Sells and others;

Source for definitions: OED [Unabridged)

REASON:

--c1374 CHAUCER Boeth. IV. pr. vi. 104 (Camb. MS.)" "To vnwrappen the hyd causes of thinges and to discouere me the resouns couered with dyrknesses."

ENLIGHTENMENT:

DICKENS Lett. (1880) I. 398: "I should be ready to receive enlightenment from any source."

INDIVIDUALISM:

1851 MILL in Westm. Rev. LVI. 87: "Socialism as long as it attacks the existing individualism, is easily triumphant. 1884 J. RAE Contemp. Socialism 209 Socialism and individualism are merely two contrary general principles, ideals, or methods, which may be employed to regulate the constitution of economical society."

REASON:

--c1374 CHAUCER Boeth. IV. pr. vi. 104 (Camb. MS.)" "To vnwrappen the hyd causes of thinges and to discouere me the resouns couered with dyrknesses."

ENLIGHTENMENT:

---DICKENS Lett. (1880) I. 398: "I should be ready to receive enlightenment from any source."

~The above can be reviewed from before and after the Enlighenment. Perhap's Dicken's perspective is most challenging to steadfast doctrine and institions [not only the Churches] which lecture others. Before the Enlightenment did the Elite [Gr.Ekletos]or the Masses [Hoi polloi.]

RC's asise, I find it hard to see why many Churches praise the Renaisscence {C14-C16}, yet condemn the Enlightenment. The Renaisscence took Scripture from The Pope to the Church House, The Enlightenment permited interpretation of scription by the individuals, whom sount knowledge and "enlightenment from any source" {Dickens 1880, ditto]. Before the Enlightenment the individual's was shackled to the reasoning of others. We are now free choose our own path, including religionism [the collective socialism of the Church group] , free will, beit, a divine gift or a happenstance of nature.

Note, Chaucer saw reasoning involving knowledge discover from all quarters, as removing his Endarkenment in c. 1374. Long before the tradional Enlightenment.

Cheers.

Sells,

Like me, you are probably very busy now. When you have some time your comment would be valued. Thanks.

O.

Sells

We seem to agree that Faith transcends rationality. Jesus was a story-teller and not a mathematician. The Church might, in practice, have become a 'system of rationality' but I would argue that 'to the extent to which it has become a system of rationality' it reflects its nature as a human institution rather than its nature as the 'gathered faithful' or the 'Body of Christ'.

It seems to me that theology can be apologetic, confessional or sceptical. In its apologetic form it has little interest for me. In its confessional form it seems to me to be exploratory of the infinite possibilities of experienced faith. Its rational form is sceptical and, for me, the real purpose of sceptical theology is to challenge and deconstruct faith. Sceptical theology is a refining fire which reduces its derivative faith to that which reason simply cannot confute or destroy. Sceptical theology is very personal and is not for everyone!

The proper theological domain of the church is confessional and ought to be constructive and facilitative of faith. This is best achieved through narrative and myth rather than through rational discourse. Therefore I say that the church as the gathered faithful is a confessional, story-telling community rather than a 'system of rationality'. Reason is reductive and exclusive whereas narrative is expansive and inclusive.

I think we seem to be at odds because we are using different understandings of rationality. You say that rationality is reductive, certainly the form that dominated the Enlightenment was. Logical positivism strips down to the bare essentials and refuses to give credence to anything that cannot be demonstrated. However, stories are rational in their own right, if they are not then we deem them bad stories, like the story of modernity. There is no such thing as an irrational story, that is a contradiction, even bad stories make some sense.

Christians would say that the Christian story of the world allows us to make sense of our lives. Our experience is the experience of the truth of that story. That can never be irrational.

I am studying Trinitarian theology at the moment and there is a sense that in the threefold name the infinity of history is bracketed and made sense of just as the bible brackets world history between creation and eschaton. The number three comes from the three points in time, past, present and future, the one we encounter in the past (Father) in the present (Son) and the one who comes to us in the future (Spirit). This is not an irrational construction, it is tied to the nature of the Christian story as being set within history and how time is. Even paradoxical statements like “Those who would have their lives will lose them” are not irrational.

I am not sure what you mean by “In its confessional form it seems to me to be exploratory of the infinite possibilities of experienced faith.” This seems too broad for me. Surely, if God is what happens between Christ and us, then our experience of faith is very particular.

Oliver, unfortunately you have raised some interesting points.

I say unfortunately because in my experience, Sells totally ignores such contributions.

He isn't interested in discussion, only in the sound of his own voice. If you look back over his contributions, the only people with whom he chooses to discourse are firmly in the category of i) a fellow theologian and ii) broadly in agreement with his witterings.

He will talk with waterboy, for example, in order to discuss "theology as a discourse". But please, don't ask intelligent questions of him. You are on a different wavelength, and therefore in his eyes, unworthy of consideration.

waterboy, I'm fascinated by your deconstruction of faith into the classifications of apologetic, confessional and sceptical.

I can understand you being too confident to indulge in apologetics. I can also appreciate that being confessional might be a nice cosy place to be. But I'm disappointed that you consider that "[s]ceptical theology is very personal and is not for everyone!"

That would, on the face of it, appear to be an act of some cowardice. Would it not be more convincing, satisfying and generally more... genuine, to subject your theology to a "refining fire which reduces its derivative faith to that which reason simply cannot confute or destroy" in public, and in front of witnesses?

That way, no-one could accuse you of fudging it.

Pericles,

"Oliver, unfortunately you have raised some interesting points."

Thank you. My hope -sometimes unrealised- is we can learn from each in the OLO Forum.

Sells and others,

I put some of the above again, now in a simplified form:

1. Are there two types of individualism? One before the Enlightenment: The other after the Enlightenment. The former draws its values from the scholarly, whom are the guardians the Holy of Holies and interpret the Secrets of Secrets for the less educated ignorant masses. The latter allows person decisions based on evidence as each see it.

2. Why do Protestant communions accept the Rennaiscence and Reformation, yet condemn the Enlightenment? Both are highly leverage on and value personal interpretation of affairs.

Also, added,

3. Does in-fighting among churches [Reformation]create Schicisms; whereas out-fighting by Churches against Science and History create a call to consolidation to defend, rather than debate? Rather like Chinese factions/enemies consolidating fight Japan.

4. Who is Anglican communion's greatest adversery The Pope or Richard Dawkins. The former has made his choice from reading scripture extensively and the latter a geneticist whom may have a mere superficial knowledge of scripture - compared to a Master Theologian?