I received an advertisement yesterday from Morehouse Publishing, a division of Church Publishing, Inc., the official publications arm for The Episcopal Church. The advertisement is for a new book and in its blurbs it contains the following language about the theological method used in the work, "...using the Anglican approach of scripture, tradition, reason, experience--and fun!"
Anyone notice anything?
Some would argue that "Scripture" is traditionally capitalized in Anglican circles when referencing it for theological method. The reason for capitalization is to differentiate the Christian canon, from other types of scripture. That would be small fry.
OK, notice anything else?
If you guessed that "fun" is not a classic Anglican theological method, you would be correct. Not that I am against fun, I hope there is fun in the Christian journey and in the study of Scripture, but it is not a method of theological reflection.
Anything else?
Yes, the formula listed here is actually Wesleyan, not classically Anglican. Richard Hooker is generally considered to be the formulator of Anglican theological method, however, he merely cataloged what had the method used by no less a light than Thomas Cranmer. All confirmed Episcopalians as Anglicans, especially our publishers, should know that the classic method is Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. It was John Wesley, due to his pietistic influences who added "experience" as a category for theological reflection. This has become known, thanks to Albert Outler, as "The Wesleyan Quadrilateral". Of course, this quadrilateral is not an equal sided square, and this Wesleyan addition has never been adopted as "the Anglican approach". Indeed, Wesley's definition of experience was based on his Aldersgate moment of the "heart strangely warmed" by the Gospel. He never understood it as the individual sensory experiences that we tend to give primacy to in contemporary American culture.
To be clear the classic Anglican approach is Scripture, Tradition, and Reason and is colloquially known as Hooker's Three Legged Stool. In reality, Hooker never used the term "three legged stool" and if his works are read attentively, it would be apparent that the "legs" are not of equal length.
The short form for understanding Anglican theological method is: Scripture (primary), Tradition (the Patristic consensus, re" the fathers and mothers up to, and including, the last of the Ecumenical Councils), and
Reason (the communities' reasoned reading of the consensus and its application to religious life). This is the Anglican approach.
Now are experience and fun, bad things? Of course not, but they are not our approach. I would expect our publishing house to know the difference.
PS: I believe that Cokesbury (the Methodist publisher) is filling all Church Publishing orders now due to downsizing and costs at CPI. That may explain the content of the advert.
Theology is fun when you make it up as you go. I have to admit that I have gotten a few chuckles out of reading some recent "theological" emissions.
ReplyDeleteWe'll have fun, fun, fun, till we turn out the lights because no one showed up anyway...
DeleteDon't you think that the experience item sells well in the modern west? I was always taught in an independent Methodist School (Asbury)that experience was both corporate and individual. Somewhere along the line I picked up the idea that experience, in terms of all of the ways we perceive God, can fit quite nicely into Hooker's concept of reason (although I've not yet read Hooker, so I can't verify that) because our rational and intuitive perceptions grow out of that Imagio Dei which includes reason. It seems to me that the danger in listing experience is that it so easily morphs into praxis, the ongoing experience of the covenant community, which layered with really bad Roman theology as in the writings of the liberationist theologians, makes that ongoing experience the equivalent of Scripture, which seems to be at the root of so many of our problems in mainline protestantism today. Personally, I wouldn't know anything about fun.
ReplyDeleteGood points here, Bill. If I read you correctly, the key is that my private experience, or anecdotes, are not a primary lens through which to do theology. I would like those who use the "hermeneutic of suspicion" to be a bit more "suspicious" of their own subjective experiences.
DeleteWell said my friend.
Delete