The central portion of Harvey Cox's new book The Future of Faith lays out the New Perspective on The Church - which is no longer new. It is broad brush summarized as follows:
Jesus taught and enacted a kingdom vision.
His immediate followers were committed to this vision
Paul's disavowal of the necessity to submit to Jerusalem demonstrates that it was Spirit driven
At its core the movement was a rebellion against human, particularly Roman, empire in favor of what could be - Kingdom of God
The diversity of texts found at Nag Hammadi among others demonstrate that belief in the early church was not uniform
The Gospel of Thomas is as old and as faithful as any of the four in the NT
Luke in Luke-Acts was setting forth a Christian epic to compete with the Aeneid and other epics
This community (ekklesia = gathering with political undertones) became distorted into a hierarchical church emphasizing beliefs and authority
→ The distortion is apparent as early as the first epistle of Clement (ca. 92 AD)
→ The distortion develops through Tertullian and Origin and Cyprian
→ The distortion crystallized with Roman favor and Constantine
The council at Nicaea, far from being a sober and Spirit led occasion marked the end of the beginning. The transition was complete.
Meanwhile the Christian bishops went on debating the fine points of theology, Now they argued over what homoousious really meant and the nature of Mary's relationship to God and Christ. They composed more creeds and excommunicated more people. After the fall of Rome in 476, the ensuing centuries toll a dismal story if the repeated failure of using creeds and excommunications to achieve any result, except for further rancor. (p. 108)
So here is a question to ponder:
Which parts of Cox's perspective on the Church ring true - and which parts don't? How would you tell the story?
I ask this question in this fashion because we cannot simply dismiss what Cox has to say. Many of these ideas are running through our church today. We see them in NT Wright's work - and Greg Boyd's. Isn't some of this revision of church history the background for The Myth of a Christian Religion: Losing Your Religion for the Beauty of a Revolution
Church history continues ... and Cox continues...
The reformers saw some of the excesses of church hierarchy and moved away - but then developed equally constrained formulae and creeds. Saved by faith became saved by believing in justification by faith.
As we entered the twentieth century, the fundamentalists saw the loose approach to scripture leading to an "anything goes" Christianity. Inerrancy and belief in inerrancy became the rock-bottom foundation. This is the creed. Cox has an interesting view of fundamentalists - and he classes his foray with IVCF in the 1940's as his experience as a fundamentalist.
Fundamentalism is the current Protestant variant of the toxin of creed making that entered the bloodstream of Christianity early in its history. Fundamentalists collapse faith into belief. They define themselves by their unyielding insistence that faith consists of believing in certain "fundamentals." (p. 141)
Cox sees changes at work though ...
Conservative Christianity in America - and in many other parts of the world - is not a phalanx. The Spirit is moving. Faith is becoming more salient than beliefs. ... Worldwide, evangelical movements are moving, changing, dividing. They are vigorous in many ways, but often ambivalent about their mission. Many of their leaders who once condemned the "social gospel" are now searching for a social theology of their own that includes peacemaking, striving for racial justice, and combating poverty. The opportunity for useful conversation with the "other wing" may be more promising than ever.
He believes that his audience - secular Christian liberals - should seize this opportunity and open a dialog with more conservative Christians.
What of the future? We can argue with Cox - and I certainly think that his picture of both the Christian past and the Christian faith is deeply flawed - but many of the trends that he sees are true. Perhaps some of them are necessary correctives in the ongoing stream of the church. For example - there is a growing realization that the Christian faith demands a social theology that includes peacemaking and combating poverty and oppression (Samaritan's Purse and World Vision are examples, but there are many more). But as we move forward this also requires that we think deeply about the faith we claim - the rock on which we stand. The story of the gospel (see last week's post) and the story of the church (above) must be considered as we look to the future.
Cox has given his perspective. This perspective begs a response - a new response for a new day. We can see (perhaps) the shortcomings of the 'fundamentalist' approach. But the future is not so clear. Cox will throw up his hands in disgust, but there are core essentials to the faith - and these are grounded in beliefs. Belief in God and in his work in the world, past, present, and future.
What are your thoughts? Does a new perspective on the kingdom message of Jesus require response? How?
If you wish to contact me, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Chris,
Excellent point - and I think the key consideration that Cox in his educated liberalism misses. This is why I have hope for the future - and hope that we can work through the shortcomings of an evangelical (even "fundamentalist") approach and retain a robust Christian faith.
The core issue is not so much belief and creed as God and the nature of God and Jesus - and the Spirit. This is along the lines of tomorrows post that wraps up the series on Cox's book.
http://gratefultothedead.wordpress.com
Thanks RJS. And by the way, I would defend the creeds, and to some degree even the Reformation Confessions, on the same grounds. These documents were the work of pastors. They were certainly abused when absolutized. But the things they protected were precious, and had everything to do with the living, personal God portrayed in Scripture and our relationship with that living, personal God.
I suspect folks like Leron Shults have been reading the 20th-century modernization of theology (that is, in this context, NOT "liberalization" of theology, but the fundamentalists' tendencies toward rationalization, propositional-ization) back into the orthodoxy of yore, assuming that creeds and confessions were to the folks who used them nothing but intellectual formulae and/or bludgeons with which to beat their political enemies.
That they got used in both of those ways I don't deny. But we have to be careful of what we lose when we fight the modernization of theology. One of the reasons I love Dorothy L. Sayers is that despite the fact that she once confided she had never had a religious experience, and could be saved, if at all, no other way than through her mind, she grasped the wonder and drama of the Incarnation (read her essay "The Dogma Is the Drama") and the importance of encountering Christ in his full humanity AND divinity (read or hear her radio plays, The Man Born To Be King). She was a puzzle-lover, a pattern-lover, who gloried in the rationality AS WELL AS the person-ality of God.
By the bye, though I love the work of Robert Webber, I am disturbed by his tendency to make this same move of over-reaction against fundamentalist "propositionalism." Heavens, that battle is now, by and large, over! Let's not let our constructive theologizing be hamstrung by bitterness over what we hate about fundamentalism.
A quick comment about a post a few days back.. I realize many lay nonchristians read stuff like the Gospel of Thomas as a supposedly true rendering of early christianity, but how many people will come to the faith by hearing a good counterargument against this theory?? i think the Spirit will do His work on an open mind/soul and our job as christians is to demonstrate Christlike behavior .. The early church won Roman converts by ministering to the ill in an early CE plague among other things..
anyway Craig Evans book Fabricating Jesus has a good section on how you can argue that Thomas is a pistache of other works by comparing it to syrian manuscipts.. fyi for interested folks
I agree with angusj.
But the main reason I am commenting is that I don't see Wright anywhere near, around, or behind Cox's message as you have described it. Is "New Perspective on the Church" Cox's language?
As I read your description Cox appears no different in spirit or knowledge than Dan Brown, as if he just has an ax to grind. It's hard to even take it seriously.
Joel,
Cox's position does bear some resemblance to Dan Brown's and not much resemblance to Wright's, except on one count. Wright has been pushing the idea that anti-imperial rhetoric runs through Paul's writing and was significant in the early church. This was the only comparison I was trying to make.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.