Introduction
A great challenge facing the
Church in the world lies in theological education. Just what does this mean? Some phrase this in equally general terms as ‘leadership
training,’ which is, sadly, a step in the wrong direction as it removes the
word ‘theological’ and it conceives of ministry as ‘leadership.’ Others conceive of theological education as
an education in ‘religion,’ that is, a faith-less education in academia that is
unrelated to the Church. Still others
mean by ‘theological education’ an action oriented education in ‘social justice’
or ‘public theology’ that has little to do with the interpretation of sacred
texts or with the history of the interpreting community. Relatedly, some understand ‘theological
education’ as contemporary and contextual studies that are phenomenological, pragmatic,
and grounded in the social sciences.
This approach may or may not engage with the canonically authoritative
Scriptures or the Church’s history, but, if it does, it typically uses these
anecdotally, as one might any other example.
The Church’s Scriptures and tradition are replaced with the gathering of
data and the analysis of that data through some field in the social sciences
(political science, sociology, anthropology, psychology, management, and
economics).
Over against these approaches to
theological education, this essay outlines some characteristics of theological
education as tradition enquiry. The characteristics of tradition enquiry were
described in a book by Alasdair MacIntyre on ethics, first published in 1990.[1] MacIntyre describes three rival versions of
moral enquiry that correspond with modernity, postmodernity, and
tradition. Distinctions will be made
between these, below, but a general understanding of the three versions of
enquiry, which MacIntyre insists are incommensurable,
are as follows. Modernist enquiry, which
MacIntyre calls ‘Encyclopedic,’ is enquiry that begins with no set of beliefs
and seeks to establish belief through scientific enquiry. Objective truth is possible, and all truth is
‘encyclopedic’ in the sense that it is cumulative, inter-disciplinary, and
coherent. Postmodern enquiry, which
MacIntyre calls ‘genealogy,’ is relativistic, opposes metanarratives that
account for everything (it is non-encyclopedic), and affirms locally
constructed, functional understandings of knowledge and beliefs. Tradition enquiry also begins with
presuppositions, but it seeks to move from faith to reason, believing in
objective truth. Encyclopedia
prioritises scientific study within the university, genealogy prioritises the
social sciences and sees the ‘university’ more as a ‘diversity’ of perspectives
and methodologies that are not coherent, cumulative, or authoritative, but that
appreciates inter-disciplinary studies as a feature of diversity. Tradition enquiry is favourable for the study
of a theological tradition. The tension
between the Church and the modern university lay in the antagonisms that arose
between faith and science, but both agreed on objective truth. The tension between the Church and postmodern
‘diversity’ is the latter’s rejection of authoritative texts, historical
enquiry, and objective truth, and its preference of the social scientific methodologies
for merely descriptive studies.
One further feature of the
postmodern turn is a focus on ethnicities and audiences. Instead of asking what an author in Scripture
meant in the context in which a text was written, postmodern reading of
Scripture favours the reader: what meaning does the audience make of the text
for its own contextual and contemporary situation? This leads to a rejection of Biblical Studies
and Historical Theology in the theological curriculum, and replacing these are
studies pertaining to the readers and their contexts. The meaning of texts is shifted from the
author to the reader or readers, and the theological curriculum increasingly
rejects Biblical studies, Church history, and theology, replacing this emphasis
with ministry studies and public theology (an action oriented study of some
sort that seeks common ground between the Church and society, such as in ‘social
justice’ or ‘inter-faith dialogue.’)
With this introduction to the
three rival versions of enquiry, this essay turns next to a description of
tradition enquiry as laid out by Alasdair MacIntyre. ‘Tradition’ enquiry should not be equated
with Christian theology: the approach could be applied to any religious tradition. However, MacIntyre primarily
had in mind the Thomistic tradition stemming from Thomas Aquinas. One might easily see, or should appreciate,
that different traditions will oppose one another. An orthodox Christian may find considerable
room to disagree with another orthodox Christian in a different trajectory of
the tradition, such as Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists. They will find areas where they agree and
disagree. This will become more
pronounced as significantly different traditions are in view, such as two religions, articulate their
views and practices. One must,
therefore, not only define theological education as tradition enquiry but also
clarify which tradition one has in view.
The following essay only outlines tradition enquiry in general and does
not take that extra, necessary step.
Thus, the point being made is that, amidst calls for more ‘theological
education,’ we need to understand that this will not be served by the
universities, whether Modern or Postmodern, but can only be served by the
Church with a clear understanding of the tradition of faith and practices that
it seeks to study and pass on to the next generation. Nor will theological education be adequate when pursued by denominations that attack their own traditions, as the mainline, Protestant denominations have been doing for a half century or more.
The Characteristics
of Tradition Enquiry[2]
'Tradition' offers an alternative to encyclopaedic and
genealogical versions of enquiry. Alasdair
MacIntyre defines 'tradition' as an ‘historically extended, socially embodied
argument,’[3]
or ‘an argument extended over time in which certain fundamental agreements are
defined and redefined in terms of two kinds of conflict’—that inside and that
outside the tradition.[4] Over against the modernist understanding of
reason as thinking without taking perspectives into account (so that reason can
be universal and impersonal), MacIntyre avers that
The history of this approach to moral enquiry stretches from Socrates to a time after Thomas Aquinas. MacIntyre's description of tradition includes the following points (my enumeration follows).
(1) Philosophical enquiry was perceived as requiring a
prior commitment to a certain
perspective. This was phrased in
terms of making oneself an apprentice to a craft
(tecnh,), and so philosophy involved the practice (e;rgon) of a craft to
achieve what is good—the good for me at
my stage of learning as opposed to what is good without qualification, and
the good for this craft as opposed to
what appears good.[6] Furthermore, one entering a craft becomes
part of the history of that craft. In
saying so, MacIntyre argues that one within a tradition is part of its dynamic
flow. Indeed, successful enquiry itself
can only be written retrospectively and is therefore open to review at a later
date.[7] Encyclopaedists, by contrast, believe in a
neutral history: the past is waiting to be discovered, independent of
characteristics from some particular point of view.[8] Tradition recognises that history is always
written from the historian's perspective.
(2) Tradition has a narrative view of history. MacIntyre speaks of a narrative structure to different theories of history, entailing different views on how actions and transactions of actual social life are embodied. The encyclopaedist believes that the narrative structure involves the progression of reason. This denigrates the past and appeals to timeless principles separate from the traditions that shaped them. Tradition is to be sifted by our standards, and there is no need for a prior commitment to religious belief or tradition to understand these principles. Genealogy, on the other hand, seeks to disclose what the encyclopaedic narrative has concealed by undermining that narrative and offering its own version of history. Tradition, however, seeks to learn from the past by identifying and moving toward a telos more adequately in the present. To do this, it asks questions such as the following: What is the telos of human beings? What is right action towards the telos? What are the virtues that issue in right action? What are the laws that order human relationships so that we may possess these virtues?[9] Tradition also recognises the political (i.e., roles and social life) dimensions to tradition.
Lucian, the second century satirist, saw this clearly: in depicting the various views of current philosophies as slaves to be sold in the market, he required each to describe the type of life (enacted narrative) which accompanies his understanding of the world rather than offer rational arguments in favour of each philosophy (Philosophies for Sale).
(3) Tradition locates authority in (a) a given community
(e.g., Thomistic scholarship), (b) in authoritative texts (e.g., Scripture), and (c) in a tradition of interpretation of these texts by the community through
history.[11] The encyclopaedist’s version of moral enquiry
entails a separation of the individual, reasoning subject from authority, while
the genealogist’s version resists all authority. Tradition, on the other hand, requires
thinking in community—apprenticing and practising one’s craft in the guild. Tradition also appreciates the temporal
reference of reasoning: the encyclopaedist seeks timeless, universal and
objective truths, whereas tradition understands truth with respect to its
history so far. It makes claims about objective truth, but it makes those claims not from some neutral ground but from its own faith tradition.
Thus, one must become committed to a certain community with its unique tradition rather than work by means of reasoning from first principles, and one will find that the subject for investigation is not simply our tradition but ourselves.
In making this case for the nature of tradition as a means of enquiry, MacIntyre examines the Augustinian tradition through to Thomas Aquinas’ combination of this tradition with the Aristotelian tradition. Some further points helping to describe tradition emerge from this survey.
(4) Tradition has a clear understanding of the different roles of the reader and teachers in interpretation. Interpretation of these texts requires ‘a prerational reordering of the self …before the reader can have an adequate standard by which to judge what is a good reason and what is not’.[13] This argument stems from Augustine’s understanding of the will as perverted, over against Aristotle’s trust that the mind will seek out the good and, having discovered it, do it. But for Augustine, a transformation of the reader needs to take place in order to read with understanding.
If the reader needs a prerational reordering of the self in order to read rightly, what one needs is a trusted teacher to guide one during initial readings. Humility, then, is a required virtue of the reader of texts and in education. Contrast a Nietzschean opposition to such humility before tradition: what Nietzsche called for was a ‘nobility of instinct’.
(5) Tradition enquiry has a different understanding of reasoning. It uses dialectic, arguing towards first principles. Reasoning is ‘on the way’, it is exploratory, representing the state of the craft at this time in its history. Encyclopaedia, on the contrary, argues from first principles and concerns itself with methods and principles. These methods and principles are thought to be without influence from the interpreter's perspective, and the means of communication in education is therefore the lecture, a rather straight-forward presentation of facts which the student must learn. Questions and answers in such lectures are for clarification, not for probing the argument through dialectic enquiry. MacIntyre writes that the genealogist view of the lecture is that it is only an episode in a narrative of conflicts. In fact, the lecture is not appropriate for Postmodern education. Group projects and discussion make better sense on the view that affirms relativism, local truth, group identities, and our constructions of reality. Tradition, on the other hand, sees the lecturer and his or her audience as interpreters of texts to be dialectically explored because both agree on an authority beyond themselves—the Divinely revealed, authoritative Scriptures.[14]
If reasoning is 'on the way', then tradition is incorrectly understood when it is thought to be an encrustation of the past. MacIntyre insists that tradition is dynamic: it develops as any 'craft' facing its own questions arising out of its past history.
Conclusion
This essay has sought to argue
for a clear understanding that theological education needs to be education
within a tradition. The more general
claim that all education lies within a tradition stands behind this claim but
is not in focus. If anything is to be a
matter of ‘tradition enquiry,’ certainly theological studies is. However, theological education has been
pulled and pushed in various directions away from a study of a faith community
articulating who it is, what it believes, what it practices, and how it relates
to outsiders. Both Modernity and
Postmodernity have distracted the Church from its primary focus and
contribution as a tradition. Also, as
the Church itself has fragmented and become confused in regard to its
relationship to its own tradition, its understanding of theological education
has been distorted one way or another.
The first step to rectifying this tremendous problem is to recognise
that theological education is tradition enquiry.
As orthodox Evangelicals, we
belong to several sub-traditions that come together because we are close enough
in our understandings of orthodoxy and Reformational theology, as well as in
our history of missions and the Church.
We have much in common and should have enough in common to cooperate in
large part with one another in theological education. We have virtually nothing in common with liberal
Christianity, let alone the secular university and the interest in religious
studies that resist the commitments of faith-based enquiry.
[1] Alasdair MacIntyre, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry:
Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Tradition (Notre Dame, IL: University of
Notre Dame, 1990).
[2] From this point to the
conclusion, the essay is a slight revision of a section from Rollin G. Grams, Rival Versions of Theological Enquiry
(Prague: International Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005).
[3] Alasdair MacIntyre, After
Virtue, 2nd ed. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
1984), p. 222.
[4] Alasdair MacIntyre, Whose
Justice? Which Rationality? (Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988), p. 12.
[5] Alasdair MacIntyre, Three
Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, pp. 59f.
[6] Alasdair MacIntyre, Three
Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, pp. 61f.
[7] Alasdair MacIntyre, Three
Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, p. 150.
[8] Alasdair MacIntyre, Three
Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, p. 152.
[9] Alasdair MacIntyre, Three
Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, p. 80.
[10] Alasdair MacIntyre, Three
Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, p. 80.
[11] In medieval religious education, tradition developed as questiones related to the text. These questions were first written in the
margins of the Biblical text and, over time, were expanded into accompanying
texts. Questions arising from commentary
on the text pertained to the three or four senses a text of Scripture was
thought to have: the plain historical, the moral or tropological, the
allegorical or mystical, and (sometimes added) the anagogical or spiritually
educational sense (MacIntyre, p. 85).
Abbot Hugh of St. Victor (1125-1141) developed this Medieval approach to
the text by emphasising the importance of the plain historical text and
unifying the senses through encouraging a curriculum covering all three: the
plain historical meaning calls for exegesis based on a knowledge of history and
geography, the moral sense calls for a study of moral theology, the allegorical
calls for a study of theological doctrine, and the tropological calls for a
study of what work we have to do in the natural world and an understanding of
the natural world so that we can do our work in the world well. If one ignores the problematic sensus plenior involved in a search for
the four senses of a text, these are similar to the four tasks of theology that
occupy a community in its use of Scripture.
[12] Alasdair MacIntyre, Three
Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, p. 65.
[13] Alasdair MacIntyre, Three
Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, p. 82.
[14] MacIntyre notes that medieval
theology also made use of distinctions (distinctiones)
in types of sense, a method which made radical intellectual dissent possible,
as in the case of Abelard. This point
overlaps with the history of Roman Catholic tradition after Abelard in Aquinas’
combining two distinct traditions in his Summa
Theologica.
Comments