To the Sources: Retrieving the Christian Theological Tradition: Part 2
Today’s post is the second part of an essay that posted this past Monday.
Webber is best known for his four-volume project known as the “Ancient-Future series.” This series includes an introductory volume, followed by titles on evangelism, spiritual formation, and worship.[1] The introductory volume subtitled “Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World,” best demonstrates Webber’s specific aim:
The fundamental concern of this book is to find points of contact between classical Christianity and postmodern thought. Classical Christianity was shaped in a pagan and relativistic society much like our own. . . . Christians in a postmodern world will succeed, not by watering down the faith, but by being a countercultural community that invites people to be shaped by the story of Israel and Jesus.[2]
Webber invites readers to consider the paradigm shift that has transpired in the last several decades, especially in the West, which forces us to think differently about cultural expressions of Christianity. He asserts that the early church is an essential resource for connecting the Christian message to today’s postmodern climate because of its use of symbols, and because its emphasis on mystery and community resonates well with postmodern sensibilities. His suggestion is not for a “mere historical restitutionism, but a serious application of classical thought to a postmodern world.”[3]
Webber’s project is driven primarily by three factors: (1) Concern over the overly rationalistic tendencies of Christianity in recent centuries; (2) a deep appreciation for the wisdom found in early church thought and practice; and (3) the spiritual significance of narrative. For Webber, these factors, which differentiate the late-modern church from the early church, make the early church the best conversation partner for the “future church.”
Navigating the Emerging Moral-Ethical Environment in America
Try as one may, modernity and postmodernity cannot be reduced to ideas. They contribute to the moral climate of the societies they have forged. This is evident as we consider the ethical issues the church has increasingly encountered. Many of these issues have been made possible by technological advance (e.g., stem-cell research), and others due to collapsing plausibility structures on sexuality and rights (e.g., the legalization of same-sex marriage).
Many churches and parachurch organizations have attempted to prepare for the implications of such changes. This activity includes a number of emerging, ecumenical alliances to confront the changing ethical and moral situation in America. And such alliances have driven many “to the sources” as well.
One of the recent examples of such alliances is the Manhattan Declaration, a document that addresses three key subjects: the sanctity of life, marriage, and religious liberty.[4] It was authored in 2009 by a group of Protestants (mostly evangelicals), Catholics, and Orthodox Christians. The original drafters include the late evangelical leader Charles Colson, Princeton professor Robert P. George (Catholic), and Beeson Divinity School Dean Timothy George (Southern Baptist). Other signatories include presidents and deans of seminaries, Catholic Archbishops, pastors, and authors.[5]
More interesting than the collection of signatories are the sources that inform and shape this alliance. First, there is an explicit framework of reasoning described as the “Christian tradition.” In many instances this phrase is used to justify the view being advanced.[6] The drafters of the Declaration recognize that the “traditional Christian sexual ethic seen in both Roman Catholic and Protestant Christianity” enables them to find common ground, even on a subject like marriage where differences exist.[7] The early church’s example is invoked with reference to their response to widespread infanticide in Roman society,[8] as well as their treatment of the sick and dying during the plagues.[9] Here the common heritage of all Christian bodies is invoked.
A second significant feature of the Declaration is its appeal to observations rooted in social science, and natural law more generally. The opening paragraph states, “We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person.”[10] They expand on the use of social science and reason when explaining the vision for which marriage they contend:
Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society. Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits…Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves.[11]
This reasoning from natural observation and experience characterizes the document in other places as well. Generally, the primary quality that makes the Declaration something of a retrieval project is its appeal to the moral consensus found in historic Christian thought.
The emphasis on natural law is also significant since it has often been a point of division among Catholics, Protestants, and the Orthodox. However, as Paul Snell explains,
Protestant interest in natural law has revived, aided by an easing of suspicions toward Catholicism, ressourcement within evangelicalism, political engagement by evangelicals in need of a social theory, and historical scholarship on the Reformers’ comfort with natural law.[12]
By ressourcement, Snell invokes a term “coined by French Roman Catholic writers in the mid-twentieth century as descriptive of theological renewal that declared Christians must return to the sources (ad fontes) of the ancient Christian tradition.”[13] Snell notes that in the drafting process of the Declaration, “some signatories encountered resistance, with critical handwringing about cozying-up to the natural law.”[14] Yet contemporary moral challenges have led to greater ecumenical consensus in several instances about the practical use of natural law as it is embodied in the larger Christian tradition. As Robert Webber says in Who Gets to Narrate the World?, the entire Christian communion must rally together if they are to “contend for the Christian story in an age of rivals.”
Redeeming Tradition for Pastoral Theology
Even as we acknowledge the trends toward retrieval, it is important to avoid overstatement. As Ken Stewart has shown, though there is evidence of renewed interest in early church thought, there have been other seasons of retrieval during the last five centuries.[15] However, even if we consider these recent retrieval efforts as more of a riptide than tidal wave, it is still instructive to pastors and ministry practitioners.
Many church leaders value church history and its ability to inform belief and practice. Yet they are often confronted with instances where “tradition” has adversely shaped the church’s life. In other instances, tradition is considered irrelevant for guiding the church’s life altogether. How then may recent theological retrieval projects contribute to contemporary pastoral theology in a spiritually healthy way?
First, definitions are essential since “tradition” can be somewhat elastic. It may refer to the local customs of a specific people, or it may span a much larger period of belief and practice. It could be that the reason the function of tradition is contested is because tradition itself is a misunderstood concept. Pastors themselves first adopt a clear understanding of what makes tradition a biblical category, and then begin teaching its historical, theological, and spiritual significance.
Second, “tradition” can be construed as operative on at least three levels: (1) local tradition; (2) denominational or confessional tradition; and (3) the Great Tradition. Local traditions refer to those particular to a specific congregation. They are the ways that believers have thought of and embodied their faith. These have perhaps more authority than anything else as they are the faith as congregants know it. Therefore, pastors must learn and evaluate those traditions with biblical sensitivity so as to ground the flock in their existing traditions (assuming they are scripturally-based), or to shepherd them toward more biblically constructive ones.
Levels two and three come into view as they point individual congregations into their larger heritage, whether Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and something else. Their identity is bound up with this larger tradition; and thus it must not be dismissed in favor of only local traditions, which are informed by a more limited period of understanding and testing.
The third level is the one this essay largely has in view. It is that cloud of witnesses that have produced 2,000 years of thinking, living, and contending for the faith. Local churches and whole denominations can better understand their identity and connections with the larger Christian family if they will embrace the universal nature of the church through which God has worked for centuries.
Finally, congregants must be taught to embrace the wisdom found in historical consensus. Scripture reminds us that there is safety in the multitude of counselors (Prov. 11:14). However, often the historical location of those counselors makes us unwilling to hear them today. We fall prey to the chronological snobbery C.S. Lewis once warned about. Even earlier in the 20th century, G.K. Chesterton wrote about the “democracy of the dead,” which was significant in his apologetic Orthodoxy. That the dead can and should speak to the living is difficult for many to appreciate, whether they style themselves as “modern” or “postmodern.” Yet the New Testament often draws our attention back to the examples from the past in order to inform and order our belief and practice. Likewise, pastors today must enable their flock to understand the spiritual significance of the Christian past.
Not all retrieval projects will look the same, but churches that are purposely engaged in the work of retrieval may find that the past will better help them understand their present, and direct them to a better future.
____________________
[1] cf. Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999); Ancient-Future Evangelism: Making Your Church a Faith-Forming Community (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003); Ancient-Future Time: Forming Spirituality through the Christian Year (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004); Ancient-Future Worship: Proclaiming and Enacting God’s Narrative (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2008);
[2] Ancient-Future Faith, 7
[3] Ibid., 12.
[4] All references to this document come from a 2012 edition published by Life Books, LLC.
[5] To date, over a half a million persons have signed the Declaration.
[6] Ibid., 40, 45. For instance, in the way marriage is described as “holy matrimony.’
[7] Mark Yarhouse, Homosexuality and the Christian: A Guide for Parents, Pastors, and Friends (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2010), 24.
[8] Manhattan Declaration, 19.
[9] Ibid., 25-26.
[10] Manhattan Declaration, 29.
[11] Ibid., 40.
[12] Paul Snell, “Protestant Prejudice,” The City (Winter, 2013): 22.
[13] D.H. Williams, Evangelicals and Tradition: The Formative Influence of the Early Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 9.
[14] Snell, 22.
[15] Kenneth J. Stewart, “Evangelicalism and Patristic Christianity: 1517 to the present,” Evangelical Quarterly 80.4 (2008), 207-321.
Recent Comments