I have been fascinated to note that there are a number of contributors to OST who argue for some special significance being assigned to the views/writings of the Church Fathers especially when we look to try to understand the bible. The matter crops up in various discussions here and there, but I just thought that I would ask the question regarding formative-emerging theology:
Do the interpretations and teachings of the Fathers have any special role to play in guiding or determining emerging theology’s understanding of the bible?
If so, what? Specifically, does a narrative approach to hermeneutics preclude the includsion of later contributors?
The question of the canon has been extensively discussed elsewhere but that too impinges somewhat on the input of the Fathers.
Any impressions?
Reading the fathers and a lot of other stuff
As a general principle I would say that an emerging theology should recognize the full extent to which the Bible is contextualized. Traditional piety has a strong tendency to detach the Bible from its context, to treat it as privileged sacred text; but I think we need to be much more aware of how this particular collection of ancient documents meshes both with history (however we construct it), with human experience and knowledge, and with its literary environment. We would all understand the Bible much better if, along with it, we read the intertestament literature, contemporary Jewish writings, Josephus, perhaps a few Roman authors, and the early church fathers.
This does not require us to attach special significance (or hermeneutical authority) to the fathers beyond what would be historically and linguistically appropriate. It’s a simple matter of recognizing that no text can be properly understood apart from its literary environment. If we have a better sense of how the New Testament narrative weaves in and out of the historical drama of Israel in the first century, and runs on into the history of the church, we are less likely to treat it as unique, epistemologically distinct from other truth, as myth rather than reality.
One objection to this approach will be that it undermines the authority of scripture for the church. I disagree, but I would not want to underestimate the challenge involved in reconstructing an alternative model of authority.
Here’s a couple of other places where we’ve discussed these issues, particularly in relation to eschatology:
Post-eschatology and 2nd century church identity - clarification sought…
Brian McLaren’s Inferno 3: five proposals for reexamining our doctrine of hell
By reading the church
By reading the church Fathers, we simply get a clearer picture of how people understood the gospel centuries ago. Not only do we learn about the faith and practice of “orthodox” Christians, we also learn about alternative ways of thinking and living in response to Jesus.
The Fathers have no special authority; in many cases the “majority opinion” of later Christians has been that the Fathers erred. However, they have a unique advantage in describing (or implying things about) the church of their day.
I would ascribe similar value to other early literature.
Aubade
“This final torment for the damned the Fathers found:
They knew the joy with which they were not crowned.”
(William Empson)
the burden of contextual theologising
It is hard enough for a layperson to find the time to try to “be much more aware of how this particular collection of ancient documents meshes both with history (however we construct it), with human experience and knowledge, and with its literary environment”. It’s hard enough (or is it too hard) even for the canonical books.
In fact it is very tough to keep up with what is going on in NT scholarship - which is why we laypeople are so dependent on scholars and popularisers to provide useful summaries - but even here, after the advent of the internet, blogging, forums, and now feeds, the shear volume is a difficulty > a fantastic tool but also a terrible burden.
If we add to that the need to understand intertestamental literature, the development of Pharisaic Judaism, and on the other end post NT developments, then I think it really is unrealistic. I doubt if professional theologians find it easy to keep up with stuff outside of their respective specialties!
The importance of the authors (whether NT or roughly contemporary) writing something contextually relevant to his or her intended audience means that for an honest hermeneutic, even PoMo style where author’s intent perhaps loses out, this context has to be elucidated. So, a lot of additional information and preliminary study before the text itself can be tackled is involved. Adding the Fathers, from the end of the 1st C onwards means following a whole host of new contexts &c!
I have read a bit of Eusebius, Origen, Chrysostom and Athanasius and the most oft quoted Augustine at various times and for various reasons but I now wonder whether I understood any of what I thought that I was getting from these writers?
I’m not saying that finally the study of the Fathers may not add to our understanding, but is it really necessary? Or, should we ask ourselves: What really is necessary?
Live to serve : Serve to live
Bring on king Canute
OK, I take your point. But it’s not that everyone needs to be an expert in the literary context. It’s simply that popular level theological discourse (the stuff we engage in on a daily or weekly basis) ought to reflect a general background awareness of how the Bible as a document and as a narrative relates to its historical context. For this to be the case a lot of things need to change - it calls for a fundamental and far-reaching shift in Christian culture, not simply a lot more reading on the part of a dedicated few. The problem at the moment - and the reason why you are finding it such hard work - is that you are swimming against the tide. If the tide changed direction, it would be much easier. So bring on king Canute!
Enjoying theology OST style
Sorry, I really sounded as though I was complaining and I really am not! Networked theology as in OST has been a tremendous boon and part of my struggle is that there are so many lines of thought triggered by so many lively contributors (coming from a real variety of positions) that quite often I am left spinning, but definitely enjoying - growing as a result.
In the old days (in my youth), the list of “trusted authors” was quite a definite thing. I was able to understand generally where teachers, speakers and preachers were coming from within a fairly broad context of modern Christianity.
Now, there is a lot of debate about what this narrative context is including what the eschatological beliefs were. If one takes an earlier thread that you had referred to Post-eschatology and 2nd century church identity Peter Wilkinson remarks: “Since the fathers were close enough to the event to have been the first to espouse such a view, it’s rather striking that they didn’t.” There is almost a sense that a major break has taken place (perhapsbecause of the destruction of the temple?) and in some sense, the Fathers have sort of ‘lost the thread’ that bound the apostles to the gospel. Certainly, one feels a different ethos when reading the Fathers when compared with anything in the NT. Very vague and subjective so, it may just be me!
Live to serve : Serve to live
Reading against the tide
Mulling on your comment about “swimming against the tide” it would really help to have something like a list of “essential” reading. Would you be willing to spend a bit of time to give all of us your suggestions?
Live to serve : Serve to live