I am reading Deep Church for a second time. There was so much, I want to be sure to get what I missed the first go around.
I have shared some of the ideas with many unchurched friends and family and have found that many of their objections to “organized religion” is due to the arrogance many local assemblies and denominations have as holding all truth. Belcher notes that it is as if doctrine becomes a gate keeper of sorts to keep folks who don’t comply out of fellowship.
There is much to glean from this work! Thanks for reviewing. I’ve shared this with my Christian Leadership students.
Chris R.

This sounds a lot like Frank Viola in Reimagining Church. He states that the only basis upon someone is accepted as a member of a local body is a confession of Jesus Christ as Lord. There is not a second-tier test that allows or disallows you from joining. This is very foreign to me as we had classes for 12 weeks that you had to be a part of before you could be considered “in”.
I look forward to the posts to come!

Derek #2-
Keep in mind that this idea of membership (“Membership is based on affirmation of the Great Tradition not on the affirmation of the local variety of that faith”) may be basic but also may include preparation that is time consuming. There is a lot rich and deep truths to cover in just those basics.
Of course the early church had quite extensive training sessions before one would be considered a member.
Then again, we now have some churches, such as Mosaic, that do not technically have “members”. I guess that is more about how one defines church and its purpose.
I like Belcher’s approach as he seems to be furthering the work of Webber and his Ancient-Future approach.

sorry- #3 should say “There are a lot of rich and deep truths…”
One further thought on this that is nagging at me. It is good to include the Great Tradition, but there is also something missing in that many in the RC and EO would not see us in that same way, at least not fully in that way. That should not prevent us from adapting Belcher’s approach, but it does dampen it a bit.

Rick,
But the fact that others will consider us “outside” shouldn’t deter, in fact it should strengthen resolve and commitment. There is a human desire to control in and out and requirements for inclusion. We see it in the Jew/Gentile controversy in Acts and Galatians. The ancient church as an institution was clearly guilty of this sin on many levels at many times. Modern churches are as well.
Membership is a good thing for many reasons – but it carries baggage to be resisted.

I haven’t read this book but certainly will. I think it may prove helpful to me w/ regard to a concern I’ve had for quite some time.
The church I serve does not use the word “member” with the word “church”. I cannot find that particular combination in the NT. Since member is an organic term that is properly applied to the body metaphor… One is a member not simply because of doctrinal agreement but because of how one functions in the body…building up, etc.
I understand the word ‘church’ as a more sociological term. I think we mix our metaphors to less than desirable outcomes when we use the term “church” with the term “member”. Maybe I’m overly sensitive on the issue but have had years and years of experience with folks who agree with a list of doctrinal assertions, join a church, and then warm a pew while they wait on the glory train.
We follow the duck theory: if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck it’s a duck If s/he acts like a member and walks like a member, s/he’s a member. I assume they wouldn’t/couldn’t do that unless they held to the central affirmation of the faith that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Here’s the issue or concern I have…
We can have tier’s, we can try to remove tier’s, but what if people are not willing to work together at that local level, legalist vs. liberals and more us/them mentality. A part of membership as I see it is the opportunity to shape your local church context.
For instance, a church that began with egalitarian leadership which through program, music, whatever, attracts many complimentarians who become members, but don’t hold to an egalitarian practice or view, which which to change the churches leadership to reflect their theology.
I have no issue with first tiers all sharing the same body and fellowship together, but their have to be some agreed to second tiers for membership and church DNA or you simply have everyone trying to make this church THEIR second tier.
Phil

Jim,
I agree in large part with what you say – but…
Doesn’t the history of the church(es) in the US seem to support a notion that doctrinal restrictions on decision making membership is desirable?
The duck theory can, in fact, throw doctrine to the wind because many who waddle and quack don’t actually have a view centered in mission of God and/or affirming even the life, death, and resurrection.

Honest question:
It seems that a lot of recent theological debates between emerging and tradtional camps centers on eschatology and salvation. I grew thinking of eschatology as a “room off the hall” but that was when my scope of thinking was focused on pre-/post-trib and the goal was still going to heaven.
The language and emphasis in the emergent camp seems to focus on bringing heaven down (or partnering with God in bringing the kingdom to earth). Is this still a “side room” issue or would this be something that fundamentally affects how we understand our hallway, the gospel?
Maybe a better phrasing, does focusing on going to heaven instead of bringing heaven here (and how you understand Christ’s work) belong in the hallway or the sideroom because they seem to be core?
Richard

I haven’t read the book either and therefore probably shouldn’t be commenting, but … just take the virgin birth as an example. It’s in the creeds that we all say in the United Methodist Church. But the understanding of what it means to affirm that belief is probably very different from the non-denom church down the road. Are we okay with that? We can all say it together. Or do we have to agree on a specific interpretation of it at the first tier?

I am very much enjoying this book. Loving it actually!
What Jim has articulated here and Scot has summarized seems so good and healthy to me. The “Third Way” does seem to be the best and biblical way. My mind races and heart best faster over the potential good this Third Way has for the Kingdom of God.
Could this Third Way be the answer to Jesus’ prayer in John 17?

John #10,
I think it is not enough to just “say” something. James makes this pretty clear in his epistle. We must actually “believe” something.
How would you interpret the virgin birth (conception) differently from the non-denom down the road? Isn’t a virgin conception a virgin conception?
First-tier belief is more than just saying words on a paper. It is believing those words and what the church meant when they were penned. It is truly embracing the Great Tradition, not just reciting something.

Thank you! I really appreciate Jim’s first rule: “Membership is based on affirmation of the Great Tradition not on the affirmation of the local variety of that faith.” We are struggling with this now at my church. For so long, membership was based more on adherence to rules that were local church-based vs. gospel-based. Now we’re trying to move more in the direction of accepting people who profess faith in Christ even if that means they might differ on some of the held beliefs of the local fellowship. Growing in faith is probably what we’re looking at more than the thinking that one has arrived spiritually and therefore is worthy of membership.

Hey Everyone,
Thanks for the conversation around unity! I am glad some of you have been blessed by Deep Church.
My question is whether the “two tiers” view is helpful for unity. In other words, as Christians there is a content to our beliefs. Is it helpful place our core beliefs about God, creation, the fall, redemption into the “top tier” as the 4th and 5th Century Creeds have done, what Lewis calls “mere Christianity” and what Tom Oden calls “classical orthodoxy”? This allows us to agree on the core things.
Then the “second tier” are most denominational distinctions like the Lord’s Supper, Baptism, church polity, views of culture, etc. We can disagree about these, dialogue on them, but we don’t split over them. We maintain the unity over the first tier views that most Christians hold in common.
But as much as this brings unity, it does not mean that no one falls outside of “mere Christianity.” The question is what do we say to those who are outside of this first tier? Are we allowed to make this claim? Does the Bible call us to? Can anyone’s views be excluded? This is a hard question but the New Testament writers clearly believe (see 1 John) we are to oppose certain people who threaten the church. Who are these people? Do any people today rise to this level? These are difficult and uncomfortable questions to ask and answer, especially in this day and age where it is not “polite” to exclude? But certainly some views don’t fit it or the quest for unity is meaningless. So how is both unity and biblical faithfulness achieved? This is such an important topic that I stuck it right up front in my book. What are your thoughts?
Shalom.

I like Belcher’s appeal to the Great Tradition, or as Thomas Oden puts it, to “paleo-orthodoxy.” I think it’s correct that the Apostolic rule of faith ought to be our hermeneutical yardstick, and that the basic doctrines enshrined in the ecumenical creeds — the Trinity and the full deity and full humanity of Christ — out to provide our common center.
However, I have a number of concerns about turning ecumenical creeds into the kind of regulative authority that Belcher (and Oden) seem to invest in them. My concerns have to do with the historical situatedness and inherent fallibility of even these great creeds.
The language of the ecumenical creeds is often heavily influenced by Greek thought categories. In addition, the ecumenical creeds grow out of a historical and political context in which assent to the creeds would have been incomprehensible without submission to the authority of the one true visible Roman Church.
Let me point out a couple of nits that bother me, for example, about the Athanasian Creed, which are tied to these two related concerns. First, the Athanasian Creed speaks repeatedly of the “rational soul.”
Many contemporary theologians, including N.T. Wright, Joel Green, Nancey Murphy, Warren Brown, and others, suggest the notion of a “rational soul” is a Greek influence, not a Biblical concept. The contemporary neurosciences seem to support the view that “soul” and “mind” are not distinct entities, but inhere in lower-level chemical interactions in the brain.
Does the Athanasian Creed as a centering device preclude all discussion of the theology and science of the “soul?”
Second nit: the Athanasian Creed says “one cannot be saved” without believing what it says. I’m pretty sure, however, that we don’t want to confuse the role of a confessional document with the nature of saving faith.
I think the Creed in this instance can’t be read outside its ecclesial context, in which “salvation” was inextricably linked to baptism in the one true visible Church. From a post-Reformation perspective, we evangelicals say (I think) that one is saved simply through faith in Christ, and that as a person grows in faith his or her understanding of the faith — including of confessional documents — will deepen.
So doesn’t the Athanasian Creed, taken literally, commit the adherent to a Catholic soteriology?
I’m intending with these questions not so much to pick on the Athanasian Creed as to explore the limitations of historic creeds as centering sets — or at least to explore what is meant by a “centered set” as opposed to a hard line of exclusion.

This runs against the stream of appreciation here for Belcher?s recommendation for church membership criteria, but I?ll put it on the table anyway.
I like the two tier distinction. I think that the first tier should govern inter-church relationships and the spirit between congregations and between denominations. But I see distinct benefits to restricting membership in a congregation (and congregational membership in a denomination) to the second tier, provided the congregation always keeps the hierarchy of tiers clearly in view.
I think that a congregation?s effective pursuit of its particular role within God?s overall purpose for the church is best assisted when members share a common perspective on convictions that they hold strongly, though at the second tier. I am a Baptist but I currently worship in a Mennonite church and I see that church?s commitment to the non-violent pursuit of peace to be an important contribution within the ministry of the universal church. (Despite the fact that I disagree with their reading of Scripture on this point.)
It is good to acknowledge that this is a second tier conviction, so that a sense of common Christian faith is fostered (and practiced) toward Christians who understand Scripture as affirming the legitimacy of Christian participation in just policing. But, I think that something very valuable would be lost if, as Belcher proposes, no group of Christians were permitted to follow Jesus together in accordance with an understanding of Scripture which is not heretical but which is also not part of the first tier consensus of the whole Christian church. Just as the body of Christ is enriched by the diversity of gifts within it, so I think it can be enriched, without threat to its unity, by the diversity of congregations (and of denominations, which I view as parachurch organizations).

“Membership is based on affirmation of the Great Tradition not on the affirmation of the local variety of that faith.”
I really don’t see that working very well.
Sure, you have denominations today whose official stance is, “We have no stance.”
But for those with strong stances on, say, music, dress, nonviolence, or baptism, does it really make sense to take all comers?

While I think this is a helpful way to look at things, in practice there will be disagreements about what is “top tier”, with some wanting to make distinctives of their “room” into “top tier” items.
One can of course come up with clearly off-base examples like those who make 6-day creation into a first-tier issue. But other examples may be more difficult:
Is penal substitutionary atonement top-tier?
Is the traditional view of Hell top-tier?
Is inerrancy (or any view about Scripture) top-tier?
Is traditional sexual morality top-tier?
Is salvation only through Jesus top-tier?
Is the virgin birth top-tier?
Is a historical “Fall” top-tier?
As helpful as it is to think about these tiers (or, I think equivalently, “essentials” and “nonessentials”), one always runs into the problem that different people will draw different circles in defining what is essential. Inevitably, someone who thinks he or she is operating within the Great Tradition will be labeled as “outside the pale” by somebody else.

Jim Belcher (#14) said: Is it helpful place our core beliefs about God, creation, the fall, redemption into the “top tier” as the 4th and 5th Century Creeds have done …
I respond: Jim, this illustrates some of what’s causing me difficulty. The categories you use here — “creation, fall, redemption” — are additional Reformed glosses on the ecumenical creeds. So now does “mere Christianity” include the Greek language of the ecumenical creeds as well as the Reformed gloss on that language?
Take the category of “fall,” for example. As we’ve discussed intensely here on Jesus Creed, Christians today disagree significantly on what the “fall” might entail. Some theistic evolution proponents, such as Karl Giberson, suggest we need to do away with the notion of a “historical fall” altogether, because the natural and historical sciences preclude the possibility of any such literal cataclysmic event. Is Giberson therefore not to be considered a “Christian?” Is anyone who adopts a neo-orthodox view of the “fall” (that the Biblical stories of Adam’s “fall” are entirely symbolic or allegorical for “everyman’s” human condition) outside the pale of “mere Christianity?” If not, what use are these categories as regulative measures? If so, do we need to retreat into a fundamentalism that denies scientific reality?

Dave (#19),
You are asking fabulous questions. I am not sure I have answers to them all. Sorry for the reformed shorthand (creation, fall, redemption). I was just trying to summarize the broad sweep of the Bible. I probably should have summarized the what the Creeds think is biblical.
I am not familiar with Giberson but I was not aware that the human race’s degeneration from Creation into sin was controversial. If it did not take place, why the need for a Redeemer. Am I missing something?
I have to be honest I am not convinced that the Creeds are overly influenced by Greek thought. Maybe some yes, but not entirely to the point that we can dismiss them as many critics want. That seems to easy for me. BTW, Can you recommend a book that makes the case for this Hellenization? I would love to read more on this contention.
Dan Kimball said to me the other day, via fb, that often Augustine gets the bad wrap for this Hellenization. So let’s reject Augustine, some say. But as Dan said “don’t blame Augustine, blame the Apostle Paul.” I think what he meant is that most of the “offensive” doctrines like the wrath of God and original sin seem to have their origin in Paul. As I read Paul, I think Dan is right. What do you think?
Great dialogue.

I agree with others here that the creeds are situation-specific. They should still play a role in our collective understanding. But enshrining them as unwavering, non-examined dogma goes too far. And, as others have pointed out, not only were they situation-specific in terms of the heresies they were trying to counter, but so too were they situation-specific in terms of their cultural influences.
So, in my mind, we should examine them with a critical (meaning investigatory, not negative) lens. And I think that the reference to the Great Tradition, while being something I appreciate and applaud, is perhaps a little too narrowly defined by Jim in the book. In other words, it feels good to us to refer to a Great Tradition – because it sounds ecumenical, tried and tested, and inclusive. But which version are we referring to?
Also, isn’t the Great Tradition, among other things, a progression? An ongoing dialogue? A pursuit as much as destination? And shouldn’t we, as faithful Holy-Spirit led believers, also invest into, as well as draw from, that Great Tradition?
I liked Jim’s book a lot, and also had a few push-backs along these lines. My full review is here: http://www.precipicemagazine.com/deep-church-review.html

This was one of my favorite chapters in Jim’s book because it is so helpful in establishing common ground….especially as it concerns the divide between the traditional church and the emerging church. Were more people to adopt this approach, we could avoid so much of the name-calling and accusations of heresy that have unfortunately made their way into the conversation. For this reason, I do think that the two-tiered approach is helpful.
(I do mention in the review on my blog that occasionally…just occasionally… Jim’s Reformed perspective seems to “get in the way of his third way,” but I can hardly blame him for that. It is no easy task to write a book that seeks to analyze and assess a variety of Christian perspectives without bringing pieces of your own to the table.)
I don’t agree for one second that to disagree with Augustine is to disagree with Paul. Augustine’s interpretation of Paul is far from infallible. In fact, I think Augustine was way off on many of Paul’s most important points, especially when it comes to interpreting election in terms of individual salvation. But, of course, I’m a Greg Boyd/Clark Pinnock reader who likes to blame just about everything that’s ever gone wrong with Christianity on poor ole Augustine…who really wasn’t all that bad!

Jim (#20) said: I was not aware that the human race’s degeneration from Creation into sin was controversial. If it did not take place, why the need for a Redeemer. Am I missing something?
I respond: not to be glib, but yes, it seems to me you’re missing a lot, and what you’re missing is very important. The scientific consensus concerning human evolution creates significant tension with the notion of “the human race’s degeneration from Creation into sin.” It’s pretty clear that there was no point in history when there were “perfect” human beings. We have inherited millions and millions of years of competition, selfishness and death. There is no definable point in observable human history at which we can say “not fallen / fallen.” The “Adam” of Milton’s “Paradise Lost” and of much of historic Reformed theology never existed. To assert otherwise is just to whistle in the wind, because the physical evidence is overwhelmingly and clearly to the contrary.
Now, IMHO this doesn’t mean there was never an “Adam” at all (though it might), and it doesn’t mean “sin” is entirely a “natural” thing (though “pre-fall” human inherited human nature seems to predispose us to selfishness). But, clearly, the evidence for human evolution requires us to think more carefully about what the classical categories mean. These categories cannot mean exactly what the Church Fathers, or the Reformers, would have thought they meant, because the Fathers and the Reformers didn’t know things that that natural sciences have shown us today. Would you agree?
As for the Greek influence on the creeds — I’m not sure it’s possible to deny that the term “rational soul” in the Athanasian Creed has Greek roots. It’s clearly derived from Plato’s understanding of the soul. This doesn’t mean we can dismiss the creeds, as you note, but it also means that we have to acknowledge that the creeds, like all human documents, are historically situated. Do we have to accept the Platonic ontology of the “soul” embedded in the Athanasian Creed? Is that “authoritative” for us today?
Re: the wrath of God and original sin — yeah, I would not attribute those concepts to Greek thought. However, I would suggest that Augustine’s linking of original sin to concupiscence derives from a Greek neo-Platonic body / soul dualism, which greatly damaged the Church’s views on sexuality and marriage. Would you agree, or do you think Augustine correctly linked original sin to ordinary sexual desire even between husband and wife?
You don’t need to have answers for every question, of course, but IMHO this is a litmus test: can you provide meaningful answers about the points at which clear evidence from the natural sciences bumps up against our inherited traditions? If the answer is that we have to deny or fight against the scientific evidence, then I don’t think the proposal is a genuine “third way” — it would just be another kind of fundamentalism. I’m not suggesting this is your approach, but I’m genuinely curious to see how paleo-orthodoxy handles the fact that we live in a context of 21-st Century scientific knowledge, which dramatically differs from that available in the 5th or 16th Centuries.

As I was reading these comments, and I am not a theologian, only a simple Christ follower, I thought how simple all this becomes when the Church is persecuted; as in China. First – personal relationship with Jesus, second Real Truth, and then my brothers and sisters of every house. It really comes down to, do I LOVE God and am I willing to LOVE my brothers and sisters in Christ, even unto death. If not, am I really a Christian. All these “ologies” , what does God think of them, not much, if I am using them as an excuse to not love. Or if I am using them as a way to press sin, disobedience to God into His church.

Hmm, I haven’t started the book. Got it late thanks to amazon.
So this is a genuine question. If participation in the local community should only be predicated on affirming the Great Tradition and not local traditions, will this not lead to chaos in the local fellowship?
Maybe I misunderstood. But wouldn’t we end up with some celebrating Mass, some taking Communion, and some (in my group, Messianic Judaism) waiting for Passover?
If I don’t shape some boundaries with teaching I can end up with all sorts in my Messianic synagogue, including some hostile to Judaism. This would be a problem in my community.
Thoughts?

I am off to a few hours of meetings–my day job–as a parish pastor! I will try to respond to some of these very challenging posts when I return. Until then, keep the dialogue going. Here is one last question, has anyone read Tom Oden’s book, “How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind”? He makes the point that the West borrowed heavily from the theologians of North Africa who were not Greek. Also, just wondering with all the discussion on Hellenization, has anyone spent much time in the Ancient Christian Commentary Series and read what the Father’s actually say and how it may differ from the Hellenization theory put forth by scholars? I think I need to spend more time reading the actual sources. Shalom.

I’ve spent lots of time with the Ancient Christian Commentary series, which I enjoy. I’ve also read a fair amount of primary source material, albeit in English, from Athanasius, Tertullian, Augustine, Origen, Chrysostom, and others. And I’ve read probably a half dozen historical theology texts (the best IMHO are Jaroslav Pelikan’s “The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine — Vol. 1″; Latourette’s History of Christianity; and Ivin and Sundquist’s “History of the World Christian Movement” — though I haven’t read Justo Gonzolez whom I understand is excellent).
There’s no denying that the Church Fathers were influenced by Greek thought. The early North African theologians were influenced by Greek thought too. We’re not talking sub-saharan Africa here, we’re talking Roman provinces.

“There’s no denying that the Church Fathers were influenced by Greek thought”
But does that make it wrong?
Was not Paul exposed, and possibly influenced, by Greek thought as well? As we see in Acts 17, he was certainly quite familiar with, at least some, Greek philosophy.

I like Jim’s proposal.

I have not read the book yet (am looking foward to it), so this may not be the situation, but so far in this series we have seen the goal of the Third Way, then the emerging church criticisms of the traditional church, and now some solutions.
Does he skip over the complaints of the traditional church in regards to emerging church positions?

Rick,
You asked: “Does he skip over the complaints of the traditional church in regards to emerging church positions?”
Ah, definitely not!

Rick,
You also said, regarding you comment #28: “But does that make it wrong?”
No, it just means its subject to a cultural skew as would any other formulation from any other culture/time be.
Its not about right and wrong, more about taking into account the tendencies of various times and cultures.

Darren-
“No, it just means its subject to a cultural skew as would any other formulation from any other culture/time be.”
Agreed, but much of the tone here today seems to have been to discount the creeds as a tool for unity due to potential Hellenistic influences.
A “cultural skew” can still have a lasting truth, especially if it does not run counter to, and may even be based in, Scripture.

re: “Greek thought”
You might as well say that theologians who speak and write in the English language were “heavily influenced by English thought categories”. Language and thought categories/processes are inextricably connected; you can’t separate them out. The early church Fathers spoke and wrote in Greek. How could they not display Greek thought categories???
Now, if you want to talk about the influence of *Greek philosophy* on the church Fathers, that is another matter. From my limited reading of the Fathers, I would say that, even though the Fathers used some of the same vocabulary, they might not have meant the same thing by it, and that they pretty much universally rejected dualism. That is, Plato’s “rational soul” is not quite the same thing as Athanasius’ “rational soul”, separated not only by c.500 years of language and culture (think of the differences between English today and that of King James) but also by the quantity of thought that had been given to the Meaning of the Resurrection during the first 300 years after the event (transmogrification of Jewish/Hebrew categories re Messiah, covenant and more; inclusion of the gentiles; impact of all this on the hellenized culture of the Mediterranean; how to express essentially Hebrew concepts in the Greek language, etc. etc.).
And don’t forget that the Eastern Church did not develop in quite the same way as the Western Church. We skip quite neatly to Augustine but leave out Isaac the Syrian, John of Damascus, and others.
Dana

Dana,
The difference in philosophical underpinning between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox is a perfect example of the cultural skewing that goes on. Again, not saying that’s a bad thing, just that it is… And that we should account for it when we’re reading from any particular tradition.

Dana-
Exactly. Well said.
Darren-
“The difference in philosophical underpinning between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox is a perfect example of the cultural skewing that goes on.”
There still was and is common ground, especially more in the early church, with the RC and EO. Some unity was/is present, and this is what represents the Great Tradition.

Rick,
Right. But that’s because early on they shared the same cultural influences. But that early culture wasn’t somehow more holy than any other, right? The different trajectory that the two take afterwards just points to the fact that cultural stew makes a large difference in the understanding of reality – even for particular subgroups like Christians.

My meetings ended early and one got canceled. So I can respond to some of the posts. Great stuff.
David (#27), amazing to see your deep reading in the Fathers. I am amazed at how well read you are.
So here is my question to everyone: even given the fact that the Father’s were influenced by Greek thought (we can debate to what extent) does that mean that there is no such thing as the Great Tradition on which we build, in part, mere Christianity? My proposal is that unity in the church comes from a reliance on the Bible (and the Holy Spirit) and the Great Tradition. It does not mean that we take the Tradition as only one of continuity. There is both continuity and discontinuity with the Great Tradition. I make this point in the book. I think I may be stressing today the need for more continuity and some of the posts here are for more discontinuity. Am I reading the posts correctly? Or are you asking for a clean break from the Great Tradition and the need to form our views newly in each and every age without the authority (however we define this) of the Tradition as a guide?
In other words, is there an ongoing role for the Great Tradition in helping us to maintain biblical fidelity (Tom Oden says “The Holy Spirit has a history”)in the face of secularism that wants to gut the content of the faith our of Christianity? Can it help us be bibical? Can it keep us from syncretism, looking so much like the culture that we lose our saltiness? And can it help us be biblical in a way that engenders more unity in the church? That is, form a basis for the deep church that Lewis speaks about? Would love to hear what everyone thinks. Enjoying the dialogue, though I need to get back to my long list of tasks for the day!:)
Jim

Darren-
“The different trajectory that the two take afterwards just points to the fact that cultural stew makes a large difference in the understanding of reality”
There were many factors, apart from faith factors, thay contributed to the schism(s). One could say that these other factors gained influence as those in the early church took their eyes off that “top tier”.
To say otherwise means that the essentials of the faith cannot be unite due to the overwhelming impact of cultural forces. So as soon as Polycarp began to teach, the message was already being skewed and any sense of unity began to disappear.
I agree with what Jim is saying:
“My proposal is that unity in the church comes from a reliance on the Bible (and the Holy Spirit) and the Great Tradition.”

Darren,
I think your comment (#37) re-emphasizes exactly the point that Jim Belcher is making. All of us in the last nineteen centuries have a Great Tradition in common, which we see from our own particular (lower tier) tradition and culture. As we grow in faith, we hopefully gain a perspective out of our own culture, through the Great Tradition, to the Reality beyond any tradition or culture.
Blessings,
JKG

I love this discussion and wish I had more time to participate. Thanks to everyone so far for their thought provoking comments.
I agree with Jim Belcher that a combination of Scripture and the Great Tradition/mere Christianity is what holds us together. I think C.S. Lewis puts it well in his introduction to one of his former student’s translation of Athanasius’ On the Incarnation:
“The divisions of Christendom are undeniable and are by some of these writers most fiercely expressed. But if any man is tempted to think ? as one might be tempted who read only contemporaries ? that ?Christianity? is a word of so many meanings that it means nothing at all, he can learn beyond all doubt, by stepping out of his own century, that this is not so. Measured against the ages ?mere Christianity? turns out to be no insipid interdenominational transparency, but something positive, self-consistent, and inexhaustible. I know it, indeed, to my cost. In the days when I still hated Christianity, I learned to recognise, like some all too familiar smell, that almost unvarying something which met me, now in Puritan Bunyan, now in Anglican Hooker, now in Thomist Dante. It was there (honeyed and floral) in Francois de Sales; it was there (grave and homely) in Spenser and Walton; it was there (grim but manful) in Pascal and Johnson; there again, with a mild, frightening, Paradisial flavour, in Vaughan and Boehme and Traherne. In the urban sobriety of the eighteenth century one was not safe ? Law and Butler were two lions in the path. The supposed ?Paganism? of the Elizabethans could not keep it out; it lay in wait where a man might have supposed himself safest, in the very centre of The Faerie Queene and the Arcadia. It was, of course, varied; and yet ? after all ? so unmistakably the same; recognisable, not to be evaded, the odour which is death to us until we allow it to become life: ?An air that kills From yon far country blows.?
“We are all rightly distressed, and ashamed also, at the divisions of Christendom. But those who have always lived within the Christian fold may be too easily dispirited by them. They are bad, but such people do not know what it looks like from without. Seen from there, what is left intact despite all the divisions, still appears (as it truly is) an immensely formidable unity. I know, for I saw it; and well our enemies know it. That unity any of us can find by going out of his own age. It is not enough, but it is more than you had thought till then. Once you are well soaked in it, if you then venture to speak, you will have an amusing experience. You will be thought a Papist when you are actually reproducing Bunyan, a Pantheist when you are quoting Aquinas, and so forth. For you have now got on to the great level viaduct which crosses the ages and which looks so high from the valleys, so low from the mountains, so narrow compared with the swamps, and so broad compared with the sheep-tracks.”

I didn’t suggest, and didn’t mean to suggest, that the Greek influence on Patristic thought makes it “wrong,” or suggests that we can simply discard it. I agree whole-heartedly that there is a “Great Tradition,” and that any thought that is truly “Christian” must find itself in the stream of that Tradition — though I’m not convinced that the “Great Christian Tradition” is entirely circumscribed by Western Christianity. I’m not — or at least I don’t think I am — a revisionist, if that means starting from a supposedly clean slate. And that includes having to account for things such as original sin, Divine wrath at sin, and penal substitutionary atonement, which are important aspects of Christian theology, as well as the Trinity and the full humanity / full divinity of Christ.
BUT — I am worried about reifying any particular creed or confession because all creeds and confessions are second-order statements that arise from particular contexts.
So, Jim, when you say “My proposal is that unity in the church comes from a reliance on the Bible (and the Holy Spirit) and the Great Tradition”, I don’t disagree, but at the same time this makes me nervous. It seems to me — and as I read Tom Oden’s work it seems even more to me — that there is an undue elevation here of “tradition’s” place in the web of authority. If that happens, we end up with the sorts of problems I’ve raised about the ability to extend and even perhaps revise the tradition in light of knowledge from other sources, including the natural sciences. (I notice that people who emphasize the Great Tradition tend to dodge the hard questions raised by contemporary knowledge, which I think is unfortunate!)
Why not instead use the “traditional” formulation of authority: scripture, tradition, reason and experience, with scripture as the ultimate norma normans? Why elevate “tradition” over “reason” and “experience,” for example? If reason and experience tell us that the Athanasian Creed’s reference to the “reasonable soul” is more Greek-inflected than Biblical, or that the traditional category of “Fall” needs to be thought about more carefully, etc., why should the tradition remain ossified? Maybe another way to put this is, what is the relationship between “unity” and “truth?”

Please allow me to quote one Scot McKnight:
“I?m appealing, the way a mouse does before a lion, for Evangelicals to enlargen the latter end of this process and reconsider its relationship to both the orthodox creeds and to the powerful processes that were established in such creeds. This little heresy of mine can be called orthodoxy. If we do this, and if we recognize that there is a drama played on different stages in different locations to different tunes, we will come to terms with three things: (1) the authority of the canon, (2) the sacredness of the creeds, and (3) the need to engage each culture with that canon in light of those creeds.
I see only two live options for us: either we embrace canon and creed as a singular moment when God was at work through his Spirit in the history of the Church, or we relativize both canon and creed and throw everything back on history or individual conscience. Evangelicals, as I read us, have taken a third option, and it seems inherently inconsistent: we have opted for divine providence in the canonical process but not a divine providence in the creedal process. When I think about our problems here, I feel like Booth Tarkington?s bug who fell into an ink-well and was then fished out; his comment about it was that the bug was ?alive but discouraged.?
Discouraged maybe; but at least we should consider the creedal process itself.
3.4 Evangelicals and Creedal Process
How did that process take place? To begin with, we are not completely sure. But, in the Fifth Century a fellow named Vincent of L?rins, recognizing that Holy Scripture by itself wasn?t able to settle all issues easily and clearly, studied how the Church was to come to terms with new teachings that seemed to stretch or even deny theological tradition. His solution, sketched most recently in my first example, Thomas Oden?s book, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy, was that the Church needs to settle down into the theological nest of what has been believed (1) everywhere, (2) always, and (3) by all. Of course, if we think of this Vincentian Canon in terms of absolute uniformity, we?ll not find much that passes muster. But, if we think with reasonable humility, it is not hard to come to terms with what we might call a ?consensual orthodoxy? or what Thomas Oden calls ?paleo-orthodoxy.?
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2006/05/the-gospel-of-niggle-3.html

I also agree wholeheartedly that there is a Great Tradition, and that it should guide us. All I’m saying is that mine is probably a little larger than Jim’s (I’m guessing). And also, that the center of that Great Tradition shifts over time – as new investments are made into it. To me that’s a good thing. After all, the Holy Spirit is still moving, still speaking, still revealing.

Rick (#43) (and Scot, and Jim, and Tom Oden!) — yes, but: if the Holy Spirit has a history, and if the Spirit was at work in the formation of the ecumenical creeds, why do all of us protestants reject the authority of the Roman church?
It seems passingly difficult to me to ignore the Spirit’s activity in forming a true apostolic Church if we accept that the Spirit formed a true canon and true creeds. Doesn’t it have to be “canon, creed and Church,” not just “canon, creed and me?”
Remember, St. Augustine would have considered all of us protestants, evangelicals and Reformed folks equivalent to the Donatists, condemning us as heretics and advocating that state power should be used to seize our church properties and imprison us. (We like to read Augustine’s Confessions, but how often do we read his “Against the Donatists?”)
If I accept the paleo-orthodoxy thesis in full, why should I not also convert to Roman Catholicism?

OK, now this conversation is really getting interesting. I should be doing admin tasks but this dialogue is far too interesting not to keep dipping into. Thank you to everyone who is participating.
First of all, Karl (#41), thanks for the Lewis quote. That is so helpful. I have not looked at that in years.
This part is brilliant and vintage Lewis:
“Seen from there, what is left intact despite all the divisions, still appears (as it truly is) an immensely formidable unity. I know, for I saw it; and well our enemies know it. That unity any of us can find by going out of his own age. It is not enough, but it is more than you had thought till then.”
Despite all the division there is a formidable unity. That is so right on and it is what gives me hope for the church.
Dave (#42)So well said and I think we are much closer on this then I first thought.
I share your concern of elevating Tradition too high. I think Oden would too. Remember he is a Methodist!:) He does not want Tradition to be elevated over Scripture. Ultimately, the Word is the norming norm as you say. But the Great Tradition has played an intimate role in even how we understand Scripture and how we got the cannon. So it is more like a complimentary role with the Scriptures. So when we read the Bible we don’t do it as a solitary individual or even just in a community but within and on the shoulders of the Great Tradition, even though it is flawed in places. I think you would agree with this.
Rick (#43) I almost leaped for joy at the reading of the McKnight quote. Is that from Blue Parakeet? He just nailed what I am trying to say. This part of the quote is so relevant:
“we will come to terms with three things: (1) the authority of the canon, (2) the sacredness of the creeds, and (3) the need to engage each culture with that canon in light of those creeds.I see only two live options for us: either we embrace canon and creed as a singular moment when God was at work through his Spirit in the history of the Church, or we relativize both canon and creed and throw everything back on history or individual conscience.”
What he says is that Evangelicals have adopted the cannon as divinely inspired but not the creeds. But the creeds were part of the process of canonization or at least reflected the way they made those decisions. Am I wrong on this? So they have to go together. How this works itself out, that is, how much continuity or discontinuity do we allow for is an important question and one we need to work out in light of our historical times. But this is different than abandoning the Great Tradition as most evangelicals have done for hundreds of years. Of course, I don’t hear anyone on this blog saying this at all.
Keep the great insights, qualifications and questions coming. This is an amazing group of people weighing in. I am learning a ton.
Back to my task list!
Jim

Darren,
In what way would you say your view of the Great Tradition is larger than mine? I think that might be right but I am just curious.
Thanks!
Jim

Thanks Jim. That entire piece by Lewis is a gem. Here are the paragraphs leading up to the quote I posted above:
“. . . This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity you can be almost certain that they are studying not St. Luke or St. Paul or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Hooker or Butler, but M. Berdyaev or M. Maritain or M. Niebuhr or Miss Sayers or even myself.
“Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o?clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why ? the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity (?mere Christianity? as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.
“Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook ? even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united ? united with each other and against earlier and later ages ? by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century ? the blindness about which posterity will ask, ?But how could they have thought that?? ? lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.
“I myself was first led into reading the Christian classics, almost accidentally, as a result of my English studies. Some, such as Hooker, Herbert, Traherne, Taylor and Bunyan, I read because they are themselves great English writers; others, such as Boethius, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Dante, because they were ?influences.? George Macdonald I had found for myself at the age of sixteen and never wavered in my allegiance, though I tried for a long time to ignore his Christianity. They are, you will note, a mixed bag, representative of many Churches, climates and ages. And that brings me to yet another reason for reading them. The divisions of Christendom are undeniable . . .”

I believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour, believe that he died for my sins and rose from the dead. That he is alive. Also I do not believe that God rose himself up from the dead. This fact, along with many other clear scriptures point to the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, but not God. On that basis, it appears that I am outside of any level of this “deep church.”
Still, I have over the years developed a deep faith, a strong connection with God, and have seem some amazing works of God in me and around me. Have helped many people come to Christ as well. Curious that a believer such as myself is left on the outside of your so called “deep church.” If my faith weren’t fairly substantial, I might be offended by your ideas.
Look a little deeper and you will see that many of the beliefs around Jesus Christ supposedly being God revolve more around tradition and pagan belief than a careful examination of the scriptures.
Regards,
John M

Dopderbeck-
“if the Holy Spirit has a history, and if the Spirit was at work in the formation of the ecumenical creeds, why do all of us protestants reject the authority of the Roman church?”
One could say that after this period Rome took its eyes off the “top tier” ball and began (among other things) to claim more authority than had been understood, “first among equals”, by the world-wide church. It is after this period that we see the “Bishop of Rome” become more of the “Pope” that we know of today. So we Protestants reject the authority (or the modern claims of authority) of Rome just as the EO Churches do.
That does not discount the unity and key work done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit prior to these deep strains. The teachings of Christ and the Apostles had been preserved, and foundational church doctrines (based on those teachings) stated.

Rick (#50) — the problem with that is that the ecumenical creeds, particularly the Nicene Creed, are products of the belief in one true visible church through and through. The Emperor Constantine himself was directly involved in the process that led to the Nicene Creed. It would have been inconceivable to the Bishops who supported the Nicene Creed that there could have been anything but one true visible Church.
John (#49) — are you a Christadelphian? Here is a place where I think the ecumenical creeds are very valuable. They testify strongly to the unity of the Apostolic witness that Jesus is Lord (God incarnate). So, yes, without intending to disparage you, I do think theologies in which Jesus is not clearly God incarnate are not “Christian.”
Reflecting on my reservations, I think they boil down to hermeneutics. Do we have to take every word of the creeds “literally?” Or are we talking about accepting them generally as faithful statements of a system of belief?
Here’s another problematic line in the Athanasian Creed: “And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.”
Taken literally, this seems to deny sola gratia, and also seems to require a tendentiously literal understanding of the Biblical metaphors for hell.
I’m very curious how the paleo-orthodoxy proponents here respond to specific examples like this.

dopderbeck, (#42)
Great comment. I will affirm the creeds – mostly. And this mostly is important. The creeds are important summaries, but they are second order statements, and they are – particularly in the “legalese” – influenced by philosophical debates important at a given time and place, but sometimes meaningless today.
The Apostle’s creed is essentially a summary of Biblical concepts although I wonder a bit about the descended into hell piece (for one thing it isn’t in Tertullian or Irenaeus, or Hippolytus etc. while the other pieces are). But the Nicene creed distinctly adds interpretation and culturally significant precision – and this is true of all of the other creed by committee statements as well.
It seems to me that the work of the Spirit in the early Church and in the Church fathers is something that we must respect, but that we will err if we think that this guidance results in inerrant decision making. The Roman Catholic church is not and was not inerrant, the people who make decision in it are not inerrant, Augustine was not inerrant, John Calvin was not inerrant, the Westminster confession of faith is not inerrant. and I could go on.
But there is a true thread which we must follow eyes centered on God and receptive to the Spirit.

dopderbeck,
I think that we should be talking about accepting them generally as faithful statements of a system of belief. And these faithful statements can be traced through the earliest writings from the affirmations in the letters of Paul, the gospels, and through earliest non-canonical texts as well.

I think the whole topic of winding together the orthodox and the dare I say…emergent, is what perhaps my generation (20-30 something) is missing. We go to church, some more relavent and modern than others, and sing our songs and pray our prayers and then go home and talk about the good service. We go to our small groups, hang out with singles and young married’s and talk about spiritual life. The church I attend is known for tattoos and Harleys parked outside on Sundays. I love it and I feel like I’m in a place where I can feel and watch the spirit of God moving. But at the end of the day, there are moments of disconnect with the faith of our fathers. The new church movements lack the mystery and the awesome reverence for Christ found in the Catholic (big c) and orthodox mass. As I’ve begun to dig into church history and find all the things that I’m convinced were withheld from me in my Protestant upbringing, many questions are being raised. I’ve always been taught that “we” are the church. What I’m learning is that the catholic (little c) church is so much bigger than me and we and us. Maybe that’s why orthodoxy seems so inviting.

And John M illustrates very clearly the failings of this approach. It’s obvious from a postmodern perspective. I don’t have a solution and don’t have much to offer. But people can interpret any statement almost any way they want. Arius, I’m sure, confessed his concept of Jesus as Lord. I don’t see any path to anything better than what we have today through this idea.

Amen! to John M @49. Does saying that make me less of a Christian or a Christian at all? John: it’s a matter of definitions and who does the defining. If your belief system is based on Catholic (big “C”) definitions, then you are reduced to just a bunch of bickering brats having pillow fights in these side rooms and throwing burning tennis balls in the big hallway. Besides the really big questions here (what is a “Christian” and who gets to define it?) I’ve also been thinking about where the church is at now. Is it an inevitable consequence of using the Orthodox creeds as the basis of this belief system? Are we doomed to repeat the past because it seemed like a good idea at the time?

Jim,
To answer your question, let me point to something Tim Keller said about your book. He wrote: “Jim Belcher shows that we don’t have to choose between orthodox evangelical doctrine on the one hand, and cultural engagement, creativity and commitment to social justice on the other. This is an important book.”
In my mind, having to end with “orthodox evangelical doctrine” points to a more narrow Great Tradition than I would subscribe to. Now, Keller said that, not you. But I’m guessing you’re on a similar page. Yes?
Also, like I’ve said in other comments, to me Great Tradition doesn’t just look backwards, but is also informed by today. In that sense I believe Solomon’s Porch – to use an example, which you see as somewhat disconnected from the GT – now invests into the GT. In my mind, its not that they ignore the Fathers or the early Church, but that the book doesn’t close there. They try and live into a faithful trajectory using those earlier examples of the GT.
And really, whether or not other churches admit it, this is pretty much what happens all the time. Everyone looks at their feet, then back to the Christian past, and tries to trace a faithful trajectory. How else do we account for the differences we see today? Its not like one group WANTS to be faithful, and another doesn’t. Its that our narratives are different. And this changes the angle of our engagement with our collective Christian past.
That’s how I lean anyway.

I just opened my Amazon package and looked through this book. I look forward to reading this. After your first few posts, I knew that this must be an important book. I also knew that I like the way Belcher thinks and the way he is approaching this subject.