|
A
|
t first glance, one
might wonder what similarities exist between two apologists as bifurcated in
time as Justin Martyr and Norman Geisler. What significant comparisons could be
made between theologians like Irenaeus of Lyons and Millard Erickson? Beyond
solidarity in the Christian faith broadly conceptualized, it seems that these
Christian leaders have little in common. However, many evangelical concerns,
when carefully parsed out, are found to be modern recapitulations of perennial
problems the ancient church has already wrestled with. Of the variety of
comparisons between the ancient and contemporary church, several stand out as
most noteworthy. First, how should Christians deal with those who are outside the
church and blatantly oppose it? This is the apologetic question. Second, how
should Christians deal with those who are in the church but hold to aberrant
doctrine? This is the heresy question. Third, how can Christians fully tease
out the practical entailments of their beliefs to produce a full, enriching
life? This is the implication question.
First, the apologetic question: how
should Christians deal with those who are outside the church and blatantly
oppose it? The nascent Christian church was faced with opposition from the get
go. From a Jewish perspective, the Christian movement was something of an
impotent offshoot of Judaism and it’s novelty demanded justification.[1] Furthermore, Greek misunderstandings about
Christian beliefs and practices (i.e. Christ’s divinity, the nature of their
“love-feasts”, etc.) gave rise to acrid ridicule, requiring faithful apologists
to present thoughtful reasons for their beliefs to the antagonistic pagan
world.[2]
In like manner, the contemporary evangelical church also faces pressure to account
for its doctrinal formulations and praxis; in secular society where human
autonomy and reason reign supreme, religious claims to the “God of the Bible”
seem suspicious at best. What exactly does it mean to be a Christian? Can
someone really believe in that stuff and be intellectually honest in a
scientific age? Evangelical theology provides the framework for apologists to
go out and answer these questions raised by secular thinkers.[3]
In the same way that the early church countered incorrect accusations with
reasoned response, so evangelical Christians can use the “prism” of theology to
break “the message of the cross and resurrection down into its constituent
parts” so as to creatively display the wonders of God’s truth to a skeptical
world.[4]
Relevant questions and allegations always need answers and thankfully God has
equipped the church – both old and new – with the knowledge necessary to explain
their beliefs.
Second, the heresy question: how
should Christians deal with those who claim to be in the church but hold to
aberrant doctrine? This question quickly focuses attention on the internal
workings of the Christian family. Not only did the early Christians face
external pressure to explain their beliefs, they also found that they needed to
define the lines of orthodoxy within the fold.[5]
As Christianity began to grow, various interpretations of biblical data started
sprouting up. How is the Holy Spirit divine? What do you need to know to be
saved? Christian leaders quickly discerned that not all the answers being given
were in line with the testimony of Scripture, so they responded and set the
parameters in which orthodoxy dwelt. Now, while evangelicalism as a movement is
noticeably diverse, there still remains this issue of knowing when certain
teachings or practices fall outside the evangelical realm. For contemporary
evangelicalism these debates arise around issues such as biblical authority,
hermeneutics, tradition, etc.[6]
It would be naïve to believe that these issues are markedly black and white, but
much hair-splitting has transpired to determine who should be approved of and
who needed to be dismissed as outside the bounds of evangelicalism.
Finally, the implication question: how
can Christians fully tease out the entailments of their beliefs to produce a
full, enriching life? As Wiles points out, it was the “natural desire of some
Christians to think through the implications of their faith as deeply and as
fully as possible.”[7] In
typical patristic fashion, this often played out in the formulation of
theological doctrines, but they never did this without praxis in sight.[8]
As they determined orthodoxy from heterodoxy, their eye was always to preserve
the apostolic teaching about God so that a truly satisfying life could be
lived. For example, their doctrine of salvation depended heavily on the
doctrine of the Trinity. As God forgives a person’s sins he also grants them
access to His divine life through participation with the Son’s life. Thus, our
“entering divine life involves our becoming by grace what Christ is by nature:
a child of God.”[9] It
was only through intentionally participating in this Divine life that the
church fathers believed a person could experience a satisfying life here and
now. It seems to me that evangelicalism is faced with identical questions. How
do these great evangelical doctrines make sense of our daily lives? As McGrath
notes, evangelicalism as a movement has succeeded only insofar as it has been
able to take the testimony of Divine revelation and apply it to the peculiar context
it finds itself in.[10]
This is the challenge of the modern day. This is the overt call to contemporary
evangelicalism. How well we respond to this call will determine how long
evangelicalism lasts or along which trajectory it progresses. How does
revelation interpret our post-modern experience? What is the proper
relationship between revelation and science? How much does revelation inform us
about human persons? With God’s help, these questions can and will be answered for
this unfolding age as evangelical theologians continue to grapple with what it
means to know God.
[1] Maurice Wiles, “Motives for Development in the Patristic Age,” in The Making of Christian Doctrine (London: Cambridge University Press, 1967), p. 21.
No comments:
Post a Comment