Theological Hodgepodge

This is some more thinking out loud about my current theological crises, so don't be expecting anything too coherent in this post. I'll refine my view of Protestant interpretation, discuss what features would move me to choose RC over liberal Protestantism, and start picking through the issue of conflicting interpretations in various groups.

(1) I would like to say that, despite my frustration with Protestant interpretations of Scripture, I do not think that Protestant interpreters are idiots. There are many extremely bright people who have read the Bible and come to Protestant conclusions. Calvin was very bright and profound, for example, and many of my professors have been and are as well. I simply think that such interpretation relies more on its own tradition than it supposes, and that this tradition is ill-formed from its conception in the Reformation. Most of my readers will disagree with that, but that is where I stand until I can see otherwise.

(2) My two live options seem to be RC and orthopraxy of one sort or another. I think that rationally, the two come out evenly; orthopraxy may even come out a little ahead (I've settled that the Marian and Papal dogmas aren't pernicious; I still find them hard to swallow). However, there are many other concerns which I have. For one thing, I need to be able to proclaim that Jesus is God Incarnate, period. If the church which I am in is iffy on that note, then I cannot really see myself in that church.

The reason for this is simple: Arianism is not Christianity. It may have a more enlightened moral view than anything else non-Christian, but if it were established from the relevant authorities then I would be packing my bags for some other religion. So, therefore, I need to find a church which allows me to say that Christ is God; not just that the church says that, but that it can provide the grounds for saying so.

Biblical exegesis might get us a good, coherent reading which supports the view, but if it's down to Biblical exegesis alone, then why can we have any firm foundation? Couldn't later exegesis always revise the opinion? All of the good exegesis which I have seen has acknowledged that there are no logically tight arguments in interpretation, just better readings, and the field bears that out empirically. So, we must always defer any certain statement, though we may have enough to live by for the moment. This is not a logical problem with the position, but a recognition that it is not a solid basis for even an Anti-Arian position.

So, I am down to a minimalist view and a maximalist view. The first thing which tips the scales for me is this: it would be better to take the maximalist view were the minimalist view to be true, then for the opposite to occur. The second is like: my problem right now is that I have too little food to eat, not that I have too much. It could be that I simply need to learn how to diet, but putting that aside, the maximalist view seems to offer the better way to meet my needs, even if there is some junk food thrown in.

In addition, I find that the attention on lack of ritual really replaces ritual for some people. One can become attached to non-ritual just as easily as to ritual, and trust in the lack of "works" which is in reality a work in and of itself. I want a way to express my faith; similar to my gesticulations when I speak, I like to be able to use a physical language of symbolism. I don't want to engage in it as a means of salvation, though I see no prima facie problem with God employing certain usual means in his dealing with humanity. Rituals don't save, but neither do non-rituals; only God's grace through Jesus Christ does. Our faith is the matter which should underlie all of our acts, whether kneeling or abstaining.

This might raise the question of why I would convert to RC, if I think that Protestantism has the basis of faith down. For one thing, there are still certain key questions concerning how God has decided to act within the world which need to be hammered out, and so this talk of "grace" and "faith" does not settle the question (for the record, I loathe it when people tell me to "just have faith"). But really, the main point to me is that I think that RC is right, and if so then the will of God is that I should be part of that "official" body of Christ. If it is the will of God, then it is what I should do, irregardless of consequences one way or another.

(3) I am still wrestling through the problem of conflicting interpretations. It seems that everything which I am saying could be critiqued; I could be falling prey to a modernist, analytical dichotomy, of the kind which my posts on logic so deplore. It could be the case that there is no necessary reason why, say, the emergent church, or Anglicanism, would hit upon the truth, and yet they do through God's grace. Somehow within the midst of diversity, the thread of truth is woven into its tapestry. This argument has even more force because of some of my reasons for considering RC seriously; since Vatican II, there is an opening for serious thought about theology within RC, and for new development. Trent's "infallibility" of the church becomes vague and allows for reworking within the textual boundaries. Does this make null and void my earlier arguments against the Protestant position? Wouldn't I find myself similarly situated in RC, as I surely wouldn't be one of those who would just content myself with the church's proclamations and be done with it? Wouldn't I be appealing to the same position which I deny to Protestants?

I'm not going to say that I'm not troubled by this. However, if it is all about conflicting interpretations which somehow hold the truth in their tension, then this does not settle the question in favor of any specific group. All groups seem to need this to some extent, or at least all the groups in which I am interested. No matter where I go, I must face the fact that the theology of the said group does not match up well with the historical realities of Scripture. Therefore, other reasons can come in which tip the balance in one way or another.

These reasons are not such that they are logically valid in all contexts, but rather point out some salient features of the various conversations which do present problems. There is a practical point to be made in critiquing Protestant views of sola Scriptura, even if the doctrine can be theoretically defended. This is similar to how the average believer can believe in God because of creation, and her belief is valid even though she knows nothing about the intricacies of the cosmological argument or her own hidden assumptions.

I will never reach the point in this life where each point could be made with the infinite precision and study necessary, and so at some time the practical, faulty, and yet not entirely irrelevant conclusions must be what I act upon.