Roger Asks the Question, "Who is a REAL Evangelical?"

"In Bebbington's major textbook is a newly researched historical study of Evangelical religion in its British cultural setting from its inception in the time of John Wesley to charismatic renewal today. The Church of England, the Church of Scotland and the variety of Nonconformist denominations and sects in England, Scotland and Wales are discussed, but the book concentrates on the broad patterns of change affecting all the churches. It shows the great impact of the Evangelical movement on nineteenth-century Britain, accounts for its resurgence since the Second World War and argues that developments in the ideas and attitudes of the movement were shaped most by changes in British culture. The contemporary interest in the phenomenon of Fundamentalism, especially in the United States, makes the book especially timely." - Amazon 

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Who’s a “Real Evangelical?”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/09/whos-a-real-evangelical/

by Roger Olson

September 7, 2014

Comments

I had to laugh when I read a comment here (responding to one of my blog posts) calling me a “fauxevangelical.” The prefix “faux-” means “fake.” I’m not sure why the commenter didn’t just say “fake evangelical.” Maybe he thought calling me a “fauxevangelical” was less offensive and/or made him sound more intelligent.

In any case, this was just the most recent on a long series of accusations that I’m not a “real evangelical”–whatever that means.

Why do I care? Well, for one thing, there are people whose job it is to categorize and label theologians. Take Patheos for example. Do I belong here–on the “Evangelical Channel”–or on the “Progressive Channel?” There are publishers who prefer only to publish evangelical scholars (although they may occasionally step out of that mission and publish something by a non-evangelical if his or her book is judged to make a contribution to evangelical thought). Many colleges, universities and seminaries will only hire evangelicals.

But beside-and-above the economic reasons for it, I insist that I am an evangelical because that’s my identity. I may add qualifiers, as most evangelical scholars do, such as “postconservative” or “progressive,” but I never mean that I am something other than evangelical.

My whole professional life and before that began has been wrapped up in my evangelical identity (I’ve expressed how and why here many times before so I won’t belabor that or repeat all that history).

The Evangelical Quadrilateral

So is there any standard or universal definition of “evangelical?” In my book The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology (Westminster John Knox Press) I listed and describe six distinct meaning of “evangelical.” The one I mean when I call myself “evangelical” is provided by Mark Noll and David Bebbington–the so-called “evangelical quadrilateral”–four hallmarks of being evangelical.

Noll and Bebbington assume they are talking about Protestants who take Christian orthodoxy seriously–trinitarian Christians who believe in justification by grace through faith alone.

Added to that, to make one “evangelical,” are:

1) conversionism,

2) biblicism,*

3) crucicentrism (cross-centered devotion and preaching), and

4) activism.

*"biblicism" at this blog site is to be broadened out away from the normal wooden, literalistic reading of the Bible to a reading of its pages that is contextual, historical, grammatical, and narratival using the best resources at hand to derive both a practical and spiritual understanding of God's Word. - R.E. Slater

---

Wikipedia [an excerpt]

David W. Bebbington (born 1949) is a historian who is Professor of History at the University of Stirling in Scotland and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. An undergraduate at Jesus College, Cambridge (1968–71), Bebbington began his doctoral studies there (1971–73) before becoming a research fellow of Fitzwilliam College (1973–76). Since 1976 he has taught at the University of Stirling, where since 1999 he has been Professor of History. His principal research interests are in the history of politics, religion, and society in Great Britain from the eighteenth to the twentieth century, and in the history of the global evangelical movement.

Bebbington quadrilateral

Bebbington is widely known for his definition of evangelicalism, referred to as the "Bebbington quadrilateral", which was first provided in his 1989 classic study Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s.[1] Bebbington identifies four main qualities which are to be used in defining evangelical convictions and attitudes:[2]

• biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all essential spiritual truth is to be found in its pages)
• crucicentrism, a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross
• conversionism, the belief that human beings need to be converted
• activism, the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in effort

Bebbington (along with Mark Noll and others) has exerted a large amount of effort in placing evangelicalism on the world map of religious history. Through their efforts they have made it more difficult for scholars to ignore the influence of evangelicals in the world since the movement’s inception in the eighteenth century.[3]

---

The Nicene Creed

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life."

The Five Solas

The Five solae or five solas are five Latin phrases that emerged during the Protestant Reformation and summarize the early Reformers' basic theological beliefs in contradistinction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of the day:

Sola scriptura - by Scripture alone

Sola fide - by faith alone

Sola gratia - by grace alone

Solus Christus / Solo Christo - by/through Christ alone

Soli Deo gloria - glory to God alone

---

Born Again

Evangelicals are (mostly) Protestant orthodox Christians (orthodox as defined by the Nicene faith in the deity of Christ and the Trinity and by the Reformation solas) who believe that authentic Christian existence necessarily includes being converted to Christ–an experience (whether felt as an experience or not) of transformation from a life of sin and self to a life of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ through which one is brought by the Holy Spirit into “new creation” (justification and regeneration). In other words, nobody is “saved” by being born into a certain nation-state or family or church or through any sacrament or ritual without personal commitment to Christ.

High Regard for Scripture

Evangelicals are also people (I won’t keep repeating “mostly Protestant orthodox Christians…) who have a special regard for the Bible as God’s written, inspired, authoritative Word whose authority stands above tradition and experience–the highest “court of appeal,” so to speak, for faith and practice.

Some evangelicals think the Bible must be “inerrant” to be authoritative, but they disagree among themselves about what “inerrancy” means. I agree with those who define the Bible’s perfection as “perfect with respect to purpose” (e.g., John Piper).

Evangelicals also have a special relationship with the Bible as not only a textbook of correct doctrine but also as God’s living Word to be read devotionally–a sacrament, if you will, of God’s gracious love.

Cross-Centered Lives

Evangelicals are also people who bring nothing to God in their “hands,” so to speak, but cling only to the cross as their sole hope in life and death (for having a living relationship with God that includes forgiveness and acceptance). Evangelicals have a special place in their hearts and minds and worship and devotion for the cross. The atonement of Jesus Christ is proclaimed and trusted as humanity’s only hope for peace with God and for a meaning filled life in relation with God. For evangelicals the cross, the atonement of Jesus Christ that happened there, is the centerpiece of devotion and proclamation.

Christian Activism

Evangelicals are also people who believe in, and practice, Christian activism to approximate the Kingdom of God among people through missions, evangelism and social action. They disagree among themsleves about the best means and possible ends (within history as we know it before Christ returns), but they agree as evangelicals that God calls them to be active in the world for the cause of God.

Additional Hallmarks Unmentioned

I do not think Noll’s and Bebbington’s quadrilateral is exhaustive or even sufficient. I suspect they would agree. These are hallmarks, but not exhaustive traits or characteristics. For example, I would add (and I hope they would as well) that being evangelical necessarily includes belief in Christ’s bodily resurrection and bodily return in glory.

What being evangelical does NOT necessarly include is a literalistic interpretation of the Old Testament:

• Evangelicals have always disagreed among themselves about how best to interpret the creation accounts in Genesis and how to reconcile them with modern science.

• They have always disagreed among themselves about how best to interpret the prophets’ proclamations of a coming messianic reign on earth.

• They have always disagreed among themselves about how to read the Old Testament in terms of Christ–whether Christ is typified in the Old Testament or not. What I mean is: Is the primary meaning of certain passages in the Old Testament Christ or is Christ appropriately read back into the Old Testament by Christians? There has never been consensus among evangelicals about Old Testament interpretation. That is not a litmus test of evangelical identity. Never has been–in spite of fundamentalists’ claims.

When someone calls me a “fauxevangelical” I know I am dealing with one or both of two things: someone who doesn’t know me well (hasn’t read very much of what I’ve written) and/or a fundamentalist.

Review of "Strange Glory: A Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer," by Charles Marsh

Dietrich Bonhoeffer on a weekend getaway with confirmands of
Zion's Church congregation (1932) | Wikipedia biographical link

The Journey of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/09/01/the-journey-of-dietrich-bonhoeffer/

by Scot McKnight

September 1, 2014

Comments

There are a number of very important biographies of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, none more complete or significant than the one by Bonhoeffer’s friend, Eberhard Bethge (Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography). Bethge’s biography is complete though not exhaustive (even if at times a bit exhausting) and takes serious commitment to finish. The prose is not captivating. Alongside Bethge is F. Schlingensiepen’s solid and recent biography (Dietrich Bonhoeffer). Those two describe a similar journey for Bonhoeffer (see below) while Eric Metaxas (Bonhoeffer) told a different story, a more evangelical one, which is why so many evangelicals have found Bonhoeffer in the last five years. Mark Thiessen Nation provides in his study (Bonhoeffer the Assassin?) a different journey for Bonhoeffer (see reviews by Scot McKnight and Roger Olson).

Amazon link

But the best written description of Bonhoeffer’s journey is now by Charles Marsh, Strange Glory: A Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Why use the word “journey”? Because people have made meaning out of Bonhoeffer’s life and theological development according to the scheme they find in his story. The fork in the road or the place of decision is right here: When Bonhoeffer returned to Germany after that aborted visit to Union Theological Seminary in the summer of 1939, did his theology shift from a pacifist Discipleship and Life Together direction toward a more Niebuhrian realism/responsibility vision? That is, did he enter into the Abwehr (double agent) in Hitler’s National Socialist party as one who was seeking the downfall, assassination, and replacement of Hitler, or was his life as a double agent a ruse for his continued life in the ministry of the ecumenical movement?

The standard journey is the journey from a rather naive and optimistic hope for church renewal through intense commitment to discipleship toward a more realistic, even compromising, assumption of responsibility (this term is big in this discussion and must be connected to Reinhold Niebuhr at Union) all reshaped in his decision that the best way to act as a responsible Christian under Hitler was to assume the guilt of the nation and seek his country’s collapse. Maybe the best way of all to frame this is to say Bonhoeffer took leave of Discipleship by the time he was writing Ethics. That, at any rate, is the most common journey told of Bonhoeffer’s theological development. I have already covered Mark Thiessen Nation’s proposal and this post is about Marsh’s study, but it appears to me Bonhoeffer’s pacifism can remain in tact in spite of his realism since he saw entrance into the resistance as guilt (personal and national).

Bonhoeffer did come by his ecclesial faith naturally: his father was not a believer, his mother was and led family devotions in the evening. The family did not attend church frequently though he went through confirmation and was both spiritually and theologically curious when young. Most of his siblings were not Christians, and even having completed his theology degree at Berlin (where as a liberal he encountered Barth) Bonhoeffer still was not much a church goer. His position as assistant pastor in Barcelona engaged him for the first time in serious church work. After his return to Germany he was committed to the church — but as much to the ecumenical church, to conferences, as he was to local parish ministry.

Bonhoeffer embraced Barth’s theology deeply and this is one reason for Marsh’s general approach to Bonhoeffer’s journey: Barth is present in his dissertation on the communion of the saints, in his habilitation on German philosophical history (Marsh thinks this book was “one of the great theological achievements of the twentieth century”), but it is profoundly present in Ethics. The first “chapter” of that book could be taken from Barth’s theory of revelation in dialectical thinking (and unfortunately dialectical method in writing!) in its unifocal concentration on God in Christ as the true revelation by which all things are measured — including the world. Furthermore, Bonhoeffer here has embraced some of Barth’s universalism for the thematic center of that first chapter is about the reconciliation (ontologically) of the world in Christ already. Marsh keeps Barth before the readers of Bonhoeffer’s life.

Bonhoeffer’s twin sister, Sabine, married a Jewish man (who had been baptized). That fact opens up a window that tosses light deep into Bonhoeffer’s theology: he was deeply committed to the brotherhood and sisterhood of the church and Judaism, of Christians and Jews, and therefore of Jews and Germans. When most were circling the wagons or wondering what was really going on, DB saw through to the heart of what Hitler and the National Socialists were setting up to accomplish in Germany and beyond. If he was anything, he was highly principled and so he refused to budge or surrender an inch to the National Socialists. Bonhoeffer’s balking at both The Bethel Confession and The Barmen Declaration, the former he had an early hand in, concerned their lack of commitment to solidarity with Jews — believers or not. Seemingly ahead of everyone else in theological circles, including Barth, Bonhoeffer saw the Jewish Question as the Christian Problem. He helped his sister and brother in law escape from Germany to England through Switzerland. They survived the war, Dietrich did not. Marsh’s Bonhoeffer is probing pluralism in affirmative terms, and Marsh is accurate.

Marsh has exceptional sections on Bonhoeffer in the USA fascinated by African Americans, their theology and spirituality (and songs), and this experience (at Abyssinian Baptist in Harlem) shaped Bonhoeffer’s thinking about what it takes to be a gospel Christian and what racism does to a people and nation. He not only introduced his students in Zingst and Finkenwalde to Negro spirituals, but he saw racism in Germany more intensively than others because of his time in NYC. No one is more attuned to racism’s impact on theology and the need to combat it than Charles Marsh, so his sections here are more sensitive and insightful than other sketches of Bonhoeffer.

Marsh, in my view, downplays Discipleship and Life Together because, again in my view, he sees a different journey for Bonhoeffer: it is one that sees the highlight years in DB’s life not in the outside-the-system seminary (they weren’t underground until the end) writings and spirituality but in the more “responsible” political theology of the Ethics and his Letters and Papers from Prison. His sketches of DB’s theology after his return to Germany and while in prison were a highlight for me.

In fact, Marsh has all but convinced me of the Christian realism move of Bonhoeffer. But before I will go on board officially I want to re-read Ethics and Letters and Papers from Prison, which I’m doing now. One thing has become clear to me: the conspirators were profoundly naive in planning to be those who would run Germany when Hitler was removed. Profoundly naive, if not delusional. I need to read more on this plot but that’s how it strikes me.

Marsh has complete control of the sources of Bonhoeffer’s life: he has obviously read them in German as well as in English (in fact I saw one or two mistakes in footnotes because he was referring to the German editions and not the English translations). Detail after details is pressed from the original sources, in a historically chronological manner, and for this reason alone Marsh’s Strange Glory stands among the best of Bonhoeffer biographies.

---

I must mention one feature of this book because if I don’t it will emerge in the comments and this short explanation allows me a bit of more accurate expression. Marsh’s biography is undoubtedly the best biography to read (though nothing can replace Bethge’s fullness) but it will be remembered as the biography that suggested Bonhoeffer was gay or was romantically attracted to Eberhard Bethge. There is no explicit evidence - the relationship remained chaste; Bethge was engaged and then married and Bonhoeffer himself was engaged; there is Hitler’s extermination system that included homosexuals. There are suggestions according to Marsh: they shared a bank account; they shared Christmas presents; they spent constant time together; Bonhoeffer’s (not Bethge’s) endearing language in letters; Bonhoeffer’s getting engaged not long after Bethge got engaged; and Bonhoeffer’s obsessiveness with Bethge. OK, but it’s all suggestion, and this is complicated by Bonhoeffer’s obsession with clothing and appearance. [For a Marsh interview, see this.] Maybe he was and maybe he wasn’t, but it seems their relationship could at least be explored in another context: male friendships among German intellectuals of this era, which maybe needs the reminder that friendships have been between same sexes for most of Western history. I quote here from Wesley Hill’s exceptional post on this topic about DB:

But, second, it also seems to me there’s an opposite danger that, in our effort to articulate and defend the existence of something like “close, non-sexual friendships between men” in past eras, we may overlook the importance of homosexual feelings in shaping those friendships. Yes, of course, “homosexuality” as we know it didn’t exist as a social construct until relatively recently, but that doesn’t mean the reality of persistent, predominant same-sex sexual desire didn’t exist and that it didn’t have a friendship-deepening effect for those who experienced it. Sure, Bonhoeffer wasn’t “gay” in our post-Stonewall sense. But what Marsh’s biography tries to explore is whether Bonhoeffer may have experienced same-sex attractions and how those attractions may have led him to look for ways to love his friend Bethge. Bonhoeffer evidently didn’t—and maybe didn’t even want to—have sex with Bethge (and presumably Bethge himself wouldn’t have consented anyway). But did Bonhoeffer’s romantic feelings for his friend, if indeed they existed (as Marsh believes they did), lead him into a pursuit of emotional and spiritual intimacy with Bethge that he wouldn’t otherwise have sought? I think there’s a danger in avoiding that question, too, even as there’s a danger in jumping to the conclusion “Bonhoeffer was gay.” [Wes has a very good review of Marsh's biography in the most recent edition of Books & Culture.]

In an earlier post on the same topic, Christopher Benson asked this powerful question with a brief comment:

Did Bonhoeffer ache for a romantic friendship with Eberhard Bethge or for the romance of a friendship that unites body and spirit, emotion and intellect? This is a distinction with a difference, and it is lost upon us because we are no longer in touch with “the tradition of late-antique and early-medieval Johannine Christianity, in which intimacy and understanding go hand in hand,” according to Samuel Kimbriel’s new book,Friendship as Sacred Knowing: Overcoming Isolation.

Perhaps then DB had same-sex attractions for Bethge but they were unreciprocated and the desires subdued by Bonhoeffer, but that those feelings had a “friendship-deepening effect.” That is at least a reasonable explanation of the letters between DB and Bethge. But there’s a bit more evidence that I had not known about prior to this post. In F. Schlingensiepen’s very complete and well-researched study of Bonhoeffer, on p. 393, there is a footnote in which Bethge responds to the suggestion that the authors of the letters (in Letters and Papers from Prison, most recent edition?) must have been homosexuals. Bethge says unequivocally Nein.

So maybe DB’s obsessions with Bethge deserve to be considered as expressions of a controlling, if not authoritarian, personality type. In fact, the Union professor, Paul Lehmann, said DB “simply took command, uncalculated command, of every situation in which he was present” (I Knew Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 42). Bethge himself said Bonhoeffer could sometimes be “imperious and demanding” (46).

Marsh knows that there’s some hagiography about Bonhoeffer, not least some of the descriptions of his last hours and minutes. He suggests Bonhoeffer was cruelly tortured for hours before he died.

The Acids of Modernity and Christian Theology, Part 3

Modernity has been an age of revolutions—political, scientific, industrial and the philosophical. Consequently, it has also been an age of revolutions in theology, as Christians attempt to make sense of their faith in light of the cultural upheavals around them, what Walter Lippman once called the "acids of modernity." Modern theology is the result of this struggle to think responsibly about God within the modern cultural ethos.

In this major revision and expansion of the classic 20th Century Theology(1992), co-authored with Stanley J. Grenz, Roger Olson widens the scope of the story to include a fuller account of modernity, more material on the nineteenth century, and an engagement with postmodernity. More importantly, the entire narrative is now recast in terms of how theologians have accommodated or rejected the Enlightenment and scientific revolutions.

With that question in mind, Olson guides us on the epic journey of modern theology, from the liberal "reconstruction" of theology that originated with Friedrich Schleiermacher, to the post-liberal and postmodern "deconstruction" of modern theology that continues today. The Journey of Modern Theology is vintage Olson: eminently readable, panoramic in scope, at once original and balanced, and marked throughout by a passionate concern for the church's faithfulness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. This will no doubt become another standard text in historical theology.

* * * * * * * * * * *

What is “Liberal” Theology?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/09/12/what-is-liberal-theology/

by Scot McKnight
September 12, 2014
Comments

“The story of modern theology begins with the rise of liberal Protestant theology. And liberal Protestant theology … began with Friedrich Schleiermacher… There were liberalizing Christian thinkers before Schleiermacher, but they were not professional, church-related theologians. Schleiermacher was the first person in history to be both liberal and a professional theologian….

“What is liberal theology?… ‘maximal acknowledgement of the claims of modern thought’ within Christian theology.” So Roger Olson, The Journey of Modern Theology, 125, 126.

Karl Barth was not a liberal theologian. John Stott was not a liberal theologian. Dallas Willard was not a liberal theologian. I have been posting about liberal theology this year (see here), and it is important to know how to use this wonderful word “liberal” well.

Among Roman Catholics the term “modernism” was the more common term but the two are mutually compatible descriptors: liberal theology is all about adjusting the Christian tradition to modernity.

I give an example:

• It is liberal to believe the Bible is against same-sex relations and then to revise or correct what the Bible says about homosexuality on the basis of a more modern understanding of sexuality;

• it is not liberal to think the Bible, as a result of acceptable exegesis and historical work, originally did not condemn homosexuality as we know it today. 

I hope that distinguishes what liberalism means. It is to revise in light of modernity and cultural progress.

In other words, liberal theology affirms the rightness of one’s own culture as a basis of critiquing the Bible.

Therefore, at the heart of liberalism is critique of the Christian tradition and Scripture [with a view towards "modernity." It is not that aspect of critiquing the Bible that is liberal but it is critiquing the Bible using one's own culture as the "more perfect template" upon which the Bible is overlaid, rather than the other way around - res2].

This, however, does not make the Reformation “liberal.” For it to be liberal, it has to be modern and post-Enlightenment and partaking in radical commitments to liberalism and individual freedom. Olson knows Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria adjusted Christian tradition to the philosophy of their day, but that doesn’t make it “liberal” since that term is connected to modernity.

Liberal theology accommodates to modernity; it does not necessarily capitulate nor does it necessarily accommodate in all ways and in all directions.

Question: Do you think “theistic evolution” as a construct is liberal and accommodating?

Who are the Great Liberals of the 20th Century?

Olson’s primary examples are F. Schleiermacher, A. Ritschl, A. Harnack [who was Bonhoeffer's neighbor and teacher], and W. Rauschenbusch. In other words, liberal theology’s heyday was the 19th Century and a spillover into the 20th Century. Real liberal theology then aims at reconstruction; it is optimistic and anthropocentric; it does theology from below, and it interprets the Bible critically.

Briefly now:

Schleiermacher: the most influential theologian in Germany in his day; he developed a method shaped by modernity’s romanticism and experiential religion; human experience gains the upper hand: (i) religion is feeling and, (ii) theology is reflection on this experience of religion. He both redefined and reconstructed doctrine after doctrine. God is all about learning what is involved in the God-consciousness of the Christian people. Prayer is about being changed. He rejected classic Christian orthodoxy on Christology. Jesus is the highest in God-consciousness. Schleiermacher was Barth’s main opponent!

Ritschl: profoundly influential from 1875 to 1925 (or so). Kant is his conversation partner; science and religion are two different types of knowledge; Christianity is “the community of people who collectively make the value judgment that humanity’s highest good is found in the kingdom of God revealed by Jesus Christ” (150). Theology investigates these value judgments. What is kingdom? “unity of humanity organized according to love” (151). Little interest in God, but instead in value judgments — ethics. The kingdom is a social order in this world. [Some today are using kingdom in the same way.] Sin then is systemic evil.

Harnack popularized Ritschl’s theology through his more exacting historical exegesis of both the Bible and church history.

Rauschenbusch socialized the Ritschlian and Harnackian approaches of liberal theology into the American context, creating the social gospel. Olson knows he does not fit neatly into the liberal category. The goal was to transform human society into the kingdom of God” (165). He sees Rauschenbusch here not so much because of denials of doctrines — and he remained mostly orthodox — but because he elevated experience as did the other liberal theologians in Schleiermacher’s parade.

Lessing created the ditch: nothing historical can be the basis for universal truths. Troeltsch accepted his challenge and probed Christianity in a historical-critical era. He relativized religion but not absolutely! Christianity belongs to a place and time in history. It is a purely historical phenomenon. There can be no absolute religion. They are human creations. Troeltsch accommodates Christianity to historical consciousness, but in the end he ironically embraced the truth of Christianity and Jesus by not recognizing his own situatedness.

Finally, Olson looks at the Catholic struggle with modernism (A. Loisy and G Tyrrell).

* * * * * * * * * * *

ADDENDUM

by R.E. Slater

It is noted that by small degrees God-filled church doctrine began to be moved towards a humanitarian discussion steeped in Modernism and Liberalism. This is what separated the Renaissance/Enlightenment movement from its Medieval precursors. For instance, Ritschl began to turn God's love towards the idea of a human ethic... which God's love must certainly involved, but not in-and-of-itself stripped of the divine component of grace. For the Christian, human ethics is always grounded in God's love and not derived apart from God's love. Good church doctrine begins with God and ends with God and is not separate and apart from God (so too good philosophy however critical it is of God-speak, and sometimes properly so!). As such, human ethics must begin with God and end with God and not be separate and apart from God. If it is, then the gospel becomes a humanizing ethic instead of a saving gospel founded upon Jesus' love for humanity. It was by these small degrees that the conversation was moved away from Christian orthodoxy towards a humanitarian discussion steeped in Modernism by Liberalism.

Curiously, what the church fights most today is its blatant acceptance of Modernism which is quite the reverse of what one would expect when thinking of the "Acids of Modernity." In response, Christian Post-Modernism arose to offset the steady inroads of Modernism and Modernistic Liberal Theology into the Church, beginning in the 1930s, and pronouncedly so in the 1990s, with the goal of returning to the Christian orthodoxy of yesteryear. However, the modernistic church has been very critical of postmodernism, confusing it with liberalism without seeing its own underpinnings in modernistic thought. This is the irony of the situation: "Though they see they do not hear. And hearing they do not understand."

Post-Modern Christianity's goal is to return to an earlier (mystical) Christian orthodoxy that is informed by Postmodern reflection upon the Modernistic (and Liberal) era of the Christian church. But is not regressive in its cultural apprehensions, preferring to move forwards with the sciences and academic discoveries of the 21st Century across all scholarly disciplines as aide to its own reflections upon the Christian faith. Hence, it is more "new timey" than "old timey" as it were. It seeks to use the best analysis to ascertain the many spectra's of the Christian faith which embrace God without refusing the newer ideas of expressing the mystical and the divine in 21st Century terms (which would include post-modernism).

(As an aside, some have labelled this Postmodern Christian movement as a "Radical Orthodoxy" but we have noted here that to do so is to move towards a neo-Calvinism basis of doctrine which is unhelpful. The better name for this movement is a Postmodern Christian Orthodoxy that is radical but is also based upon a relational theology that is Arminian (e.g., Wesleyan) which emphasizes "free will" over neo-Calvinism's stricter views of "divine determinism" (sometimes known as "meticulous sovereignty") as driven by Reformed-Calvinistic dogma. Hence, the biblical terms of predestination and election may fall to either side of the column between free will and strict determinism but the doctrine of God and all things Church is better informed by Arminianism's doctrines of a "free" creation in bondage to sin.)

In response to all of the above, Postmodern Christian Orthodoxy wishes to use the best of Evangelicalism while leaving behind its more modernistic dogmas. Those Christians who do so would be known as Progressive Evangelics, or Post-Evangelic. This struggle is most apparent between 21st Century-minded Postmodern Christians and 20th Century Evangelistic Christians and is regrettably one of the main dividers in the Church today. Both message and medium have each been criticised by the other but it is hoped each movement's more mature standard bearers will continue to seek grace and peace in their critiques of one another.

Moreover, a postmodern hermeneutic critiques the Scriptures both positively - with regard to its own pages - and negatively - in parsing the modernistic Church's anathemas upon anything different from itself (the age old division between youth with its new ideas, tradition vs. more timely expression). In essence, postmodern Christianity has arisen to move the 20th Century Church away from its secular modernisms towards a more non-secular apprisal of Christ and His mission to the world. As such, this method of hermeneutic will use postmodern science and philosophy to accomplish this task even as the Modern Church has striven against science, bending it towards its own arguments and purposes, set within its own modernisitc and enlightenment philosophies.

Lastly, a Christian Postmodern view of the world is one that sees the world as Post-Christian. Rather than describing everything in terms of a mythology or a god the world describes things according to its scientific knowledge. This is not necessarily bad because with this adjustment over the past 500 years has come as many good things as bad. As an urban naturalist I think of the great loss of cultures and ecosystems. But as a postmodernist I readily accept the opportunity for diverse work expenditure, easily obtained foods, medicines, and clean water. However, in a Post-Christian world the gospel message can no longer be assumed as common knowledge or primary leader in world discussions. We may also expect an equalization of the many world religions on a par with Christianity unlike how "Christianized" Europe and America had once earlier viewed themselves. Thus, there must accompany with the gospel of Jesus a greater tolerance and respect for religions different from the Christian religion. The world is in the throes of great torment (not unlike the whore of Babylon in Revelation) because its great religions cannot behave themselves towards one another without wishing to incite great crusades, wars, and acts of terror, upon each other against the pressures to become more civilized towards one another. A postmodern Christian living in a post-Christian world thinks there is another way. A way of love, peace, respect, and forgiveness, in place of might, power, jealous, and greed.

In summary, reflection is always 20/20, and those Christians of the 20th Century who fought against Liberalism fell into Liberalism's own trap of self-centered dogmatic "think" where the Church asserted itself as the final arbiter on Scripture and not Scripture itself (think Jesus vs. the Pharisees). How curious that a "Bible-based hermeneutic" could go "full circle" and become non-biblical when using the very Bible it strove to defend (sic, biblicism)? These are the curiosities that today's postmodern theologians look at with wonder and amazement when words become used for another purpose than what they were first intended. Statedly, when hearing the loudest cries by Modernistic Christians a good postmodernist will always step back and ask "Why?" It is not without sympathy that they are heard. But it is with dispatch that they must be discerned against time and culture, space and event. The final word can never be man's but ever and always God's.

- R.E. Slater

continue to ~

The Acids of Modernity and Christian Theology, Part 1

The Acids of Modernity and Christian Theology, Part 2

The Acids of Modernity and Christian Theology, Part 3

The Acids of Modernity and Christian Theology, Part 4

The Acids of Modernity and Christian Theology, Part 5

Baylor Historical Theologian Roger Olson

Remembering Wolfhart Pannenberg (Reflections & Articles by Philip Clayton and Others)

Wolfhart Pannenberg in 1983

Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928-2014)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2014/09/07/wolfhart-pannenberg-1928-2014/

by Tony Jones

September 7, 2014

Comments

Wolfhart Pannenberg—In Memoriam

by Philip Clayton

Claremont School of Theology

Wolfhart Pannenberg has often been called the greatest theologians of the second half of the 20th century. With his death Friday, September 5, 2014, the world has lost a brilliant interpreter of Christianity, and I have lost the mentor who molded me as a scholar, theologian, and person.

In the 1950s, when Pannenberg was a doctoral student in Heidelberg, Karl Barth dominated the theological stage. In order to counteract Barth’s overemphasis on salvation history (Heilsgeschichte), Pannenberg redefined revelation as “universal history” (Universalgeschichte). A few years later he published a major Christology (Jesus—God and Man) that established him as the world’s leading defender of “theology from below.”

Over the next 30 years, Pannenberg extended this program to philosophy, the religion/science debate, the dialogue across the world religions, and to every corner of theology. He had the most encyclopedic mind I have ever encountered. You need only to read around a bit in his multi-volume Basic Questions in Theology to be stunned by the range and depth of his scholarship. John Cobb once quipped,

“I saw that Pannenberg was able to encompass the entire range of knowledge within

his own mind. Realizing that I could never match this achievement, I decided it would

take a lifetime of working with my doctoral students to cover as many topics.”

Pannenberg’s staunch defense of the historicity of the resurrection made him a champion among American evangelicals. His extensive involvement in the ecumenical movement and his unsurpassed knowledge of the history of theology were crucial to the most important ecumenical breakthroughs in the World Council of Churches. Taken together, Pannenberg’s extensive writings, including his three-volume systematic theology, offer a theological program unrivaled its comprehensiveness, depth, and rigor.

Yet Pannenberg’s influence extended far beyond the evangelical and ecumenical worlds. His early statement that “in a restricted but important sense, God does not yet exist”caught the attention of process theologians and involved him in a multi-year dialogue with John Cobb (who studied with Pannenberg in Mainz in 1963), Lewis Ford, and others. He met regularly with scientists, stressing contingency and natural law as openings for constructive engagement between science and theology. Pannenberg traveled widely around the world, was a guest professor at Harvard and Claremont, and hosted many professors and doctoral students from the United States and elsewhere during his decades of teaching at the University of Munich.

I was one of those students. While still at Fuller Seminary, I met Pannenberg (at Claremont, ironically) and asked him for his permission to begin my doctorate work under his guidance. A two-year scholarship from DAAD funded [my] stay in Munich, and I wrote the first 200 pages of [my] dissertation under his direction. Although I completed my doctoral studies at Yale, I always considered Pannenberg the true mentor of the dissertation. From him I learned the importance of Gründlichkeit, rigorousness — a virtue that I have sought to impart to my classes and doctoral students throughout my career.

Thanks to Fulbright and Humboldt professorships, I returned for two further years of study under him; our relationship, and his influence on me, deepened in those years. I remember, for example, a birthday celebration at our small apartment that lasted (in good old-German fashion) for five hours of eating and conversation. As all who knew him will attest, Pannenberg’s success had much to do with his indomitable wife, who guided his days and decisions better than any executive coach you’ve ever met. I have watched her disperse a group of intensely debating professors as if they were bowling pins: “Excuse me, you must all go home now. My husband needs some rest; he has a busy day tomorrow.”

Pannenberg set unimaginable standards for himself and others. Each workday he would write from 5-10 am. On Tuesdays and Fridays he would catch the commuter train to the University of Munich and present the new material in that day’s lecture. If you asked him a question on virtually any theological topic, you would be treated to an extemporaneous five-minute answer, running from biblical texts to biblical theology to Patristics, Scholastics, Reformation thinkers, and modern theology, with detailed treatments of what secular philosophers, historians, and scientists had written on the subject. Once, when he was writing his anthropology, I asked him why he looked so tired. “Herr Clayton,” he said, “the literature on this topic is uferlos, unbounded. I have been reading 500 pages-a-day, now I have switched to reading 1000 pages-a-day in order to master all of it.”

What many people don’t realize is that Pannenberg modified his “theology from below” stance early in his career. By the time of the “Afterword” to Jesus—God and Man (1970), he had already developed a method that combined theology from below and theology from above. The brilliant debates on the nature of the Trinity in the 1970s—especially the back-and-forths with Jürgen Moltmann—show this method in action. Miroslav Volf and I were both studying in Germany in the 1980s, he under Moltmann in Tübingen and I under Pannenberg in München. We and our wives would meet multiple times each year, taking long walks in the forest and debating the merits of our respective Doktorväter until late into the night. (It is no coincidence that in the German system your dissertation advisor is your “doctor-father”; the relationship is close, life-long, and affects every fiber of your being.)

Pannenberg’s conservativism on political and social issues—for example, on feminism and gay rights—set him at odds with many theologians. He wrote a demanding and uncompromising form of theology in the very years when pastors and the public began to prefer more informal, journalistic, and experience-based theologies.Pannenberg was no popularist.

Yet without question he has had a profound influence on some of the greatest theological minds of our generation: John Cobb and Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson in the early years, the famous fiery debates with Moltmann and Jüngel, the religion-and-science discussions with John Polkinghorne and Arthur Peacocke and others, and my fellow students in Munich, such as Stan Grenz and Roger Olson and E. Frank Tupper and TedPeters. In the dozens and dozens of lectures in the United States over some 40 years, Pannenberg engaged in intense exchanges with virtually every great intellectual personality of our age. In this fiery furnace— or in direct opposition to it!—many of the greatest theological breakthroughs of the last decades were forged.

Two hundred years from now, historians of theology will describe the work of Karl Barth and Wolfhart Pannenberg as the two theological giants of the mid-20thcentury. But I want to make sure that the record also includes Pannenberg’s warmth as a person—his quick smile, the way his eyes sparkled when he told a joke, his enduring friendships, and his deep commitment to mentoring and supporting his students.

Pannenberg has been called a rationalist. Before you accept this epitaph, you should read his theological autobiography in the American Festschrift that Carl Braaten and I co-edited,The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg: Twelve American Critiques. In fact, his theology grew out of a dramatic conversion experience and a continual sense of the real presence of God’s Spirit.

For all his wrestling with philosophy and science, Pannenberg was in the end a man of deep, abiding faith. He believed that the richness and immensity of God call for the most profound study and reflection that our minds are capable of

…that theology should meet and exceed the highest standards that philosophers set for themselves

…and that we never need to compromise as we wrestle to understand as much of the divine nature as we can grasp through every source available to us.

---

Philip Clayton studied under Wolfhart Pannenberg for four years and continued to work with him for most of his career. Clayton is Ingraham Professor at Claremont School of Theology. He has held visiting professorships at Harvard, the University of Cambridge, and the University of Munich, and has written or edited 25 books and some 250 articles in theology, philosophy, religion-and-science, and comparative religious thought.

Here also is a new Homebrewed Christianity episode in which Philip talks about Pannenberg with Tripp Fuller.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Wolfhart Pannenberg, 1928-2014

Remembering Wolfhart Pannenberg

(A Roundup of Reflections and Articles)

http://moltmanniac.com/remembering-wolfhart-pannenberg/

by Ben

September 9, 2014

COMMENTS

Wolfhart Pannenberg has died. He truly was one of the greatest theological minds of his generation, and has been fast becoming one of my favorite theologians.

A number of people who know a thing or two about him (or even knew him personally!) have shared some excellent reflections in the days since his passing. Here is a roundup of articles and media on Pannenberg in remembrance. I’ll try to add more to this post as I become aware of them:

• Patrick Oden: Pannenberg (1928-2014)
• Fred Sanders: Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928-2014), Theological Outflanker
• Philip Clayton (via Tony Jones): Wolfhart Pannenberg – In Memoriam (Also posted over at Homebrewed Christianity with additional comments from Tripp Fuller)
• Roger Olson: Wolfhart Pannenberg R.I.P. (Olson also shared some other stories about Pannenberg in a post earlier this year)
• Craig Adams: R.I.P. Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928-2014)
• Thomas Jay Oord: Pannenberg Dies; An Interview
• Derek Maris: On Remembering Wolfhart Pannenberg and the Future of His Theology
• Derrick Peterson: The Maranatha Coastline: My Tribute to Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928-2014)
• John McClean: Wolfhart Pannenberg and What It Means to Tell the Truth About God
• Leona Foxx: Pannenberg’s Passing
• Homebrewed Christianity: The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg with Philip Clayton (Podcast)
• Dan Brockway: The Truth About Wolfhart Pannenberg

Here are some other older articles / blog posts that have been shared in the last few days:

• Michael Root: The Achievement of Wolfhart Pannenberg
• Stanley Grenz: Pannenberg’s Quest for Ultimate Truth (Excellent introduction!)
• Darren Sumner: A Preliminary Response to the Christology of Wolfhart Pannenberg
• An interview with Wolfhart Pannenberg from when he visited Calvin College in 2001.
• The PostBarthian: Wolfhart Pannenberg on rejecting the Virgin Birth and affirming the Apostles Creed (Moltmann has some very similar things to say on this topic)
• The PostBarthian: Wolfhart Pannenberg on the History of Christology
• Tim Hull: Pannenberg Part 1 (theology of revelation as history), and Pannenberg Part 2 (christology)

There have also been a few Pannenberg-related posts here on the Moltmanniac in the last few months:

• Karl Barth’s Letter to Wolfhart Pannenberg
• Pannenberg on Why Christology “From Above” Is Not Feasible for Us
• Wolfhart Pannenberg Audio Lectures
• Pannenberg Responds to Moltmann’s Critique of Christology “From Below”
• Can E.T. Be Saved? (Pannenberg, Redemption…and Aliens)
• Jürgen Moltmann on Wolfhart Pannenberg, his “dear friend and opponent”

A Tribute to Wolfhart Pannenbergy by Roger Olson

German Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg

Wolfhart Pannenberg (2 October 1928 – 5 September 2014) was a German theologian.

He has made a number of significant contributions to modern theology, including

his concept of history as a form of revelation centered on the Resurrection of Christ,

which has been widely debated in both Protestant and Catholic theology, as well as

by non-Christian thinkers. - Wikipedia

Wolfhart Pannenberg R.I.P.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/09/wolfhart-pannenberg-r-i-p/

by Roger Olson

September 8, 2014

Comments

One of the last theological giants passed away September 5 (2014). Wolfhart Pannenberg was without doubt one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century. He was born in Stettin, Germany (now part of Poland) in 1928. He was in poor health for the past several years.

I had the privilege of studying with Pannenberg in Munich, where he taught theology at the University of Munich, during the year 1981-1982. I wrote a major part of my Rice University Ph.D. dissertation under his supervision during that year. (I finished it back in the U.S. and received my Ph.D. in 1984. The dissertation is entitled “Trinity and Eschatology: The Historical Being of God in the Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg.”)

Pannenberg, of course, was noted for his life-long opposition to “subjectivism” in theology. He believed that existentialism and Pietism were diseases of Christian theology, especially modern Protestantism, and needed correction. He opposed dialectical theology, eschewing what he called “special pleading” for theological conclusions. He wanted theology to be “Wissenschaftlich” (scientific) and thus engaged in “Fundamental Theology” (not fundamentalism but a type of natural theology rooted in human experiences such as “exocentrism”).

Many people, such as Pannenberg’s student Philip Clayton (whose obituary of Pannenberg you can read at Tony Jones’s blog), will describe Pannenberg’s theology in more detail. My friend Stanley Grenz (d. 2005) wrote one major book about Pannenberg’s theology which remains, I believe, one of the best.

Here I will instead tell stories about Pannenberg the man. I not only knew him well during the year I studied under him in Munich but also served as his “agent” for two lecture tours around the U.S. in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I had many one-on-one conversations with him in restaurants, in my home and his, and elsewhere. Sometimes others were present, too.

Pannenberg was not an easy man to know. He was, by most accounts, a typical German professor–a bit distant and aloof. Sometimes he could be sharp but never snarky or mean. My first personal experience of him was in his office in Munich in the late summer of 1981. I talked with him about my dissertation project. I had planned to compare his theology of the Trinity with Moltmann’s. Pannenberg told me to drop the comparison with Moltmann and just write about his own theology, so I did.

During that year, which was a most beautiful time for me, my wife, and our four year old daughter, I had many conversations with Pannenberg. Often they took place during the “Pause” in the middle of his 90 minute lectures. He would ask me to walk with him and I tried to keep up as he walked quickly around the building’s large lobby area. He spoke German to me and I spoke English to him (he said my German wasn’t good enough yet. I was fine with that).

During one of those ten-to-fifteen minute walks I asked him about paradox. He was generally critical of theological reliance on paradox and yet certain points in his own theology seemed paradoxical (such as his “eschatological ontology”). He told me that certain paradoxes were unavoidable but that they always remained “tasks for further thought.” In other words, never settle comfortably with them.

During that year Pannenberg was lecturing on the material that became the first volume of his Systematic Theology. I also sat in on two of his seminars—one of them an evening ecumenical discussion between himself and a Catholic professor and their students. The topic of discussion was the “Reformation anathemas” (Catholic against Luther and his followers) and whether they could be lifted. Eventually, of course, they were.

There were other American students studying with Pannenberg the year I was there–Phil Clayton and George Garin. We had many good times together—often discussing Pannenberg’s theology. One time we hatched a plan to invite Pannenberg to lunch to ask him what he meant by “the future ‘bestimmt’ the present.” (Bestimmen can mean either “define” or “determine.”) We agreed that I would pose the question, so I did. His answer didn’t surprise me: “Both, of course.” In other words, at least at that time, he believed that the future kingdom of God, the reign of God, determines the past retroactively–an ontological and not merely hermeneutical idea.

---

[R.E. Slater, "...this idea would be in opposition to open theism's assertion that the future is always open and therefore neither defined nor determined. However, in another sense, apart from open theism itself, one could assert from a sociological perspective that the "all the present is affected by a society's expectations of the future, and in this sense the future does affect the present based upon a society's existential expectations of it. Finally, in the scientific sense of time, time is always linear and is never pre-defined. The physics of the dilemma bears this out even in quantum mechanics however complicated the calculations and conjectures. Of course this presents a real problem for the biblical idea of prophecy. Is prophecy a 'fore-telling' of an event or is it a 'forth-telling' of an event? If God cannot know the future because the future is open and neither closed or determined per His divine fiats in creation-past, then can there be such a thing as Christian expectation? Then again, since our Creator is also Redeemer may we expect His will of redemption to become real and present through all eternity? It is in this sense, at the barest of minimums where every Christian must agree. And it is in this sense as well that the Christian faith has an expectation of the future where or not God can know it or not. That our expectations of the future can be one of anticipating recurring redemption towards finality within a free will creation of both atoms and man."]

---

One idea that came out clearly in his lectures, that I had not paid attention to before, was what I later labled “Pannenberg’s Principle”–that “God’s deity is his rule.” So we also asked him during that lunch if he would still say, then as before, that “God does not yet exist.” He said “Yes, with the proper qualifications.”

Several times I heard Pannenberg say “There is one thing I am not–a Pietist.” Since I was (and am) a Pietist (hopefully in the best and truest sense) I did not find Pannenberg’s approach to faith and spirituality especially agreeable. In my opinion, he tended to reduce faith to assent to what is reasonable [R.E. Slater, "An appeal to logic or reason"]. While I agree that Christian belief is (at its best) reasonable, I do not think reason is the basis for what is believed. Pannenberg’s spirituality was, by his own admission, “sacramental spirituality,” so our approaches to many things about Christianity were at cross purposes.

In spite of that, I owe a real debt of gratitude to Pannenberg for inviting me into his lectures and seminars and for giving me full access to the Protestant faculty library at the University of Munich and for taking time to have many conversations with me.

Overall, and in general, I would say, my theological journey has been shaped more by Moltmann than by Pannenberg. Still and nevertheless, it was a great privilege to study under him and to get to know him. His departure from this life is a great loss especially to the scholarly and academic side of Christian theology.