The Muddled Mind of the Modernist
I have been working for the past few weeks on a chapter that I'm contributing to Robert Sungenis' (Catholic Apologetics International) upcoming book, Not by Biblical Criticism Alone - and I have to say, I cannot bend my mind enough to really understand the Modernists.
Their world is jello.
No, seriously, hear me out ... reading Modernist Scripture studies is like walking into a room that is packed full of jello - wall to wall, ceiling to floor. It's thick, it's hard to move, there's no kind of solid footing, there's no substance ...
Mostly I'm reading Fr. Raymond Brown on various subjects, including New Testament Christology and also the subject of the Virgin Birth/Bodily Resurrection.
A lot of Traditionalists want to make this a black-and-white issue. "Fr. Brown denies x, y, and z!" But usually, he doesn't. It's never that simple when you're dealing with a Modernist.
For example, Fr. Brown does not deny the Virgin Birth or the Bodily Resurrection of Christ - but he does suggest the possibility that maybe the question could be entertained momentarily that our understanding of what these dogmas might mean is slightly inadequate, and in a certain sense could be re-examined and re-formulated in a way that is more historically accurate and culturally helpful.
And then he goes after both Scripture and Church Dogma with a razor-sharp scalpel, and attempts to slice away all the historical assumptions that attend the dogma - he boils the dogma down its most specific and precise form. For Brown, the question is not "what does the dogma say," but "what does the dogma leave open for discussion?"
So, for example, in the dogmas surrounding the Virgin Birth, Brown contends that we are never told exactly, in a precise way, how the biological conception of Christ took place. All we are bound to believe is that, in some sense, Christ was "born of a virgin" - that says nothing about how He was conceived.
Oh, yes, we know He was "conceived of the Holy Ghost" - but that is primarily a spiritual formulation, and does not impose itself on us in a historical or biological way (I am purposefully speaking in Brownish jargon now, so you get some sense of how "out there" and abstract he can be).
Slippery, isn't it? You could say, "But Fr. Brown, you're denying the Virgin Birth!" And I guarantee you he - if he weren't dead right now - would be very quick to reply, "Oh no, no, no, I never said that!"
So I have to be careful here. I want to do this right - I don't want to write a wholly reactionary and knee-jerk chapter for Sungenis' book, a chapter that just flails and foams at the mouth about how Brown denied every dogma of the Church. That wouldn't be fair. That would also be far too easy.
I have to play Brown's game. Brown doesn't like quick and easy, black and white, dry or wet; he was a major fan of taking a "heavily nuanced" approach, and seeing that certain formulations were "far too simplistic."
Fine - let's play the "complex" and "nuanced" game. I'll present his position fairly, and still show that his general approach (wishing to reduce every dogma to its most minimalistic meaning, asking whether the facts of the dogma are in harmony with the history of Christ, thinking he can apply Bib-Crit methods not only to Scripture, but also to Magisterial pronouncements, etc.) is wrong - is even condemned by the very Magisterium he wants to deconstruct.
Darn these Modernists ... they're impossible to pin down on anything. Their very principles - that everything is subject to evolution and change - prevent them from writing anything with certainty or definitiveness. A scholar should collect the relevant data, present the evidence, and make a definite conclusion based on the facts. A Modernist just collects all the disparate data, present a multi-faceted picture, and then says to the read, "perhaps all of it is true, perhaps none of it is true - you decide for yourself, but take care to make a very nuanced decision."
The perpetually open mind ... never closing firmly upon anything.
Ugh. What a way to live.
Their world is jello.
No, seriously, hear me out ... reading Modernist Scripture studies is like walking into a room that is packed full of jello - wall to wall, ceiling to floor. It's thick, it's hard to move, there's no kind of solid footing, there's no substance ...
Mostly I'm reading Fr. Raymond Brown on various subjects, including New Testament Christology and also the subject of the Virgin Birth/Bodily Resurrection.
A lot of Traditionalists want to make this a black-and-white issue. "Fr. Brown denies x, y, and z!" But usually, he doesn't. It's never that simple when you're dealing with a Modernist.
For example, Fr. Brown does not deny the Virgin Birth or the Bodily Resurrection of Christ - but he does suggest the possibility that maybe the question could be entertained momentarily that our understanding of what these dogmas might mean is slightly inadequate, and in a certain sense could be re-examined and re-formulated in a way that is more historically accurate and culturally helpful.
And then he goes after both Scripture and Church Dogma with a razor-sharp scalpel, and attempts to slice away all the historical assumptions that attend the dogma - he boils the dogma down its most specific and precise form. For Brown, the question is not "what does the dogma say," but "what does the dogma leave open for discussion?"
So, for example, in the dogmas surrounding the Virgin Birth, Brown contends that we are never told exactly, in a precise way, how the biological conception of Christ took place. All we are bound to believe is that, in some sense, Christ was "born of a virgin" - that says nothing about how He was conceived.
Oh, yes, we know He was "conceived of the Holy Ghost" - but that is primarily a spiritual formulation, and does not impose itself on us in a historical or biological way (I am purposefully speaking in Brownish jargon now, so you get some sense of how "out there" and abstract he can be).
Slippery, isn't it? You could say, "But Fr. Brown, you're denying the Virgin Birth!" And I guarantee you he - if he weren't dead right now - would be very quick to reply, "Oh no, no, no, I never said that!"
So I have to be careful here. I want to do this right - I don't want to write a wholly reactionary and knee-jerk chapter for Sungenis' book, a chapter that just flails and foams at the mouth about how Brown denied every dogma of the Church. That wouldn't be fair. That would also be far too easy.
I have to play Brown's game. Brown doesn't like quick and easy, black and white, dry or wet; he was a major fan of taking a "heavily nuanced" approach, and seeing that certain formulations were "far too simplistic."
Fine - let's play the "complex" and "nuanced" game. I'll present his position fairly, and still show that his general approach (wishing to reduce every dogma to its most minimalistic meaning, asking whether the facts of the dogma are in harmony with the history of Christ, thinking he can apply Bib-Crit methods not only to Scripture, but also to Magisterial pronouncements, etc.) is wrong - is even condemned by the very Magisterium he wants to deconstruct.
Darn these Modernists ... they're impossible to pin down on anything. Their very principles - that everything is subject to evolution and change - prevent them from writing anything with certainty or definitiveness. A scholar should collect the relevant data, present the evidence, and make a definite conclusion based on the facts. A Modernist just collects all the disparate data, present a multi-faceted picture, and then says to the read, "perhaps all of it is true, perhaps none of it is true - you decide for yourself, but take care to make a very nuanced decision."
The perpetually open mind ... never closing firmly upon anything.
Ugh. What a way to live.
<< Home