As one not fully trained in theology, Roger Olson’s book Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology (Baker Academic, 2007) was really helpful in keeping me abreast of the current diversity in theological approach. It’s no longer just “conservative” versus “liberal,” as some would have it. Here’s my abstract on the book, followed by some thoughts.
In keeping with his thesis that “it is possible to be more evangelical by being less conservative,” Olson proposes a “postconservative” approach to theology as the most evangelical way of doing theology. The book outlines, in both an informative and a corrective way, what it means to be postconservative. He works within the evangelical tradition, defining evangelicalism around five themes: Biblicism, conversionism, crucicentrism, evangelistic activism, and respect for orthodoxy. Rather than dichotomizing between “liberals” and “conservatives,” Olson, speaking for himself and other postconservatives, contends that there are rather those, particularly postconservatives, who are open to theological revisions as discovered in Scripture through the Holy Spirit, and those tradition-bound evangelicals who are more interested in delineating narrower theological parameters (than the five themes above) in an attempt to determine who is an evangelical and who is not. Whereas the latter group considers right belief the hallmark of evangelicalism, postconservatives, while not totally disregarding right belief, subordinate it to the true evangelical hallmark of right experience of God. The postconservative “mood” is also characterized by a postfoundationalist approach to theology; an emphasis on narrative before propositions; a suppression of tradition in favor of Scripture in creating theological boundaries; and openness to new ways of thinking about God, such as open theism and non-classical views of his self-sufficiency. Olson hopes that through greater openness in the task of theology, groups such as postconservatives, postliberals, and conservatives will find common ground that will pull them together rather than drive them apart.
There are a lot of positive qualities to the book. For one, he drives home the point that Scripture is about transforming lives as we encounter God in it. Probably not many evangelicals would disagree with that; his contention is that evangelicals have often viewed Scripture solely as something that conveys information, and that conversion comes through cognitive apprehension of propositions, without necessarily regarding experience as a necessary component.
Yet in subordinating propositional content to experience, has he not gone too far in the other direction? In my opinion, he inadequately deals with why such a switch is permissible, simply affirming that we always tend to emphasize one element over another, whatever the dualism, whether justification versus sanctification, faith versus works, etc. (though he elsewhere claims to balance the content and experience, p. 73). In the same vein I think he’s quite unfair to the paleo-orthodox camp, which gives place to the received tradition in defining true Christianity. In Olson’s view, by doing so paleo-orthodoxy is defining Christianity entirely by propositional content to the neglect of right experience. But this is a complete mischaracterization of paleo-orthodoxy and of the church fathers themselves, who are emphatic that faith and practice, or as it were, orthodoxy and orthopraxy, are inseparable. That’s why the theology of the early church was so thoroughly practical (atonement theory and martyrdom, for example). To say that belief in the early church was not experiential is entirely wrong-headed, since the fathers viewed the study of theology as the means by which one experienced God. Wasn’t that exactly what Origen’s hermeneutical project was about, in seeking out the spiritual meanings of Scripture that would usher the reader into greater union with the Logos? What is union with the Logos if it does not involve experience? While Olson pretends to balance faith and practice he does no such thing in reality, if he also still gives place to both. And he wrongly faults others camps for doing just what he is doing.
He also unfairly represents paleo-orthodox theologians D. H. Williams and Thomas Oden by saying that they make scripture the sole authority for doctrine while at the same time precluding the possibility of theological revision by appealing to the fixed tradition of the church. But D. H. Williams, at least, specifically discusses (in Tradition, Scripture, and Interpretation) the fixedness and fluidity of the Tradition, affirming that while some doctrines are more essential to Christianity (such as those enshrined in the earliest creeds), the early church conceded that there is room for adaptation in less certain areas or in areas that are matters of cultural context.
On the other hand I also liked Olson's emphasis on narrative theology (though again I think it should be kept in balance with Scripture’s propositions, of which the narrative is comprised), particularly as I’ve been drawn recently to the speech-act approach to texts and the exciting interpretive possibilities it yields for biblical hermeneutics.
In keeping with his thesis that “it is possible to be more evangelical by being less conservative,” Olson proposes a “postconservative” approach to theology as the most evangelical way of doing theology. The book outlines, in both an informative and a corrective way, what it means to be postconservative. He works within the evangelical tradition, defining evangelicalism around five themes: Biblicism, conversionism, crucicentrism, evangelistic activism, and respect for orthodoxy. Rather than dichotomizing between “liberals” and “conservatives,” Olson, speaking for himself and other postconservatives, contends that there are rather those, particularly postconservatives, who are open to theological revisions as discovered in Scripture through the Holy Spirit, and those tradition-bound evangelicals who are more interested in delineating narrower theological parameters (than the five themes above) in an attempt to determine who is an evangelical and who is not. Whereas the latter group considers right belief the hallmark of evangelicalism, postconservatives, while not totally disregarding right belief, subordinate it to the true evangelical hallmark of right experience of God. The postconservative “mood” is also characterized by a postfoundationalist approach to theology; an emphasis on narrative before propositions; a suppression of tradition in favor of Scripture in creating theological boundaries; and openness to new ways of thinking about God, such as open theism and non-classical views of his self-sufficiency. Olson hopes that through greater openness in the task of theology, groups such as postconservatives, postliberals, and conservatives will find common ground that will pull them together rather than drive them apart.
There are a lot of positive qualities to the book. For one, he drives home the point that Scripture is about transforming lives as we encounter God in it. Probably not many evangelicals would disagree with that; his contention is that evangelicals have often viewed Scripture solely as something that conveys information, and that conversion comes through cognitive apprehension of propositions, without necessarily regarding experience as a necessary component.
Yet in subordinating propositional content to experience, has he not gone too far in the other direction? In my opinion, he inadequately deals with why such a switch is permissible, simply affirming that we always tend to emphasize one element over another, whatever the dualism, whether justification versus sanctification, faith versus works, etc. (though he elsewhere claims to balance the content and experience, p. 73). In the same vein I think he’s quite unfair to the paleo-orthodox camp, which gives place to the received tradition in defining true Christianity. In Olson’s view, by doing so paleo-orthodoxy is defining Christianity entirely by propositional content to the neglect of right experience. But this is a complete mischaracterization of paleo-orthodoxy and of the church fathers themselves, who are emphatic that faith and practice, or as it were, orthodoxy and orthopraxy, are inseparable. That’s why the theology of the early church was so thoroughly practical (atonement theory and martyrdom, for example). To say that belief in the early church was not experiential is entirely wrong-headed, since the fathers viewed the study of theology as the means by which one experienced God. Wasn’t that exactly what Origen’s hermeneutical project was about, in seeking out the spiritual meanings of Scripture that would usher the reader into greater union with the Logos? What is union with the Logos if it does not involve experience? While Olson pretends to balance faith and practice he does no such thing in reality, if he also still gives place to both. And he wrongly faults others camps for doing just what he is doing.
He also unfairly represents paleo-orthodox theologians D. H. Williams and Thomas Oden by saying that they make scripture the sole authority for doctrine while at the same time precluding the possibility of theological revision by appealing to the fixed tradition of the church. But D. H. Williams, at least, specifically discusses (in Tradition, Scripture, and Interpretation) the fixedness and fluidity of the Tradition, affirming that while some doctrines are more essential to Christianity (such as those enshrined in the earliest creeds), the early church conceded that there is room for adaptation in less certain areas or in areas that are matters of cultural context.
On the other hand I also liked Olson's emphasis on narrative theology (though again I think it should be kept in balance with Scripture’s propositions, of which the narrative is comprised), particularly as I’ve been drawn recently to the speech-act approach to texts and the exciting interpretive possibilities it yields for biblical hermeneutics.
2 comments:
Thanks for these thoughts. I have the book, but haven't had a chance to read it yet. You may want to check out "relevance theory" (Sperber & Wilson) to help balance out Speech Act Theory. Biblical scholars tend to latch onto Speech Act, but a lot has happened in linguistics since then. Relevance theory isn't the be-all-end-all, but it does have some interesting linguistic developments. Unfortunately, Sperber and Wilson aren't very effective communicators when it comes to this communication theory, so it's a bit of a slog, but other good articles are out there (e.g. Gutt or Gene Greene)
Ben, thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.
Post a Comment