Colossians Remixed, Walsh and Keesmaat, Chapter 6 : Regimes of Truth and the ord of truth.

I’ll be honest, this chapter has taken me a little while to unpack and think about. Having re-read the chapter several times I think I can offer a summary.
Brian and Sylvia want the reader to engage with the concept of changing attitudes towards truth. Having painted a picture of the cultural backdrop to this letter they tackle three issues:

• Truth in the Colossian context.
  

  Followers of “the Way” – that is, people like Nympha and Lydia, Onesimus and Tychicus who embrace Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah of Israel – are a controversial and sometimes despised group in the eyes of Judaism of the first century… … It is one thing to be heretics within a community that is its self a minority within the Roman empire. It is quite another thing to hold to a faith that is seditious to the empire. (Page 96)

• Truth in the 21st Century Western Context.
  

  How do you confess with integrity that Christ is Lord of the Cosmos when global Economics and the cybernetic revolution seem to demonstrate decisively that economic determinism fuelled by information technology is sovereign over the affairs of the world. And if you could find a way to make this confession in the face of such conflicting evidence, then how do you have the audacity to claim that the Christian gospel is true when the violent history of Christendom seems to demonstrate that such “truth” has often made common cause with violence and repression. (Page 97)

• Christian truth proposed by Paul.
  

  Given the tenuous relationship the early Christian community had to both its Jewish forebears and the imperial regime of Rome, it is not surprising that the epistle to the Colossians seems to be preoccupied with questions of truth and knowledge. (Page 97)

Observing that issues of truth consume the message of Colossians, Brian and Sylvia suggest that Paul is trying to present an alternative world-view in order to help the believers find a framework to enable them to exist within the society that they find themselves in.

Returning to the character of William, who we met in the first chapter. They point out that someone like William is going to struggle with talk of word-views and the absolutism of the letter that we are reading. William will resist the absolute because the post-modern cultural transition that is taking place sees no absolutes and each person is arguing from within their own perspective. For Williams generation truth is relative not absolute.

In order to interpret the text of Colossians they navigate the waters of Foucault’s perspective on regimes of truth. They touch on the way Christianity has been used as a totalising regime of truth and lead towards their conclusion that Colossians should not be interpreted as a totalising regime of truth. It is, in Brian and Sylvias view, a story of “the kingdom of the beloved son” which subverts totalising regimes of truth. They see the difference in two ways: Sacrifice and Creation

A kingdom of loving inclusion must be established in a radically different way from regimes of truth. It is not surprising therefore that, in profound contrast to regimes of truth with their multiple forms of constraint, the kingdom of the beloved Son is a kingdom won not through violence imposed upon others but through violence imposed upon the son. (Page 110)

The overcoming of the powers expressed in Colossians is done through a subversive victory. A victory through sacrificial love. They quote NT Wright “New Tasks for a Renewed Church”, Saying that the cross was:

“The victory of weakness over strength, the victory of love over hatred. It was the victory that consisted in Jesus’ allowing evil to do its worst to him, and never attempting to fight on its own terms. When the power of evil had made its last move, Jesus had still not been beaten by it. He bore the weight of the Worlds evil to the end, and outlasted it” (Wright p.72)

Painted within the letter is not only the theme of sacrifice but a comprehensive view of the redemption of the whole of creation:

Here is a vision of the radical, creation wide inclusiveness of the kingdom, in contrast to the dismissive exclusiveness of the regime. All things are to be reconciled – even the thrones, dominions, rulers and authorities that put Christ on the cross and continue to wreak havoc in countless human lives. But that redemptive inclusion comes via the path of the cross, the embrace of pain. (Page 113)

Brian and Sylvia see the view that Paul is communicating to them as a counter-ideology. It has been, and will be, co-opted to add authority to a regime of violence, but that is not the intention of the gospel or the text of Colossians.

Grenz, Renewing the Centre, Chapter 10 : Renewing the Evangelical centre.

I feel like I have finally made it. We have been working up to this point (for me it has taken weeks to read this book) now we are here I can’t help thinking “It had better be good!”

It is apparent at the outset of this chapter that Stanley sees the development of the Evangelical theological going beyond what was once a evangelical-liberal split towards a view of those that honour Christ and those that do not.

The postmodern condition calls Christians to move beyond the fixation with a conflictual polarity that knows only the categories of “liberal” and “conservative” and thus pits so-called conservatives against loosely defined liberals. Instead, the situation in which the chruch is increasinglyministering requires a “generous orthodoxy” characteristic of a renewed “centre” that lies beyond the polarizations of the past, produced as they were by modernist assumptions – a generous orthodoxy that is, that takes seriously the postmodern problematic. (page 331)

His appeal to renew the centre of Evangelicalism is not a call to return to the past, but a call to look to the future. The centre is a theological spirit, this spirit will renew the church which will in turn spill over into the society around it. For Stanley evangelicalism is a renewal movement, its purpose has always been to remind the church about the renewal of the heart of the individual the heart of the community.

The renewed centre that Stanley has in mind for Evangelicalism is shaped by three elements.

1. Gospeled in focus
   

   The Bible-centred dimension of the gospel-focused church ought not to be interpreted in an individualistic manner, however. Rather, even though Christians poses the great privilege of reading the Bible privately, discerning the gospel message is not merely a private, but also a community process. (page 339)

2. Doctrinal in orientation.
   

   A renewal of the centre, therefore, calls the church to the ongoing task of docrinal retreival and reformation, under the normative guidance of scripture and the Spirit, for the sake of the furtherance of the gospel of God’s transforming grace freely available in Christ. (page 345)

3. Catholic in vision.
   

   In looking to the whole church as the context for the evangelical witness, they are merely reviving the catholic spirit that characterised many of their forbears in the reformation, in the Puritan and Pietist Movements, and in the great evangelical awakenings. (page 351)

Grenz, Renewing the Centre, Chapter 9 : Evangelical Theology and the Ecclesiological Centre.

Stanley observes that within Evangelicalism there is a tendency to avoid the subject of eccleisology. With a commitment to core evangelical principles over denominational affiliation evangelicalism has turned away from the subject. He notes that none of the major forces that have shaped evangelical theology have had the issues of eccleisology in their minds.

The main area of eccleisology that was dealt with by the early Evangelicals was the inclusion of nominal or non believers in the church. Because of the great awakening and subsequent emphasis on conversion, some began to call into question the ecclesiastical structures that allowed “not only the unconverted into the church but also placed unconverted clergy in authority over the church” (Page 292).

Evangelicals formed themselves in to societies that drew from evangelicals across the denominations. With the rise of mission societies, Evangelicalism took on a para church flavour.

The societal model was a stroke of genius, for it set the ecclesiological form for the viable or institutional functioning of the budding evangelical movement. (page 295)

There is a distinction between the ecumenism expressed in Evangelicalism and the ecumenical movement. The evangelical cross-denominational expression allowed people to keep their ecclesiological ideals while expressing a commitment to evangelical principles. Wider ecumenism take a different track bringing some form of compromise to the existing ecclesiological structure.

For a variety of reasons, then, neo evangelicals are generally not interested in the kind of modern ecumenism that focuses on the task of creating institutional union… as a coalition that draws adherents from a variety of confessional bodies, evangelicalism is inherently ecumenical. But the movement displays a unique type or style, one that might be termed a “believer ecumenicism”. (page 307-8)

Talking of a renewal of Evangelical ecclesiology Stanley proposes that Evangelicals see the church as a community with the marks of: a community of word and sacrament, the creedal marks and the missional church, contextual ecclesiology.

Grenz, Renewing the Centre, Chapter 8 : Evangelical Theology and the Religions

The discussion must move to the subject of truth and how in the matrix within which theology is now conducted can the Christian theological vision be seen as true. Christianity has at its heart a missionary vision, a vision that is particularly seen withing the evangelical spectrum. Stanley sets out three positions in regard to the theology of salvation. Exclusivism, Inclusivism and Pluralism.

1. Exclusivism: Salvation through Christianity alone.

The essence of the inclusivist position is that the biblical approach to salvation is post-Pentecost and focused on the church. The church “is the sole vehicle of God’s saving work through history” (page 253). If there is no salvation outside of the church then other religions have no place in the salvific purpose of God.The

position comes into dialogue with forms of revelation when it considers the matter of those who never have any connection with the church. Within the view there are those that see the general revelation (IE God is seen in the world around us) as allowing an opening for those who lived their lives without any contact with the Christian church.

Some evangelical revisionists begin their reflections with the bedrock belief that in his grace God grants everyone a genuine opportunity to participate in the salvation found through Christ. (page 257)

This view moves towards the inclusivist position.
2. Inclusivism: Salvation through Christ AloneStanley

admits that the inclusivist position is difficult to define. The position allows for people outside of contact with the Christian church to relate to and find salvation through Christ. The boundry with exlusivism is “fuzzy and fluid” (page 261). They remain comitted to the principle that “Jesus is God’s unique means of salvation” (page 262).

Despite their differences inclusivists of all varieties (like exclusivists) remain committed to the unique veracity of the Christian vision of salvation and to the finality of Jesus Christ in procuring salvation. Page 263

3. Pluralism: Salvation though God Alone.

Pluralists are happy to reject the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and find God at work through all religious expression. They are happy to move beyond the christocentric tendencies of the inclusivists and place God at the centre of the salvific debate.

Evangelical theologians have been practically unanimous over their rejection of the pluralist position… They have shown less unanimity, however, on the remaining two basic options. (Page 266).

Stanley concludes the chapter by suggesting that Christianity bears a complete vision in a triune way:

1. through acts of worship of the triune God.
2. through mutual edification as we act in community to each other.
3. through outreach. (from page 285)

This means we must engage in the task of evangelism unto the end of the age. But we must avoid making the reality of judgement the sole motivation for our proclamation. It is simply not our prerogative to speculate as to the final eschatological judgement, which will be a day of surprises. (Page 285-6)

For Stanley evangelism, acting out the mission of God on earth is the only gift we can give back to God.

In Charnwood on Sunday

We will be going for a gentle stroll on Sunday, meeting at the lower car park of Beacon Hill at 2:30.  If you are in the area and would like to catch up with us, that would be great.

Grenz, Renewing the Centre, Chapter 7 : Theology and Science after the Demise of Realism.

Following his method (it’s taken me a while to pick this up, but I think I finally understand the approach that he is taking), Stanley looks at the interaction that Theology has had with Science over three periods of time.

1. The Modern Paradigm: Theology is like a science.

Over the three hundred years (give or take) that Modernism spanned Theology was seen as Science. Theologians used scientific method (I once heard a chemist preach this way “This scripture means… and my first piece of evidence is… and my second piece of evidence is”). He traces the development of scientific method and how it was picked up on by theologians and concludes:

The modern paradigm, which looks to empirical science as providing the method for theology has yielded impressive results. By borrowing scientific method conservative theologians have constructed systems of Christian doctrine that have assisted apologists in responding to the challenge posed by a world that, from their perspective, appears to defy science and is enamoured with scientific method. (page 228).

He notes that as science developed it became increasingly more complex and theology has taken its place among the sciences.

2. The Medieval Paradigm: Theology is the queen of sciences.
According to Stanley the diversity that arose in scientific method and the “demise of naive realism” (page 229) left theologians searching for a new approach to their theological method. For some this meant revisiting the Medieval approach.

He draws on the work of Thomas Aquinas and suggests that the medieval model was to assume that the salvific knowledge of God was revealed through deliberate intellectual discipline.

The medieval theologians argued that theology deserves primacy over the others, because theology’s first principles are supernatural in origin, and its subject matter is God. In short theology is the queen of the sciences. (page 230)

The theologians trying to breath new life into this method rejected the dependence on Aristotle and did not build upon his understanding of revelation and reason. They chose the concept of the Christian articulation of God and the universe as his creation to articulate how science falls into the orb of theology. In this view science and theology are not pitted against each other in some kind of celestial battle. They are alternative views of reality.

3. The Postmodern Paradigm: Science is theology.

This view takes on constructionism and applies it both to the scientific and theological methods. The scientist sees their world from within their perception and view, indeed a large amount of scientific language is unintelligible to the world outside. That view influences the experiments that are conducted and the way the results are viewed. The scientist is an interpreter, creator and observer of the world around them. Science becomes theology because it:

both legitimates its socially constructed world and mediates the cosmic status to the nomoi of a scientifically oriented society. In this manner, science fulfills sociologically a religious role. (page 244)

Grenz, Renewing the Centre, Chapter 6 : Evangelical Theological Method after the Demise of Foundationalism.

The aim of the chapter is to explain foundationalism and document how the move from it has affected evangelical theology.
Foundationalism is about the way we learn. A foundationalist sees the growth in knowledge in the same way that a building would be constructed. The knowledge must grow from a certain unquestionable foundation:

Proponents see this epistemological foundation as consisting of either a set of incontestable beliefs or a number of unassailable first principles, on the basis of which the pursuit of knowledge can proceed. These basic beliefs or first principles are supposedly universal, context-free, and available – at least theoretically – to any rational person (page 186)

Stanley suggests that during the enlightenment the basic foundationalist belief became one that centred on a self reality summed up by Descartes “I think; therefore I am”. In this way Descartes discovered that all knowledge was culturally dependent. The result was a discussion about the nature of truth that branched from the individual in a rational way. The neo-evangelicals adopted the bible as their truth foundation and built their rational understanding on top of it.
However this foundationalist view of truth was questioned by people who saw truth and belief in a new light. Truth began to be seen as coming out of a collection of beliefs that were connected together (coherentism). For the theologians this meant that their task was to recast theology after the demise of foundationalism. He points to Pannenberg as a major player in this recasting:

he criticizes he tendency of the Scholastic tradition, especially in its protestant form, to reduce the role of reason to that of illuminating truth already presupposed from revelation disclosed through what was assumed to be an inspired Bible. (Page 196)

According to Stanley, Pannenburg thares the goal of finding universal truth suggesting that any personal truth must be in some way universal as well. He sees Pannenburg’s conclusion being that truth comes together in God.

For Pannenburg, the goal of theology is to demonstrate the unity of truth in God, that is, to bring all human knowledge together in our affirmation of God. Or stated another way, theology seeks to show how the postulate of God illuminates all human knowledge (Page 197).

The importance of this shift in thought for Evangelical theology is seen by Stanley as the interprative framework and actual theology are intertwined. Under the foundationalist approach the theology interpreted the framework, the conditionalist approach sees them as mutually dependant.

At this juncture I think Stanley can hear his readers wondering where these shifts leave the Bible within the theological conversation. He introduces the role of the Spirit by way of clarification:

Throughout the Bible, the Spirit orients our present on the basis of the past and in accordance with a vision of the future. The Spirit leads contemporary hearers to view themselves and their situation in the light of God’s past and future, to open themselves and their present to the power of that future, which is already at work in the world. Thereby they are drawn to participate in God’s eschatological world. The task of theology in turn, is to assist the people of God in hearing the Spirit’s voice speaking through the text, so that we can live as God’s people – as inhabitants of God’s eschatalogical world – in the present (Page 207).

Drawing on three distinct motifs, Stanley maps out what he sees will be the method of contemporary Evangelical theology:

1. Structural Motif
   Finding theology within the doctrine of the trinity. A relational motif that finds its way throughout the mutually dependent theological framework.
2. Integrating Motif
   Finding theology in the story of life. Reading the narrative of the Bible and allowing our theology to become narrative theology.
3. Orienting Motif
   The eschatological perspective of Christian theology is what gives orientation to the reconstruction of evangelical theology. Christianity is teaching about the God who promises hope.

Grenz, Renewing the Centre Chapter 5 : Evangelical Theology in transition

As the careers of Carl Henry and Bernard Ramm indicate, seeds of divergence lie deep within the heart of neo-evangelical theology. In the second generation, these seeds have sprouted, coming to bloom in the differing directions that the successors of the pioneers have trod. (Page 151)

It seems that to Stanley Grenz neo-evangelical theology has been marked by those who with to all the scriptures to shed new light on evangelical doctrine and those who hold the expressed doctrine as sacrosanct. He picks up on three evangelical theologians who have significantly influenced the final two decades of the twentieth century, Wayne Grudem, John Sanders and David Wells.

Stanley sees Wayne’s monumental work “Systematic Theology” in two ways. First it goes some way to completing its stated aim to set forward a concise opinion on matters disputed within evangelical theology (namely, inerrancy, divine sovereignty and human responsibility, predestination and eternal security, women in ministry, church government, baptism, spiritual gifts and the eschatological constellation of rapture, tribulation and millennium (Grudem, Systematic Theology, page 16)). Secondly Stanley sees gave weaknesses in his dismissive mature of other theological perspectives and his naive approach to scripture:

He seems to equate his theological system with that of the Bible itself in a completely naive manner. Not only does he believe that he has captured “What the Bible itself says” about topics he has chosen for inclusion in his work, he also intimates that the topics themselves are simply those that the Bible intends to address. (Page 158).

Stanley places Wayne Grudem’s theological perspective and influence at the heart of those within Evangelicalism that shift towards fundamentalism.
John Sanders is seen by Stanley as developing a trend towards a theology that allowed a more relational approach to God. He espoused the perspective of God as a risk taker. Stanley compares his approach to Wyne Grudem because although they take a different theological track, both men try to jump from the text to the contemporary. They miss a large body of tradition from about the fifth century onwards.
Further attention is given to the theology of David Wells. David’s book “No place for Truth” received wide acclaim. Stanley highlights three concerns about his theories that are found in his writings.

1. He suggested that there was little room made in evangelical churches for theology. Stanley points out that some large main stream evangelical churches had their own theologians on the staff. He does observe that they probably majored in areas of theology that David did not see as of paramount importance.
2. David accuses the evangelical church of cultural accommodation and raises a Christ against culture stance.
3. David makes a “typlical neo-evangelical move of espousing a truncated understanding of the evangelical movement” (page 166).

Having made these observations of the influention thinkers within the evangelical spectrum, Stanley seeks to show how evangelical theology relates to the post modern condition. He sketches out two areas of post-modernity that “are especially important for the future of evangelical theology” (page 169).

1. A move from a realist to a constructionist view of truth.
2. The move from the grand meta-narrative to local stories.

He offers a brief evaluation to draw the reader to his conclusion, why these indicate the death of theology within evangelicalism. Using Jon Stone he observes that evangelicalism has been obsessed by defining its boundaries. Whereas evangelicalism came about to provide an alternative theology and thought within Christendom the debate has turned evangelicalism inward. The result of a debate about boundaries is that it moves the discussion away from recognising the diversity there is within evangelicalism.
He summaries his view of the emerging post modern Evangelical thus:

It is a patchwork quilt of variegated sub-narratives. Evangelical theology is in turn a monolithic entity. It is not a given, static reality that can be neatly summarized by a set of universally held doctrines capable of being invoked as marking its boundaries, even though there is broad consensus among evangelicals on certain doctrines. Evangelical theology is instead a mosaic of local theologies. (page 181)

Grenz, Renewing the Centre, Chapter 4 : The Expansion of Neo-Evangelical Theology

In many respects, Carl Henry and Bernard Ramm epitomize the first generation of “Card-Carrying” evangelical theologians. Moreover they passed to their theological heirs a legacy of intellectual engagement worthy of emulation. (Page 117)

There is no doubt that Stanley sees these two theologians as setting the evangelical tradition up for the final third of the twentieth century. Because of the effort that Carl and Bernard put in to developing the movement as well as the theology, the second generation were able to significantly develop the pioneers work “in depth as well as quantity” (Page 118).
The first bastion of late twentieth-century evangelical theology that Stanley picks up on is Millard Erickson a student of Bernard Ramm. It appears that this student of the biblical apologist became the successor of Carl Henry the rational apologist. Millard is observed as shuffling towards the fundamentalist side of the growing divide “that took shape in the last third of the twentieth-century” (Page 134). The identifiable debate was about the destiny of those who had no Christian framework or had made no christian response.
Stanley sees Clark Pinnock as the second most significant figure in the development of evangelical theology. Clark progressed in his theological persuasion from a Calvinist perspective to a fully fledged Arminian. This perspective helped him think through and challenge the perspectives of Millard. This lead him to evaluate, not only the doctrine of hell but also that of mission:

Through this rethinking, Pinnock has come to a greater awareness of what he sees as the biblical picture of a triune, and therefore eternally relational, God who in turn enters into relationship with creation.

Stanley thinks that Clark as preparing the way for the next generation of theologians to move through the door of modernity into post-modernity.

Grenz, Renewing the Centre, Chapter 3 : The Shaping of Neo-Evangelical Theology

This chapter outlines two major influences on what became mainstream evangelical (or neo-evangelical, as Stanley prefers) theology. The two main influences were Carl Henry and Bernard Ramm.

In prolific writing careers that spanned the first forty years of the new evangelical movement, Henry and Ramm demonstrated the kind of intellectual engagement that Harold Ockenga had in mind when he voiced his desire for a coalition of conservative Protestants who would “infiltrate rather than separate”. (Page 85)

In a detailed summary of their main theological perspectives Stanley seeks to show how they attempted to remain true to genuine orthodox belief while moving beyond fundamentalism. Although they shared a common aim, they brought two different perspectives into the evangelical community.
Stanley identifies Carl’s goal as modest:

He merely desired to lay down the epistemological and methodological foundation upon which other evangelicals could construct a solid theological system. (Page 100)

A prolific writer Carl was a rational apologist for evangelicalism and his foundation was studied and built on by many. While serious thinking and thorough examination was part of his method, he:

never lost sight of his own conversion experience. And he truly desired that evangelicals would be a gospel people, that is a people who would both articulate and live the good news of God’ power to transform individuals lives and society. (Page 100).

Bernard Ramm followed similar principles to Carl Henry but his emphasis was not upon apologetic theology but on biblical theology. Bringing the bible in to conversation with the modern intellectual realm of science. He believed that:

divine revelation was not in competition with the best of modern learning but the two coalesced. For this reason he was able to gain an appreciation for the positive contributions of the Enlightenment and thereby move beyond the cautious stance of Henry (Page 115)

Next Page »