Why I Won't Convert
Monday, August 29, 2011 at 4:45PM In the wake of my post "Honouring Mary as Protestants," I found myself drawn into an amicable Reformed-Orthodox dialogue of sorts on Orthodox-Reformed Bridge. In the discussion, I was challenged to explain my rejection of the idea that any tradition preserved intact and entire the timeless essence of true Christianity--did this not make me postmodernist, rejecting the objectivity of truth? Was this not just an excuse for Protestant subjectivism, picking and choosing my own little mix of traditions as I saw fit? In my replies, I summarized my view on the relationship of Protestantism and tradition, and why I see the call to "submit" to "the Church" as a cop-out, fuelled by a desire for easy solutions to doctrinal corruption and division. The following is adapted from those comments:
I am not a “postmodernist”–I do not think that all we have are “fragments of the Gospel.” I believe that the Gospel once delivered to the saints is a rock upon which the Church is built, and from which it can never depart. I believe that the heart of that faith remains constant over the millennia, but as history moves forward, the Church grows (and occasionally backslides) in its understanding of that faith, and that, so profound is the truth to which we are called to witness that no single formulation of it can claim to have captured it fully; on the contrary, all we can claim is to have testified to an aspect of it, and must be ready to consider that other Christians, or other eras of the Church, may have testified to another aspect, which we should not immediately rule out simply because it doesn’t line up exactly with our own. I also believe that under the guidance of the Spirit, the Church is advancing, and that we can be confident that on the whole, our grasp of the truth of God in Christ will grow rather than shrink.
There is, in short, an objective truth to the Christian faith. but it is an object so great, so large, so multi-faceted that each of us can only see certain parts of it at any given time, so we must always be ready to compare what we have grasped of it with what others have grasped, seeking to gradually put together a mosaic that will capture more and more of the whole picture. This is not postmodernism, because it presupposes that we all are actually looking at the same object, and seeing something real there outside ourselves. But it is not naive objectivism, which assumes that the object simply is what we have perceived–no more, no less.
You may be right in being concerned that this seems to give no simple, straightforward basis of combating “liberalism.” I believe that the search for some kind of magic weapon that will level all forms of liberalism with one well-placed blow, leaving only orthodox forms of the faith standing, is a fool’s errand. I believe that the kind of patient and humble submission to Scripture that I have described does give us the ability to identify and defeat inauthentic forms of the faith, false testimonies to Christ, but it will always have to be a patient and careful struggle. The magic weapons of the Magisterium or the Seven Ecumenical Councils are illusory–they are themselves embedded in the ambiguities and vicissitudes of history from which they claim to rescue us. The latter may provide a reliable guide to the issues that confronted the Church in that time, but new issues are always confronting the Church. The former may promise an authoritative answer to all of these new issues, but at the cost of its own consistency over the centuries, and without escaping the problem of interpretation–think of how many contradictory forms of Catholicism right now claim to be in submission to Vatican II.
The alternative is a commitment to semper reformanda. This need not mean, as critics will say, opting for a self-indulgent “continual smorgasbord” and “convenient selectivity.” Rather, it’s about a constant wrestling with the voice of Scripture, and the voice of its interpreters through all the ages of the Church, a willingness to never rest satisfied that we have all the answers, and instead to always allow ourselves to be interrogated by the Word. In this, we must always be open to the possibility that our understanding will grow and lead us to new theological insights, but in confidence that God does not change, and he has been faithful in leading his Church into truth in the past. Therefore, we may rest confidently upon the historic creeds of the Church, determined that even as our growing comprehension of the truth of the Gospel may shed new light on these foundations, it must never lead us to contradict them.
It’s hard to see how this can be dismissed as “convenient selectivity.” To my mind, this posture is a far more difficult and uncomfortable one than that which seeks the comfort of some ossified and de-historicized tradition that will decide in advance all questions, so that we can simply rest on, say, the determinations of the first 700 years of the Church (or some idealised compendium of them), without having to wrestle with the Scriptures ourselves.
The critic may respond that this makes us each into our own popes, listening to no authority but ourselves. I would suggest, on the contrary, that it requires us to listen to authority even more. Instead of simply taking one set of authorities from one period of the Church, we have to take seriously the authority of Augustine, of Athanasius, of Gregory Nazianzen, of Anselm, of Gregory Palamas, of Aquinas, of Luther, of Hooker, of Newman, of Schmemann, of John Paul II, of our own parents and pastors and all those that God has put into our lives. We have to do our best to listen respectfully to all these voices, instead of just one or two, and to submit our own judgments to their greater wisdom, seeking to find harmony when they disagree with one another, and when we cannot harmonise, making painful decisions about who to follow. And let me tell you, this is a hard thing to do. It cannot, in any case, be rightly done in an individualist, me-and-my-Bible way, but only in constant dialogue with other Christians, waiting patiently for the Spirit to guide us through the wisdom of our communities.
I should add, moreover, that this should always be done from a standpoint of submission to a particular tradition in which one has been called, using the language and categories of that tradition as one’s starting point and interpretive grid. For me, that’s the Reformed tradition. I have all kinds of problems with that tradition, but that’s where God has put me, and I believe therefore that I am called to, as much as possible, critique and revise that tradition where necessary from within itself (while listening attentively, as I have said above, to other voices from Church history), not by constructing a personal postmodern smorgasbord that contains pieces of all traditions but the heart of none.
Reader Comments (33)
Brad,
Please allow me a little friendly 'devil's-advocacy' that might sharpen our perceptions. Given the attractive eloquence of your post, what seems increasingly obvious here is that we have two views of Christian Discipleship. Though similarities and common doctrinal commitments certainly exist between us, there are fundamental differences. Our Protestant view of Discipleship is Progressive. The Church is our community of faith into which we are baptized and changed. Yet as we diligently develop our ever-changing (maturing) theology, liturgy and practice, we are active worker bees – in a Church (as you noted) too grand for any single man or group to fully comprehend. In this She becomes our great, collective, multifaceted science Project. There is no expectation, other than several core beliefs, that She will look the same to our our great-grandchildren as She does today – indeed, this is a good thing that proves our progress and maturity. There is an unmistakable entrepreneurialism, and structural liberty here in the various quests for innovation and progress.
If I have understood correctly, Orthodoxy, though offering some common doctrinal stones, has a very different vision for discipleship. The Church is not nearly so much to be built, as received. Rather than a giant science project ever morphing into something new and improved, the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth – once and for all delivered to the saint. Rather than searching for ways to change Her, the Orthodox are change by Her – in the practiced repetition of Her receive Divine Liturgies, prayers, Sacramental mysteries, sacred fasts, close communion with a vast array of saints... By these, through Her the world is changed from glory to glory. Rather than cultivating the spirit of innovation and progress – She cultivates submission, humility, and union with God – what they call theosis.
Obviously, this is not all that can be said, or should be said as we seek to learn from each other. Let me again commend your irenic spirit that allows for such friendly dialogue.
Sorry, I think I failed to check the "Notify me..." box...now done.
Brad, In retrospect, I think I was asking the wrong question when I asked if you were post-modern. I think the question should have been: Are you a theological modernist? I raise this question because of the following paraphrases that summarize what you said:
(1) There is an objective truth but it is so big that no one of us has the entire picture; theology is like a mosaic that we and others collaborate to piece together;
(2) We must be open to the possibility that "our understanding will grow and lead us to new theological insights"; and
(3) I am called to "critique and revise that tradition from within itself" while listening to other voices from church history.
If I understand you correctly, you see Christian theology as based upon a reasoned inquiry that rests upon sola scriptura and semper reformanda. You see it as incremental, developmental, and progressive. It also seems you view theological discourse being based mutual contestation much like the way modern scientists test and challenge rival hypotheses. I can see the appeal this approach has for you; it is inclusive, non-hegemonic, and reasonable.
I was both amused and perturbed by your colorful rhetoric. You certainly have a way with words but extreme language like "ossified and de-historicized tradition," "fool's errand," and "magic weapon" impede reasoned dialogue between those who advocate the Eastern Orthodox way of doing theology and the Protestant way. For example you oversimplified the Orthodox approach when you stated that one must do more than just "simply taking one set of authorities from one period of the Church." Orthodox theology does not restrict itself to a particular period. It includes modern day theologians like John Zizioulas, John Meyendorff, Georges Florovsky, Vladimir Lossky, et al. but it gives special place to the early Church Fathers. At the same time it excludes heterodox theologians because their theological systems rest on foundations different from that of Eastern Orthodoxy.
I have two observations about your reading list of Christian theologians. One, it strikes me as being a heavy burden to expect anyone to have read all these theologians. This echoes a complaint I made elsewhere about the heavy burden of adhering to sola scriptura. Two, it strikes me as rather provincial and narrow. It leaves out modern Protestant theologians like Karl Barth, Adolf Von Harnack, John A.T. Robinson (Bishop of Woolwich), Paul Tillich, Friedrich Schleiermacher, John Hick; and modern Roman Catholic theologians like Hans Kung, Leonardo Boff, and David Tracy. Your exclusion of the major modern theologians strikes me as arbitrary and "conveniently selective."
Lastly, I was concerned by your claim to be in submission to a particular tradition (the Reformed tradition) while also being called to "critique and revise" that tradition. This combined with your earlier statements about the progressive and developmental of Christian theology reminds me of the theological liberals I met and read during my time in the United Church of Christ. Much of twentieth century liberalism started off with an optimistic sincerity before it developed into unexpected beliefs and practices. I am not insinuating that you will become a theological liberal but I doubt your comprehensive Anglican approach to theology combined with the Hegelian dialectical approach advocated by Schaff to church history will be able to help stem the tide of theological liberalism and capitalistic consumerism that is already radically reshaping Protestantism today. You may find yourself in a comfortable Reformed niche but I fear that you will find the broader Protestant world will have morphed beyond recognition over the next several decades.
I will close with three cultural references. One is Robert Frost's poem "The Road Not Taken." You and I have reached the point where the road diverges into two separate directions. You have gone down one path and I the other. It may be one day our paths may cross. Another is Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son in which the younger brother sets off for a far off country. I worry about what may befall you in the far off country in your quest for a progressive Reformed catholicity. I came home from the far off country several years ago and now I see you heading out there! The third is Paul Simon's poignant "So Long Frank Lloyd Wright" addressed to his music partner Art Garfunkel before their breakup. I feel a theological kinship with you due to our common appreciation for Mercersburg Theology. I look forward to future conversations with you but it is quite clear that you and I are moving off in different directions.
David, at the risk of oversimplifying matters, we have two views of the church presented: that articulated by Littlejohn in the above post, which has continuity with the best in the Protestant tradition (as well as much of RC), and that which you have articulated in the above comment, which has continuity with the EO tradition. My question for you, which I hope you will answer in as direct a way possible, is what criteria do you think one ought to employ in determining which of these two models is correct?
Hey Robin,
First, how I characterized Orthodox praxis applies partly, to Reformed communities. Some would argue it's not EITHER Progressive theological development innovation, OR Received Liturgical and Sacramental nurturing Tradition - but BOTH. This is true in part for many Reformed Churches. Yet it's not nearly so central, given the same weight, form, or detail as found in Orthodoxy. So, my previous summary, thus modified, still grasps the dominant expression of discipleship & mission for each group.
Now, to your question: what criterion best tests the correctness to the two models? I suggest two, though there're likely others: Scripture and History. Biblical & Covenant Theology progressivly develop in the Old Covenant. For example, the Adamic/Abrahamic/Noahic Covenants are not as rich/full as the Mosaic or Davidic. But since our concern is with theological development after Christ's ascension, the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and the establishment of the Church – not before – this is no consolation. These are prior to the consummation of all Covenants in Christ.
So, did the Apostles engage in progressive theological development after Christ's ascension...? Does the Great Commission demand progressive theological development and innovation to teach Christian Disciple “all things I have command you”? Christ connected the dots which reveal Him in the Old Testament on the road to Emmaus – as did Phillip for the Ethiopian eunuch. The Apostles also taught these connections, fulfillments and subsequent implications of Christ in continuity with Old Testament promises in their teaching and writing of the new Testament. Is this innovative development – or just the clarification of biblical continuity and history? Also, is there continuation after the writing of the New Testament and Apostolic age with early Church Fathers? Are today's Protestant theologians only doing what the Apostles and Fathers did before them, say through Seven Ecumenical Councils?
Ephesians four, verses 13, 14 might argue for Orthodoxy's stability and maturity in the Early Church, with the implications of Heb. 5:12-14. While some are charged to...no longer be “children, tossed to and fro...” others need strong meat, are not babes needing milk, but teachers skilled by reason of use...” These exhortations & rebukes imply a stable maturity, as is found in a host of their writings, just as one might expect by reeving Christ's unique promises via the Holy Spirit. (We Protestants typically imply a self-serving childishness and vulnerable instability to the early Church and Fathers – which of course collapsed the Roman Empire and turned the world upside down – and upon whose giant shoulders we stand! Hum...this becomes both difficult if not awkward to sustain, or to a priori assume.)
Here, the historicity of the Church must be soberly faced. What do we find? Do we find a Protestant style of theological innovation and development? Or, do we find a early, stable, elaborate Liturgical and Sacramental Tradition zealously guarded by Church Fathers and Bishops? Is the belief and praxis of the early Church largely Protestant – or overwhelmingly Orthodoxy? The Apostles lived the balance of their lives under the promise of Jn. 14:26. What did the Holy Spirit bring to the remembrance of the Apostles...that they taught Timothy, Ignatius and their other disciples in time, on earth?
I hope this has been helpful and, of course, there is more to be said, and said wtih more flare. But these are wonderful issues to ponder over as we seek to please Christ...and woship and serve Him rightly.
Thanks Daivd, but just as you say that your characterization of Orthodox praxis applies partly to Reformed communities as well, who affirm that it's not EITHER Progressive theological development innovation, OR Received Liturgical and Sacramental nurturing Tradition, but BOTH, wouldn't it also be true that within Orthodoxy it is also both, or at least was up until a certain point in history. Because consider, if you walk into an Orthodox service today it does not look like a service in the first century, since the liturgy emerged progressively under the inspired imagination of men of God like Saint Basil and others (I can prove this historically from EO writers if it becomes necessary). Orthodoxy simply picked one point in time and decided not to innovate past that whereas Protestantism has continued to evolve. Orthodoxy is like a train that stopped ten miles past the starting point, whereas Protestantism is a thousand miles past it and has kept moving. Thus, the disagreement is not so much qualitative as quantitative, and the two positions are in principle perhaps a lot closer than we realize. Also, we would have to ask whether the innovating is occurring under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
Robin,
You're right about the Orthodox Liturgy not being the same as the first century liturgy. Part of the confusion comes from Orthodox Christians emphasizing how they have kept the Faith without change. The Orthodox understanding of tradition is organic. In place your train on a railroad track analogy I would like suggest we view the Orthodox liturgy like a growing mango tree. The seed and the emerging plant are quite different from the mature full grown tree but the basic features are still there. It's still a mango, it hasn't mutated into a banyan tree. With Protestantism there has emerged a quite different form of worship: the sermon centered worship as the dominant form of Sunday worship. I know that there are Protestants who will point out that the original Reformers gave priority to the proclamation of the Gospel and the sacraments but in general it is the sermon centered worship that has become the dominant de facto Protestant form of worship. Another Protestant departure from the historic worship is the abandonment of the episcopacy. Ignatius of Antioch insisted that a valid Eucharist could only take place under the authority of the bishop. Orthodoxy still holds to this ancient view. Given some of the rather bizarre forms of worship that have emerged in Protestantism in recent years I would have to disagree with your claim that the difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism is more quantitative than qualitative.
To reiterate, I would say that the Orthodox liturgy has retained its basic shape even as it developed over time. The same cannot be said about Protestant worship. I think Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral, Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel, Willowcreek and other megachurches, Pentecostalism's exuberant worship, Billy Graham and the Baptists' practice of altar calls represent not so much progress on the same railroad track, but a train jumping off the railroad track all together.
David, I am afraid you have imputed something to me that does not really reflect the words of the post above. You speak of me advocating a concept of the Church as something that we always actively construct, rather than passively receive, "ever morphing into something new and improved," envisioning the Church as a giant science project, in which we tinker and experiment and change things just for the heck of it. But this is not the kind of language I used.
I spoke of the Gospel as a constant rock under our feet, as a solid object which we are called to contemplate and come to a fuller and fuller grasp of. I spoke of patient and humble submission, of letting ourselves be interrogated by the word, of resting confidently on the historic creeds, of listening respectfully to the voices of the great teachers from church history, and of submitting to one's own tradition.
In other words, when you say that for the Orthodox, "The Church is not nearly so much to be built, as received," that "rather than cultivating the spirit of innovation and progress--she cultivates submission, humility, and union with God," that sounds an awful lot like what I was describing with all those phrases.
But here's the thing--think about what you are saying. If the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, what are pillars and grounds for? For building upon. The Church is not the whole building of the whole truth, but is the foundation of it. That doesn't mean there isn't any more work to do. You say that for the Orthodox, the Church and its teaching is to be "received." Ok, great. But what are you supposed to do with a gift you receive? Go hide it in a closet? No, use it. Reception is not purely passive, but active. If I gave you a book--say, if I gave you a book that I'd written (and this seems a good metaphor for the Church passing down its tradition) would I want you to treasure that book in a shrine? No, I'd like you to read it, engage with it, ask it questions, argue with it. And I wouldn't want you to come away from it just echoing everything I'd written, not unless I were a pretentious ass. Rather, I'd want you to improve upon it if necessary, to interact constructively and suggest where I could say what I wanted to say better.
The active/passive, dynamic/static, innovative/submissive dichotomies you're trying to draw are simply way too stark. We need humble, thankful reception which is not afraid to carry forward what it receives.
Robert,
First of all, much as I appreciate the interaction, let's get something straight. You're not my lifelong theological mentor. I didn't know you from the man in the moon a week ago. So, I'm not sure what the deal is with the patronising posturing as a comrade who has come to a tragic parting of the ways, of an older brother who is watching me wander off to a far country where I will be condemned to eat pig's slop--but do knock it off.
Second of all, a word about rhetoric. I wasn't intending to indulge in any kind of colourful rhetoric, and I'm surprised it came across that way. Nor do I think there's anything particularly "extreme" about those metaphors, or any reason why accusations of "ossified and de-historicized tradition" should be more harmful to reasoned dialogue than accusations of postmodernism or theological modernism. In any case, I was not applying these critical descriptions to you personally, or indeed to anyone interested in reasoned dialogue. I have known people who do convert to Rome or the East because they are looking for a magic weapon, and have a very de-historicized ideal of what those traditions have to offer. When people think that way, reasoned dialogue becomes very difficult to have, however much I might want it.
Third, your "observations about my reading list" seemed very odd indeed. For one thing, I never laid down the burden that everyone should have to read all these theologians. I think Protestant theologians, probably, ought to have read all of these, among others (though I haven't read Palamas), and it is our job to mediate this wide-ranging attentiveness to the Christian tradition to laymen in pews who haven't time to wrestle with the whole range of Christian theology on their own. For another, it's beyond me why you have pretended that this was supposed to be an exhaustive list. I was simply picking names--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant--out of a hat. All of the ones you list, as well as a host of others, merit study as well…though I would say that by the time you get to people like John Hick, you're hardly talking about a recognisably Christian theologian.
Finally, then, your new charge--that I am a "theological modernist." If those three affirmations that you list at the beginning qualify one for theological modernism, then are we all damned? Do you really want to maintain the opposite of each of these? 1) You or I can really have a complete unqualified grasp of who God is, and understand fully his work in the world and our place in it? 2) We should not expect our understanding to grow and lead us to new insights, but should be confident that we already know everything worth knowing? 3) My tradition never needs any critique or revision, but are untainted and a perfect image of God's revelation; I should thus never feel the need to listen to how other Christians have put things? I don't think you would want to say any of these things. So calling me a modernist on the basis of these statements is more than a little unfair.
While affirming the provisionality of human attempts to grasp truth, I nevertheless affirm God's faithfulness to his Church, through his Holy Spirit, by which we can have assurance that however much we may misunderstand things, he has not allowed his church to get it completely wrong on the essentials in the past, and will not in the future. So, unlike a modernist, I do not think the core truths of our credal confession are revisable. Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God come in human flesh. He died for us, rose for us, lives eternally in glory for us, etc. We always have to keep working to understand rightly all the implications of these profound truths, but they are not negotiable. And that means that sometimes we have to be exclusive, hegemonic, and unreasonable. And I have no problem with that.
With reference to the last two paragraphs--you should know that, on the contrary, I am far more stable and confident in my theology now than I have been in a long time. If there was ever a time when I was wandering aimlessly into some far country, I certainly don't think it's now. Richard Hooker wouldn't let me get away with it. Nor would I wholeheartedly affirm Schaff's Hegelian dialectical approach to church history--there's definitely something undeniably Hegelian about how history, including church history, often seems to work, but it's far too complicated and messy to be mapped out the way someone like Schaff perhaps wanted to. Nor am I in a comfortable Reformed niche right now--perhaps I was a few years ago, but I assure you that the University of Edinburgh, and St. Paul's and St. George's Church, do not answer to that description, and I strive to be contextual in my theological reflections.
(Sorry Brad, wrote this before your post...response to your excellent posts will have to wait)
I understand Robin's point above, but believe it overstated. While we certainly shouldn't strain to maximize our differences – it might be as foolish to minimize them. I included the caveat to be fair – the Reformed Traditon (unlike most all of Protestantism) has not altogether repudiated the validity and benefits of a formal Liturgical and Sacramental life. Indeed, many of us have begun recently to re-learn as novices. To sumise this merely a difference of quantiy, and not also a distinction of kind and quality, is to have the caveat cause you to miss the point altogether.
First, I don't believe the Orthodox would conceed they have ever engaged in innovative development theology. I suspect they'd argue that the Liturgical and Sacramental Theology they practice is largely inherited (received) from the Oral Tradition of the Apostles themselves via the Holy Spirit. This form has remained essentially intact despite its fleshing out over time, and the additions of new saints, as you noted (hard to venerate Saints not yet born). Thus, they argue that if the Apostoles or Patristic Fathers were to visit an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, or pious household today – they would be at home, recongnizing it as very familiar. This process continues under the direction of the Holy Spirit active in the life of the Church, and confirmed by the Councils, Bishops and Churches over the centuries.
This praxis is a far different in both form and process, than a couple Protestant worship leaders deciding on Wednesday night what they wanna do in the worship service (Liturgy) the next Sunday – OR what a few demonimation's theological gurus discovered last month in bible study, to tweak the liturgy yet again. If I've understood rightly, to liken the Orthodox mindset to Protestant notions of innovation, development, and progress is completely hostile to Orthodoxy's theological mindset. It's not so much that the Othodox theological train stopped ten miles after starting, but that Protestantism insists on playing the prodical by repudiating its inheritance & history delivered to them by the Apostles, Fathers and Holy Spirit.
Paraphrasing my prior post: for the Orthodox, the Church is not a project that needs to be BUILT, so much as as the supernatural body of Christ to RECEIVED. Or, the Church is not so much a science project forever morphing into something new and improved – but the pillar and ground of Truth, once and for all delivered to the saint. While the differences between Orthodoxy and Reformed Protestantism are certainly NOT absolute – the differences are those of starkly divergent presuppositions, history, Discipleship, Church Mission and praxis.
One more point for Robert:
You said: "I would like suggest we view the Orthodox liturgy like a growing mango tree. The seed and the emerging plant are quite different from the mature full grown tree but the basic features are still there."
I believe this is Bl. Newman's doctrine of development, and not the Orthodox one.
Hey Brad. Though I was responding to your Blog post, I assumed my tongue-in-cheek devil's advocacy allowed me some liberty to generalize. Not every comment is a direct response to you personally – anymore than you directed your “ossified and de-historicized tradition” remark at me personally. Please forgive me if I've overstepped my latitude.
Your post eloquently noted areas of received tradition that the Reformed & Orthodox communities share in common. Reading Bishop Ware's _The Orthodox Church_ I remember being struck by his conciliatory remarks about our areas of agreement. My concern was not to highlight and revel in those areas of agreement, but to focus on HOW they are received and APPLIED after their reception. You say I've made the differences too stark. Perhaps I have, yet Robin largely misses the point. (Recall Mr. Chaney's character on the old TV show Green Acres, whose every point made, died the death of his own multitude of qualifications!) Yes, there's agreement, at least in some sense, of the Church RECEIVED. The disputes revolve around HOW we “carry forward” and APPLY what exactly is received.
Now I ask you to notice “the thing” and think about what you are saying.” You say you reverently receive & reverence the Traditions of the Church – allthewhile insisting that however wise, deep (multi-layered) our beautiful mosaic might be – it yet must allow for our revision, innovative development. ('spect Moses had the same problem, egh?) Isn't this Rome's view! Little wonder the Orthodox see this sort of “Receiving” and “Submission” with caution. You receive the Filioque, but reject the Pope's authority, you receive and revere Mary theologically, but reject Her liturgically (?), you receive the Trinitarin formulations of Nicene & her Creed (mostly) yet reject parts of the Councils...Fathers – exactly as you reserve the right to “respectfully receive” or reject any theologian on your list – or any point of their unanimous agreement. (Luther/Jiminy Cricket's conscience mustn't be bound!) Ultimately (however much you are not altogether comfortable with it)...you ARE your own Pope! This is Protestantism and you are (WE are!) straining to make it as plausible & wise as we can. But let's at least be honest. It's a selective “receiving” a selective “humility” & a selective “submission”– all submerged in modern Individualism. Perhaps we will prevail! :-)
Perhaps we suffer from an unspoken malady that lies beneath our tensions. We can not fathom HOW a received Tradition from outside our history and knowledge, however rich in Scripture, Liturgy, Prayers, Sacraments, Prayer rules, Fasts, Icons, Services, Chants, Incense...(likely far more than we Protestant can grasp from the outside) – can possibly be “ENOUGH” for us to move forward? Do we subconsciously believe that the potency and power of the Gospel really lays outside our pious & practiced repetition of these things? The faithful Israelite boasted in God's Law, challenging the nations to come and see its wisdom. Why is the depth of our far more elaborate Christian Theology and deep Traditions “Not-Enough” for us to conquer and prevail? Honestly don't pretend to know all the answers here (shocking!). Yet in God providence, we must at least ask the questions. God bless and keep you brother. :-) Please forgive any unintended impertinence.
I'd just like to squeeze in here briefly and point out a pet peeve of mine. A common accusation against Protestantism is, "Oh, look how many different bizarre forms it takes...look at all the heresies and the weirdness. Obviously Protestantism is flawed." Regardless of whatever one happens to believe, I don't believe this is a fair accusation.
(And for what it's worth, there are some pretty weird strains of Roman Catholicism out there...but that's not my point right now, so I don't want to get distracted by that.)
Protestantism will always be weirder than Roman Catholicism....by definition. And here's why: branches of Christianity like Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy are positively-defined. Anybody within *this* circle counts as RC, or EO, or whatever. But Protestantism is negatively-defined. Anybody *not* in the other circles automatically counts as Protestant. Therefore, practically anybody could be in that category, sane men and insane men alike. In the current nomenclature, Protestantism is by definition the "miscellaneous drawer" of the Church.
So of course there are weird things in Protestantism. Many of them have absolutely no relationship to one another. For example: Free Will Baptists, unlike most baptists, trace their historical roots to the Radical Anabaptists; Southern Baptists are completely different and trace their historical roots to the Particular Baptists within the Reformed tradition; Methodism historically began as a revival movement within the Anglican Church; the Union of Utrecht is basically a bunch of Roman Catholic churches that split away from Rome over the issue of Papal Infallibility; there's a denomination called "The Church of God With Signs Following", and I have no idea where they came from, but I know they like to handle snakes in their worship services. All of these things and more count as "Protestant", not because they are related to each other in the slightest historically or theologically, but because they all fall into the "miscellaneous" category of Christianity. The Roman Church and the Eastern Church get to decide who is and isn't RC and EO. But nobody in Protestantism gets to make a decision about who is or isn't....by default, anybody who wants to be a Protestant is one! Nothing anybody can do about it.
You see what I mean. It can be tricky comparing something positively-defined with something negatively-defined. A bit like apples and oranges. Depending on the discussion, it might be more helpful instead to speak of certain traditions within Protestantism, i.e., Reformed Presbyterianism or Traditional Anglicanism or something like that. Circles that you can actually be excommunicated from. Then it's more like apples and apples.
Brad,
No, I'm not your mentor and we've never met. But I did appreciate your positive opinion of Mercersburg Theology. Mercersburg Theology played a major role in my theology so I was delighted to come across your book.
I wasn't trying to be patronizing in my comment and I apologize if I offended you. I still stand by what I wrote.
As far as your rebuttal about my comments about the bizarre forms of worship in Protestantism I pointed to examples that fall within the mainstream of contemporary Protestantism. I took care to make sure that I wasn't setting up any straw man arguments. There was a time when Protestantism could be defined in terms of clearly defined groups from which one could be excommunicated but that no longer applies as Protestantism has evolved into families of groups and movements. How one defines what a Protestant is a matter of choice given the diversity of social manifestations. I think your narrower definition works well for the earlier part of Protestant history but not for the later periods as Protestantism began to undergo differentiation. I don't see any reason why the groups I mentioned should be excluded from the category of Protestantism.
Matthew Petersen,
You might be right about my tree analogy being similar to John Henry Newman's developmental theory. I wish I had read this important essay but I haven't. Perhaps I should. My tree analogy is an attempt to summarize what I read about Orthodox Tradition.
Robert, I think Matt is likely right about the Tree analogy. It work very well for God's erternal covenant. The seed of the Covenant with Adam -- blooms through Abraham, Noah, Moses, David and reaches its consumation in Christ -- full grown and in full bloom. There is development and progress. Palmer Robertson's excellent book, _The Christ of the Covenant_ unfolds this very well (seed-to-full bloom).
Perhaps (and I'm thinking out loud here so don't roast me too unmercifully) the Gospel once and for all delivered to the Saints is different -- more like the Law of Moses -- a desposit of revelation to be received? The Apostles & Fathers assume the role of Moses receiving and delivering it to the Saints. It is rich, deep, and like the Law, not to be ammended so much as to be ritualized in Liturgy and Sacrament -- to be sung, searched-out, contemplated and glorified before the nations. And by its pious and practiced repetition, it transforms men into the image of God, then families and nations from glory to glory. The debate or question before us is: to Whom do we look for (not the only) but the Fullest/Richest expression of this Holy Gospel, the Charismatics, Reformed, Roman Catholics or the Orthodox.....?
Hello Robert,
Just to clarify, my name is Bradley Belschner (not to be confused with Bradford Littlejohn), and I was the one who posted the comment about bizarre forms of Protestantism. Please understand, I was only articulating a pet peeve of mine---I don't think it would qualify as a "rebuttal" of anything you said. In fact, I agree with you when you say "I don't see any reason why the groups I mentioned should be excluded from the category of Protestantism." That's precisely my point. Protestantism will always contain those bizarre groups, because of how Protestantism is defined. The term lumps together Pentecostals, Reformed Presbyterians, the Amish, and Anglicans. In some ways it's useful to lump all these miscellaneous groups together, because they do have one thing in common: they aren't Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (or Assyrian Orthodox...the forgotten little brother of Church History). But that's the only thing they have in common. Sometimes you can make useful criticisms of that category...for instance, if you criticize them for not holding a Roman view of authority, or something like that. But that's about it. If you start to criticize certain practices, or certain bizarre forms of worship, well then, that doesn't apply to everybody in Protestantism. My congregation has about as much in common with the Amish as yours does. Theologically and historically, we're miles apart. So if you're making specific accusations, make sure you're talking about specific circles. Otherwise, it's just meaningless.
In summary: logically, it makes sense to criticize Protestants for what they aren't. But it doesn't make any sense to criticize Protestants for what they are, because that will vary wildly by definition.
Bradley makes a good point about Protestantism being defined by what it isn't. It is easy to argue against Protestantism because, by definition (by virtue of being defined through negation), it includes so much, including stuff that is really 'out there.' I found that point of Brad's very helpful.
The historic reformed tradition is simply not like Robert and David are claiming since historic Protestantism believes it is receiving the whole package delivered to the Saints and does not claim the right to amend it (at least not in theory, though we would have to look in practice to see what has happened). Protestantism would actually argue that, as far as EO is concerned, the shoe is actually on the other foot. Historic Protestantism claims to increase in understanding the meaning of that package it is receiving, but then so does EO in the Councils and the development of Liturgy (since we have already established that EO worship evolved from the first century until a certain point in time where the evolution suddenly ceased). So a lot of this is simply the stuff of straw man argumentation.
However, if we want to say insist that Orthodox mean "Presbyterian Lutheran and Anglican" by "Protestant" we'd better be prepared for the fact that by and large the churches which are heirs of the Presbyterian Lutheran and Anglican traditions, are only marginally heirs of Christ. We get Spong and Robinson and all the similar Presbyterians and Lutherans. We get, as Protestant, the PCUSA (2.0 million communicants), and the ELCA (2.4 million confirmed members), and TEC (2.1 million baptized); not the PCA (0.3 million) LCMS (1.8 million) or the REC (0.01 million). True, things are different in Africa, but I think our opponents are doing their best to be charitable when they treat Protestants as Evangelicals. And actually, I'd be willing to bet we consider Evangelicals to be Protestant before we consider liberal Anglicans to be so. As a case in point: New St. Andrews requires that their students "regularly attend a confessionally evangelical and orthodox Protestant church."
There might be eye-brows raised if a student wanted to attend an Charismatic church, and only a few have attended a broad Evangelical church; but students are forbidden from making their home church the liberal Presbyterian, Lutheran, or Episcopal churches. (And also from attending an Orthodox Church.) This statement says that the ones we at Christ Church and Trinity identify with are the broad Evangelical "Protestants", not those in the actual Magisterial tradition; and moreover, definitely not the Catholics and Orthodox.
I believe this should temper our enthusiasm for insisting on true Protestantism a little, and also our claims that Protestantism is like Orthodoxy and Catholicism. If we actually believed this, we should act as if it were true.
Good point Matt, but Robin? You chide the Orthodox for not being continuously innovating as we Protestants are “a thousand miles past Orthodoxy” – only to claim Protestantism does not reserve any rights to theological progress! You go on to admit and defend the “evolution of historic Protestantism's understanding and meaning” while scolding the Orthodox of stopping too soon...deluded in thinking you have somehow “established” they evolved thru the seven councils...and have the gall to claim David and Robert are creating “strawman argumentation” This is embarrassing
In this light is not the “deposit of the faith” delivered by the Apostles really just a “rough-draft” skeleton to be fleshed out? Robin wants this, but also wants the Orthodox in bed with him...but then chides them for getting out of bed – only then to claim he and Protestantism are (low and behold) not amending anything! As a Protestant wanting to see good arguments, one wonders just how any of this puts “the shoes on the other foot” for Orthodoxy as much as it puts Robin's foot in his own mouth. Sorry, Robin, don't mean to be mean, but you gotta do better than this. Much better.
Has anyone dealt with the distinction Robert/David? made between the Law being delivered and rejoiced/gloried over, and taught to the nations, not subject to the same sort of development that the Covenants before Christ and the Church is establishment clearly did have? If so I've missed it. Also, how does Protestant-Magisterium as Church Authority work? Can Luther's Protestant conscience be bound (trumped) by Church Authority? Or, as was hinted, does Brad's (in principle) retain the right to individually reject the unanimous verdict of his favorite (selected) theologians, only to (with complete legitimacy) move on to devolve his own “new and improved” Liturgies, Successions, Sacramentalism, you name it? Men, let's live honestly with the choices we make, okay. I am comfortable, and would like to stay Protestant, but I'm feeling the sand shift under my feet.
Wow, talk about an exercise in massive misunderstanding! This evening or tomorrow if I have time I will clarify what I ACTUALLY said.