My understanding of the focus of
the Confessing Christ (CC) network is the concentration on “serious and joyous
theology” aimed at identifying what is valuable as well as what is problematic
in the theological focus of the UCC leadership http://confessingchrist.net/. While there are a
divergence of theological voices on the CC steering committee as well as the
broader network as exemplified on this list the appellation of “liberal”
to describe the prevailing theological viewpoint of the CC leadership, as someone
had mentioned, seems wide of the mark to me. In fact, from everything I’ve seen, the
prevailing voices in this network exhibit a highly nuanced, profoundly biblical
perspective that is, indeed calling the UCC back to its Reformation
heritage. Within the broader network, as exemplified by this list, there
are a range of voices from theological conservative to modestly liberal, but a
far cry from the center of gravity among the progressive viewpoint of the
denominational leadership.
Moreover, as I understand it, the
ecclesial focal point of the CC network is reconciliation rather than hostile
confrontation with the prevailing progressive denominational thread, and also,
I think, an appreciation among many in this network that there is something to
learn, as well, from the progressive sector, even theologically, notwithstanding a need to nudge the denominational leadership back to its heritage in the
Reformation.
As I had previously mentioned,
these dilemmas are rooted in the progressive/fundamentalist tensions within
Protestantism that go back to and prior to the onset of the 20th century.
In the mid-19th century there was a broad convergence at least within the North
within the major denominations, a working consensus, of sorts of what has been
referred to as the “benevolent empire” stemming out of the energies of the
Second Great Awakening. The theological conflict between the
perfectionist leaning Charles Finney and the Princetonian Calvinist Charles
Hodge did point to some brewing problems, yet by and large a broad center did
hold through the Civil War.
- Then
- Then critical historiography
- Then increasing cleavage between Yale and
- Then fundamentalism and inerrancy
- Then the social gospel
- Then the
- Then premillennial vs postmillennial eschatology
- Then the Scopes trial
The emergence of liberal
Protestantism was grounded in these epochal changes in religious thinking of
the 1875-1925 era. The same applies to
fundamentalism, a distinctively modern phenomenon. In working out a
biblically-based centrist position, part of the challenge is to determine how
the conflicts of these various issues are re-interpreted in the current period.
I, for one, can accept the broad
premises of evolutionary biology and critical historiography as intellectually
normative, subject to ongoing scholarship without the need to attribute
theological significance to them. That
is, evolutionary science tells me something about the origins of species while critical historiography sheds some light on the formation and structuring of
civilizations that I would accept as empirically verifiable even if they
contradicted certain historical-like statements embedded in the Bible. This gets tricky because I agree with Gabriel
Fackre and others that there are historical components to the Biblical story,
though I also argue that there are historical-like narratives also
embedded which may not have been accurate at all as factually based. An easy example is whether there was a
literal Adam and Eve. The short answer
is I doubt it, and many taking strong biblical theological positions would
agree with such skepticism. Where the
issue gets dicey is when we get to the NT and think about such matters as
Virgin Births and the literal resurrection of the dead. If such events did happen that would be fine
with me. My common and critical sense understanding necessitates profound
skepticism on these matters—not outright rejection, but profound
skepticism, in which it is up to those making such claims to put up the
evidence.
I won’t go on with these examples,
as the point is really that in order to work through the tensions between
fundamentalism and Christian modernism, the wheat from the chaff in critical
analysis needs to be separated. In terms
of history and science, both may provide empirically-based reasons to reject or
at least challenge the literal veracity of certain biblical events, even the
important ones. At the same time neither
history nor science, as currently practiced, tells us much, if anything about
God, or about the authenticity of the Christian revelation.
In reading Gabe and others I am
gaining a better appreciation for the entire scope of the Christian story from
creation to final eschatology and the depth of this story in comparison to
those of our own far less comprehensive ones of self creation. I have also believed for a long time, and
still do, that the Christian revelation is about much more than the travails of
the historical Jesus, even if we did have thorough and accurate information
about this person. In himself this
personage was quite an insignificant player in the scheme of ancient history
and could very well have been lost to historical memory. However what the NT teaches is that the revelation
of Jesus as the Incarnate Christ was the result of God working through the
historical Jesus in part through the apostolic succession, the emergence of the
church, the creative inspiration of Paul and the formation of the NT canon some
several centuries after the life of Jesus.
There’s much else, too that one could undoubtedly point to as signs of
God working through Christ in bringing the Incarnational revelation to
humankind. To me, this revelation itself
is the mystery; some 2,000 years later in its capacity to speak and profoundly
so to the perpetual condition of humankind.
On faith (for we do see dimly, but we see by faith) it speaks like no
other revelation in the realm of human history.
It is not evangelicalism, but the incarnational faith of Trinitarian orthodoxy, which I believe is the standard
upon which Christians need to put their stake in the ground. That’s a broad tent, but it does have its
standards. It is the tent, I believe,
which provides the solid basis for the CC community to engage the UCC
leadership in rigorous, but respectful dialogue. Such dialogue includes scope for the various
lights beyond the evangelical community which speak a word or two of truth
about critical dimensions of the mediation of the Word within the context of
our times. Thus, the CC community does
it self well to learn what it can from Tillich, the Niebuhr brothers, Gilkey, Ogden, Hall, Moltman, Ruether, McFaque, Brueggemann, and other serious
theologians of various neo-orthodox and liberal persuasions—not to accept
everything that comes from their creative pens, but to probe with discernment
what they have to say and to take what is essential from them in the ongoing
work of establishing the level of theological thinking that is required for our
times.
Thus, when such work becomes
mediated through our own biblio-centered evangelical premises the quality of
all our theological thinking can only be thereby enriched. One discerns this level of richness in the
theological studies of Gabriel Fackre and from a very different tradition than
that of Avery Dulles. It is present,
too, but in a more skeptical vein in the work of Donald Bloesch.
As I think through the
vision of the CC network, I discern a distinctively different voice than that
expressed by the liberal leadership and supportive progressive clergy of the
UCC. No doubt, there are substantial issues
under consideration in the thinking and working through a viable theology of
and for the UCC. That needs to be done,
however, with much discernment and in the process, coming to terms with the
theological richness that comprises the more progressive and liberal
perspectives, and calling that leadership, to reconnect in a more profound way
than perhaps currently experienced with the fundamental truths of the biblical
revelation.
No comments:
Post a Comment