear teaching in Holy Scripture is "palpable nonsense" is to cut off the branch on which one sits.
Mr Parsons is typical of those who follow the Liberal Christianity which I doubt to be properly Christian. He is as guilty of pushing his moral superiority as Mr Fletcher and his ilk. Both will rely on their own authority than submit to the Catholic Faith. Then again, perhaps they will say the same of me.
No comments:
Post a Comment