Bishop Wright May Be Right
Charles Hohenstein
(Tom Wright is the Bishop of Durham in England)
A recent... [article] in the Guardian from Bishop Tom Wright criticised
the declining quality of debate in the councils of the Church of
England. 'Reason,' he wrote, 'is in short supply right now,' adding,
'When someone says in a debate, 'What I feel is...' the chair ought to
intervene. What people feel is neither here nor there in a debate.'
Wright is undoubtedly correct, but the rot has been allowed to go on for
too long, encouraged by our educational system, not least in the area of
theological 'equipping'.
Meta-narrative
As a philosophical movement, post-modernism is both hard to define and
already passe. However, as Francis Schaeffer observed, it is the
tendency of intellectual systems to transfer into popular culture in an
attenuated but significant form. The impact of post-modernism on our
culture is thus 'incoherent', yet massive and likely to be enduring.
One of the key features of post-modernism is the rejection of
'meta-narrative' - 'a grand overarching account, or all-encompassing
story, which is thought to give order to the historical record'
(Wikipedia). The post-modern philosopher could give reasons for this
which the person in the street may not share. At the popular level,
nevertheless, the effect is seen in the way that all statements which
might express absolute truths are reduced to the status of personal
opinions. 'This is true,' becomes 'I believe this is true.' The
difference is enormous.
The difficulty is that nobody can argue with such statements. As Wright
observes, 'If someone says 'I like salt,' and someone else says 'I like
pepper,' they are not having a debate.' Similarly, if someone says, 'I
am the way, the truth and the life,' that can be gainsaid. But if
someone says, 'I believe I am the way, the truth and the life,' there is
no arguing with it. We may doubt the sanity of the person making such a
statement, but to respond, 'No you do not,' would be presumptuous or -
even worse - insensitive.
Post-modernism has introduced an apologetic tone to our conversations,
whereby every statement is prefaced by qualifications: 'In my opinion,'
'That's just my personal view,' and so on. If this meant a little more
humility it would be no bad thing. Unfortunately the reverse is the
case, for the statement, 'This is only what I think' rarely translates
into 'Tell me if I'm wrong.' As a conversational gambit, the apologetic
tone is not an acknowledgement of our own potential stupidity but a
social convention which defends the speaker from criticism.
What is truth?
Yet to many people, such reticence seems appropriate. Without knowing
all truth, we cannot possibly know for certain that we are right, so all
absolute claims are disallowed. But as Don Carson has pointed out there
is a difference between rejecting the claim to absolute knowledge and
rejecting all claims to true knowledge. Just because I do not know all
the depths of God's love, for example, does not mean I know nothing of
the love of God.
Unfortunately, such a recognition is missing at the popular level, where
the rejection of meta-narrative translates into a rejection of any
attack on the personal opinions of another. Such attacks are taken to
indicate a belief that my own opinion is an absolute truth ('I am right
and you are wrong'), thereby showing me to be, at very least, boorishly
arrogant.
In such an intellectual environment, critical debate becomes impossible.
If 'my opinion' is no claim to truth but a description of how I see
things, then any criticism is tantamount to criticising my tastes in
music or my likes in people, and will produce not thoughtful reflection
but hurt.
Instead of debate, therefore, we have a sharing of perspectives. Bible
studies used to ask, 'What does this passage mean?' Now they ask, 'What
does this passage mean to you?' Similarly, the question, 'What is God
like?' becomes, 'What is God like to you?' And to such questions there
are, of course, as many right answers as there are individuals.
In these circumstances, theological progress is impossible. We may
'share' what we think. We may - indeed we must - value our different
perspectives. We can even agree to differ. But we cannot disagree and
discard! And therefore, by the same token, we can never truly advance.
On the contrary, we can only accumulate more and more viewpoints and
perspectives until we are weighed down with them.
Indeed, with the ideological barriers down, we will find concepts once
deemed outrageous will work their way back into our thought-world, and
issues which the Church regarded as resolved will be reopened. The
difference with the past, however, is that this time they will be
largely irresolvable, so long as they are held by at least someone who
claims the name of Christian, and includes themselves somehow in the
fellowship of the Church, they will just be another 'perspective'.
Difference
Not everyone, however, has bought completely into the post-modern
perspective. One reason is that post-modern scepticism cannot apply in
every area of life. When I put out a note cancelling the milk, for
example, I do not expect the milkman's reading from within 'his'
perspective to result in me receiving five pints instead of none.
Similarly, engineers and physical scientists work on the assumption that
they are dealing with universal truths. An inch in London is the same as
an inch in New York and a scientific theory which applies in Cape Town
is equally applicable in Reykjavik.
The fact that some have accepted the post-modern framework more than
others, however, means that the fracture lines within the Church are
different from in the past. The impact of post-modernism on the Church
means that the primary differences today are not over what people
believe to be true. Rather they are over what people believe to be the
nature and significance of truth.
For those who have not adopted post-modernism, questions within the
Church still concern 'true truth' - truth which is true even for those
who do not know it or believe it. They find it deeply frustrating,
therefore, when others do not accept that lines should be drawn on this
basis. For the post-modern, by contrast, a rejection of others with a
different viewpoint indicates intolerance towards them and ignorance
about the very nature of our understanding. When these viewpoints
collide the ensuing conflict is inevitably bitter, particularly when the
differences are not understood.
Strange alliances
Yet this explains some of the strange alliances current within
Anglicanism. What brings Reform and Forward in Faith to the same table?
It is clearly not an agreement on sacraments, ministry and ecclesiology.
On the contrary, these areas remain as divisive as ever. What unites
them is rather an intuitive sense of 'speaking the same language.' When
a member of Reform says that reserving the Sacrament is wrong he means
it is really wrong - it is wrong for the member of Forward in Faith,
despite the latter's attachment to it, as well as for the member of
Reform. Yet, by the same token, the member of Forward in Faith actually
agrees with the Reform member's view of truth precisely at the point of
disagreement. What is not in dispute for either of them is that one of
them must be wrong!
By contrast, when a member of Reform sits across the table from someone
in an 'Open Evangelical' group like Fulcrum, there is intense friction.
Outwardly they both agree - neither would reserve the Sacrament. But
whereas for the Reform member this is a principle which should apply to
all and should therefore represent a dividing line in the Church, for
the Fulcrum member it is precisely the sort of thing to which their
'openness' is open.
For the health of the Church this problem must be resolved.
Post-modernism has useful lessons for us, but we must never discard all
possibility of discerning 'true truth'. Postmodernism rejects this
suggestion, but in the physical sciences it is acknowledged that our
understanding can truly advance through the process of negation.
In the popular mind, the aim of scientific research is to prove facts to
be true. Every real scientist knows this is not strictly so. Rather,
science advances on the principle of the 'null hypothesis' - a formal
proposition which experimentation seeks to prove false. It is as new
discoveries show such hypotheses to be inadequate that science
progresses. But although this process leaves in its wake a series of
discredited suggestions, it does not mean that the past or the present
consist of utter ignorance.
The post-modern mind should find it easy to accept that our cherished
notions can be challenged and refuted. But ideas which stand the test of
refutation should be treated as true until proven false. And a
succession of ideas which have withstood the tests of time and critical
analysis should be regarded as advancing us nearer the truth the more
coherent they become and the better they stand up to scrutiny.
Advances in theology
To advance in theology, we need to accept both Cromwell's dictum, 'Think
it possible you may be mistaken', and its antithesis, 'Think it possible
you may be correct!' The post-modern mind finds the former so easy that
it has become an excuse for the sort of intellectual laziness of which
Wright complains. The possibility that you might just be right, however,
lays upon you the responsibility to advocate and defend your position
against ideas that differ from or disagree with it. And this is far
harder than retreating behind the protestation that 'This is only my
opinion.'
Post-modernism is passing away, leaving behind a deeply destructive
mistrust of all claims to truth. And unless we are to accept that the
future intellectual condition of humankind will always be ignorance and
an 'agreement to differ', we must tackle and overcome this legacy. It
can be done, provided we are humble enough to be right, as well as
wrong.
--This essay appears in New Directions, August 2005, pages 7-8.
--
Charles Hohenstein
To reply, remove Gene Robinson