Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:59:44.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Professor Wiles on Historical Christology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Ian Walker
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

I would like to enter a debate which is centuries old and seems, for the most part, to admit of no satisfactory conclusion. The debate is between what is nowadays sometimes called ‘theological relativism’ and ‘(minimal) orthodoxy’. I am not at all happy about these terms (which, in this instance, are John J. Shepherd’s) because the issue being debated is, in some degree, to determine what ‘orthodoxy’ is; and hence, calling oneself ‘minimally orthodox’ seems to be a method of scoring points before the contest has started (that is, if orthodoxy is thought to be desirable). On the other hand, ‘theological relativism’ seems, if one looks at the work of exponents of this school, to admit of degrees of relativity. So we have a relative relativism. All this means that just who is being denominated by such labels might prove elusive of description or, at least, amenable to misrepresentation. For these reasons I shall not use these terms henceforth.

The debate centres on the issue of what (if anything) is essential to the Christian faith. Shepherd argues that ‘behind the bewildering diversity of forms of faith there is an essential continuing substance of Christian teaching which can, by and large, be traced back to Jesus’. This ‘enduring gospel’ consists of propositions about God’s nature and his actions, and about Jesus’ words and deeds. Professor Wiles, on the other hand, argues ‘that there is nothing intrinsically more secure in a knowledge of God which claims to rest on ‘certain historical events’ whose historicity is regarded as essential [than in] a knowledge of God which claims to rest on a more general historical experience (including that to which Scripture bears witness) but which does not treat any particular events within that broad spectrum as essential.’ (CHR, p. 12).

Type
Research Article
Information
New Blackfriars , Volume 60 , Issue 705 , February 1979 , pp. 52 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

1 The debate has taken many and varied forms and for the most part reflects the different attitudes of the debaters to Scripture. Some examples of the participants in the debate in recent times are, G. Turner, ‘He was Raised and Appeared: Evidence and Faith’, New Blackfriars, April, 1977;F. Kerr, ‘Paul's Experience: Sighting or Theophany?’New Blackfriars, July, 1977; M. Dummett, ‘Biblical Exegesis and the Resurrection’, New Blackfriars, February, 1977.I shall be more concerned with the arguments advanced by Prof. M. Wiles (on the ‘relativist’ side): ‘In what Sense is Christianity a “Historical” Religion?’neology, January, 1978, Vol, LXXXI, No, 679, (hereinafter called CHR); ‘Does Christology Rest on a Mistake?’ (CRM), Religious Studies, 6, 1970, pp. 69‐76, and, Working Papers in Doctrine, (WPD), SCM, London, 1976Google Scholar, particularly chapter 14. See also, John J. Shepherd (representing ‘minimal orthodoxy'): 'Criteria of Christian Believing’Theology, March, 1978, Vol. LXXXI, No. 680Google Scholar.

2 Op. cit. p. 85, see also Shepherd's The Essence of Christian Believing', Religious Studies, 12,1976, pp. 231‐7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, pp. 137‐138, Williams, and Norgate, , London, 1890Google Scholar, reprinted 1907.

4 Downside Review April 1978. A review of D. Z. Phillips' Religion Without Explanation.