Protestantism: it's obviously difficult to define, except sociologically. Social groups defined as Protestant don't always have definite creeds or sets of belief, even less so individuals self-professedly Protestant. But most accept certain doctrines as non-negotiable and non-provisional. Here are three:
(1) God is three persons in one being; God --Deity-- is Trinity.
(2) Jesus is a single person --the second person of the Trinity--with two natures, one human, one divine; Jesus is God-Incarnate.
(3) The Bible was written by humans though inspired by God; Scripture is Theologically Authoritative.
This trifecta of doctrine, perhaps more could be added, is treated as non-negotiable and non-provisional by scores of individual self-professing Protestants and also by many Protestant social groups (institutions, denominations, 'para-church' groups, etc.)
But why are they non-negotiable and non-provisional?
That's the question I'll have to return to later. For now, let's just try to grasp the meaning of these terms.
A provisional doctrine is one that a Protestant social group or individual takes to be a reliable idea, but isn't, so it's thought, necessarily what Christ taught. Maybe He did, maybe He didn't --but being not clear, it mustn't be a cause of doctrinal division. Hence, psychological doubt of such a doctrines is okay; it doesn't impugn one's Christian faith --i.e., it doesn't imply that one is failing to believe something that Christ revealed as dogmatic.
Which doctrines are provisional is a huge area of disagreement even between Protestant social groups or individuals who agree that the above trifecta is non-provisional. I say it's a 'huge area' of disagreement because one Protestant social group might say that some doctrine is among the non-provisionals and another that it is provisional. For example, one (group or individual) says infant baptism is non-negotiable and non-provisional --since denying it, they'd think, impugns one's Christian faith (in the sense I mentioned above). But a second (group or individual) says that believing infant baptism is non-provisional is itself something that impugns one's faith, since they believe it is non-provisional that only rationally developed people are to be baptized. And a third (group or individual) says neither is non-provisional and it ought to be a matter of custom or convention and not a matter that believing or not believing is taken to impugn one's faith. It's a mere difference of culture or style or preference.
There are many such areas of disagreement. Usually such areas don't touch the trifecta. Hence, I said that most (individuals and groups) take these as non-provisional --i.e., not affirming any of these impugns one's Christian faith.
Many Protestants (groups and individuals) say that there must be 'unity in essentials and charity in non-essentials', echoing St. Augustine's remark. But there is no unity of essentials, because what's included in the list of essentials differs. So we're left to see that behind this sentiment is simply the idea: 'unity is what's common, and charity in everything else'.
What's held in common is not necessarily what a particular Protestant group or individual will identify as what's essential. Hence, the class of 'what's in common' is not the same as the class of what's essential, for any Protestant.
Three Queries
(1) Ought this --difference between the set of what's in common and the set of what's essential-- to be troubling? I think so. My question about whether it ought to be troubling is, by and large, moot. For it is taken to be troubling by many Protestant (groups and individuals). My question is: why?
Why, for so many, is this troubling? I'd like to hear what you all think.
(2) Another question about this is: Why are some doctrine's non-provisional and others provisional? This isn't to ask: why is this doctrine non-provisional and this other one provisional. That's a different question. My question is: why is this a distinction that is made by so many Protestant (groups and individuals)?
(3) And a final query: Why is the trifecta (above) a set of doctrines that so many take as non-provisional? And: what's the justification of taking these three as non-provisional?
One reply to these queries is simple. One can say:
"No doctrines are non-provisional. All doctrines are provisional. Non-provisionality is itself a culturally conditioned response, a psychological barrier based largely on non-rational or merely practical interests. But giving up non-provisionality is not to say all doctrines are equally important. There are, to be sure, some doctrines more important than others, but all are provisional. For all doctrines are just explanations of various historical data, to unify and make sense of these various bits. Some explanations have stood the test of time longer, some seem to do better in unifying and making sense of the historical data than other reasonable explanations, equally created by reasonable, moral, sincere Christians. But all these explanations have staying power or importance as a result of sociological, historical, and psychological interests which themselves are various and inconsistent among reasonable, moral, sincere Christians. Just using reasonableness never gets all of us sincerely devout Christians together. We just have to admit that at the end of the day, it's about loving Jesus as best as we know, being sensitive to others raised differently, with different theologies, etc. Since we oughtn't impugn the Christian faith of these reasonable, moral, sincere Christians for having or not having the doctrines we have, we must acknowledge our doctrines and theirs, too, are provisional attempts to get at whatever it was Christ taught and revealed both then when he lived and in the Scriptural texts."
No comments:
Post a Comment