By Michael Cooper, Ph.D./ABD
Assistant Professor Trinity International University Deerfield, Illinois
The present discussion of postmodern theology raises a number of interesting issues, not the least of which is the issue of a contextual theological orthodoxy. The hallmark of evangelicalism has been its stance on the 16th century reformation’s watchword sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fidei and yet postmodernity seems to threaten the very essences of evangelicalism’s reliance upon Scripture as a source of doctrine and living. However, is it possible that even as postmodernity threatens evangelicalism it could broaden it as well? This essay will address five guiding principles to ensure theological orthodoxy in a postmodern context.
Before approaching this subject one presupposition needs to be addressed. The presupposition of a high view of Scripture is assumed. This high view of Scripture is mitigated by three overarching principles of hermeneutics:
1. Since the Bible was written by human beings, it must be treated as any other human communication in determining the meaning intended by the writer.
2. Since Scripture is God-breathed and true in all its parts, the unity of its teachings must be sought, and its supernatural elements recognized and understood.
3. Since Scripture is God-breathed, it is absolute in its authority for doctrine and life. (McQuilkin 1992, 9)
Both Old and New Testaments constitute the plenary and verbal revelation of God’s economy. The Old and New Testaments comprise a unity of understanding of God’s intentions in human history. Critical analysis and interpretation of the texts must not be separated. The critical analysis of the text includes, “textual criticism, age and origin of the source, identification of authors, editors and compilers, stylistic patterns, and the like” (Barrois 1974, 8). Similarly, interpretation is defined as, “evaluating contents in relation to the historical context, at determining what the source documents meant for their contemporaries and how they were understood by later generations, at observing the evolution, the deviations, and eventually the vanishing of traditions” (Barrios 1974, 8).
With that presupposition in mind, the five principles under consideration are:
1. Criteria for Determining Orthodoxy
2. The Vincentian Canon
3. The Circle of Sensibility
4. Heresy as Boundary
5. The Hermeneutical Community
Principle One: Criteria for Determining Orthodoxy
Stephen Bevans raises the issue of criteria for determining orthodoxy when formulating contextual theologies. Utilizing the work of Schrieter, de Mosa and Wostyn, Bevans describes five checks: First, a contextual theology must have continuity with other theological formulations. This means that the validity of a contextual theology rests in its consistency with contemporary and historical theologies (Bevans 1992, 18).
Second, liturgical practices are the vehicle that moves orthodoxy to orthopraxis. If the way we worship contradicts what we believe then the contextual theology is not orthodox (Bevans 1992, 18). The opposite is also true. Third, if the way we worship demonstrates what we believe then what we believe is demonstrated by what we do. Hence, this criterion is that of Christian orthopraxis (Bevans 1992, 19).
Fourth, a contextual theology must submit itself to verification by the hermeneutical community. Bevans states, “Theology, even contextual theology, is always dialogical” (1999, 19). The fifth criterion is whether or not the contextual theology can constructively challenge other theologies. The idea here is that authenticity of a contextual theology is measured by whether or not it moves other theologies to reflect on “unthought of areas” (Bevans 1992, 19).
If there are so many divergent, and sometimes apparently conflicting interpretations, how can we be sure that our understanding of our faith is correct, that is, faithful to the Judaeo-Christian Tradition? Is it possible to recognize the one faith in the different interpretations? Does pluralism not become an ideology of adaptation when what is adapted or inculturated is considered to be correct? Should we not, perhaps, re-introduce at least some basic and universal truths, conceptually expressed and accepted as such? (Bevans 1992, 18; quoting de Mesa and Wostyn)
These five criteria represent contemporary reflection on a historical problem. While Bevans utilizes contemporary contextualizers of theology he inadvertently leaves out the fact that the church has historically practiced similar criteria for measuring orthodoxy. It is to this subject we now turn.
Principle Two: Vincentian Canon
The best attempts at formulating a biblical orthodoxy include a consensual effort to understand the “historical continuity” of orthodox theology. At this point, Vincent of Lérins’ (c. 431) conciliatory method of interpreting Scripture is advanced. Vincent, a monk who lived in a monastery off the coast of France, became known for his rule of determining orthodoxy, the Vincentian Canon. It is summarized as teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.
In the Catholic [universal] Church itself, every care should be taken to hold fast to what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. This is truly and properly “Catholic,” as indicated by the force and etymology of the name itself, which comprises everything truly universal. This general rule will be truly applied if we follow the principles of universality, antiquity, and consent. We do so in regard to universality if we confess that faith alone to be true which the entire Church confesses all over the world. [We do so] in regard to antiquity if we in no way deviate from those interpretations which our ancestors and fathers have manifestly proclaimed as inviolable. [We do so] in regard to consent if, in this very antiquity, we adopt the definitions and propositions of all, or almost all, the bishops and doctors. (Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, Chapter 2)
Motivated by Arianism and other influences that threaten orthodoxy, Vincent set forth the idea that correct theology is that which has been believed always, everywhere and by all. Rudolf Morris suggests that, “This principle, however, does not exclude progress or doctrinal development. But it must be progress in the proper sense of the word, and not a change” (Morris 1949, 260). Vincent himself understood this progress as a maturing of doctrine within its own orbit rather than a creation of something different.
Commenting on the Vincentian Canon, Florovsky states,
These two aspects of faith [church and apostles], or rather - the two dimensions, could never be separated from each other. Universitas and antiquitas, as well as consensio, belonged together. Neither was an adequate criterion by itself. “Antiquity” as such was not yet a sufficient warrant of truth, unless a comprehensive consensus of the “ancients” could be satisfactorily demonstrated. And consensio as such was not conclusive, unless it could be traced back continuously to Apostolic origins. (1972, 74)
The similarities of the Vincentian Canon with the five criteria for determining orthodoxy are obvious. The first criterion recommended by Bevans suggests Vincent’s idea of antiquity and universality. The fourth criterion suggests the idea of consensus. Similarly, the fifth criterion suggests the idea of the progressive nature of theology as it matures. Vincent (or maybe Bevans et al.) is in good company in assuring the preservation of orthodoxy.
Like Bevans’ criteria, the application of Vicent’s canon will serve not only to give validity to an orthodox interpretation of Scripture, but also to historical continuity of the interpretation. However, understanding that there are many valid interpretations of Scripture we now turn to setting their boundaries.
Principle Three: Circle of Sensibility
Thomas Oden, an avid proponent of the Vincentian cannon, proposes that theology should not be looked at narrowly, but rather with boundaries. In fact, he believes that the rediscovery of boundaries will be the primary occupation of twenty-first century theology (Oden 1996, 13). It is in the context of boundaries where theological reflection is best conducted. Those boundaries were initially set in the first five centuries of Christian history. To understand the doctors of the church is to understand the boundaries of consensual theology that was accepted by East and West.
Defining the boundaries of consensual theology is challenging. In the early church, heresy played a significant role in determining boundaries of orthodox theology. Theological issues, when taken to extreme, molded an understanding of what is or is not correct Apostolic Tradition that was believed everywhere by all. It is here at this juncture that I propose the “circle of sensibility” as a model for determining boundaries of orthodoxy.
The “circle of sensibility” was conceptualized by Urban Holmes as a means for guiding Christian spirituality with boundaries of acceptable spiritual practice (1980, 4-5). These boundaries are relevant for this present discussion on postmodern theology. A vertical and a horizontal axis (see illustration) dissect the circle of sensibility. The vertical axis represents a scale from speculative (illumination of the mind) to affective (illumination of the heart or emotions) technique of reflection. The horizontal axis represents a scale from apophatic (emptying) to kataphatic (meditation) technique of reflection.
There are four possible extremes when theological reflection moves outside the boundary of the circle. The apophatic/speculative extreme leads to encratism; the speculative/kataphatic leads to rationalism; the kataphatic/affective leads to pietism; and the affective/apophatic leads to quietism.
“Sensibility” defines for us that sensitivity to the ambiguity of styles of prayer and the possibilities for a creative dialogue within the person and within the community as it seeks to understand the experience of God and its meaning for our world. (Holmes 1980, 5)
Principle Four: Heresy as Boundary
As previously mentioned, it was the propagation of heresies in the early church that served to give orthodoxy boundaries and guarded the Apostolic Tradition. The theological propositions advanced by the early church were not bound in Greek cultural categories, but rather in Moses, Christ, and Paul. These propositions were tested and tried against heresy by the hermeneutical community that spanned from North Africa to Persia and from Britain to Arabia.
Etymologically, heresy is rooted in the idea of an assertive self-will. Being derived from the Greek hairesis, heresy is choosing oneself over tradition (Oden 1990, 74). Heresy evolved from personal theological biases and offered the occasion to help define orthodoxy. It was in the context of those heresies influenced by diverse cultural presuppositions that the early church set out to assure apostolic continuity (Oden 1996, 12-13). Therefore, the assertion can be made that the early church attempted to anchor their theology in the Apostolic Tradition and propagated orthodoxy that was contextual and transcultural by nature.
Principle Five: the Hermeneutical Community
Implicit in the Vincentian Canon and the understanding of Bevans is the responsibility of the hermeneutical community. Paul Hiebert suggests that a hermeneutical community serves as a check for personal theological biases (1994, 101). Self-theologizing, as understood by Hiebert, holds the idea of developing contextual theologies that are culturally relevant to a particular context. “Self” should not be understood as an individualistic attempt to formulate a personal theology. Rather, “self” is understood as an ethno-hermeneutical community.
Yet, there is a danger in the development of “self” or local theologies. It is easy for a local theology to give priority to the context of theology over theological content. When this is the case, we can no longer speak of an objective theology as opposed to theological pluralism (Clapsis 1993, 72-73). A universally valid theology based on absolutes is considered religio-centric in a postmodern pluralistic world.
One solution to this problem is the idea of meta-theology. Hiebert states that meta-theological truths are, “the methods by which legitimate theologies could be developed, and the processes for setting limits to theological diversity” (1994, 98). The objective of meta-theology is to give the diversity found in local theologies a center and a limit. In other words, the ethno-hermeneutical community comes under the scrutiny of the greater hermeneutical community of contemporary and historical Christianity to ensure the theological orthodoxy of a contextual theology.
Conclusion
In the emerging culture of Europe where there is a tendency toward the deconstruction of truth, theological orthodoxy must be maintained. In the evangelical tradition, theological orthodoxy has tended to be authoritarian and individualistic in nature without regard to the historical development of theology, nor its application in various cultures. Evangelicals have understood Luther’s maxim sola scriptura to mean that anything dealing with tradition must be rejected when in fact this was far from his understanding. By applying these five principles evangelicals can take a holistic approach to its theologizing. In this way, postmodernity broadens evangelicalism as it considers the historical and contemporary understanding of theological orthodoxy in the various cultural contexts of Europe.
Reference List
Barrois, George. 1974. The notion of historicity and the critical study of the Old Testament. The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 19:3-22. Bevans, Stephen. 1985. Models of contextual theology Missiology: An International Review 13, no. 2:185-202. __________. 1992. Models of contextual theology. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books. Clapsis, Emanuel. 1993. The challenge of contextual theologies. The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 38, no. 1-4:71-79. Florovsky, George. 1995. The authority of the Ancient Councils and the Tradition of the Fathers. In Eastern Orthodox Theology: A contemporary reader, ed. Daniel B. Clendenin, 115-124. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Hiebert, Paul. 1994. Anthropological reflections on missiological issues. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Holmes, Urban. 1980. A history of Christian spirituality. New York: Seabury Press. McQuilkin, Robertson. 1992. Understand and applying the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press. Morris, Rudolf E. 1949. Vincent of Lérins: The commonitories. In The Fathers of the Church, ed. Ludwig Schopp, 257-261. New York: The Fathers of the Church, Inc. Oden, Thomas C. 1993. Classical Christianity being attacked by fads. Human Events 53, no. 30:10-11. __________. 1996. Why we believe in heresy. Christianity Today 40, no. 3:12-13.