Last winter, I was one of the plenary speakers at the 2007 Wheaton Theology Conference. I was asked to present the emergent perspective on the relationship between the corpus of patristic literature (the “Church Fathers” and the early councils) and the present church. I gave it the old college try, and was greeted with mixed reviews. Some reported their own ambivalence and the feelings of “disaster” among the theological intelligentsia. I was even emailed by one MDiv student that his professor mocked me in class the next week. Nice. Two other influential persons sent me long emails detailing their disappointments with my paper. Several Wheaton students approached me after the talk to thank me for it and express their agreements. So, it was a mixed response.
Yesterday, I received a call from the Wheaton folks informing me that, against the objections of InterVarsity Press, my paper will not be included in a forthcoming book on the conference. When I asked if it was my scholarship that was in question, or that I was “off message,” I was told, “The latter.” I was then told that parts of my presentation were “provocative but less than helpful.” Ultimately, I was told, I did not treat the Fathers and the Councils as normative to the life of the church today. I argued that we’re in conversation with the Fathers today, just as they were in conversation with one another in their day. I also posited that the victory of one theological position over another was as much a matter of politics and context as a matter of divine providence. Finally, the lack of marginalized voices in all of the ancient (and medieval and modern) theological debates should give us all pause.
Does that mean that the Councils and creeds and Fathers lack authority today? I hope not. But I hope that they will have a more credible authority if we understand all of the vicissitudes of their times. As in our day, they had pressures on them from all sides, and, while I in no way think this precludes God’s Spirit from guiding the process, it was not a unanimous and clean decision on, say, the dual-nature of Christ.
Finally, this: In the last four or five decades, with the maturation of evangelicalism, several schools of thought on the appropriattion of ancient sources have developed. Most evangelical church historians could draw you a diagram of these schools and tell you the various leaders of the schools, as well as telling you into which one they fall.
Emergent, on the other hand, is less than ten years old. As such, we are making our first forays into these hallowed grounds. We’re in process. In other words, my paper was in no way a final statement on the authority of the Councils, but a first attempt at a faithful articulation of the emerging position.
What I find a bit troubling, however, is the mixed messages that we’re receiving. On the one hand, emergent is accused of not being theologically rigorous enough. But then we’re excluded from a book like this on account of our preliminary conclusions. Had my essay been included in the book, I assume it would have come under some sharp critique, and, as a result, I would have become a better theologian.
Instead, I will avail myself of the new media and post it here. Read it and decide for yourself. Please note that these are my notes for the presentation — they have not been edited for a scholarly book. I was asked to present in such a way that would be approachable by undergrads, pastors, and professors, so I attempted some humor and lightheartedness. And you’ll want to scroll along with the powerpoint presentation, too, since that was essential to my paper.
Lemme know what you think…
Related posts:
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 55 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
I just have a few comments. Sorry if I am more critical than positive, but you have asked for dialogue and my comments try to seriously interact with his paper.
1. He writes, “there is no orthodoxy without orthopraxy” and “there is no difference between the two.” Yet it seems to me that although true orthodoxy is never without orthopraxy, it does not follow that you can’t “speak” about orthodoxy independently. Fire never occurs without oxygen (assuming there is no strange way of doing so I am not aware of) but that does not mean that they are not two distinct things. You are right that true, orthodoxy and orthopraxy always go together, but that doesn’t mean that there is then no distinction. I realize this isn’t quite your argument in this paragraph, but I do sense something along these lines possibly there.
It seems to me similar to a conclusion one might reach about speech act theory. We do things by saying things or do things with words. On the other hand, we also say things when we do things. However, just because saying and doing become intertwined it doesn’t negate the valid distinction between saying and doing. You can’t completely collapse the one into the other. It seems to me that by characterizing orthodoxy as event and saying that thus “there is no difference between the two” you are making a similar argument. The two may belong together but it seems to me almost as if you are collapsing them into each other.
2. You seem to think that denying orthodoxy in the traditional sense is the result of acknowleding that our knowledge of God is always incomplete. The traditional view is not acknowleding the eschatology of knowledge of God. Yet at places I don’t think your argument pays enough attention to the fact that orthodoxy is only a broad framework and not a complete system of knowledge of God. An orthodox confession is not the same as a systematic theology. Systematic theology spells out much more detail and what a confession would leave as broad or vague, often a systematic theology tries to spell out. The traditional position knows that our knowledge is incomplete. We will never have a complete systematic theology (ST). Our ST is always a journey and progress both personally and historically. But this does not entail that we can’t have knowledge now of the basic facts or confessions of the Christian faith. Again basic facts understood in a basic way. I think I know what an apple is even if I can’t define it in terms of all the atoms it is made up of. We can make Trinitarian affirmations even if terms or parts of that affirmation is capable of numerous ST or philosophical expansions that are consistent with it. Orthodoxy is a general boundary and even on the issues it does speak to it does so in a manner that underdetermines the precise choice of a particular ST formulation.
If you don’t believe me on this, just read contemporary literature on the Trinity by people who would all agree with the orthodox confessions. There is endless debate of how to flesh out the details and specifics even though they already agree on the confessions. So just because one acknowledges orthodox confessions does not negate humility because of eschatology nor does it end discussion nor does it exclude the fact that people are going to flesh out different aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity or think out different implications or even try to flesh out the details in different conceptual categories based upon there cultural location.
So many (not all) of the differences you point out in your paper seem to have to do with differences over the details and not the broader picture.
3. I am also not sure that your umpiring analogy is appropriate. With Christianity it seems to me that you are claiming that we should not presume to have orthodoxy because we are in transit in our understanding until the final day when we will truly see. But this seems to presuppose that there is a right and true interpretation. But in the umpire analogy it seems that the point is that there is no right interpretation. In the Christian faith it seems to me that you are saying the epistemic situation calls for humility while with umpiring it is not merely epistemic. It seems to me that there is no single interpretation to be known ever or even possibly.
4. On your interview on the Al Mohler program you seemed to indicate that certain doctrines only come into existence at a certain time in church history. Yet I would be curious to see studies of this sort on various doctrines that pay attention to at least several key points. First, a doctrine can be held by somebody just with brief phrases even if they never reflect on it further. Second, a doctrine can be implict in other things they hold in which case the doctrine isn’t completely new. Third, just because you don’t find the precise terms that we use today in explicating the doctrine doesn’t mean the same idea is not expressed in different words. Fourth, as Moore pointed out, just because the issue doesn’t come to debate until a certain time doesn’t mean that it wasn’t held before then.
5. That confessions are to be sung and lived doesn’t mean that we can’t have definitive content in them that we take to be orthodox. Even if people disagree at times that doesn’t prevent us from affirming them as orthodox. OT confessions were poetic but nevertheless they had definite content and the fact that perhaps only a remnant got things right didn’t negate the fact that the faithful continued to affirm orthodox faith in Yahweh. They may have not understand everything but they did truly understand some things and that is what they affirmed.
6. It is not enough that there may have been politics with the decision of Chalcedon to question it. It has also stood the test of time. You might reply, “Well they have done so by force and politics and powerplays.” Yes but those who have defended it have come up with good theological and exegetical arguments. To which you might respond, “Yes but those arguments and the rationality used there was influenced by culture, upbringing, and so forth.” Yeah, but we can say this about anything. I could say this about your argument. To which then you could say this about my argument about your argument. Where does this really get anybody to simply say they were influenced by culture, upbringing, and so forth?
7. I am not sure that the echoing on the sermon on the mount is the best idea. Much of the point of the “you have heard… but I say to you…” in the sermon on the mount seems to be the authority of Christ. At least for me the allusion brings in associations of authoritative pronouncment. I am hoping that is not what you intended so I thought I would mention it for at least consideration in future presentation of the paper. However if you don’t see those associations then please disregard my comment.
“just got finished reading it. and it goes without saying that you’re smarter than they are.”
I’m a bit late to this party and I haven’t read the article yet (though I will) but this kind of statement, made by a commenter here…? This is truly unhelpful. People aren’t more or less intelligent based on whether or not they embrace your premises and project. To characterize the views of those you like as “smart” and those you don’t as “dumb” is as lazy as it gets.
Like Annie, I’m really late for this conversation. I was originally only a little late when I first read this but after a bit of pondering I suspect I’m showing up after even the lingerers have left.
However, I guess I have a couple of things to say not least because I’m loyal to both sides in this conversation. I’m very much within the emerging/missional world now and have been basically throughout its development over the last 15 years. However, I also graduated from Wheaton with history and Bible/Theology double major, with the great bulk of my history degree emphasizing church history. Indeed, it was as a sophomore that I was for the very first time exposed to the wonderful writings of the Early Church. Wheaton, in short, helped me fall in love with church history and the early church in particular.
So, even though late, I have perspective. And while I very, very, very much respect your work Tony, I have to say I agree with Wheaton on this one. I think you missed a great chance.
Here’s why. One you were asked “to present the emergent perspective on the relationship between the corpus of patristic literature (the “Church Fathers” and the early councils) and the present church.”
You didn’t really do this. Instead you brought the topic back to a favored emergent emphasis on the relationship of orthodoxy and emerging thought. An interesting subject but surely this battle is more precisely defined as between Christendom and post-Christendom thought. The early church, however, is pre-Christendom, and so should be of a curious conversation.
To focus on your chosen topic “orthodoxy” and emphasis the postmodern rejections, you reflect an almost entire dismissal of the early church conversation. And I mean early church, not the later Chalcedon church of the then emerging Christendom.
You use two sources. Vincent of Lerins as a model for the philosophy you are asserting and the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon to express the political power plays. This is your engagement with Patristic sources.
Which is fine if you were speaking at an Emergent conference to encourage people to let go the restraints of Tradition for the sake of the movement of the Spirit. Not fine if you are engaging Scholars most of whom already know the history. They know it was fractious. But they invited you to address, it seems, how these early and formational writings can guide us through post-modernism.
In my reading you come off as quite similar to DA Carson’s recent work on the Emerging Church. You assert philosophies and motives, setting up straw men so that you can disable them and assert our own present possibilities, using these to dismiss their motivations. Even as you fight against people dismissing your and Emergent’s motivation.
Rather than doing that it would have been much more interesting to set up a conversation. We know Emergent isn’t dependent on the writings of the Fathers. How is that different than any Protestant movement? What would be interesting would have been to hear how Emergent thought interacts and how it would land on the discussion.
There are many, many volumes of writing that were opposed to such a thing as Christendom. By neglecting these and by instead spending almost 30 pages to make a 2 page point you seem to suggest you’re not aware of the conversation, thus allowing opposing scholars to dismiss your work as not sufficiently knowledgeable.
I respect your work, Tony, and have greatly enjoyed your other writings, but this presentation to me feels the historical content did not exceed the bounds of Wikipedia.
Where is Tertullian, who combatted formal hierarchy and presents a picture of liturgy very much in tune with emergents? Where is Cassian the less formal but more active opponent of Augustine, whose books resonate significantly more orthopraxy than anything I’ve ever read. Where are the Eastern fathers, or the Desert fathers, or the Shepherd of Hermas, or even the Didache which has an amazing flexibility with its call for boundaries.
The early church is rich in resources that would add amazing depth to the conversation. And to dismiss them all as seeking power means to dismiss many who, unlike any of us, died for the sake of Christ. You can do that with Chalcedon, but to say Irenaeus or Clement or Polycarp were engaged in politics is grossly insulting to men who paid for their faith with all they had.
And that is, to me, the problem with this paper. It is reactionary, provoking on things that I don’t think you even believe. A pitch that goes behind the batters head might be called a strike, but the umpire calling it will be sanctioned and maybe fired. Such reactionary provocation plays well in conferences of the discontent but it’s not nearly as interesting to those who might be hostile but are fair and willing to listen.
Had the topic been “What is Emergent” then I would have liked this paper and applauded its depth. For a paper on the relationship between Emergent and Patristic sources, however, it’s entirely empty of real interaction and suggest that the rejection of orthodoxy as a goal has a lot more to do with ignorance of patristic sources than a refined choice.
Wheaton is conservative but I have never in my life been involved with people more seeking after God and more engaged with primary sources. They are hard, challenging, but fair, pushing at times to find the gaps. And I feel that without properly engaging Patristic sources but rather rejecting them out of hand by simplistic historical conclusions you gave them a very, very big gap indeed.
That’s why their decision makes since. You spent about thirty pages on the emergent perspective of patristic literature basically saying what could have been your rejection of the invitation. The answer you seem to have given in your presentation? “There isn’t one.” Thus there’s just no reason to include the paper in the proceedings.
I love your work and writing, Tony, so feel bad this is my first post here, but I guess the echo chamber of those dismissing Wheaton and supporting what really isn’t an academic piece needs a challenge of its own.
52. Keith…
sorry about the lateness of this, but I thought I might comment on this one point.
“7. I am not sure that the echoing on the sermon on the mount is the best idea. Much of the point of the “you have heard… but I say to you…” in the sermon on the mount seems to be the authority of Christ. At least for me the allusion brings in associations of authoritative pronouncment. I am hoping that is not what you intended so I thought I would mention it for at least consideration in future presentation of the paper. However if you don’t see those associations then please disregard my comment.”
Binding and loosing was the role of the teacher. this authority was passed on to the disciples and then on to the community. It is not a role that Christ held tightly within his own hand.
“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”
fantastic post and awesome comments.
I can understand why the theologians at Wheaton thought Tony’s presentation was off topic. He was invited to speak at a theology conference where, presumably, they expected him to speak about…theology; but instead of theology, Tony gave a presentation on philisophy. I believe this is indicative of why the EC makes so many theological errors – they confuse theological truth with philosophical theory.
← Previous Comments