Remembering the “Progressive Orthodoxy”
of Horace Bushnell, Part 1/3
by Roger Olson
August 11, 2012
One thing I like to do here is point readers back to neglected theologians. As a historical theologian I find many “new” proposals in theology are not that new. Often they echo theological ideas of the past even as their promoters advance them as new. There’s some truth to the old sayings that there’s nothing new under the sun and that history repeats itself. In fact, sometimes it becomes downright wearisome to hear or read about an allegedly new idea or movement in theology that isn’t really new at all.
One theologian of America’s history many of whose ideas reappear in new forms (and perhaps they were not new with him, either) is Horace Bushnell (1802-1876). He was an original thinker that found ways to express older ideas that seemed to many to transcend the divides in American Protestantism.
Unfortunately, in spite of his tremendous influence on American Protestant theology, Bushnell has been largely forgotten as his books have gone out of print. (I believe only one of his books is still in print: Christian Nurture. Others may be printed by publishers who print runs for specific needs such as a class in a university or seminary.) I would say that America has only produced a few world class theologians who stood out as especially influential as somewhat original thinkers: Jonathan Edwards, Horace Bushnell, Walter Rauschenbusch, Reinhold Niebuhr, John Howard Yoder. (I don’t include Paul Tillich because Germany really “produced” him even though he wrote his Systematic Theology in America.)
Unfortunately, in spite of his tremendous influence on American Protestant theology, Bushnell has been largely forgotten as his books have gone out of print. (I believe only one of his books is still in print: Christian Nurture. Others may be printed by publishers who print runs for specific needs such as a class in a university or seminary.) I would say that America has only produced a few world class theologians who stood out as especially influential as somewhat original thinkers: Jonathan Edwards, Horace Bushnell, Walter Rauschenbusch, Reinhold Niebuhr, John Howard Yoder. (I don’t include Paul Tillich because Germany really “produced” him even though he wrote his Systematic Theology in America.)
Of course, each one of them stood on the shoulders of previous giants; none introduced totally new theological ideas. Each, however, produced theological proposals that seemed original and innovative enough to draw attention and gained broad followings because they seemed to solve some pressing problems, at least for a time.
Earlier here I questioned Edwards’ greatness. What I really meant to question was the unbelievable renaissance of Edwards as demonstrated in the new studies of his theology being published every year and in his popularity through his popularizers such as John Piper. I’m not at all sure Edwards deserves the attention he’s getting right now [(sic, cf. A Christian Humanist Manifesto, Parts 1-3, by Roger Olson, November 14,15,16)].
Just as great, in my estimation, and just as neglected as Edwards is remembered (both responses undeserved, in my opinion), is Bushnell. Relatively conservative, broadly evangelical Protestant Christians, theologians, pastors and students, could learn much and be enriched by rediscovering the New England theologian. I have begun that process, I hope, by including a chapter on him in my forthcoming book on modern theology.
I consider Bushnell to have been a “mediating theologian.” I think it’s unfortunate that he is usually categorized as liberal by both conservatives and liberals in theology. In my opinion, the best description of his theology, overall, is “progressive orthodoxy.” It’s a label attached to his theology by scholars of American Christianity and theology. I’m not sure who first labeled it so. I disagree with Gary Dorrien, renowned scholar of American liberal theology, who rightly calls Bushnell “America’s greatest nineteenth-century theologian” but wrongly (in my estimation) describes him as “the theological father of mainstream liberal Protestantism.” (The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion 1805-1900, p. 111.)
Now, if all Dorrien meant was that Bushnell was misunderstood by some of his followers (e.g., Theodore Munger) such that mainstream liberal Protestantism afterwards came to consider him their theological father, fine, I can agree with that. However, Dorrien treats Bushnell as a true liberal, even if somewhat inconsistent, and with that I disagree. He certainly displayed liberalizing tendencies, especially compared with the Old School Princeton theologians (e.g., Archibald Alexander and Charles Hodge), but his main target for correction was Unitarianism which was growing by leaps and bounds in New England (Bushnell’s territory) and the “Victorian liberalism” that was accommodating to it in order to counter movements of thousands of Congregationalists away from traditional churches to it.
Dorrien defines the essence of “liberal theology” as “the idea that Christian theology can be genuinely Christian without being based upon external authority.” (Ibid., p. xiii) Later, he describes the “liberal Victorian gospel” as “The good news of…the triumph of spirit over nature as mediated by the example and teaching of Jesus. Under the influence of Jesus, the perfectly God-conscious redeemer, human beings are liberated from the selfish impulses of their animal nature and transformed into persons in right relation with God. To be saved is to experience the fulfillment of one’s moral and spiritual personality through the triumph of the indwelling spirit of Christ over nature.” (p. 402)
I prefer historical theologian Claude Welch’s definition of liberal theology as “maximal accommodation to modernity.” However, I don’t think Bushnell himself, as opposed to some of his followers, fit any of those definitions. In fact, after reading Dorrien’s own discussion of Bushnell (almost 70 pages!), I don’t see how he can categorize Bushnell himself (as opposed to his followers who misinterpreted him) could treat Bushnell as truly liberal. Almost all scholars of Bushnell I consulted for writing my chapter on him agreed that his followers created the impression of him as liberal. Bushnell himself was far from liberal when stood alongside later liberal Protestants such as Harry Emerson Fosdick.
By no means do I agree with everything Bushnell advocated. For example, I disagree with his idea of “Christian nurture”—something he is usually remembered for, especially by those in the field of Christian education. Bushnell argued in his book by that title that normally children raised in Christian homes and churches simply grow up Christian, if they are spiritually formed correctly; they have no need of a dramatic conversion experience or radical decision of faith. He was opposed to viewing children of Christians in the church already as a mission field. I disagree with him about that, but that’s not directly relevant to my argument here—that Bushnell was no liberal theologian in either Dorrien’s or Welch’s sense of the word.
Now, I’m going to stop here for now and post a follow up message soon about Bushnell’s theology. What I want to warn about now and here, however, is that I will not post comments arguing that Bushnell was “liberal” JUST BECAUSE he didn’t believe in the penal substitution theory of the atonement ...
[(at last count Relevancy22 has reported on 6 viable theories of atonement, each as biblical as the other: cf. the postscript, "Kurt Vonnegut and the Sacred Solidarity of God with Humanity," - res, 1.8.2013)] -
... or JUST BECAUSE he didn’t take Genesis 1-11 literally, or JUST BECAUSE he didn’t believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, etc., etc. I’m well aware that some of my valued readers are very conservative theologically and will inevitably consider Bushnell liberal just for those reasons (as they will consider anyone liberal just for those reasons).
[(at last count Relevancy22 has reported on 6 viable theories of atonement, each as biblical as the other: cf. the postscript, "Kurt Vonnegut and the Sacred Solidarity of God with Humanity," - res, 1.8.2013)] -
... or JUST BECAUSE he didn’t take Genesis 1-11 literally, or JUST BECAUSE he didn’t believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, etc., etc. I’m well aware that some of my valued readers are very conservative theologically and will inevitably consider Bushnell liberal just for those reasons (as they will consider anyone liberal just for those reasons).
When I deny that Bushnell was truly liberal I mean in the classical sense as defined by Schleiermacher and Ritschl, the two leading 19th century liberal Protestant theologians, and especially as defined by Gary Dorrien and Welch above. Without any doubt Bushnell, like almost everyone in his time, was accommodating, rightly or wrongly, to some aspects of modernity. I argue in my forthcoming book that even Hodge was doing that.
But the question is whether Bushnell truly deserves his reputation as the “father” of American mainstream liberal theology. Can a straight line be drawn, for example, from him to Fosdick? I say no. And he does not belong in the same category as the real liberals of his time such as William Ellery Channing and Henry Ward Beecher and later real liberals such as Washington Gladden and Harry Emerson Fosdick.
But the question is whether Bushnell truly deserves his reputation as the “father” of American mainstream liberal theology. Can a straight line be drawn, for example, from him to Fosdick? I say no. And he does not belong in the same category as the real liberals of his time such as William Ellery Channing and Henry Ward Beecher and later real liberals such as Washington Gladden and Harry Emerson Fosdick.
My argument will be that Bushnell was a mediating theologian—attempting creatively but faithfully (to the gospel) to bridge the divide between orthodoxy and progressivism in American religion.
And I will argue that what we need today is a new Bushnell, a new mediator between true liberal theology (e.g., process theology) and neo-fundamentalism (e.g., conservative evangelical theology that requires belief in inerrancy, penal substitution, etc.).*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
POSTSCRIPT
by R.E. Slater
January 8, 2013
by R.E. Slater
January 8, 2013
Horace Bushnell was a 19th century evangelical theologian who strayed between the lines of conservative evangelicalism and the neo-orthodoxy of 20th century yet to come. As such, some would claim Bushnell's theology as too "liberal," which I think confuses his legacy with what it really was... a precursor to early neo-orthodoxy.
In many ways Bushnell was a good illustration of a theologian who was burden for his generation's biblical literacy and worked faithfully at pushing the contemporary boundaries of biblical thought from both sides of the floor - attempting as he might to "fill the gap" between evangelical Protestantism and Liberal Theology. For his effort he was loved by the Congregational churches of his day and defamed by others both right and left of his contemporary positions.
Here at Relevancy22 we too are attempting to speak to the contemporary issues of the 21st century created by the gaps between present day conservative evangelicalism and neo-liberal theology pulling at each end of the ecclesiastical spectrum. With the advent of Karl Barth and other neo-orthodox theologians during the middle of the 20th century the bar has been set, and reset, multiple times in a continuing balancing act to speak to the Scriptures faithfully pertaining to the issues confronting the church of the modernistic era (an era birthed in the Enlightenment some 200 years ago). Some tell of themselves as progressive evangelics; others as progressive (as vs. mainstream) denominationalists, some as neo-Anabaptists, neo-Lutherans, neo-Catholics, and so forth.
Thus, to avoid confusion (and perhaps create a little bit more!), we have adopted the term of Emerging Christians who presently are undertaking directional discourse and studies for determining what an Emergent, Postmodern Theology can mean to Christianity today. Which is not unlike the similar undertaking once found in Bushnell's early efforts of speaking a more progressive, perhaps even a neo-orthodox, message of Christ as the church's theology waggled between the conservative and liberal issues and doctrines of its day.
Hence, this blogsite here is an instance of the dozens of names and organizations - both old and new - each attempting to bridge the moderating gap between divisive modernistic forces. Between forces fighting to remain staid and irrelevant, wishing for the grand old days of 19th Century Enlightenment, against other Christian voices and groups equally desiring to push beyond today's old timey pulpiteering rhetoric to the undiscovered lands of postmodernistic opportunities and renewing Christian witness. And sometimes too far, beyond biblical reach and the orthodox understanding of theology.
And while this author here of Relevancy22 has shown time-and-again how Emergent Theology itself can stand within this middling ground of mediation, some would say that it is not so, accusing Emergent Theology as too liberal. As unbiblical. As dishonoring to Christ and His Word. While proponents to the left would go too far, speaking in the more liberal tones of Continental Philosophy and Theology, of revisionist church history, of describing the person and work of Jesus in humanistic overtones. Blithely preaching redressed Christian heresies obdurately unaware of their theological divide with past Christian orthodoxy. An orthodoxy that needs renewing. That needs a Postmodern resurrection out of its overlong modernistic grave. Into this scenario has come an Emergent, Postmodern Theology to temper the fires both right and left of the Gospel of Christ (an impossible task that seems doubtful at best to accomplish!). A theology attempting to bring solidarity to the church of God fractured in its divisional exuberances and heighten revisioning for the world as it struggles to determine what this Age of Postmodernism means to its doctrinces, dogmas, practices and ministries.
At Relevancy22 we have attempted to take the middling road between what is truly biblical without becoming obtusely mired in Evangelicalism's ideological dogmas - nor uncritical of Emergent Christianity's fanning flames for Jesus fraught with their own passions and historical revisionisms. It is true, that Emergent Theology does think-and-feel differently from that of its conservative Evangelical, and Progressive Denominational, neighbours, through no fault of its own. Nor should Emergent Christianity and its developing theology be jettisoned because of past popular Evangelical mis-statements, nor because of the exuberances of its over-zealous proponents seeking to defend their beliefs. And yet ultimately, Emergent Christianity wishes to speak to the loss masses of humanity that is unhindered by Evangelical stereotypes and its modernistic excesses (sic, its business culture for one, and consumerist mindset, as another) using Emergent-speak to construct a vision of God's love and reach. A vision that may be non-threatening when spoken from its American, Westernized cultures, and pacific and sympathetic towards Third World countries and cultures.
Hence, Postmodernism has rightfully claimed its illuminating affects upon any Christian thinker wishing to depart modernistic, secular, theologies for a redefined version of a postmodernistic, postsecular Christianity. And in the process uncover infrastructural linkages to their ecclesiological past requiring patient deconstruction (as well as insightful reconstruction) in the name of Jesus. I believe this movement to be led by the divine guidance of God in the renewing effort of Spirit-burdened prayer. Under a fruitful biblical scholarship committed to Scriptural observance while investigating and integrating accumulating, accretive, academic disciplines to the Christian faith. And amassing under the mesmerizing energy of affiliating Emergent believers desperate to share God's redeeming mercy and forgiveness, love and healing, in purity of heart and social common cause. A message that surely must be resurrected and preached by words of action and hearts true.
Consequently, Emergent Theology will be different from Evangelical or, conservative Protestant, Theology. But rightfully so, given its differing era with its differing, viable, postmodern social needs, language, thought-forms, and comportments. While at the same time maintaining an ever faithful allegiance to the Word of God, and to Jesus as Lord and Savior, pitting it against any liberal theologies wishing to apply to it. And from this fiery furnace we will find a God who is redeeming a remnant for His name, purified for His use, and charged with the task of sharing the gospel of Jesus into the many lost worlds of humanity. Grown closer by communication and technology, industry and transportation, expanding trade and finance, growing infrastructures and corresponding energy vacuums. With equally growing ecological realizations to preserve rapidly diminishing resources that are irreplaceable, that require better governance relative to the burgeoning needs both humanitarian and educational, and a vision filled with the rapidly expanding global communities and civilizations of this world in mind.
As such, Relevancy22 is an attempt to lift up the Emergent discussion and theological trajectory in ways that remain true to biblical orthodoxy, while uncoupling itself from past (perhaps, self-sustaining) Evangelical dogmas, folklores, and ideologies. While in its reinvigorated explorations of theological research and application, uncover orthodox theological linkages to the past that can themselves be uplifted into today's postmodern discussions of the Christian Gospel's message and mission. Yes, Emergent Theology will be radical, but it should not be considered as a departure from old-line Christian orthodoxy. But one that is simply a resurrected orthodoxy that is under development and being respoken in postmodern terms.
Lastly, into the contemporary Emergent folds has come its corresponding Evangelical counterpart known as Radical Orthodoxy. Both are postmodern in perspective, and so will be similar in this regard, but with Radical Orthodoxy's introduction seemingly comes the heavy philosophical structure of neo-platonism coupled with the biblical structure of neo-Calvinistic Reformed Theology. Which at this junction limits hermeneutical boundaries to the claims of biblical literalness; prefers the Calvinistic doctrines of God's power (TULIP) over His love (the Arminian DAISY); propounds Evangelic dogmas and practices wishing to hold on to limiting versions about God, humanity, sin, hell, and judgment, gender inequalities, and bigotries; and any number of other contemporary discussions that we have been holding here at Relevancy22 since its inception. As such, we must also research Radical Orthodoxy to its claims and birthrights, directions and purposes.
However, it is the current estimation here that to recover orthodox Christianity does not necessarily mean that we recover evangelical Christianity. As such, we're more in favor of starting anew under a new banner and industry, known as Emergent Christianity, much as a son or daughter begins anew from their family, thanking their parents for their help (or non-help) and pushing on to make their own distinctions and narrative. Such is how we feel here at Relevancy22.
If Evangelicalism wishes at all to be helpful, than let it contribute to their son-and-daughter's spiritual future and not to their spiritual demise. Each may learn of the other as each has much to give. Let us then learn to speak in softer tones of love and grace when books like "Love Wins" would draw out the rancorous religiosity of our spirits and not the humility found in Christ....
And with that let's proceed to Dr. Olson's review of Horace Bushnell, 19th century reformer and theologian, Parts 2+3.
R.E. Slater
In many ways Bushnell was a good illustration of a theologian who was burden for his generation's biblical literacy and worked faithfully at pushing the contemporary boundaries of biblical thought from both sides of the floor - attempting as he might to "fill the gap" between evangelical Protestantism and Liberal Theology. For his effort he was loved by the Congregational churches of his day and defamed by others both right and left of his contemporary positions.
Here at Relevancy22 we too are attempting to speak to the contemporary issues of the 21st century created by the gaps between present day conservative evangelicalism and neo-liberal theology pulling at each end of the ecclesiastical spectrum. With the advent of Karl Barth and other neo-orthodox theologians during the middle of the 20th century the bar has been set, and reset, multiple times in a continuing balancing act to speak to the Scriptures faithfully pertaining to the issues confronting the church of the modernistic era (an era birthed in the Enlightenment some 200 years ago). Some tell of themselves as progressive evangelics; others as progressive (as vs. mainstream) denominationalists, some as neo-Anabaptists, neo-Lutherans, neo-Catholics, and so forth.
Thus, to avoid confusion (and perhaps create a little bit more!), we have adopted the term of Emerging Christians who presently are undertaking directional discourse and studies for determining what an Emergent, Postmodern Theology can mean to Christianity today. Which is not unlike the similar undertaking once found in Bushnell's early efforts of speaking a more progressive, perhaps even a neo-orthodox, message of Christ as the church's theology waggled between the conservative and liberal issues and doctrines of its day.
Hence, this blogsite here is an instance of the dozens of names and organizations - both old and new - each attempting to bridge the moderating gap between divisive modernistic forces. Between forces fighting to remain staid and irrelevant, wishing for the grand old days of 19th Century Enlightenment, against other Christian voices and groups equally desiring to push beyond today's old timey pulpiteering rhetoric to the undiscovered lands of postmodernistic opportunities and renewing Christian witness. And sometimes too far, beyond biblical reach and the orthodox understanding of theology.
And while this author here of Relevancy22 has shown time-and-again how Emergent Theology itself can stand within this middling ground of mediation, some would say that it is not so, accusing Emergent Theology as too liberal. As unbiblical. As dishonoring to Christ and His Word. While proponents to the left would go too far, speaking in the more liberal tones of Continental Philosophy and Theology, of revisionist church history, of describing the person and work of Jesus in humanistic overtones. Blithely preaching redressed Christian heresies obdurately unaware of their theological divide with past Christian orthodoxy. An orthodoxy that needs renewing. That needs a Postmodern resurrection out of its overlong modernistic grave. Into this scenario has come an Emergent, Postmodern Theology to temper the fires both right and left of the Gospel of Christ (an impossible task that seems doubtful at best to accomplish!). A theology attempting to bring solidarity to the church of God fractured in its divisional exuberances and heighten revisioning for the world as it struggles to determine what this Age of Postmodernism means to its doctrinces, dogmas, practices and ministries.
At Relevancy22 we have attempted to take the middling road between what is truly biblical without becoming obtusely mired in Evangelicalism's ideological dogmas - nor uncritical of Emergent Christianity's fanning flames for Jesus fraught with their own passions and historical revisionisms. It is true, that Emergent Theology does think-and-feel differently from that of its conservative Evangelical, and Progressive Denominational, neighbours, through no fault of its own. Nor should Emergent Christianity and its developing theology be jettisoned because of past popular Evangelical mis-statements, nor because of the exuberances of its over-zealous proponents seeking to defend their beliefs. And yet ultimately, Emergent Christianity wishes to speak to the loss masses of humanity that is unhindered by Evangelical stereotypes and its modernistic excesses (sic, its business culture for one, and consumerist mindset, as another) using Emergent-speak to construct a vision of God's love and reach. A vision that may be non-threatening when spoken from its American, Westernized cultures, and pacific and sympathetic towards Third World countries and cultures.
Hence, Postmodernism has rightfully claimed its illuminating affects upon any Christian thinker wishing to depart modernistic, secular, theologies for a redefined version of a postmodernistic, postsecular Christianity. And in the process uncover infrastructural linkages to their ecclesiological past requiring patient deconstruction (as well as insightful reconstruction) in the name of Jesus. I believe this movement to be led by the divine guidance of God in the renewing effort of Spirit-burdened prayer. Under a fruitful biblical scholarship committed to Scriptural observance while investigating and integrating accumulating, accretive, academic disciplines to the Christian faith. And amassing under the mesmerizing energy of affiliating Emergent believers desperate to share God's redeeming mercy and forgiveness, love and healing, in purity of heart and social common cause. A message that surely must be resurrected and preached by words of action and hearts true.
Consequently, Emergent Theology will be different from Evangelical or, conservative Protestant, Theology. But rightfully so, given its differing era with its differing, viable, postmodern social needs, language, thought-forms, and comportments. While at the same time maintaining an ever faithful allegiance to the Word of God, and to Jesus as Lord and Savior, pitting it against any liberal theologies wishing to apply to it. And from this fiery furnace we will find a God who is redeeming a remnant for His name, purified for His use, and charged with the task of sharing the gospel of Jesus into the many lost worlds of humanity. Grown closer by communication and technology, industry and transportation, expanding trade and finance, growing infrastructures and corresponding energy vacuums. With equally growing ecological realizations to preserve rapidly diminishing resources that are irreplaceable, that require better governance relative to the burgeoning needs both humanitarian and educational, and a vision filled with the rapidly expanding global communities and civilizations of this world in mind.
As such, Relevancy22 is an attempt to lift up the Emergent discussion and theological trajectory in ways that remain true to biblical orthodoxy, while uncoupling itself from past (perhaps, self-sustaining) Evangelical dogmas, folklores, and ideologies. While in its reinvigorated explorations of theological research and application, uncover orthodox theological linkages to the past that can themselves be uplifted into today's postmodern discussions of the Christian Gospel's message and mission. Yes, Emergent Theology will be radical, but it should not be considered as a departure from old-line Christian orthodoxy. But one that is simply a resurrected orthodoxy that is under development and being respoken in postmodern terms.
Lastly, into the contemporary Emergent folds has come its corresponding Evangelical counterpart known as Radical Orthodoxy. Both are postmodern in perspective, and so will be similar in this regard, but with Radical Orthodoxy's introduction seemingly comes the heavy philosophical structure of neo-platonism coupled with the biblical structure of neo-Calvinistic Reformed Theology. Which at this junction limits hermeneutical boundaries to the claims of biblical literalness; prefers the Calvinistic doctrines of God's power (TULIP) over His love (the Arminian DAISY); propounds Evangelic dogmas and practices wishing to hold on to limiting versions about God, humanity, sin, hell, and judgment, gender inequalities, and bigotries; and any number of other contemporary discussions that we have been holding here at Relevancy22 since its inception. As such, we must also research Radical Orthodoxy to its claims and birthrights, directions and purposes.
However, it is the current estimation here that to recover orthodox Christianity does not necessarily mean that we recover evangelical Christianity. As such, we're more in favor of starting anew under a new banner and industry, known as Emergent Christianity, much as a son or daughter begins anew from their family, thanking their parents for their help (or non-help) and pushing on to make their own distinctions and narrative. Such is how we feel here at Relevancy22.
If Evangelicalism wishes at all to be helpful, than let it contribute to their son-and-daughter's spiritual future and not to their spiritual demise. Each may learn of the other as each has much to give. Let us then learn to speak in softer tones of love and grace when books like "Love Wins" would draw out the rancorous religiosity of our spirits and not the humility found in Christ....
And with that let's proceed to Dr. Olson's review of Horace Bushnell, 19th century reformer and theologian, Parts 2+3.
R.E. Slater
January 11, 2013
ps... By way of a personal note, I would like to tell of my family's own linkage to the Beechers of Boston, include Harriet Beecher Stowe, of Uncle Tom's Cabin fame. As social activists they crusaded against bigotry; human trafficing and slavery; organized for women's suffrage rights; temperance; Darwinian evolution; Chinese immigration into the United States; and, for a number of other urban causes pitting the Gospel's influence over the rights and perogatives of contemporary Christian soothsayers.
And it was because of their Congregationalist's beliefs that their heart and timely Bostonian message to the populace of America was one of social reform and the rightful recovery of human dignity. In the Slater tree of ancestry we are glad to part of this continuing effort of the gospel of Christ for the Kingdom of God's resurrection and recovery for human rights and reform, social justice and human dignity.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
continued -
A Case for Progressive Orthodoxy: Horace Bushnell, Parts 2-3
No comments:
Post a Comment