My following comments should not be rejected for being construed as thinking that “all is lost” at BTS, nor that all is as bad as it could possibly be. Rather, in light of the many alumni that are distressed with the perceived direction of the seminary at present, I only request an attitude of receptivity, even a genuine self-examination to ask whether any of these voices of critique have any warrant. This, in the least, is in order (perhaps has already occurred). Obfuscation, denials, distortions, or ad hominum retorts about those who bring these concerns will not serve the cause of the seminary nor the kingdom. Suggestions that the “old BTS” just produced “angry” and “reactionary” students (as might be said of this letter and others with like concern) should also be readily dismissed, since this is but an ad hominum argument, and a dismissal of the many compassionate, broad-minded, and deep feeling students that BTS graduated. Indeed, there can be a time and place for anger, particularly if one’s brothers and sisters in Christ are thought to be bringing real possible harm to a seminary or the church of Christ. Further, suggestions that the “law of love” should pre-empt our expressions of concern, and critique, will be seen as little more than a “smoke-screen.” This letter, I hope, does not contain any personal attacks on anyone’s character, for I intend no such. This can be taken as a complaint, with some judgment, about the present direction the seminary has very publicly taken in recent years.[1]

Dr. Robert Vannoy at BTS used to begin (before being retired) his famous OT Foundations course with a quote:

 I have come to the conclusion that the postmodern, philosophical hermeneutic, that is held in some evangelical circles today, is parallel in ways to the earlier historical-critical hermeneutic that Vannoy, Schaeffer, and many others who founded BTS were concerned was encroaching with little critique. Though often very pious scholars in their personal lives, early historical-critics where opening the flood-gates to a new approach to scripture and theology that has been our devastating inheritance to this day. If the BTS board does not understand the terminology, issues, and history of this ongoing catastrophe, I challenge them to do some serious homework. Study carefully the histories of modern seminaries and hermeneutics, and understand your role, since you chose to be accountable for this seminary in this time. I suggest that there are themes and methods that are similar between that period and our own in the early twenty-first century, but I will not be exploring these parallels per se. Rather, I will address specifically the present openness at BTS to a new approach to scripture, theology, and ecclesiology.

At BTS, I was inspired by a model of theological education that propelled me in my life-work (which included earning a PhD in OT theology and ongoing educational ministry in seminaries and the local church). That model was one of unwavering confidence in scripture, the knowability of truth, the certainty of the things entrusted to us, and confidence that the timeless gospel addresses all of the diverse contingencies of life in diverse cultures. It was also tempered, in my observation, with humility. Contrary to the accusation of postmoderns that the so-called “Modernists” (old Princeton,[3] old BTS) were not humble theologians, but presumptuously confident (even idolatrously so), I find this a slanderously untenable charge. The confidence of early twentieth century conservatives was affirmed against the assault on the scripture from those who began to employ a new hermeneutic that would eventually undermine all confidence in the veracity of the Bible for countless people. Today, that historical-critical hermeneutic of “suspicion” still rules the academic world. We can never hope to “reclaim” that world apart from an international reformation and revival. Practically, all we have been able to do is form new schools to carry on in our small corners a “Bible-believing’ hermeneutic of trust. This is what I received at (unaccredited) BTS. This hermeneutic of trust was not an unthinking, uncritical, or ignorant approach to biblical studies. It was also neither Rationalistic (though rational) nor Modernist (though modern in application). 

One striking fact is the confusion of language in this discussion, since “Modernist” to the “old” conservatives meant “Liberal” (or historical-critical), and in reference to history “Modern” means the period beginning in the late Medieval period, not in the Enlightenment Period. Statements from Dr. Tod Mangum reflect this historical confusion when he says “in the old modernist approach at BTS,” suggesting that the present (postmodern) BTS has in fact departed from “old BTS” (Modernist). Yet, on both accounts he is wrong, the old BTS was neither Modernist (nor Enlightenment), and in reality the present BTS is more Modernist (in the accurate use of the term) than the old BTS was ever “Enlightenment.” According to Dr. David Dunbar, it is also reported that the past BTS “hermeneutic was based on enlightenment thought.”[4] I must ask, if the previous generation of alum received a seriously flawed seminary education, are there plans for reimbursement for the long years, countless hours of sweat and tears, personal sacrifices, and our delusion into Modernist ideology? Are we former alums to tell our constituents that we are Modernists who need to be reigned in, admonished for philosophical heresy, for perpetuating the sins of our BTS fathers against the rest of the modern world, especially our foreign brothers and sisters whom Dr. Franke claims are prevented from biblical Christianity by this “modernity”?

The BTS call to missionalism is indeed noble, but many of us suspect that the church has always been called to mission, and wonder what is new in this proposal. Further, I fear that the mission BTS is calling us on is one that is presently perpetuating serious confusion in the seminary, in the church of Jesus Christ, and among its alumni. This is reminiscent of those who talk of evangelization but are loathe to discuss or practice evangelism. When I was last on campus, I saw a large poster/ad for the seminary that read “Engaging Postmodernism.” I reflected that there were two words wrong with this poster: it should have read “Evangelizing Postmodernists.” Unless, of course, that is not what was intended. But I have raised a serious hermeneutical blunder (in the eyes of posmoderns) to suggest the authors had a knowable intention. Indeed, engaging means practically nothing without some definition, and “Postmodernism” is in the view of many already passé. So, one (and some alumns) is inclined to ask, “what is all this new hubbub, and where is the seminary going?”

An earlier vision statement from the old BTS states:

“Biblical’s Mission is to serve the church by preparing leaders
who accurately interpret the Bible, live out its truth, and communicate its message to the world."

I also came across another statement [undated] in BTS advertising (subsequent to sending this letter to the board of Directors]:

These statements stand in some contrast to the present mission(al?) statement of BTS

“To prepare missional leaders who incarnate the story of Jesus with humility and authenticity and who communicate the story with fidelity to Scripture, appreciation of the Christian tradition, and sensitivity to the needs and aspirations of postmodern culture.”

I do not claim to understand what “missional leaders who incarnate the story of Jesus with humility and authenticity” might look like. I seem, however, to have gone to a different seminary with the same name, and thus may not be expected to grasp this profundity. I also suspect that claims of “humility” (sounds biblical) and “authenticity” (unsure here) is an unsubstantiated and unquantifiable claim. But who am I to say this has not been achieved? Further, is it clear to others what “incarnating the story of Jesus” might resemble? I certainly have no certain idea what this means, unless it refers to living in obedience to Christ before the watching world. If that is the case, why not just say so? Otherwise, this illiterate alum is left in the dark. “Fidelity to Scripture” is the best thing going in this statement, but within a postmodern framework, that denies metanarratives, I wonder how this can be sustained. That is, I suspect that many postmodernists would strongly argue against BTS’s earlier statement that one can “accurately interpret the Bible.”[5] Thus, what will “fidelity to scripture” look like? “Sensitivity to the needs and aspirations of postmodern culture,” is to me the obscurest of all the phrases in the new BTS mission(al) statement. Is this just another way of stating we need to contextualize the gospel? Or, is there more? What are the needs of postmodern culture? What are its aspirations? To answer such questions that this phrase raises, can we accurately interpret this modern philosophical metanarrative of postmodernism? Here, the circularity of the postmodern dilemma should be obvious.

“Put in Trust with the Gospel” was the theme I received from old BTS, but this sounds so simplistic against the jargon in the present mission(al) statement above.[6] If this present statement means something like, “To faithfully proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to our generation,” then I am on board, but as it stands now, I am sinking.

My concerns about Neo-Orthodoxy at BTS[7]

Dr. J. Franke reportedly affirms that “For Karl Barth, the incarnation of Jesus is objectively true,” “But for that to become ‘revelational’ requires a subjective moment.”[8] But I would ask how the incarnation is now to be understood as “revelational” in a “general revelation” sense? Is this not a confusion of terms and formulation? The incarnation of the Son of God is not a “general revelation” dependent on a “subjective moment.”[9] This seems to collapse “revelation” and “incarnation,” and also to make its “objective” veracity dependent upon a “subjective moment.” If all that is meant here is that the objective historical incarnation of the Son of God must be believed, then there is nothing very profound or new being asserted here. I suspect, however, that something profoundly new is being asserted, as with Barth’s configuration on the resurrection of Jesus, and it involves a post-orthodox view on both revelation and history. Have we forgotten Barth’s configuration of the bodily resurrection of Jesus? It is one thing with Bultmann to simply deny any historical resurrection event, it is another to affirm a spiritual resurrection that leaves the historical question as irrelevant. Recall the famous incident when Carl Henry (then editor of Christianity Today) questioned Barth with “If the cameras had been shooting on the day of the resurrection would they have filmed anything?”[10] Is there anything in Karl Barth’s works that suggest the bodily resurrection of Jesus is foundational to the Christian faith, or even matters to us in light of the “Christ of Faith.” This incident mentioned above is relayed in the following excerpt from the TSF Bulletin:

 “I myself am also a liberal – and perhaps even more liberal than those who call themselves liberals.”[11]

Dismissed though they sometimes are as illiterate fundamentalists (or worse, “unscholarly”) by some enlightened “evangelical barthian postmodernists,” there was a previous generation of Evangelicals who critiqued K. Barth’s neo-orthodoxy.[12] I chose the following examples for their close connections to the history of BTS.[13]

See, for example:

~ God is wholly transcendent: Totally Other.

~ God can only be known in paradox: rationally Inapprehensible.

~ God is “free” from all created reality, even free from His own being and decrees.

~ God is only “knowable” subjectively: as Subject, never Object.

~ Revelation is Christ, not the Bible: revelation is only existential encounter (Geschichte).

~ Revelation is not propositional: only an existential encounter of crisis leads to “faith.”

~ The Bible is only a human witness: it is the error-filled word of man about the existentially encountered Word of God. Jesus himself was not free of sin as a man.

Though Barth affirmed many cardinal orthodox doctrines, his revision of their essential meaning leaves his teaching more insidiously harmful than those (like Bultmann) who did not so readily employ orthodox terminology. Though Barth is sometimes said to have rescued the Christian faith from Modernism (Liberalism), his reconstruction is, in the main, unorthodox.

I have been told that it is denied that Dr. Franke is a “Barthian” or that he is “a Neo-Orthodox,” and this I will not attempt to dispute. Nevertheless, I would suggest that one may be barthian or neo-orthodox in so far as one adopts the dialectical categories from Barth about God, scripture, and revelation. It also is insufficient to distance oneself from Barth by saying, “I am not a Barthian, because I do not agree with all that Barth affirmed.” Also, in both advocating, publishing on, and widely disseminating Barth’s works and ideas in the church and academic community, I suggest that makes one more than just a casual commentator on Barth’s system(oops!) of theology.[16] A blurb at the Westminster John Knox web site, for Dr. Franke’s recent book on Barth reads, “A somewhat whimsical yet serious introduction to the theology of Karl Barth (1886-1968) . . . this is an enticing sketch of Karl Barth, his life, and his work. Virtually every sentence delivers understanding to begin a lifetime of reading Barth, who will ever be named among the greatest witnesses to the truth of the Christian faith.” Is this what we are to pursue, a “lifetime of reading Barth.” Is there no serious critique of Barth even offered in this volume? Is there no hint of caution or acknowledgment of the harm that Neo-orthodoxy has brought to the Christian world?

In light of the long history of Evangelical critique of Barth’s theology, in John Franke’s article “God Hidden and Wholly Revealed, Karl Barth, postmodernity, and evangelical theology,”[17] he states that “the perceived affinity of Barth’s theology with postmodernism has led some interpreters to suggest that Barth, who considered himself both a child and a critic of the 19th century, may find his greatest influence in the century to come.” We have been told by  Dr. Franke that he considers himself a postmodernist, and thus one might conclude from such statements that he believes Barth may become the key theologian for the postmodern moment. Franke has also told us he is a non-foundationalist, and thus his comments that the “increasingly common postmodern, nonfoundationalist readings of Barth’s theology” may hold some significance to him. We are also told that postmodernists appreciate Barth’s view of God as “wholly other” (Totally Other), because “finite human beings are simply incapable of describing the infinite God within the context of a single linguistic context, much less a particular theological system within a particular linguistic context.” If this is so, we must ask why Dr. Franke still “does theology”?

Franke, however, takes to task some of the postmodern reading of Barth for not being dialectical, and since Barth is a dialectical theologian such readings are inadequate, even if they suit some of his own concerns as a postmodernist. Although we have mostly description here of the new postmodern turn in interpreting Barth, I am left with the impression that Franke is in congruence with some of this reading of Barth, since it suits well the postmodern trajectory. In either case, this concept as applied to the scripture is categorically erroneous, since revelation would become little more than kerygmatic, existential encounter with the “word of God,” and theology would be but a “conversation” we have about our own “self-identification” as Christians. This postmodern reading of Barth (in Walter Lowe) we are told will “open up new critical and constructive possibilities for theology on the basis of a metaphysically chastened view of God that thoroughly contextualizes all human thought.” There may be nothing wrong with having a “chastened” view of God, especially if it was somehow erroneous, but the notion that all human thought will be contextualized may bring the reduction of theology to nothing but a human endeavor that can never make any universal claims to Truth or to a metanarrative, or grand scheme, as we see the history of redemption outlined in revelation. It would also be the end of any biblical theology of the history of redemption. Franke notes that, according to another author (Graham Ward), Barth’s incoherence with regard to language can only be rescued via Derrida. We thus sink in the many layers of this hermeneutical quagmire to rescue Barth from incorrect interpretations, while being told that we can never really know ‘what Barth meant.’ Is this a useful or proper exercise for the church of God’s people?

In light of this, Franke notes “the most groundbreaking study of Barth in English-language scholarship” is by Bruce McCormack who develops the case for reading Barth as a dialectical theologian.[18]  In this view, scripture is the “creaturely veil” through which God might chose to reveal himself; it is thus not revelation itself.  Franke concludes that “revelation has both an objective moment, when God reveals himself through the veil of a creaturely medium, and a subjective moment, when God gives human beings the faith to understand what is hidden in the veil.” I propose that this is a radical departure from all traditional, orthodox understandings of both revelation and illumination (though I am aware that I may be asked “whose orthodoxy?).”

A puzzling feature in Franke’s assessment is his assertion that Barth is not a neo-orthodox theologian, and that this traditional identification of Barth is incorrect (but who is to say one “reading” is better than another in the postmodern hermeneutic?). Unfortunately, we are not given Franke’s operating definition of neo-orthodoxy,  but we are given indications that Barth addresses his own  postmodern concerns:

-- which question the “legitimacy of epistemological foundationalism for the theological enterprise”

-- which suggest the “hiddenness of God and the nongivenness of revelation”

-- which raises “questions concerning the nature of theological language that serve to unsettle both liberal and conservative approaches to theology.”

A “plain reading” of this is that there are no epistemological foundations for theology, revelation has not been “given” to us, and that this New Way should unsettle both liberals and conservative theologizing. In reference to the “unsettling” of conservative approaches, Franke dismisses what he calls “the common evangelical interpretations of Barth” as “considerably flawed,” which he claims negate a dialectical reading of Barth. Franke gives us one good example of this approach in reconciling the ‘apparent contradictions’ throughout Barth (which many scholars have noted). He suggests, talking about the proper hermeneutic for reading Karl Barth, interpret Barth according to Barth, even if he is self-contradictory, since that is just his dialectical method at play.[19]  Quoting John Webster, Franke tells us:

. . . the implications of Barth’s approach to theology is that no single stage of the argument is definitive and that it is only the whole that conveys the substance of what he is attempting to communicate. Hence, ‘Barth’s views on any given topic cannot be comprehended in a single statement (even if the statement is one of his own), but only in the interplay of a range of articulations of a theme.’ Put another way, it is very easy to misread Barth, particularly without careful attention to the shape and style of his work as a whole.”

I may be misreading this in my modernist(oops!) grammatical-historical context, but this seems to mean that we must accept the dialectical tensions (contradictions) in Barth as part of his Grand Synthesis of the Totally Other God (Whom) he can not articulate in human language (though he tries), and (Who) is still veiled by the “creaturely medium” of scripture.

Franke concludes with a challenge to Evangelicals to correctly read Barth in order “to engage in intelligent conversation with Barth for either critical or constructive purposes,” and it is agreed that we should read correctly if we are going to read. Nevertheless, the value of Barth’s dialectical system is open to serious question, as well as Franke’s proposal that Barth may “provide a way forward beyond the standard liberal-conservative impasse that has shaped so much of evangelical theology in the twentieth century.” This latter is an entirely unsubstantiated claim, and one that I believe suggests that Franke is himself gravely misreading Barth. Either way, his proposal to Evangelicals that Barth may provide us with a “robustly confessional postmodern theology” that is “not only possible but also desirable,” is open to serious question. It is most questionable, in my view, that “Barth’s dialectically conceived biblical dogmatics is a project brimming with constructive possibilities for a confessional evangelical theology . . .” 

On John Franke’s paper “Nonfoundationalism, Truth, and the Knowledge of God” and “Reforming Theology: Toward a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics,” WTJ 65/1 (2003): 1-26. Franke states that “. . . modern foundationalism, with its emphasis on the objectivity, universality, and absolute certainty of knowledge, is an impossible dream for finite human beings whose outlooks are always limited and shaped by the particular circumstances in which they emerge” (p. 14). Each of these points has serious implications since such anti-foundationalism is truly self-defeating, even his statement itself is self-contradictory, since it is an “objective” and “universal” claim to “certain knowledge” about foundationalism. There is no quibble that for humans our outlook is “limited,” but the epistemology that leads to unequivocal “uncertainty” in regards to revelation and theology is in reality the “impossible dream.” Worse, it leads to a total collapse of the faith described in Hebrew 11:1, “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” This text would also pose a problem for Franke’s anti-foundational proposals that “all beliefs are open to criticism and reconstruction,” “revision, reconstruction, or even rejection.” What will be  the limit to this deconstructing enterprise of anti-foundationalism? Even though he rightly resists being called a “nihilistic relativist,”  he clearly claims that his ultimate authority is NOT the Scripture, but the “Living God”:

“A nonfoundationalist approach to theology seeks to respond positively and appropriately to the situatedness of all human thought and therefore to embrace a principled theological pluralism. It also attempts to affirm that the ultimate authority in the church is not a particular source, be it Scripture, tradition, or culture but only the living God” (p. 15).

Fred Zaspel (BTS grad) states here that Franke “emphatically rejects the singular authority of Scripture and expressly counsels us not to approach the Scripture with such views in mind.[20] I would add that this grounding of authority in God apart from Scripture is not only novel, it is self-defeating, since in the biblical tradition God (and the gospel) is known accurately only though divine, special revelation. Franke seems to take this another paradoxical step further stating: “Put another way, nonfoundationalist theology means the end of foundationalism but not ‘foundations.’ However, these ‘foundations’ are not ‘given’ to human beings” (p. 15). Does he really mean to say there are foundations, we just can never know what they are? Even more radical is his assertion (which sounds like Marxist dialectics) that those who claim there are foundations that can be known are guilty of seeking power and control and oppression, and that foundationalist claims are “conceptual idolatry”:

“Attempts on the part of humans to seize control of these relations are all too common throughout the history of the church and, no matter how well intentioned, inevitably lead to forms of oppression and conceptual idolatry” (p. 16).

An outstanding question remains as to how this proposed revolution of the proletariat, anti-foundationalist will be any less prone to fallenness, sin, and oppression? We hear the heated voice of revolution, not reformation here. What is to save those who make such charges against foundationalists “seeking power” and “control” from those same charges? That is, why must we presume so certainly that anti-foundationalist philosophy is any more pure, innocent, desirable, or certain than all that it rejects? Who is to say the collective “community” “in dialogue” will be a superior judge? What will keep the inquisitions of the totalitarian past from becoming the “struggle sessions” of the collective, communitarian present? What, I ask, is to assure us that the postmodern revolution will usher in a new age of freedom from “oppression” and “conceptual idolatry,” and power seizures for “control”? Rather, I suspect, there will be much fencing out of the academy those accused of heretical Modernistic (systematic) theologizing, as we have already witnessed at new BTS.[21] Indeed, why must we suppose with such certainty that it will be a more “humble” acknowledgment of the “human condition” (Franke, ibid, p. 16)? And, upon what foundations will antifoundationlists “subject to critical scrutiny” our “most longstanding and dear” convictions, in order to revise, reconstruct, or reject them (ibid, p. 15)?

Contrary to what Franke states, the scripture does not just “contain" a “normative witness” (or “norming norm”) it is the revealed Word of God, holy scripture, “able to make you wise for salvation in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:15). When Luke tells us that the voice came from the cloud to declare Jesus the Son, the chosen One, worthy of being followed (9:35-36), I believe that we know certainly that Jesus is the Son of God, the chosen One, worthy to be worshiped. Is there “theological pluralism” (undefined) with regard to such fundamentals of orthodoxy, or is even the latter to be revised according to our “situatedness,” as well? I rejoice that Luke did not shrink from declaring with certitude that we can know precisely how we can, and must, follow Christ who was indeed declared the Son in his Transfiguration. I am also glad that they did not keep forever silent about that Transfiguration, and subsequent Resurrection, nor cower in uncertain knowledge, but went to the stake to proclaim the veritable certainty of the entire gospel of Jesus Christ (as then revealed in the Old and now also in the New Testament).

Consequently, I rejoice that the foundations are always certain and secure. The question of the Psalmist in 11:3, “When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?” is answered affirmatively, “The Lord is on his throne” (Ps 11:4). This is expressed elsewhere in the scripture:

Isa 33:6  He will be the sure foundation for your times, a rich store of salvation and wisdom and knowledge; the fear of the LORD is the key to this treasure.

Lk 6:48-49  He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”

1 Cor 3:10-13  By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work

One of the frequent replies I have heard from the advocates of postmodernism is that those, like us, who have objections and questions “do not understand us.” This may be true, but it may also be that we understand well enough to raise concerns and objections, and that the smokescreen “you do not understand me” only hides the advancing decline of orthodoxy and the entrenchment of heterodoxy. Indeed, it is simply obfuscation to say that disagreement with your trajectory is “misunderstanding.” It will also be pointless to claim that we critics have never attempted to communicate with the new BTS about our concerns, since that is untrue.

A well known evangelical leader wrote this to me after the last ETS meeting in Washington, DC: “I realized, having heard Franke, that he is a Trojan Horse within evangelicalism who can barely hide his astonishing radicalism.” Even today, while taking a break from this letter, a pastor confided in me that they had to release one of their pastors due to his entirely unacceptable (unbiblical) views on woman’s roles, authority, and scripture, and other important matters. He is a BTS student at present, and the pastor said it was without question that BTS was the source of this pastor’s confusion. I had a law student, a young Christian, tell me recently that this same BTS student was so confused that the law student had left a study group the BTS student was leading in the church (prior to his dismissal).

David F. Wells (Gordon C. Seminary) writes on Stan Grenz and John Franke:

In conclusion, I would also like to register my deep dismay at the sudden, and inexplicable, dismissal of Dr. Frederic C. Putnam, a professor who was loyal for life to BTS, a tireless laborer on many levels, a creative thinker (way ahead of the curve on thinking about education, and seminary education in particular), and a creative professor. I would have (apparently wrongly) thought that Dr. Putnam would have been a great asset to BTS’s search for a viable model in our present context, but I fear that he was (callously) discarded in the quest for something not even yet coherently definable.[23]

Thank you for taking the time to consider these concerns,

Sincerely,

Stephen T. Hague

It is my sincerest hope that the BTS board will take swift action to correct the course of the presently aimless BTS, so that their future sign will not read as follows:

Considering that BTS (and its new foundation-less Lead-theologians of epistemological unsettledness) is both influencing and encouraging much of the so-called “Emerging church,” I have also included some reflections on this issue below (please forgive the humor if it seems sarcastic to you, but I propose that irony should not be excluded from this new “conversation”).

Blog religion on my god-pod
At an “emerging” event at Westminster Theological Seminary recently, I had my prior concerns about this “development” enhanced. Although, there were others understandably disarmed by the erudition and good humor of the theologians speaking. Besides serious reservations about some of the main impulses of this movement at the theoretical level, I see more clearly that it consists of theologians who are in the main talking to one another more than the rest of us.
    At the grassroots level, the movement is fueled by much dislike of uncool fundamentalism and its “culture” (or lack thereof). This reactionary component, and their seeming lack of positive direction and definition, is particularly defining. The question is, where are we supposed to be emerging from and to . . . .? 
    One of “emergings” key spokesmen suggests that the theologizing of prior centuries was only for prior centuries and was not as deep and profound as what is happening today in the emerging movement (see “Some quotes” below). The uninspiring ho-hum aspect of this is that the mainline church and its neo-orthodoxy has long lived in the universe of the “journey” not the “destination,” seeking “questions,” not “answers,” living in “tension” not “resolution.” They speak in paradoxical terms of “concealment as an aspect of revelation,” and in the “affirmation of doubt” and “silence,” of “engaging” not dogmatizing or “getting it all down” (whatever that means). Propositionalism is now a pejorative term for those who have too much certitude in what they believe. Objectivism is rejected as the idol of those who believe Truth is absolute and absolutely true. Within this, is a call for hermeneutical agnosticism in regards to the biblical text. While this has the virtue of claiming humility, it just might lead to pride in doubts about what can be known of the text. While emergers rightly emphasize contextual mission as the mission of the church of God, they fail to remind us that mission has always been the mission of the church, despite its many failings, and I can think of no theologian who ever denied it.
    The “post’ nature of this emerging movement is one of its most puzzling features. Emergers are said to be “post-modern,” “post liberal,” “postevangelical,” “post doctrinal,” “post Bible-study piety,” “post-systematic theology,” and “post conservative.” I think “post rational,” “post linear,” and “post historical” could be added to this list (See Scott Mcknight’s article “The Future or Fad: A look at the Emerging Church Movement.”) In fact, even though Mcknight says this “post” is not “better” but “after,” this reactionary characteristic describes at least a drift away from what preceded, regardless of internal assessments of what they are now post. Even if this shift was not intentional or always conscious, it is professedly a drift away from traditional evangelicalism, conservatism, doctrinalism, sytematics, Bible-Study piety, etc. I would agree that it may also be a drift away from the old liberalism (“post liberal”), but only in so far as it is aligned with Neo-orthodoxy. Neo-orthodoxy, though a reaction against the old liberalism, simply refashioned the Modernists’ (historical critical) rejection of scripture itself as the only revealed Word of God, divinely inspired, inerrant, as propositional revelation, and translated this view into a Neo-orthodox version riddled with dialectical tensions. In this regard, I propose that it is in danger of becoming post-orthodox.
    In reference to the emergers (and PoMo) rejection of “modernism,” I suggest that the traditional use of this term “modern” has been abused in the discussion, since in theology and hermeneutics it referred to the classic formulations of the early historical-critical scholars (now called liberal), and in reference to history it would take us back nearly to the Renaissance and not to twentieth century Evangelicalism (the well-bred whipping-boy of Neo-Modern PoMos). Indeed, the early modern period begins in the Middle Ages. Perhaps on this point, the Neo-modernists could do better at informing us illiterate modern masses precisely what part of this vast history they reject and accept, rather than characterizing certain isolated aspects of modern Evangelicalism and pejoratively calling them "Modernist" in order to tar and feather them for future reference in the history books of the post-post-post-modernist era. Which raises another question, do we ever finally arrive at what is “post post”? Are we yet, and forever then, truly pre-post? It would be vainly suggested that this search for something “post” everything is a continuation of the principle of ecclesia reformata est semper reformando (a reformed church is always reforming), since this principle is about remaining faithful to the orthodox “traditions of the apostles” handed down to us.
    Another prevalent aspect of emerging are their proposed dichotomies for framing a new perspective. I culled the following examples from the emerging-church literature. I have not listed any dichotomy that was not mentioned at the WTS emerging conference (lectures) or in recent literature on emerging. These are not my “stereotypes” of this movement, but the explicit assertions made by those either seeking to explain or advocate emerging (my comments are in parenthesis):

· emerging is about ecclesiology not about epistemology (I suggest that this is patently false, since discussions and assertions about epistemology litter the emerging terrain)

· emerging is missional in contrast to pre-emerging Christendom (this is historically inaccurate, since the church, when it has been acting biblically, has always been truly missional)

· emerging is missional not theologically defined (this is a contradiction in terms, since all truly biblical, missional activity must be theologically rooted and motivated)

· emerging is formational not informational (this is doubly a contradiction in terms, since formation cannot emerge without information, and indeed spiritual formation has always depended upon sound theological "information")

· emerging is about God as “being right” not about people being right or wrong (this is naïve, since such disjunctive affirmations remove human, theological responsibility before God)

· emerging is pro-Jesus not creedal, systematic, or logical (this is semantic mysticism, and the old "no creeds but Jesus" idea is essentially creedal)

· emerging is relational not rational (ditto)

· emerging is pro-church not doctrinally unified (this rejects the principle of the purity of the visible church, and to be pro-church neccesitates being pro-doctrine, though imperfectly)

· emerging is a community not denominational or ecclesiastical (this collapses the visible and the invisible church, and diminishes the communities created by denominations and churches)

· emerging is about micro-narratives not about meta-narratives (this makes true “cross-cultural” communication essentially and practically impossible, since our "micro-narratives" have true significance only in so far as they correspond to the meta-narrative of the gospel of redemption)

· emerging is more about orthopraxy than orthodoxy (this false disjunction suggests that living is prior to believing. Yet, since our living is motivated by our Lord, how do we practice what we do not doctrinally affirm?)

I suggest that the Emergent-Emerging-Village does not equal a revolution or reformation but a fun playing-field in which “traditional” cultural, theological, and philosophical borderlines are in motion. Indeed, some in the emerging movement are pushing out traditional Christian moral boundaries (e.g., homosexual). Since blogs are one of the primary mediums for emerging, it is difficult to identify its diverse shifts with confidence(oops!).

Ironically, the driving engine of much of the emerging moment seems to be Neo-Modernism which is strangely akin to Neo-orthodoxy, one of the many versions of twentieth century heterodoxy (even though not all emergers share Postmodern denials of “absolute truth”). Neo-modernism presents the other straw-man of the Transcendental Great Other who is a god mostly unknowable. Indeed, this god lives in the great cloud of unknowing, and is the dialectical tension inhering in all of modern life. This transcendent god, or Transcendence as God, is mostly silent. Nevertheless, we sometimes get a glimpse in the Bible, in a sunset, or in human culture and traditions, all of which are somehow, inexplicably, relative to collective interpretation by the [Postmodern] community. This deistic formulation strangles prayer and basic Bible study, in my view, as it did in the Mainline of my lost youth. And, as it has in the West as a whole.

In its rejection of pietism, Neo-orthodoxy loathes piety, since its impersonal god makes no distinctions between the warmth and zeal that true knowledge of God in Christ engenders and the excesses of 19th century revivalism. Similarly, many in the emerging movement seem to dislike pietism. Most strangely, the emerging and postmodern movements both seem to simultaneously disdain pietism and also what is pejoratively called “old Princeton” (Scottish Common Sense Realism), or rationalism. Nevertheless, the frequent [postmodern] denigration of the Princeton theologians for their rationalism has not considered the history of their piety.[26] These Princeton theologians, condemned (by postmodern tribunals), had heart-religion on fire for God. Their heart-religion was not unbridled, subjective emotionalism. Nor was their academic work intellectual, rationalistic gamesmanship. Rather, their academic labors fueled their passion for the gospel of Christ. Indeed, I think it is unsustainable that the Princeton theologians advanced rationalism, but rather they believed in rationality as a God-given gift. They also understood the significance of the battle for Truth, and they believed that theological formulation, expression, and creeds mattered as a matter of life and death. I do not mean to romanticize these Old-Bygone-Theologizers, but mention them as an example that highlights the many false dichotomies (straw men) the postmoderns love to burn, leaving nothing but ashes in their historical stead.

The ennui of many people today is the ethos of apathy, and worse. Many are adrift in a world that offers them gods fashioned according to their likes and dislikes, their styles and manner of being cool, their personal preferences and i-pod gods for nameless blog-religion. In this context, I am concerned that this new emerging “reformation” may not lead to a new orthodoxy and orthopraxy of building community, but to a new religion of Neo-modernist transcendentalism and isolationalism. It is therefore my hope that in the seminary/church world the gospel of Christ is not subsumed by the popular “Totally Other” transcendental god of Barthian Neo-orthodoxy and Neo-modernist mysticism. God revealed himself in the sanctuary of Israel as absolutely immanent and absolutely transcendent (without any contradiction or paradox), and this is his consistent revelation through to the end of the Revelation of John. Indeed, in Christ, these complimentary attributes of God become most evident in the incarnation: God Almighty is personally, knowably, present with us. Thus, we can confidently(oops!) proclaim to this adrift generation, desperate for an answer to their ennui, that God is not Totally Other, but has clearly spoken in His Son. His Son is the incarnate Word of God whose word is the seed of the Kingdom of God now here in our midst. The revealed word of God is scripture now here in our hands, and it is the only final, and absolute authority for the people of the Son of God.

The frequent immodesty of “evangelical” postmodern theology, that often rejects previous theologizing, denies that their emperor wears no clothes. That is, their accusations that Modernists are guilty of “cognitive idolatry” may come home to roost, since their new found pride in “humble theology” invokes a self-loathing of their own Evangelicalism. This self-loathing is pervasive, along with its distaste for “fundamentalism” and its cultural separatism. Ironically, justified fears of cultural accommodation run deep in the Neo-modernist movement, but with a brilliant naiveté that if we just admit our presuppositions then we become neutral and objective. If asserting with certitude that we have received what has been passed on to us from the apostles of Christ is idolatry, then surely confident ranting against confidence in the scripture would qualify as cognitive idolatry. It is time that those who are refashioning orthodoxy admit that their own presuppositions are not just about contextualizing the gospel of Jesus, but rather about neutralizing the power of the gospel unto salvation to all who believe . . .

If asserting that we must be faithful to the scripture is cognitive idolatry, then it is time the Neo-modernists come clean and confess to their own lack of faith and need for prayer. It is time they own up to their own “cultural conditioning” by modernist, naturalist unbelief, and foreswear calling it recontextualization. As one of the philosophical leaders of the postmodern evangelicals likes to say, “Objectivity has been greatly overrated,” I would like to say that this is an overly objective, modernist assertion within his own framework. There is absolutely nothing new in calls to formulate the gospel clearly to each new generation, but the underlying assertion that our formulations are only social constructs “imbedded in particular cultures” is something new. And, this new thing is a departure from the perspective of the apostles on their gospel, in my view.

“The only cure for postmodernism is the incurable illness of romanticism.”
(Postmodernism for Beginners by Richard Appignanesi and Chris Garratt)

Leo Purdue’s comments on postmodernism are worth reflection:[27]

“The losses to human thinking and understanding, should the post modern agenda be fully implemented, would be enormous. Perhaps the most debilitating one is dispensing with any affirmation as true in any sense of the word. Postmodernists in religion are quick to deny this and reject the claim that they advocate nihilism. But one is hard pressed to see their arguments as anything but nihilistic, similar to the anti-Kantian view expressed by Schopenhauer in his understanding of blind will: there is no meaning whatsoever that may be claimed and attested as objectively and representationally true. For Schopenhauer, the human will seeks to represent the world experienced through the senses in orderly forms through which knowledge may be obtained that is objectively true.[28] Yet we simply construct our world through self-interest with intent to realize immediate goals that inevitably become conflicting and contradictory. Try as they must, humans cannot escape or abolish this will in the attempt to know what is objectively true. Ideas are nothing more than the epiphenomena of a blind and irrational will that expresses itself through self-constructed ideas and actions based on self-interest.”

“If the postmodernists and their intellectual predecessors, including the philosophers of the New Academy, the Romanticists, and possibly even Schopenhauer,are correct, then the interpreter, located in multidimensional contexts, determines meaning. Thus, there is no objective reality, and all assertions are ideological construals of self-interest. Nothing may be affirmed as true whether theological or ethical. There is no basis on which behavior may be judged as ethical or unethical. Yet if we abandon ethics, do we not allow marginals to continue in the squalor of degrading, humanity-denying subsistence or fail to oppose authoritarian regimes in their pillaging, destroying, and controlling, without so much as uttering even a whispered protest?”

“The most significant concern I have with postmodernism is that it is as tendentious as the ideologies of texts and interpreters that it strongly criticizes. While no text or interpreter is capable of transcending self-interest, the biased character of much postmodernism is clear. Thus, the criticisms postmodernists raise about texts and interpreters, especially historical critics, are just as partisan, if not more so, since they operate with the deception that their approach transcends ideology. Historical critics may be suffering from self-delusion in attempting to interpret the text as “objectively” as possible, but at least they make the effort. Postmodernists do not. They choose, rather, to reify their own political, social, sexual, and theological affirmations in every text that is interpreted without any accountability to critical scrutiny. They have attempted to construct an approach to biblical interpretation that is ‘beyond criticism.’”

[1] I would wholeheartedly add, that my comments are not a digression from my personal high regard for anyone at BTS. Indeed, I have long assumed the highest moral character for the present leadership at BTS, and I personally and sincerely like and care for them all. It is in light of that, that I express my serious concerns about the course they appear to be presently charting for BTS and the church of Jesus Christ.

[2] Francis A. Schaeffer, “No Final Conflict,” The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer:  A Christian Worldview, vol. 2. A Christian View of the Bible as Truth, Wheaton:  Crossway Books, 2^nd ed.,1994, p. 121.

[3] See footnote #7 on Old Princeton and its supposed “scholasticism.”

[4]   From “A Summary of the November 29, 2006 meeting between some Biblical Seminary Teachers and a number of bible Fellowship Church pastors and elders,” by Loius Prontnicki, with helpful corrections and suggestions from John Studenroth and Dr. Dave Dunbar.”

[5] Whatever happened to the short-lived statement noted above:“Biblical’s Mission is to serve the church by preparing leaders who accurately interpret the Bible, live out its truth, and communicate its message to the world”? Didn’t that say it all?

[6] Also, the phrase now used at the New BTS, “Celebrating the Past, Engaging the Future,” communicates practically nothing substantive.

[7] Something that I can not develop here, but that I believe is relevant to the central issue of the Bible and its authority in Neo-orthodxoy: I observe what appear to be some very close parallels in recent postmodern perspectives on the Bible to the earlier debate between Jack Rogers and Donald McKim that were challenged by John Woodbridge in his book Biblical Authority. There are several main themes in the “evangelical,” postmodern conversation that are very reminiscent of this earlier debate: 1) total rejection of what is called “scholasticism” and “Enlightenment” rationalism; 2) dubious definitions of inerrancy that presuppose the negative influence of Scottish Common Sense Realism (i.e., “Rationalism”);  3) neo-orthodox presuppositions about the locus of revelation;  4) denials of the “propositional” nature of scripture.  Helseth notes that these “postconservative” readings are a “superficial reading” that lead to rejecting nothing but a caricature of Old Princeton.  See Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979);  John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 19821; Paul Kjoss Helseth, “‘Re-Imagining’ the Princeton mind: Postconservative Evangelicalism, Old Princeton, and the rise of Neo-Fundamentalism (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2002).

[8] From “A Summary of the November 29, 2006 meeting between some Biblical Seminary Teachers and a number of Bible Fellowship Church pastors and elders,” by Loius Prontnicki, with helpful corrections and suggestions from John Studenroth and Dr. Dave Dunbar.”

[9]Also, claims that the Spirit is speaking through culture is a new way of framing general revelation, since he collapses special and general revelation, thus presupposing ongoing special revelation (by the Holy Spirit), but now identified as culture. I am not too sure the scriptures (Ps 8, Hebrews) used by Franke to support this view have “human culture” in mind, but rather the observable creation of God.

[10] “In a later letter to Gordon W. Clark, Carl F.H. Henry gave a pointed account of the occasion. When he, Henry, asked Barth whether the resurrection event was of such a nature in covering it, that it would have been regarded in the same sense in which the man on the street understands news, Barth became visibly angry and asked, sarcastically, ‘Did you say Christianity Today or Christianity yesterday?’ He then continued by saying that ‘the resurrection of Jesus had significance only for His disciples,’ implying that it had no significance to the world. The religious editor of United Press International, Louis Cassels, said upon leaving, ‘We got Barth’s answer; it was ‘Nein’ [the German word for ‘no’].” From http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/evang-praisekarlbarth.html

[11] Karl Barth (Leuzte Zeugnisse, 1969, p. 33f., 27, quoted in Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts, translated by John Bowden, Philadelphia:  Fortress Press, 1976, p. 469

[12]This is not meant to deny/ignore that there were/are others claiming the Evangelical label who wrote/write favorably of Barth then, as now.

[13] I hope that “CELEBRATING THE PAST. . . ENGAGING THE FUTURE” includes some celebratory regard for these previous leaders of BTS.

[14] A.A. MacRae to Mrs. Pauline Pittenger, Columbia, Missouri, July 10, 1953.

[15] Karl Barth, The Word of God and the Word of Man, Pilgrim Press, p. 209.

[16] John Franke’s works on Karl Barth to date (only those with “Barth” in the title, though other works of his also treat Barth’s ideas): “God Hidden & Wholly Revealed: Karl Barth, Postmodernity, and Evangelical Theology,” Books & Culture 9/5 (2003): 16-17, 40-42; “Karl Barth, the Postmodern Turn, and Evangelical Theology,” in Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology: Convergences and Divergences, ed. Sung Wook Chung (Baker Academic, forthcoming); Guest Speaker, “Karl Barth and the Task of Christian Theology,” Philadelphia Emergent Cohort, Philadelphia, PA (2005); “Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology,” spring lectureship of the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, Hatfield, PA (2002); “Karl Barth and the Renewal of Trinitarian Theology in the Twentieth Century,” Carey Theological College, Vancouver, B.C. (1998) ; “Barth Redivivus: Karl Barth, Postmodernity, and Evangelical Theology,” annual meeting of the  Evangelical Theological Society, Toronto, ON, Canada (2002) “Karl Barth and the Possibility of Postmodern Dogmatics,” Prairie Bible College, Three Hills, AB, Canada (2003); “Karl Barth for the Emerging Church,” National Emergent Convention, San Diego, CA and Nashville, TN (2005); “Karl Barth, Liberalism, and Fundamentalism,” plenary address at “The Story We Find Ourselves In” Conference, sponsored by Wesley Theological Seminary and Cedar Ridge Community Church, Washington D. C. (2006); Barth for Armchair Theologians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006); under contract: Beginning Again: Karl Barth, Postmodernity, and the Task of Theology (Eerdmans) Estimated Completion of Manuscript: January 2007.

[17] John R. Franke, Books and Culture, September 1, 2003.

[18] I seem to missing something here, since I thought Barth has always been considered dialectical by Barthians and non Barthinans.

[19] This sounds much like the biblical, hermeneutical principle of reconciling “difficult passages,” except for the fact that Barth is not divinely “inspired and without error in all that he teaches and affirms.”

[20] Fred Zaspel (BTS grad) review of Franke’s article “Reforming Theology: Towards a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics,” published in WTJ 65 ( 2003): pp. 1-26. Available at http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/hermenutics/franke.htm

 [21] See comments on Dr. Frederic Putnam below (fn. 9).

[22] David Wells, Above all Earthly Powers: Christ in a Postmodern World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005, fn. 27. p. 83.

[23] May it be said that Dr. Putnam has demonstrated the utmost in charitable spirit with regards to his dismissal, and in no way had anything to do with my making this statement.

[24] Some quotes about “rejecting” prior theologizing from Scott Mcknight’s (BTS Visiting Professor) blogsite: http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=821 “Many of the leaders and thinkers of the emerging movement were nurtured theologically on books like those of Donald Bloesch, Millard Erickson,Wayne Grudem, or even older lights like Berkhof. Emerging leaders know this stuff — and often have moved beyond it or have rejected it.”
               “What you won’t find in these new discussions is the return to dog-eared discussions like whether or not human nature is tripartite or something else. The issues are bigger, the questions are deeper, and the scope of the discussion wider. When they ask about eschatology, they don’t ask about the rapture, they inquire into what history is, how God relates to history, what the goal of history is. When they ask about Scripture, they don’t begin with inerrancy and inspiration but (like Vanhoozer) how the drama of doctrine is meant to be played out using the script of God as its text.”
                “Which also means the answers will be bigger and deeper and wider. Perhaps I’ve misstated: this kind of theology might not be pursuing the “answer” but probing the question — theologizing, exploring, pondering, and wondering.”
                In contrast to this, read 1 Corinthians 15:3 (NASB95): For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures .

[25] Some of these dichotomies were recently expressed again by Scott McKnight (BTS Visiting Professor) in his “Five Streams of the emerging church: Key elements of the most controversial and misunderstood movement in the church today,” CT (Feb 2007): pp. 35-39 (mainly his lecture at the 2006 Westminster conference on emerging). In correspondence with Scott Mcknight, he stated to me that framing these dichotomies like this is making “stereotypes” and that it is unfair to use ‘false dichotomies’ as a via negative argument. Nevertheless, they are not my imposed dichotomies on this “prophetic,” “post-modern,” “post-systematics,” “post-evangelical” movement. Perhaps, if I qualified all of these culled dichotomies with the words “is more”, it might be more palatable to them, as in the next to the last one on orthopraxy.

    Mcknight, in this article, postures with John Franke and others as victims of the evangelical world which considers them the “postmodern fallen.” This seems like a rather closed attitude to critique and questions concerning their grand proposals. He notes a key feature in postmodern thinking as the “collapse of inherited metanarratives,” yet is not postmodernism, thus framed, itself a metanarrative?

[26] For example, in Andrew Hoffecker’s Piety and the Princeton Theologians: Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, and Benjamin Warfield (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981).

[27] L. Purdue, Reconstructing Old Testament Theology: After the Collapse of History, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005, pp. 278-279

[28] Schopenhauer, Die Welt ale Wille undVorstellung.

To keep all of this in perspective, consider . . . .

Pillars of creation from Hubble declare the glory of God . . . 

Read or add comments about this item.

No. 1 :

Thank you so much Dr. Stephen Hague, as you are also BTS graduate - what a powerful read. Different ones of us are just getting up to speed on this. Articles like this “smoke it all out” – you truly did have “a match”. I challenge any BTS grad, associate, or any thinking Christian who has not “checked their brain at the door” to carefully read this and walk away with out being totally alarmed. Those few who might oppose this will be totally alarmed in another most potent way.
Terry Wilcox, MA, MDiv, BTS 1983
Pastor: Open Doors Christian Fellowship - Litchfield, NH
Former Area Director Church Dynamics International

\n This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it '>

Submitted by Terry • 2007-03-23 20:03:09

Please login or register to post comments.

J! Reactions Commenting Software
General Site License
Copyright © 2006 S. A. DeCaro