Bundy, David D.

English

Asbury Theological Seminary

ARTICLESOn the Development of Doctrine: Reactions to Jaroslav PelicanDavid D. Bundy*Since the era ofEusebius, Christian theologians and historians haveconcerned themselves with the teachings of their predecessors. Eusebiusargued that change and novelty involved heresy since doctrine was trueeternally. Augustine, however, voided this definition. In his writingswhich generated the Pelagian controversy, Augustine argued againstwhat had been the traditional recognition of the Fathers of the free willof man and his moral responsibility, much in the manner of the paganphilosophers and Manicheans. Because of the overreaction of Pelagius,Augustine carried the day and, to the amazement of St. Vincent ofLerins and the Oriental Divines, achieved a verdict which placed theonus of change on the Pelagian doctrines.The issue of change in doctrine became an important issue in thereformation era as both reformers and churchmen sought to use historyas a weapon for their alternative. This phenomenon is most vividly illustrated in the Centuries ofMagdeburg (Protestant) and the Annates ofBaronius (Catholic).Despite the frequent use of doctrinal history in apologetic andpolemic, the history of Christian doctrine is a discipline with a shorthistory dominated by the work of Adolf von Harnack's History ofDogma. Harnack, as PeUcan observes, used the term dogma in a veryrestrictive sense. There were two dogmas, the dogma of the Trinity andthe dogma of the Person (two natures doctrine) of Christ as these weredefined by the first four (or seven) ecumenical councils. This dogmawas the result of Hellenization; that is, the giving ofmetaphysical significance to the Hfe of a person who appeared in time and space, and ofecclesiasticalization; that is, the interposition of the church's traditionbetween the individual and personal experience of salvation.?Instructor ofGreek, Asbury Theological Seminary4 The Asbury SeminarianPelican perceives his work as a corrective critique of Harnack.Historical Theology is a work "in conversation with Harnack" (p. ciii).He also formulated the description of his task as a historian of the development of doctrine in contradistinction to that of Harnack;'^To find a substitute for Harnack's definition of the historyof doctrine as history of dogma, it is necessary to define doctrinein a manner that is simultaneously more comprehensive and morerestrictive: more comprehensive in that the polemical and juridical expressions of doctrine in the form of dogmatic decrees andpromulgations are not isolated from other expressions of doctrine,such as preaching, instruction, exegesis, liturgy, and spirituality;more restrictive in that the range and content of the doctrines considered are not determined in the first place by the quarrels amongtheologians but by the development of those doctrines themselves.Christian doctrine, then, may be defined as what the Church believes, teaches, and confesses on the basis of the word of God.This is the method for his expositions of Christian doctrine, "What thechurch of Jesus Christ believes, teaches and confesses on the basis ofthe word of God."^ He seeks to clarify this definition:'^Without setting rigid boundaries, we shall identify what is"believed" as the form of Christian doctrine present in the modalities of devotion, spirituality, and worship; what is "taught" asthe content of the word of God extracted by exegesis from thewitness of the Bible and communicated to the people of the churchthrough proclamation, instruction, and churchly theology; andwhat is "confessed" as the testimony of the church, both againstfalse teaching from within and against attacks from without,articulated in polemics and in apologetics, in creed and in dogma.Creeds and decrees against heresy will bulk large in our documentation, as they do in that of the histories of dogma; for what thechurch confesses is what the church has believed and taught�or atleast part of what the church has believed and taught. In the history of dogma, what the church believes and teaches apart fromits normative statements of faith is important as a commentary oncreed and dogma. In the present history of the development ofdoctrine, the creed and dogma are important as an index to whatthe church believes, teaches, and confesses.On the Development ofDoctrines 5In the outworking of this programmatic in the first two volumes of TheChristian Tradition, A History of the Development of Doctrine, themost important words of the formulary become the recurring terms,"what" and "church". The emphasis is upon the what the church(broadly defmed, emphasizing its unity in language and conceptualstructures) believes, teaches and confesses. There is Uttle attempt to gobeyond a description to an analysis of why a doctrine developed as hehas ably narrated that development toward becoming, "part of theauthorized deposit of the faith."^My reaction to Jaroslav PeUcan's historiography can be formulatedin a series of questions. First, how can one write a history of the development of doctrine without a careful investigation of Hellenistic andapocalyptic thought forms, the pagan and Judaic formulations of faithand philosophical investigations and without a consideration of thecultural, social and political contexts out of which individuals havesought to express the faith of the Church catholic? Expressions of hopeand belief are never formulated in a vacuum. There are the static records of much debate, of intense feeling, of personalities in conflict andof words in cultural structures. Pelican oversimplifies the process ofhistorical investigation; for, if an understanding of the past is to beachieved, we must ask the functional and contectual meaning of specifichistorical datum, which by analogy interacts with our own present.Thus, historical confrontation is more than description.Second, can it be assumed that a word or construct representsthe same symboHzed structure for succeeding generations? Words areambiguous in any context and usually draw upon several heritages.^They conceal aspects of any action as well as record and reveal. Only onthe basis of extensive contextualization can sweeping generalizationsof genetic continuity be promulgated.Third, is sufficient attention given in Pelican's historiography tothe problem of cultural mutation? Man has remained basically the samephysiologically throughout his history. However the ordeal of changeheightens or lowers technical proficiency, liistorical, social and culturalawareness and consciousness. Each is the product of a matix of experiences quite unlike that of any other age. By analogy, we interact withthe past from which we "inherited" our existential structures. Thismakes all the more imperative our investigation of the "why" along withthe "what."These questions which have been directed to Pelican are perhapsindicative of wherein may lie his greatest contribution; that is, not inhis description, but rather in forcing historians and theologians to care-6 The Asbury Seminarianfully and critically investigate their historiography. In this quest for anadequate hermeneutic for historical data, his Historical Theology willbe a necessary starting point, along with the work of Harnack, J.H.Newman and CoUingwood, beyond whom he has insisted we must goin our programmatics of historical analysis.FOOTNOTES1 . Jaroslav Pelican is the Titus Street Professor of EcclesiasticalHistory at Yale University. This editorial essay is concerned primarilywith his The Christian Tradition, A History of the Development ofDoctrine, the first two volumes of which. The Emergence of theCatholic Tradition (100-600), (Chicago and London: The Universityof Chicago Press, 1971) and The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700) (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1974)have attracted much attention. These are to be understood as outwork-ings of his historiography expressed in Historical Theology, Continuityand Change in Christian Doctrine (New York: Corpus, 1971) andDevelopment ofChristian Doctrine, Some Historical Prolegomena (NewHaven and London: Yale University Press, 1969).2. Historical Theology, op. cit., p. 95.3. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), op. cit.,p. 1.4. Ibid., p. 4.5. Ibid., p. 5.6. Exemplary of this problem is Wesley's adaptation of the term"perfect." A significant portion of his writing is an attempt to clarifywhat was meant by "perfect." This linguistic dilemma continues tohaunt the Holiness Movement.

On the Development of Doctrine: Reactions to Jaroslav Pelican

https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1760&amp;context=asburyjournal

On the Development of Doctrine: Reactions to Jaroslav Pelican

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Asbury Theological Seminary