To clearly see the benefits of historical theology on cotemporary praxis, we need not hearken back to the reformers, or earlier. We should, mind you, but it is not always necessary to do so. Our culture is so far removed from even our American forefathers that we can learn much by studying the early American proto-evangelicals (that’s going to cause some grief :>). The Puritans have much to inform us regarding the spiritual disciplines. And men like Jonathan Edwards should be listened to regarding among other things soteriology and ecclesiology.
Read more…
Another Guy Using the “S” Word…
a chat with D.H. Williams – evangelical hope for historic orthodoxy?
Last week I had a brief chat with Dr. D.H. Williams. The following contains the issues he raised in our discussion, plus some additional information for those unfamiliar with the conversation. For those not into early church studies, Dr. Williams is currently Professor of Religion in Patristics and Historical Theology at Baylor University. Before this he was at Loyola University Chicago. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Toronto. He has written several books which are pertinent to our topic, including Evangelicals and Tradition: The Formative Influence of the Early Church, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants, He is the editor of and contributor to The Free Church and the Early Church: Essays in Bridging the Historical and Theological Divide. In short, this guy knows a thing or two about historic orthodoxy and he is an ordained minister with pastoral experience, so he can speak to practical matters regarding orthopraxy in evangelicalism.
Dr. Williams has recognized, along with others, a growing attraction to the authority of the ancient church (see the preceding post) and he is concerned that we approach the task of resourcement with some due care. For Free Church Evangelicals, resourcement means defining the central, orthodox teachings of historic Christianity and then answering the tough questions of authority and praxis for our in contemporary faith. This does not mean a shopping cart, take what looks good approach. The challenge comes when we admit that we have been so influenced by the enlightenment, modernity, post-modernity, secularism and so fourth that we are not objective. In fact, we need these early church writers to offer us a perspective that is clearly outside, prior to our current sitz en leben which produces our ecclesiological myopia.
Williams cautions that there are two extremes that should be avoided. First is the pessimism so prevalent in the discussion thanks to folks like Bart Ehrman and Eileen Pagels. (my examples, shoot me not him.) Their viewpoint sees no central orthodoxy in Christianity and they are loudly proclaiming this from the vantage point of popular media. Their viewpoint makes a great deal of sense, unless Jesus actually rose physically from the dead. If this happened their reasoning is flawed and the rest of their argument crumbles under the weight of faulty presuppositions.
The second extreme is an uncritical optimism. There are important aspects in the doctrine of the church that took much time and work to arrive at the best expression. There was diversity and conflict. These arguments have to be worked carefully through. Oden might be considered an example of this, as he sees a broad consensual tradition in the early church which can be fairly easily apprehended. The danger inherent in this path is in overlooking the tension between continuity and change and how that works out over time. Williams says that development “proceeds on the basis of the traditions past that leads to revisions or qualifications of that past in the present.”
Losing the battle of Christian History and its implications
[Summary] We have abdicated the teaching of Christian History to sociological theorists. This likely will have (is having) a dramatic negative effect on the free church evangelicals who already have a very tenuous grasp of historic orthodoxy. This emaciation is is less apparent in times of prosperity, but under pressure from economic downturns and/or persecution, the inability to know and hold to the central teaching and practices of the Christian faith could prove devastating to many.If you have done any reading on Christian History in the last decade or so, you were probably surprised to find very little that sounded distinctively Christian. Well, I would say don’t worry, but the situation is probably much worse that you thought.
Most students attending college still thankfully have to take some classes in the humanities. I think there is great value in studying the great writers and texts of the past. These classes are often taught by historigraphers. These scholars specialize in the “principles, theories, or methodology of scholarly historical research and presentation.” 1 The problem is that these practitioners have a distinct training which is heavily influenced by sociological theorists like Michel Foucault who emphasized power and its correlation with knowledge and discourse. Now, I can think of several ways I have issues with current methodologies in the study of history, but how does this relate to our unique history, specifically that of the Christian church? Well, it all begins when the universities began to wrest control of the study of Christianity from the seminary, dismantling and rebuilding their own departments, now under the auspices of the humanities department and staffing these positions with the likes of Hans J. Hillerbrand who teaches at Duke.
