BOOK REVIEWS
The Scripture Principle, by Clark H. Pinnock. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984. 230 pp. $15.45. Reviewed by Randy L. Maddox, Ph.D.,
Associate Professor of Religion, Sioux Falls College, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Conservative Wesleyans will find Pinnock's update of his
views on Biblical authority to be quite instructive. However, let them be warned at the
beginning that it is not a good first introduction to discussions of the nature of
Biblical authority and inerrancy. (For such an introduction it is still hard to improve on
Robert Johnston's Evangelicals at an Impasse [John Knox, 1979]). Rather, The
Scripture Principle is Pinnock's highly-nuanced articulation of a constructive
position that he hopes will mediate many of the ongoing debates over these issues.
Pinnock's primary concern in this articulation is to
defend the full authority and trustworthiness of the Bible against the tendency of those
Christians who either limit or dismiss this authority. However, he is equally concerned to
reject the oversimplifications and false dichotomies that he finds in fundamentalist
appeals to verbal inerrancy in a defense of the Bible's authority. Indeed, he suggests
that such inadequate defenses of the authority of Scripture have contributed indirectly to
the rejection of Biblical authority he is fighting on the other side.
It is this sensitivity to the weakness of the typical
inerrancy position (including that of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy)
that constitutes the strength of Pinnock's present book, distinguishing it from even his
own earlier work. Put briefly, Pinnock now argues that those who defend inerrancy
all-too-often undervalue the humanity of Scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit. As
such, he develops his alternative articulation in three sections dealing with Scripture as
The Word of God (I), in Human Words (II), functioning as the Sword of the Spirit (III).
Pinnock's central argument in the section on the Word of
God is that Scripture claims for itself authority as the revelation of God's Word and that
the contemporary tendency to reject this claim ultimately undercuts all Christian truth
claims because it removes their nonobjective basis. He concludes that the affirmation that
authority for Christian life and thought lies ultimately in the Bible (the Scripture
Principle) is essential to Christian belief. Obviously, the targets of this argument are
"liberals."
Woven throughout this section, however, is an equally
important argument with fundamentalists namely, that the Scripture Principle does not
necessarily commit us to a detailed inerrancy view of Scripture. Indeed, Pinnock argues
that the affirmation of detailed inerrancy: 1) is usually grounded more in a sensed need
for an unquestioned authority than in the claims of Scripture (58); 2) is based more on a
(false) deductive argument about the nature of God than on inductive study of the Bible
itself (57); 3) is an unwarranted imposition of a modern definition of truth upon
Scripture (40); and 4) can be defended only by very strained arguments (137); because,5) a
truly inductive study of Scripture itself reveals a more flexible and functional
understanding of its authority and truth (57-60).
This more functional understanding focuses on the claim
that Scripture reliably communicates to us the way to know and love God in Christ (60).
Such a definition should prove amenable to most conservative Wesleyans, who have typically
talked about Scripture's authority as focused in "matters of faith and
practice." The distinctive element of Pinnock here is his argument that such a focus
of Scripture's authority is not an arbitrary imposition, but can be demonstrated to be the
intention of Scripture itself. In that sense, he can say that Scripture is totally
reliable, even inerrant, in everything it teaches and affirms (78) while
admitting it may make "errors" in details that do not affect its practical
intention.
In his second section Pinnock's focal concern is the
human side of Scripture. He notes that the sensitivity to this side of the Bible has been
particularly heightened by contemporary scholarly analysis of Scripture. He is very aware
of how some have been influenced by this awareness to see Scripture as merely human. He
repeatedly argues that such a move is unwarranted. However, his primary concern is to
resist the conservative tendency, by way of response, to deny or undervalue the human side
of Scripture.
Drawing on classical categories of incarnation and
accommodation, Pinnock argues that we must be willing to accept the type of revelation
that God has chosen to give rather than demanding the type we think God should have given.
For Pinnock, this means a recognition that revelation was progressive (111), that it comes
in a variety of literary forms (118) and that it sometimes even comes to us via legends
etc. (125). In these recognitions Pinnock comes to terms with modern Biblical scholarship
much more than in his earlier work.
Perhaps the most interesting point, for Wesleyans, that
Pinnock makes in this section is the claim that a dictation approach to inspiration which
he argues is implicit to a detailed inerrancy viewpoint-is a logical, if not necessary,
outgrowth of the tendency of Calvinistic orthodoxy to construe all God's actions in terms
of total divine control. Pinnock rejects such a tendency (see p. 7) and argues that a more
"resistible" view of God's power will lead to a more positive appreciation of
the human side of the Bible (101-3).
The final section of the book argues for a dynamic
relationship between the Spirit and the Word. Here again Pinnock must fight on two fronts.
He is obviously concerned not to affirm an authority for the Spirit that is separate from
that of the Word. However, he is even more concerned to help conservatives recover a
proper appreciation of the work of the Spirit in understanding and applying the truths of
Scripture. He believes that the conservative defense of the "objective" truths
of Scripture all too often leads them to undervalue this work. Despite their emphasis on
the work of the Spirit in other areas, conservative Wesleyans are prone as well to this
weakness.
Clearly, The Scripture Principle is an important work
that will be of help to all who struggle to understand and affirm the authority of the
Bible. It will be of particular help to those who struggle to integrate a strong
affirmation of the authority of Scripture with an openness to the human side of Scripture
revealed in modern Biblical scholarship. It is not, however, without its problems.
In the first place, there is an unevenness of tone to
the book. At times it is a model of the balance between faith and critical freedom. At
other times it erupts in piques of fideistic exaggeration that leave one wondering what
Pinnock really believes. To cite one example, Pinnock argues in some detail that there is
a positive side to Biblical criticism (89ff) but then boldly asserts that the authority of
Scripture lies in "the Bible unaffected by criticism" (66).
Secondly, Pinnock seems to assume that one can
reestablish the authority of Scripture (the Scripture Principle) simply by defending the
identification of the Word of God and the Bible (62). Surely the recent history of the
ICBI has shown this is not true, for they can agree on affirming this identity but often
radically disagree about how to use this Scripture authoritatively to deal with current
issues (See Christianity Today, Feb. 20, 1987, pp. 14-15). Ultimately, we would
agree that the present crisis of the Scripture principle is more one of hermeneutics
— how to use Scripture as an authority — than one of simply denying Scripture as
an authority. At the heart of this hermeneutical crisis is the question of how one can
distinguish between what in Scripture is the normative Word of God and what is the
relative human situation. Pinnock is aware of this problem (109) but provides no
guidelines for how to deal with it.
Thirdly, Pinnock retains the basic
"foundationalist" presupposition of fundamentalism, even if he has nuanced it.
That is, he seems to accept their assumption that we must be able to prove
Scripture is reliable or its authority will be called into question. Here we would suggest
he still does not accept broadly enough the work of the Spirit. He limits that work to
understanding and applying Scripture. He never takes seriously Calvin's claim that it is
actually the witness of the Spirit that is the ground of the authority of Scripture (cf.,
53).
Finally, there is Pinnock's perplexing argument for retaining
the term "inerrancy" for his position. His argument that the term is flexible
enough to fit his position that Scripture does not lead us astray in what it affirms and
teaches seems strained (77). Others who use that term will surely not recognize his
definition as fitting (cf. Carl F. H. Henry, Christianity Today, Feb. 1, 1985, p.
68). Likewise, we fail to see why this term necessarily is a better metaphor for
expressing a determination to trust God's Word than other possibilities like infallibility
(225).
Frankly, Pinnock seems to tip his hand when he argues
that the adoption of this term is an "operational policy" (77). He seems to have
conceded to the game that Gerald Sheppard has branded "the politics of biblical
inerrancy" (Union Seminary Quarterly Review 32 [1977]: 81-94); i.e., using the
approved password to placate a constituency even though one might not agree with their
understanding of the meaning of the term. Such an operational strategy could only be
acceptable if the matter did not truly make a difference. Pinnock apparently believes such
is the case. We cannot agree. Rather, we would suggest that arguments over inerrancy are
one more result of the Enlightenment adoption of a scientific mindset whose rationalistic
and literalistic constraints have greatly impoverished Christian theology, worship and
life. Fortunately, we are beginning to see this mindset overcome in other areas of
Christian life and thought. To follow Pinnock's advised operational practice would only
hamper these advances.
All in all, Pinnock provides us with the
most nuanced and critically aware exposition of Biblical inerrancy available. However, one
cannot help but feel that he has had to so qualify the basic paradigm of inerrancy that
the time has come for a paradigm shift-to a model of truth that deals with personal
fidelity rather than scientific accuracy.
The Church: An Inquiry into Ecclesiology from a
Biblical Theological Perspective, ed. Melvin E. Dieter and Daniel N. Berg (Wesleyan
Theological Perspectives, Vol. IV). Anderson, Indiana: Warner Press, 1984. Pp. Viii + 499.
Reviewed by Thomas Haverly, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Religion, Eastern Nazarene
College, Quincy, Mass.
A Presbyterian friend once summed up his estimate of
John Wesley's place in theological history, "Oh, Wesley had some great ideas about
small groups." Ironically, his condescending remark touches an area in which Wesley
and the Wesleyan tradition, it would seem, have had little distinctive to say namely,
Ecclesiology. The Wesleyan Holiness movement itself is subdivided into denominations (and
associations which refuse that term) whose forms of church government range from episcopal
to congregational. This concretely confirms the impression of indistinctiveness.
On the other hand, this situation may reflect something
quite accurate about Wesleyanism, a relativizing of ecclesiastical structure. Wesleyan
theology then may have a genuine contribution for thorny issues of Protestant and current
ecumenical Ecclesiology. One therefore opens volume four of the Wesleyan Theological
Perspectives series, entitled The Church: An Inquiry into Ecclesiology from a Biblical
Theological Perspective, edited by Melvin E. Dieter and Daniel N. Berg, with both
curiosity about what Ecclesiology or Ecclesiology will emerge, and hope that Wesleyan
evangelical thought may benefit the life of the larger Christian church.
The article that in my opinion most clearly expressed
the "Wesleyan perspective" was that of Clarence Bence, "Salvation and the
Church; the Ecclesiology of John Wesley." He stated that Wesley's was a
"functional" Ecclesiology, the function being determined soteriologically.
Membership in the Church follows one’s evangelical experience of salvation, and the
mission of the Church is to offer that salvation to others. Scripture provides no fixed
model for the church (although I am not sure Wesley is consistent on this point, given his
constant appeal to "primitivism"), but rather illustrates functionality and the
positive use of human reason in adaptation. Given the lack of a generally accepted
Wesleyan "perspective" on Ecclesiology, and the failure to define one by the
editors, Bence's position will be taken as the implicit criterion for the remaining
articles.
Wesley did not promote radical revision; rather he
worked "creatively within the institutional structures." Bence tries to
illustrate, finally, that Wesley's Ecclesiology partakes of the dialectic eschatology of
the New Testament, in that the Church does (or, ought to?) reflect the present,
transforming "first fruits" of the Kingdom of God, but not claiming identity
with the "harvest" yet to come. This exemplifies a dialectical hermeneutic that
I am convinced was characteristic of Wesley, and that anticipates much current Biblical
interpretation.
On the negative side, the character of Bence's intended
readership is uncertain. At times it is not clear when Bence is speaking for himself or
for Wesley, lending a sermonistic cast to his prose that some might find objectionable in
a scholarly article. Quotations from Wesley are not contexted
as to date or occasion, surely an important practice
given the nature of Wesley's corpus. Nor is attention given to evaluating Wesley's
theological contribution. It would be unfortunate if these matters limited the
effectiveness or the appeal of Bence's clear and valuable description to those who were
already "converted. "
The book opens with a quartet of articles on Biblical
resources for Ecclesiology. The first two essays, Joseph E. Coleson, on "Covenant
Community in the OT," and Milo Chapman, on "The Church in the Gospels," are
perhaps the least satisfying in the book, although for different reasons. Coleson's
article is handicapped by its sheer brevity: the OT spans the same period as the history
surveyed in Paul Bassett's articles (see below) which are six times longer. I am not
convinced that Coleson made the best choice in choosing a "canonical" framework
for his study: surely the historical development of the Israelite community is more
apropos for a discussion of ecclesiological issues (especially from a functional
perspective), unless one wishes to discuss only the Jewish community behind the completed
canon. As a result, crucial, even contentious "ecclesiastical" issues, such as
the roles of priest, prophet, and sage, or the rise, nature, and fall of the Hebrew
monarchy, are overlooked. Another issue, the ethnic inclusiveness or exclusiveness of the
covenant community, is brought into an uneasy "both/and" that is not reflected
in any individual OT source. In fact, this is generally seen as a point of conflict in the
canon.
As with Bence, the identity of Coleson's audience is
unclear: must one explain the three divisions of the Hebrew canon to a reader who already
knows that "Qoheleth" is an alternative title for Ecclesiastes? Coleson's
article ("Qoheleth" notwithstanding) may prove a valuable starting point for
understanding the continuity of the OT covenant community with the church, both in its
self understanding, calling and intended character. He also provides the student a nice
model of how "word study" exegesis may be done, and a fine description of its
limitations (although he seems to violate it later in less-than-careful citation of
passages using the polyvalent term "holy"). I do not have the impression that
the book as a whole was intended for this basic level, however.
Milo Chapman's "The Church in the Gospels" was
the most disappointing in the book. Great (and appropriate) emphasis was placed upon the
relationship with Jesus as being essential to the community, and upon the quality of
fellowship engendered by Jesus. It seemed however that a certain Ecclesiology was imposed
upon the Gospel material. Chapman insists for example that Jesus did not found an
"organized institution": this is hardly a revolutionary claim, but the
significance of passages like the granting of the "keys" in Matthew 16 and the
instructions concerning community discipline in Matthew 18 is completely overlooked. True,
these hardly constitute a code of canon law, but they are clearly a step in that
direction. It is ironic that Chapman spent effort to defend the authenticity of these very
passages, but overlooked their implications. Still more ironically, the argument against
authenticity is based precisely on the view that Jesus did not found an "organized
institution"!
This raises the fundamental shortcoming of the article:
it was entirely out of touch with recent critical study of the Gospels. Form and redaction
criticism of the Gospels, whatever limitations and strictures conservative evangelicals
might wish to place upon them, have helped to focus attention on the ecclesiological
significance which later Christians (in developing a more organized, institutional Church)
found in the words and actions of Jesus. Much more could have been accomplished here. In a
similar fashion, the author seems to assume an out of date "realized
eschatology" in his understanding of Jesus' teaching regarding the Kingdom of God.
The current consensus, the dialectical "already/not yet" eschatology, offers a
far better and more balanced avenue for progress in understanding both the New Testament
and the twentieth century church.
The final pair of Biblical essays seem to work on a
different plane than the first two. Alex R. G. Deasley, "The Church in the Acts of
the Apostles,' clearly describes and follows a conservative critical perspective on Luke
as writing "theological history," and deals specifically with the full range of
ecclesiological categories (in contrast to the previous
articles). His conclusions regarding the ecclesiological implications of Acts provide
exegetical support for the functional perspective, and allow the contemporary church a
sense of responsible freedom regarding how it structures itself. I do wish he had taken
time (1) to deal more thoroughly with "early Catholic" interpretation of Acts,
and (2) to discuss the implications of his interpretation for popular "low
church" reading of Acts.
M. Robert Mulholland's article, "The Church in the
Epistles," opens fascinating hermeneutical perspective on the metaphors used in
describing the Church in the New Testament. He treats the metaphors as a "literary
iconography," arguing that the diverse multiplicity of Biblical imagery ca; only
become meaningful to a reader who shares with the writers in "the experiential
reality of life in the new order of being in Christ." The imager is organized first
under the overarching banner of the love command (no icon here?), and then under three
controlling images: Temple, City, and Body which indicate worship, internal order, and
loving relationships or service, respectively.
There is considerable potential in Mulholland's
approach: the material the Body, and the Eucharist, was particularly good. In general too
much was attempted to provide specific guidance in dealing with well entrenched
ecclesiastical positions. The very multiplicity of the NT imagery itself suggests the
difficulty faced in conveying the corporate dimension of Christian experience in the first
century. Are the "icons" of the first century merely
to be preserved, explained, and mass produced (as with
Orthodox icons), or do they provide us a process and models for crafting our own as well?
The author's claim to the contrary, his approach seems
closely related to the Bultmannian demythologization hermeneutic, but avoiding the
unfortunate connotations of Bultmann's terminology. However one may evaluate the utility
or validity of Bultmann's choice of Heideggerian philosophy to describe the modern
experience of "the new order of being," it does at least specify terms to
describe the character of modern experience. Simply to claim a shared "experiential
reality" spanning two millennia of human cultural development is a tremendous
hermeneutical leap. Consider for example the contemporary charismatic movement's claim to
a "shared experience" with early Christian glossolalia. That claim has certainly
been open to contest! Nevertheless, one must thank Mulholland for raising the
hermeneutical issues, and attempting to lead us beyond abstractions regarding
"doctrine" of the church: this, too, is a contribution to achieving a functional
Ecclesiology.
Paul M. Bassett contributes a massive pair of
magisterial articles jointly titled "A Survey of Western Ecclesiology to about
1700." The first essay, covering the period of the second to the fifteenth centuries,
provides sympathetic description of the motives behind the developing ecclesiastical
system, as well as critical evaluation of the models used. Bassett offers a series of
theological vignettes concerning influential thinkers on Ecclesiology, including the well
known, such as Augustine and Gregory the Great, and the less well known, such as William
of Occam, Torquemada, and Nicholas of Cusa. The sheer number of medieval theologians
always threatens to overwhelm the non specialist: this is no less the case here, despite
the invariably clear individual treatments. Bassett's mastery and his creative treatment
of the personnel and literature make the task worthwhile. For a personal example, early in
the series of figures, Hippolytus emerged as a seminal figure, who, desiring to restore
the (supposed) primitive purity of the church, contributed greatly to the elevation of the
clergy and the episcopacy.
I would have been interested to have had discussion of
the challenges to the traditional, Eusebian account of Christian origins (e.g., from
Walter Bauer, Elaine Pagels, and Robert Wilken). This could well illuminate the issues of
Christian unity and diversity, and of "primitivism" which are relevant to
understanding Wesley and the contemporary church. Of course this would exacerbate the
problem of the length of the article. Despite the excellence of the material, one must ask
the author and editors why this article should be included in a book on "Wesleyan
perspectives." Definition of Bassett's perspective (and I would suggest it is
functional) and integration with the remainder of the book are left entirely to the
reader.
The second part of Bassett's survey, subtitled
"Ecclesiology in the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries," continues in the same
manner and quality as the first, but with a steadily narrowing Protestant focus, from the
magisterial reformers and Anabaptism, to issue in the development of English Protestantism
which set the context for Wesley. This narrowing is certainly appropriate, although
contrary to the general title and the rather encyclopedic feel of the first essay. Basset
however stops short of Wesley, and the reader is left to infer from his or her own
knowledge how the strands of Protestant Ecclesiology are included in the skein of his
thought and practice. Ensuing articles on Wesley himself, unfortunately, do not complete
the task.
Melvin Dieter's "Concept of the Church in the
Nineteenth Century Holiness Revival" comes out of chronological order, before the
three (eighteenth century) Wesley articles, one of the curiosities of the volume. Dieter
approaches his subject by way of three "critical" features: the small group, the
camp meeting, and the concept of the "age of the Spirit." The first two
elements, inherited from main-line Methodism, became vehicles for the maintenance or
restoration (or introduction, depending upon one's point of view) of Holiness teaching and
preaching.
The "age of the Spirit" was a fresh insight:
many (how many?) in the revival saw it as an eschatological phenomenon, heralding the
final consummation. Dieter argues that this concept marks a fundamental difference from
the Christocentric perspectives of traditional Lutheran and Reformed thought. Does it also
mark a difference from Wesley? Recent debate over Spirit-baptism has emphasized the
Christocentrism of Wesley in distinction from the Holiness movement: perhaps more than the
exegesis of Acts was involved. (However, it seems that one might argue that Wesley, too,
saw his revival as eschatological: see on David Cubie's article, below.)
The issue of the schismatic tendency of the Holiness
revival keeps coming up in Dieter's article. This is a topic of which the heirs of the
revival are naturally chary. It may be that all three "critical" elements are
inherently sectarian, Dieter does not address this. The third element causes me to wonder
if the revival was a "millenarian" sect (to use a current sociological label).
If so, then critical reflection upon the Wesleyan holiness heritage may (indeed, must)
take an interesting, if somewhat threatening, step forward in investigating the perceived
social reality and the corresponding religious experience of the Revival period.
Bence's article follows Dieter's, and is succeeded by
two more on Wesley himself. Daniel N. Berg, "The Marks of Church in the Theology of
John Wesley," deals with how Wesley appropriated the characteristic Protestant marks,
preaching of the Gospel and administration of the sacraments. True to his functional
perspective, Wesley was not interested in the marks solely as ideological, polemical
tokens. Rather he was interested in them as "means of grace," and Berg stresses
that Wesley tried to maintain both as equal. It is a pity that Berg did not have
opportunity to integrate his research with Bassett's fascinating discussion of Anglican
Puritan Ecclesiology, because this background throws Wesley's view into sharp relief.
(There seems to be a problem with end note 15 in Berg's article: a long citation of Wesley
is attributed to one "Bicknell," with no page reference at all.)
David L. Cubie, "Separation or Unity?
Sanctification and Love in Wesley's Doctrine of the Church," treats the effect of the
Wesleyan doctrine of holiness upon the relationship between early Methodists and the
Church of England. Cubie argues that Wesley himself held several factors in "creative
tension": basically (1) the church as consisting of believers and the church as
consisting of any who "profess faith," and (2) holiness which requires
separation from that which is not holy, along with love that seeks unity. Cubie attempts
to show how the kaleidoscopic elements of Wesley's thinking led him now in the direction
of separation, now toward unity. In the variety of ideas covered, the article itself
becomes rather kaleidoscopic the reader faces a struggle in holding everything together.
Discussion of the four ways in which Wesley used the term "love" is surely worth
a separate article. As is the treatment of Wesley's eschatological consciousness (an
interest not suggested in the title). Despite shortcomings in clarity and structure, Cubie
offers the most critical approach to Wesley found in the book, as he shows the effects of
Wesley's views even when they run counter to his intent.
The final three articles deal with practical issues of
the Church and Ministry. Donald Joy, in "The Contemporary Church as 'Holy Community':
Call to Corporate Character and Life," takes on "nuclear individualism" in
an attempt to formulate a "holistic" view of theology and Christian life. Joy's
use of brain hemisphere dominance theory to explain theological history will undoubtedly
leave many cold, but his attempt to re-unite affective and cognitive approaches to
theology is salutary. It is unfortunate here that Joy descends to ad hominem
evaluations of various persons. Does the fact that Augustine and John Knox are not top
choices among those who name hospitals really suggest that they have anything in common
with Cain, Charles Darwin and Thomas Paine? (Darwin and Paine might also object.)
Augustine in particular is not to be characterized simply as a "left brain"
individual! This kind of theological naiveté damages Joy's credibility, and may distort
the many healthy, attractive contributions he can make in attempting to describe the ideal
psycho social state that Christian community aims to create.
The strongest feature of the article is Joy's adaptation
of a series of developmental psychological theories to understanding Christian experience
and maturation. Here again, however, Joy's depth of theological understanding comes into
question. At times his theological interpretation seems too pat: do Piaget's stages of
human development simply parallel the "salvation pilgrimage"? Does the sequence
of the Beatitudes really presage Erikson's "stages of life"? His view of
"creation grace" in this context sounds suspiciously "Pelagian": is he
aware of the humanistic implications of this? In any case, Joy leads one to focus on what
is meant by "experience" when one speaks of Christian experience, and may also
help to identify in human terms the goals toward which Ecclesiology should be oriented. I
would like to see Joy deal more philosophically with psychology of religion and its
implications for evangelical religious experience.
James Garlow, "The Layperson as Minister: A Call
for a New Theology of Laity," appeals to roles of the laity (particularly lay
preachers) in early Methodism in order to revitalize contemporary lay ministry. Garlow
emphasizes that all Christians are called, gifted, trained and sent. The article is one
more in the series of calls to lay ministry emanating from such people as Ray Stedman and
Howard Snyder. The motivational tone and practical level of the article are of a different
character from the balance of articles in the book. This is not to criticize the article,
but once more to raise the issue of readership: Garlow's article is useful and energizing,
but is not aimed at the same level of scholarship as other articles.
Everett Richey's article, "The Church: Its Mission
and Message," reads like a manifesto regarding the character and
"complimentary" [sic] roles of mission and message. His emphasis upon the
Incarnation as the key to understanding these appears to provide an important step toward
expressing the positive, non Fundamentalist (or "parochial") version of
evangelical Christianity that many now seek. It also appears to carry forward the
functional perspective on the Church.
In the latter part of his article, Richey wrestles with
the relation between the "eternal" Church and the "church terrestrial"
in a way that is less than satisfying. (He could have returned again to the Incarnation
for a more forceful treatment.) The force of the article is diminished at other points by
a lack of clarity and cohesiveness in following up on otherwise stimulating programmatic
statements. Nevertheless the essay provides a challenge to the church and to theological
educators to reconsider the essential purpose of theological formation and education.
Regarding the production of the book as a whole: a much
better job could have been done. The amount of errata was excessive and distracting. The
most serious error was the omission of "not" from a sentence in Deasley's
article (p. 53 "the Church may be in mind even in passages in which it is
mentioned" ! j; one wonders if other similar problems were less self-evident. In
addition, there were problems with page headers ("the Acts of the Gospels,"
e.g.) in two articles, and seven section headings occurred at the very bottom of a page,
with no text following.
The seeming comprehensiveness of the range of essays
leads one to ask why the reader is not provided a survey of interpretations of Wesley's
Ecclesiology, although Bence gives this cursory attention in passing. Why, for example, is
John L. Peters' work never mentioned in the book? A study of the ecclesiological diversity
in the Wesleyan Holiness movement would also have been useful.
The book did come close to fulfilling the reader's
anticipations. It fell short on three counts: (1) a lack of a clear, integrating
description of what is meant by a "Wesleyan perspective"; (2) the failure to
target any particular readership (a lack of focus found in both the range of articles
included and the varying levels of writing; this criticism has been voiced in previous
reviews of the series)' and (3) the uneven quality of the essays themselves. Within the
book one may indeed, in my opinion, find an expression of seminal ecclesiological insights
of Wesleyanism, but the reader will need to exercise considerable patience and
"prevenient" sympathy in order to benefit. The reader lacking either of these
graces will find the book as a whole worth less than some of its parts.
To Reform the Nation: Theological Foundations of
Wesley's Ethics. By Leon 0. Hynson. Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury Press, 1984. 176 pp.
Reviewed by Howard A. Snyder, Ph.D., Irving Park Free Methodist Church Chicago, Illinois.
"God's design" in raising up Methodist
preachers, John Wesley said, was "to reform the nation, particularly the Church; and
to spread scriptural holiness over the land." Leon Hynson picks up on the first part
of this mandate as a theme for examining Wesley's ethical thought.
The book is well done and competently researched. As the
subtitle suggests, it is more than an examination of Wesley's own ethics; rather it uses
Wesley as a resource for the constructive ethical task confronting the church today. At
points Hynson draws inferences from Wesley's ethics for contemporary issues. One might
wish he had done more of this, though the author's focus is primarily on the theological
underpinnings of ethics rather than on specific application. Hynson does take note of
contemporary scholars in the Wesleyan tradition (such as Ron Sider and David McKenna) who
have been addressing specific ethical issues.
Hynson's opening chapter, "A Man for All
Seasons," is particularly strong. It succeeds in showing both the complex sources
that fed Wesley's theology and that understanding Wesley the man is key to understanding
his ethics. He sees Wesley's Aldersgate experience as crucial for his ethics:
"Wesley's ethical conversion occurs in 1738," changing him "from a man who
sought to do good in order to win God" to "one whom God has won one whose faith
becomes active in love." Thus Wesley's own experience is the paradigm for his
fundamental ethical stance: Faith working by love.
Two things I especially appreciated about this book were
its trinitarian emphasis and its delineation of the church as an ethical community. In his
chapter "Toward a Wesleyan Social Ethics" Hynson says a genuinely Wesleyan
ethics will be "precisely Trinitarian," and then proceeds to speak of
"creation ethics" (stressing the image of God), "Christological
ethics" (stressing reconciliation), and "spiritual ethics" (stressing the
ongoing cleansing, empowering, and motivating work of the Spirit). This trinitarian focus
structures the remaining chapters of the book in which the author discusses creation and
grace, the Sermon on the Mount as "an ethics of imitation" of Christ, and an
ethics of the Spirit. Central to all of this, Hynson rightly insists, is the priority of
love.
The author discusses the church as "the community
of the Spirit" and "an ethical community." He stresses the key role of
koinorzia (fellowship, community) in Wesley's understanding and practice of the church.
"Wesley's conception of the social nature of the Christian is the corrective to the
argument of critics that his concern was too individual and inadequately social." The
church is to be "a leavening Christian society in the whole human society."
Hynson is quite right in this, and graphically pictures the church's transforming role in
society. Yet the picture lacks concreteness, and could easily be taken-as so often happens
in ecclesiology-as an ideal to be affirmed but with little practical application in terms
of specific behaviors and structures. For Wesley, affirming community and the social
nature of Christianity meant practical structures (classes, bands) for experiencing this
reality.
In this connection, it is interesting that although
Wesley spoke of the mandate "to reform . . . particularly the Church,"
little is said here about what "reforming the church" might mean as an ethical
consideration.
Hynson insists that a genuinely Wesleyan ethics will
have "a thorough-going dedication to civil and religious liberty" and challenges
"every form of slavery in the world." He speaks briefly of human liberation, but
says nothing of sexism or feminism. The absence, in fact, of any treatment in the book of
human sexuality (even in discussions of the image of God) is a noticeable gap.
Overall, this is an excellent introduction to
theological ethics in the Wesleyan mode. The book is perhaps best seen as part of the new
flowering of Wesleyan studies which seeks to be clearly evangelical in the Biblical and
Wesleyan sense and moves beyond review of Wesley's own thinking to constructive engagement
with the theological currents of today.
The Elusive Mr. Wesley, by Richard P.
Heitzenrater. Two volumes. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984. Reviewed by William C. Miller,
Ph.D., Librarian and Professor of Theological Bibliography, Nazarene Theological Seminary,
Kansas City, Missouri.
Holding that existing studies of John Wesley are more
confusing than helpful in comprehending Wesley and that an adequate biography has yet to
be written Richard P. Heitzenrater, Albert Cook Outler Professor of Wesley Studies and
Director of the Bridwell Library Center for Wesley Studies at Perkins School of Theology,
Southern Methodist University, has produced this two volume anthology to facilitate
"the quest for the 'real' John Wesley." While stating that this work is not a
biography (in spite of the misleading subtitle to volume one: John Wesley his own
biographer) Heitzenrater offers four considerations to guide this biographical quest:
1) Wesley was a legend in his own day; 2) Wesley's public image can be distinguished from
his private image; 3) Wesley was a controversial figure; and 4) Wesley embodied ideals and
qualities not always easily held together or reconciled. The failure to hold these
considerations together has led to studies viewing Wesley as a saint, sinner, enthusiast,
catholic, reformer, etc. without capturing the elusive person himself. The excerpts
selected for inclusion reflect the diversity to be found in Wesley's life and thought. The
first volume contains an introductory essay and selections from Wesley's own hand m which
he states, explains, or defends himself to family, friends, foes, and the public. The
second holds extracts from contemporary associates, foes, and other interested parties
regarding Wesley and a review of subsequent Wesley studies including the so-called
"standard editions." For each excerpt Heitzenrater has provided a brief
introductory preface placing it in historical context, yet the emphasis is upon letting
each selection convey the author's view or attitude. The selections reveal Wesley as son,
Oxford student and don, spiritual pilgrim and mentor, colonial missionary, preacher,
theologian, poet, and husband. The selections, given the size of the volumes (220 and 224
pages), are representative and extensive enough to serve Heitzenrater's purpose. This is
not to say that some would have chosen other passages or extended the extracts. It is
beneficial to have such a wide range of passages, especially the excerpts in volume two
from sources which are too frequently overlooked, collected in a handy format. The
emphasis upon presenting differing or conflicting perspectives on Wesley and the volume's
organization may lead some readers to the impression that Wesley was a fragmented rather
than an elusive person. Yet, Heitzenrater has produced a work presenting Wesley as a
multifarious 18th century person, both to serve as a corrective to existing studies and to
serve as a chart for future biographers. For those who have appropriated Wesley for their
own polemical or hagiographic purposes this anthology offers a necessary and effective,
but gentle, rebuff. Unfortunately Heitzenrater has not provided full bibliographic
citations for the excerpts, or items mentioned in the review of subsequent Wesley studies,
making it difficult for scholars or students to use this work as a starting point for
further study. The literature review provides an informative historical summary of
publications regarding Wesley stressing their weaknesses. One wishes he had expanded the
critical engagement with the scholarly literature, as distinct from citing and commenting
upon, to more fully realize the expressed hope that the work will "act as a critical
guide through the maze of published material available on Wesley."
This anthology deserves a reading as a reminder of the
complexity of Wesley and, for students, as a companion to existing biographies. Its value
to Wesley scholars and students may not rest on its own significance but upon the merits
of the quest Heitzenrater seeks to call forth. A quest for which it serves as a
prolegomenon.
Streiff, Patrick Phillip: Jean Guillaume de la
Flechere, 1729-1785. Ein Betrag zur Geschichte des Methodismus. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang, 1984. Reviewed by W. Stephen Gunter, Dean of the College of Ministry and the
Humanities, Southern Nazarene University, Bethany, Oklahoma.
Students of Methodism will be pleased to see this first
attempt of the twentieth century at a full-scale biography of the man John Wesley selected
to succeed him as leader of the Methodists. Wesley's "designated successor," as
Luke Tyerman identified him in his biography of the late nineteenth century, has remained
a relatively obscure figure in the development of Methodist theology. Although this volume
will not greatly relieve this situation, being written in German and rather expensive
($47.00 in paperback), it is a welcome addition to our knowledge of early Methodist
history and certainly fills a void in the study of the life and influence of Fletcher of
Madeley. It is to Streiff's credit that he recognizes that the general perspective on the
piety of Fletcher was greatly shaped by his earliest biographers (Gilpin and Benson) and
few if any have paid the price to transcend that naively idealized portrait. (Cf. p.
26ff.)
It is well known that Fletcher was Swiss, and the
reviewer hoped to find the serious gaps in our knowledge about Fletcher's early years
filled in. From a Swiss Methodist pastor we had hoped to have uncovered new sources of
information heretofore concealed. We remained undaunted even in the face of the
qualification by Streiff, "There remain now only a few primary sources related to the
family history and youth of John William Fletcher. None of the family documents have been
preserved" (p. 22). Not willing to give up the desire to have new insight into
Fletcher's background and youth even when the author intimated that it was not to be, I
was frustrated when the subchapter "FAMILY HISTORY AND EARLY YOUTH" proved to be
little more than a demonstration that the sources are few and the insight into the early
formative years still quite dim.
There is perhaps a relationship between the amount of
information available and brevity of the sub-chapters, but many of the sub-chapters are
only 1-2 pages in length. An integration of the material into a larger corpus would
perhaps provide better reading continuity. The advantage of the multitudinous subdivisions
when a complete index is absent is the isolation of specific information which would
otherwise be buried in the flow of the text. For example, if one is looking for the roots
of Fletcher's rationalized orthodoxy, the table of contents provides the reference:
II.2.2-3, "THE TRANSITION TO RATIONAL ORTHODOXY IN GENEVA."
Streiff promises: "That Crinsoz de Bionens
[Fletcher's uncle who pastored in Waadtland] and Fletcher were kindred spirits can be of
significant help in clarifying later phases of the development in Fletcher's
theology." It would be most helpful if the author would have provided the reader with
a page reference in his development of Fletcher's thought to which this material is
logically connected. Having searched in vain for the related material, one wonders whether
Fletcher's "stages of history" resemble de Bionens' apocalyptic scheme as much
as de Bionens' predictions are based on concepts similar to those of the chiliast, Joachim
de Fiore.
In all fairness to Streiff, his book is a biography of
John Fletcher and not an analysis of his theology. There are significant lacunae and
misperceptions about Fletcher which this excellent work corrects, not the least of which
is a false conclusion about Fletcher's theological studies in Geneva, based primarily on a
1781 letter, "having some desires to be a clergyman, I was, for seven years sent to
Geneva to pursue [sic] my studies. But after I had stayed there seven years, a fear
of being unfit for the Christian ministry, . . . made me a time prefer the sword to the
gown, and I left the academy . . ." (p.44). Streiff, not willing to draw the obvious
but false conclusion that other biographers have propagated brings together a series of
chronological considerations which seriously question the hypothesis that Fletcher
"studied theology for seven years in Geneva" and offers a conclusive rejection
by pointing out that Fletcher's name does not appear in the Codex Bibliotheca Publica
under the theology column for those students who had matriculated and were using the
library, although his name does appear under philology. Streiff's conclusion, much better
historically warranted than previous speculations, is, "John Fletcher was for two
years, and perhaps even only for one year, a student in the 'Faculty of Arts' at the
Academy of Geneva under [the professorial guidance of] Jacob Vernet" (p. 45).
Students of early British Methodism will be especially
delighted to discover Streiff's lists of Fletcher manuscripts and printed writings. His
chart and list, pp. 493-536, are the only ones of their kind in print on the literary
production of Fletcher. This biography is a significant "Contribution to the History
of Methodism" (the book's sub-title) and throws much needed light on Wesley's
"designated successor." The book can be read by the specialist in German, but it
deserves to be translated into English so that a larger printing can bring the cost within
reason and make the book accessible to a larger audience.
Edited by Jason Gingerich and Michael Mattei for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2000 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology
Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes , provided the notice below the
horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any
kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at
Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to
report errors
|
