As Santer reminds us above, the contemporary church lives in continuity with its past. This results in an ongoing dialogue with credal forms and inherited doctrines. A theologian who stands at the frontier of doctrinal thinking has to decide what is negotiable and what must be retained as inviolate. Different thinkers will not agree on these matters and this raises the question of the liberal. It is not easy to define 'liberal' in a theological context. It might mean simply 'outside the doctrinal limits.’ Liberalism could be seen as the grey area where ‘orthodoxy’ crosses over into 'heresy'? John Habgood argues in his anthology Confessions of a Conservative
Liberal (1988) that openness of mind is demanded by the truth. But given what
may well be that the 'liberal', who is also a charismatic in experience, is best placed to carry out the exercise that Habgood advocates. The struggle of the exercise which challenged Smail to reconcile his charismatic experience with a reformed Calvinism, and Pawson with a biblical radicalism, is a necessary one, if the Spirit is to be allowed access, not only to the minds of individuals, but also to the traditional theologies of various denominations. It would seem that a certain degree of ‘liberalism’ needs to be allowed in creative thinking, both within and between actual denominations if they are to live in continuity with their past and develop together into the future. As well as the role of the theologian, even the 'liberal' theologian, being recognised, at the same time his fresh statements need to be made subject to the scrutiny of an appropriate theological/doctrinal magisterium.
Francis Martin seems to have made a major contribution to theological methodology in this matter, in the area of the relation of biblical hermeneutics and experience. He strongly advocates the recovery of ‘a critical hermeneutic of the Spirit’ in the understanding of Biblical exegesis. (2001:2). He also points out its obvious relevance to ecumenism: ‘Such exegesis has already proved very effective in paving the way for deeper ecumenical efforts at restoring unity once again to the Body of Christ.’ (2001:7). (But Martin does not specify anything in particular).
One of the cornerstones in Martin’s thinking is that it is possible to have an objective understanding of the text of scripture, which can involve all the skills of contextual history, philology etc. but to remain out of spiritual touch with the realities of which the text is speaking. He sees the crisis as arising ‘…when the study of the Scriptures moved from the prayerful consideration of pastors in their rooms and the earnest contemplative activity of the monks in their cloisters to the investigative energies of the scholars in the schools.’ (2001:7). He sees the Spirit as the only one who can
‘…confer upon us a revelation so that we are able not only to explain the text but also to understand it.’(2001:6). In connecting with the Catholic past, Martin sees the same principle of interpretation rooted in Thomas Aquinas (: 11). ‘Thus it was also necessary that there be those who could interpret what was written down. This also must be done by divine grace, just as the original revelation took place by the grace of God.’ (Summa contra gentiles 3, 154). The potential of this approach applied systematically throughout the church is immense. It would not marginalise scholarship, far from it, but it could lift the whole of scripture to a new level of clarity. John Dubbey, a mathematical scientist, has compared the theological methodology of seeking truth with the same process in mathematics and science (1980). His context is that of understanding charismatic renewal and its various claims. He reminds us that since the time of Newton, it is no longer accepted to talk of ‘laws of nature.’ Rather they are convenient working hypotheses rather than everlasting truths. We progress in truth by making a considered guess and testing it out, refining it as inconsistencies with the theory appear. Similarly the Christian way of knowledge is also a ratio- empirical one and it is not surprising that many scientists and mathematicians have held strong Christian beliefs since the essential process of thought is similar. He thus advocates that theology be increasingly seen as an empirical science. It seems to me over the years, that in listening to many charismatic speakers and reading works particularly to do with the area of prophecy, healing and deliverance, that the ratio- empirical method of procedure is a vital but unacknowledged dimension to truth acquisition. Living with provisionality in doctrine, is something which is inevitable, but only reluctantly admitted.
In Ecumenical Theology and the Elusiveness of Doctrine(1986), Paul Avis examines this important area of spiritual experience in relation to theology, as part of his
critique of the Final Report of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC). Avis’ underpinning criticism of the report is that it could well be wrong at the point of methodology. His criticism is that the whole unity discussion within the ARCIC report is grounded upon doctrinal propositions being negotiated and debated, when these are in a sense secondary to the primary grounding of faith as experience (emphasis mine). Faith comes first, encounter is primary, and theology and interpretation come afterwards.
Theology is faith seeking understanding of a reality that is given (:30)...Theology should begin with the recognised facts of Christian experience and ask what hypotheses are necessary to explain them. The creeds should be taken as an expression of the experience of the early Church; it follows that we would not express our own experience of God in Christ in the same way today. (:33).
Avis’ methodology here is enormously important for the area of charismatic encounter, revelation, and ecumenism. Morton Kelsey chimes with Avis in
Encounter with God (1972): ‘Furthermore, the church has relied on authority and
doctrine, on theological understanding about the experiences, instead of trusting the experiences themselves. But this new generation… want experiences of God and the Holy Spirit to verify the theology and dogma.’
Avis continues:
In theology it consists in the first hand (though-mediated) experience or encounter with divine reality that is granted to certain elect mystical or prophetic souls. This, that we rightly call revelatory, may be crystallised in propositions and so become publicly available, thereby offering the rest of us an opportunity of participating in the same gracious reality through our own comparatively impoverished experience…Theological statements, wherein doctrine is articulated, are inescapably existential. (:39)
Avis is here articulating the process of reciprocal judgement. In an ecumenical context, the collective charismatic experience of charismatic renewal is allowed to speak into engagement with the received wisdom and traditions of the historical denominations. Reciprocally there is judgement to be made about charismatic insights from the inherited theological and credal traditions. Avis suggests that