Saturday, September 14, 2013

An Unlikely Wedding: Patristic Problems and Contemporary Concerns


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.
[2] Ibid., p. 22.
[3] Alister E. McGrath, “Evangelical Theological Method: The State of the Art,” in Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), p. 24.
[4] McGrath, p. 25.
[5] Wiles, p. 32.
[6] McGrath, pp. 28-36.
[7] Wiles, p. 19.
[8] As Robert L. Wilken says, “The intellectual effort of the Christian church was at the service of a much loftier goal than giving conceptual form to Christian belief. Its mission was to win the hearts and minds of men and women and to change their lives.” The Spirit of Early Christian Thought (New Haven, CT: Yale Univeristy Press, 2003), p. xiv.
[9] Donald Fairbairn, Life in the Trinity: An Introduction to Theology with the Help of the Church Fathers (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), p. 185.
[10] McGrath, p.36-37.

No comments: