Fall 1983
VOL. XXXVIII • NO. 4
EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor Melvin E. Dieter Associate Editors Eugene Carpenter Leon Hynson Book Editor Donald E. Demaray Ex Officio President David L. McKenna Faculty Representatives: Michael P. Boddy, Donald C. Boyd, Eugene Carpenter, Allan Coppedge, Donald E. Demaray, Melvin E. Dieter, Leon Hynson Student Representative: Dean Mercer Production Services: Fran Price, Virginia Fralick Printer: Creative Impressions, Wilmore, KY
THE ASBURY
SEMINARIAN (USPS 546-440)
VOLUME XXXVIII
FALL 1983
NUMBER 4
The Wesleyan Message in the Life and Thought of Today
The Asbury Seminarian is published quarterly by Asbury Theological Seminary at 204 North Lexingtion Avenue, Wilmore, Kentucky. Second Class postage paid at Wilmore, Kentucky 40390. Copyright 1967, by Asbury Theological Seminary. Subscription price $3.00 per annum. Single copies $1.00.
IN THIS ISSUE ARTICLES Heroes and Heroines .............................. 3 by Kenneth E. Rowe An Attitude of Servanthood ....................... 16 by H. Mark Abbott Examining the Case for Pluralism .................. 22 by Jerry Walls
BOOK REVIEWS ............................ 46
PLEASE NOTE The lecture "Heroes and Heroines" (page 3) was presented in Estes Chapel, Asbury Theological Seminary, September 28, 1982 as part of the annual Ryan Lectureship. "An Attitude of Servanthood" (page 16) was presented as part of the Spiritual Life Conference at the Seminary on February 16, 1983.
Heroes
and Heroines
by Kenneth E. Rowe Images of Methodism in American Literature In this essay I propose to highlight the significance for Methodist historical studies of one potentially rich, yet largely untapped resource - historical fiction, more particularly novels. Numerous popular religious novels have been written by and about the Methodists through the years. Only a few have become recognized classics of American literature, but in the hands of sensitive historians all of them can become revealing documents. Church historians have been curiously reluctant and downright apologetic about using novels as primary documentation, preferring to cite archival or manuscript material. The historiographical mistrust of novels is an interesting phenomenon. Even librarians have been suspicious of them. Conference minutes and clergy biographies have been collected with a passion, but the more widely read popular novels depicting church life are largely absent from the shelves of seminary and university libraries - as I sadly discovered while doing research for these lectures. To my colleagues in the historical profession, who may feel that the use of fiction in classroom reading and scholarly publication is "sugarcoating" the pill of learning, I would like to stress that accuracy in the subject matter is as important to the writer of historical fiction as it is to the author of historical monograph. And if students can be encouraged to read texts because they are entertaining, instead of dull and prosaic, the learning process is advanced. Early 19th century religious novels were incorrigibly sentimental - novels about children too good to be true, parents too dutiful to be believed, clergy too pious to be palatable. By the latter part of the 19th century, however, religious novels were becoming more than an Kenneth E. Rowe, Ph.D. is associate professor of church history at Drew University. He is an ordained elder in the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference of the United Methodist Church.
3
The Asbury Seminarian insipid mass of inspiration. Instead of aiming to glorify a denomination, or even to defend or criticize an aspect of its life and thought, the new novelists sought to "tell the truth ... by writing truly of men as they are, and dispassionately of those forms of life that come within his scope," to quote one of them.1 Novels like Edward Eggleston's The Circuit Rider (1874), Harold Frederic's The Damnation of Theron Ware (1896), and the series of circuit rider novels published by Corra Harris (1910-1921) are evidence that a more realistic treatment of religion eventually triumphed. Anchored in patterns of church life which the authors know firsthand, novels could now be more believable, more frank and open, even critical of what life as a card-carrying Methodist was really like. Although Methodist best-sellers have been a matter of interest to the curious for more than a century, no comprehensive study of them has been attempted. This study, then, is in the nature of a pioneer expedition, and has the weakness and vulnerability of such ventures.
Methodist Folk and Folkways By far the largest cluster of novels directly or indirectly depicting Methodist folk and Methodist folkways fit under the rubric "Heroes and Heroines." The decade of the l 850's was particularly fruitful, for I have discovered about a dozen novels by such now unknown clergy authors as Lucius Daniel Davis and John C. Keener and such forgotten lay women authors as Mrs. C.M. Edwards and Miriam Fletcher. An 1874 best-seller written by a Methodist circuit rider from Indiana has become one of my favorites and is a good example of this genre. The Circuit Rider was Edward Eggleston's fourth successful novel in as many years. His first novel, The Hoosier Schoolmaster, vividly described adventures in a one-room school in backwoods Indiana in the generation before the Civil War. Filled with scenes almost entirely new to the Eastern reader and the new generation of Westerners, it became an instant best seller in 1871. Favorable reviews in The Atlantic Monthly, Harpers, and Scribners magazines commending Eggleston for his vivid portrayals of frontier folk and local dialect, quickly established this once obscure Methodist circuit rider as a writer of some importance. When Eggleston began to win attention and favor by writing novels illustrating life on the great frontier, he was only drawing on the resources which the peculiar circumstances of his life had put at 4
Heroes and Heroines his disposal. He was born in 1837 at Vevay, a backwoods hamlet on
the Indiana bank of the Ohio River. Edward's father had migrated from Virginia three years before to practice law in the crude settlement; his mother was the daughter of a nearby farmer and former Indian fighter, who had crossed the Alleghenies in 1781 and built the first blockhouse on the Indiana side of the stream. Young Edward obtained most of his education outside the classroom, probably no handicap in view of the poor teaching in country schools. He was a voracious reader, relying upon his father's extensive library (which included such Methodist classics as Wesley's Sermons and Watson's Life of Wesley) and borrowing additional books whenever he could.2 From infancy he acquired a strict Methoidst upbringing which was heightened when his mother, four years after her husband's death in 1846, married a prominent ministerial member of the South Eastern Indiana Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Thus Edward and his family tasted first-hand the rigors of itinerant life on the Indiana frontier. Early in 1856, at the age of nineteen, motivated by his deep-seated piety, Edward ventured to preach his first sermon which met such success that the Methodist presiding elder licensed him to preach on the spot. Nothing could have pleased him more than the chance to join the heroic band of circuit riders, whose adventures had been told to the Eggleston children as often as had the tales of Indian fighters and other frontier heroes.3 Within a few months he took up his duties as a Methodist minister in Southeastern Indiana, riding circuit through the dark fore st and exhorting the unregenerate to repentance. I was put astride a horse, with my wardrobe in a pair of saddlebags, and sent to ride a four-week circuit, with ten preaching places, among the rough Ohio hills of Dearborn County, Indiana. At the end of six months of zealous preaching, I was ... a candidate for the grave. 4 An attack of tuberculosis sent him off to the rugged territory of Minnesota where he earned his keep and restored his lungs working in a surveyor's gang and breaking the prairie with oxen. Soon he was back in the saddle and for the next nine years made his episcopallyappointed rounds in Minnesota. In those few short years, young
5
The Asbury Seminarian Eggleston had risen to a position of leadership in the Minnesota Conference. At the 1865 session, the last he ever attended, he moved with ease acquired through long familiarity. He presented committee reports, engaged in floor debates, offered resolutions and read the memoir of a deceased colleague. In terms of remuneration he was at the top of the conference; his claim of $1,006 was exceeded only by two other preachers. But the statistics in which he took the most pride were those for Sunday schools; his own numbered 215 pupils and 30 teachers. It was considerably larger than his congregation.s Despite having one of the highest salaries in the conference, plus parsonage, young Eggleston moonlighted to make ends meet by occasionally sampling other means of livelihood. He hawked Bibles, made soap, peddled books, sold insurance, and exhibited lanternslides. Life was stimulating and his work challenging, yet there were moments when Eggleston felt intellectually starved. During his first year on the circuit Eggleston eagerly bought a volume of Lamb's essays from an itinerant book agent. The habit of buying books, a habit his father had encouraged, must have made serious inroads into his meager salary if book peddlers had been numerous. In February 1858 he catalogued the volumes he owned, totaling not quite a hundred, one third of which were religious and theological with a generous sprinkling of Methodism's standard authors. From his handwritten journal we learn that he regularly subscribed to The Methodist Quarterly Review and The Ladies' Repository, all good companions in an intellectual desert. 6
Lively Literary Matter Almost fortuitously, Eggleston drifted into magazine writing. In 1860 he contributed an essay on literary criticism to The Ladies' Repository published by the Methodists in Cincinnati. 7 In 1864 he followed it with an article on the Indian massacre of 1862. 8 This vein was a more natural one for him to exploit, and it fell in with his desire to provide more lively literary matter for children. It led him the next year to write a series on Indiana lore and pioneer life for The Little Corporal, a popular periodical for children published in Chicago. The editor's optimism for the slender monthly and his enthusiasm for Eggleston's essays, plus promises of a better salary lured Eggleston out of the Methodist saddle and into the editor's chair. In 1866 he moved to Chicago to become a member of The Little 6
Heroes and Heroines Corporal staff, and the following year he assumed additional duties as editor of the Sunday School Teacher. The Methodists in Evanston welcomed the ex-minister and promptly drafted him as Sunday school superintendent. As though he were not sufficiently busy, he also contributed a Saturday column of local comment in the Chicago Evening Journal, sent regular weekly articles on Western and Methodist affairs to the Independent magazine in New York, organized an experimental kindergarten in his Evanston home, and somehow found time also to lecture on miscellaneous topics in various parts of the country.
Full-time Editor and Writer Well launched now on his writing career, this thirty-two year old son of the Middle Border and Methodism's bosom responded eagerly when the Independent in 1870 invited him to New York to head its editorial staff. In this bracing literary capital, he tried his hand for the first time at fiction for adults. After more than a year on the Independent, he became editor of Hearth and Home and serialized The Hoosier Schoolmaster in its pages in late 1871. Emboldened by this success, Eggleston retired from the magazine in the fall of 1872 to devote all of his time to writing. Soon he was turning out other novels treating Midwestern themes with similar fidelity, the fourth of which is a tribute to the courageous men who served as circuit riders: "To my comrades of other years, the brave and self-sacrificing men with whom I had the honor to be associated in a frontier ministry," Eggleston respectfully dedicated his book. The Circuit Rider appeared in book form in New York and London in the spring of 1874 after having been serialized in the nation's most popular religious weekly newspaper, The Christian Union, edited by the nation's most popular preacher, Henry Ward Beecher. Eggleston shared with the editor's famous sister, Harriet Beecher Stowe, the distinction of furnishing the paper's earliest fictional series. Eggleston 's Circuit Rider, illustrated by small woodcuts, was an attractive feature of the 1873-1874 season and its author was a member of the Union's editorial staff in these years. For his hero, Morton Goodwin, Eggleston conceived a roughhewn backwoods preacher full of good humor, good sense, zeal and conscientious devotion. The hero's mother, a refined Scotch Presbyterian was distressed by her son's mischievous behavior, and feared his trend toward infidelity and "Tom Painism." The heroine,
7
The Asbury Seminarian Patty Lumsden, was contemptous of such rude sports as the shucking and quilting with which the story was to open. One of the problems was to convert her conceit as a daughter of a Virginia Episcopalian to those cardinal Methodist virtues - humility and self-sacrifice. In these three characters, hero, mother, and heroine, were embodied the clear-cut purpose of the book, to show the impact of Methodism upon a frontier scene which previously had been dominated by two less militant churches, Presbyterian and Episcopalian. If the new novel celebrating the circuit rider captured the attention of Methodists in Victorian America, there is little evidence in their press. I have been unable to locate even one substantial review of Eggleston's novel in any of the principal Methodist magazines or newspapers of the l 870's. Popular novels were apparently too frivolous for the Methodists, even one celebrating the beloved circuit rider. The literary establishment, however, took serious notice of the new novel, but the reviewers disagreed as usual. William Dean Howells in The Atlantic Monthly felt that Eggleston's four novels in four years had an unequaled success. After citing a few blemishes, he called The Circuit Rider a vast improvement over the other three novels. "It must have been that he truthfully painted the conditions and people whom he aimed to portray," Howell pointed out, "for it was in the West that his popularity began, and it is there doubtless that it is now the greatest. ''9 Seconding this praise was the review in Scribner's Monthly, which called the book the best tribute ever paid to the preaching profession and to the Methodist pioneers of the Ohio Valley.Io On the other hand Lippincott's Magazine complained that Eggleston stuck too closely to actuality, lacked imagination, and drew characters without sufficient individuality or complexity.I I The Nation also took Eggleston to task, accusing him of "course familiarity" because of his realistic portrayal and down-playing Methodism's faults.I2 Despite the cold shoulder by the Methodists and mixed reviews from literary critics, the novel sold 10,000 copies in the first six months. Since that time it has won a special place in American letters as one of the earliest novels to strike the note of realism. More than a hundred years later five publishers keep it in print and first editions are highly prized by collectors. Images of Methodist life on the frontier in the generation before 8
Heroes and Heroines the Civil War abound in Eggleston's Circuit Rider, as well as in his earlier Hoosier Schoolmaster (1871), and later Roxy (1878). None are more thoughtful than his treatment of religious conversion and none are more vivid than the camp meeting scenes. Influenced by the concern for local color in fiction, Eggleston set forth the camp meeting scene in careful and realistic detail: the spacious clearing in the forest, in the center of which was usually a roughly constructed, unpainted frame building; the horse shed behind it, the tables laden with lemonade and gingerbread; the piles of watermelon; the tents and wagons in which the people slept; the high platform for the preacher, the austere backless benches for the congregation, the mourner's bench, the big clusters of kerosene torches hanging high in the trees, which in darkness magnified the size and importance of what they illuminated, the sun-bonneted younger women, the older women with their knitting, the barefoot young men, the almost naked children, and the young folks courting on the sly.13 As the nineteenth century advanced, settled communities replaced the frontier, improved means of transportation drew the community closer together, towns and church buildings multiplied, and social life grew more varied and refined, the camp meeting dwindled. But the revival did not; it was simply taken indoors - into homes, schoolhouses, and churches. Eggleston describes both types of revivals in his works.14 Eggleston, undoubtedly describing camp meetings and church revivals from his personal recollections, could not withhold his admiration for the central figure of the revival - the evangelist himself. "In a true picture of (frontier) life, neither the Indian nor the hunter is the centerpiece, but the circuit rider," he wrote in his preface. 15 How do I remember the forms and weather-beaten visages of the old preachers, whose constitutions had conquered starvation and exposure - who had survived swamps, alligators, Indians, highway robbers and bilious fevers! How was my boyish soul tickled with their anecdotes of rude experience - how was my imagination wrought upon by the recital of their hairbreadth escapes! How was my heart set afire by their contagious religious enthusiasm, so that at eighteen years of age I bestrode the saddlebags myself and laid upon a feeble frame the heavy burden of emulating their 9
The Asbury Seminarian toils! Surely I have a right to celebrate them, since they came so near being the death of me. 16 "The time spent in a frontier ministry I look back upon with considerable satisfaction," he later wrote in his autobiography. "The habit of ready speaking, the training in the art of meeting emergencies, the intimate knowledge of human life in its rudimentary conditions, these were all as well worth learning as the art of scanning Virgil, the list of ships in Homer, or Caesar's method of building a military bridge. " 17 More than this, he concludes, the ten years of his ministry brought him into personal contact with frontier preachers. "It is the privilege of a lifetime to have known a company of men so sincere and disinterested as the most of these were. " 18 The earnest and forceful preaching of these dedicated men and their warfare against the evils of drink, gambling, dancing and ostentatious clothing were not in vain in civilizing the frontier, Eggleston felt.19 "More than anyone else," he sincerely believed, "the early circuit preachers brought order out of chaos. "20 Russell Bigelow in The Circuit Rider is short, inexpressibly awkward, wears ill-fitting clothes, and has unkempt hair; yet "there was a gentlemanliness about his address that indicated a man not unaccustomed to good society," and his speech reveals a man of an unusual degree of learning and culture. 21 The Presiding Elder Magruder's sermons may be crude and vulgar, but his presentation of the mercy and the judgment of God is effective. You would say that his view of the atonement was crude, conventional and commercial; that he mistook figures of speech in Scripture for general and formulated positions. But however imperfect his symbols, he succeeded in making known to his hearers the mercy of God. And surely that is the main thing. The figure of speech is but the vessel; the great truth that God is merciful to the guilty, what is this but the water of life? - not less refreshing because the jar in which it is brought is rude!22 Morton Goodwin, the hero of The Circuit Rider, has the unqualified admiration of Eggleston. He is not presented as frontier historians often describe the typical circuit rider, as wholly somber, deplorably ignorant, bitterly sectarian and wildly fanatical. Instead IO
Heros and Heroines he has the irrepressible good humor which makes it possible for him to enjoy a good joke, especially at the expense of the disreputable elements which often plagued the camp meetings. Though Morton shares with other frontier ministers a lack offormal education, he is not ignorant. He learns from older ministers with whom he is assigned to ride a circuit. He reads John Wesley's "simple, solid " sermons and Charles Wesley's heartfelt hymns in addition to the Bible. He learns from the "larger school of life and practical observation," and finds "the peculiar abode of the Almighty" in the primeval forest. 23 What he lacks in formal training and instruction he makes up in moral earnestness. Yet for all this Morton is quite capable of falling in love and marrying the most beautiful girl on the frontier.
Revivalism and Methodism Eggleston does not hesitate to lay bare the shortcomings of revivalism in general and Methodism in particular. He indicts the revival for its corruption and ineffectiveness in changing people's lives. One of the most stringent criticisms was against the excessive emotionalism generated at the revivals, with their emphasis upon fear and damnation.2 4 By way of illustration the Hoosier novelist reminds contemporary Methodists that their stern forbears all too often threw "weak saints" and "obstinate sinners" alike into "contortions of the jerks. "25 Originally the reaction of a sincere people, such practices were now hypocritical and ostentatious and were more often used to elicit approval from popular society. Eggleston gently suggests that the frontier practices of Methodism's heroic era were no longer adequate for an increasingly middle-class denomination in modern industrial America. In later years he compared Methodism to Calvinism which, he commented, freed folk from the traditional thought of the Middle Ages, only to subsequently bind them with its own "severe prejudices." Just as Puritanism inspired the Unitarian reaction and the subsequent intellectual and literary ferment in New England, so Eggleston argued, frontier Methodism awakened the "moral nature" of the West. But the moral force of Methodism in Victorian America had become "misdirected and disproportioned. " 26 While modern Methodism was less oppressive than older Calvinism, its harsh discipline and constant emphasis on personal morality and individual well being, he felt, were not conducive to social reform and 11
The Asbury Seminarian were alienating the masses. In the spring ofl875, one year after the Circuit Rider hit the literary world, the New York Christian Union published a series of articles taking the pulse of the nation's several denominations. Eggleston was asked to contribute the June installment on the Methodists. In some respects it is an epilogue to The Circuit Rider. Although he had "felt the pinching of the Methodist system," he wrote at the outset, "it is always a pleasant thing to have an opportunity of praising one's mother. ''2 7 Eggleston proceeds to praise early Methodism's system of governance, its partnership in ministry between clergy and layfolk, its passion for building relationships between diverse people and the informality and spontaneity of its worship, all of which endeared it to frontier folk Eggleston knew so well. Unlike the Presbyterians and Episcopalians, he said, Methodism wisely unloaded itself of the "outof-date expedients of the apostolic age" and fashioned fresh new methods of evangelism and Christian nurture. It was the good fortune of Methodism to be a system based only on expediency, not having the shadow of 'divine right' for its circuits, its annual removals, its clock work system of wheels within wheels, its class-leaders and stewards, and exhorters and local preachers. It did not go further for authority for its agencies than this, namely, that they were needed, and that they were useful. It was the divine right, not of precedent, but of common sense. 2s By mid-century Eggleston lamented that the flexibility and aggressiveness of primitive Methodism was being lost. He was fearful that professional eduction for ministry could mean the end of lay ministries and blunt Methodism's evangelical thrust to common folk. His former church home, he believed, was becoming more grammatical at a cost of emotional appeal.
Back in the Pulpit Again In the year immediately following the publication of The Circuit Rider ( 1875), Eggleston took to the pulpit once more - this time an interdenominational church in Brooklyn. His newly-fashioned theological liberalism and social activism soon proved too much for powerful elements of the congregation and in 1879 he retired to his 12
Heros and Heroines summer home on Lake George (N.Y.) where he continued writing until his death in 1902. He continued to publish a number of novels depicting frontier life: Roxy ( 1878), an unusually frank tale of marital infidelity against the background of Methodist piety; The Hoosier Schoolboy (1883), a story condemning harsh conditions in rural schools; The Grayson's ( 1888), a historical romance of Illinois, featuring Lincoln's successful defense of an accused murderer; and The Faith Doctor (1891), a satire on wealthy devotees of Christian Science. During the last two years of his pastorate Eggleston collaborated with his daughter Elizabeth (Mrs. Elwin Seelye) on a set of biographies of famous native American chiefs. This, his first excursion into American history at the adult level, sharpened his interest in the nation's past and opened his eyes to the possibilities of original work in that field. The two school histories which followed ( 1888-1889) led to an ambitious plan for a multi-volume History of Life in The United States. Although he lived to complete only two volumes - The Beginners of a Nation (1896) and The Transit of Civilization ( 1901) - they are now considered landmarks in the development of American social and cultural history.29 It is his series of novels depicting Midwestern folkways, however, which are Edward Eggleston's enduring monument. Taken together, they may be viewed as part of the post-Civil War trend in American literature toward an increasing interest in the social conditions of common folk, in realistic rather than romantic themes, in regional color instead of remote settings such as Boston, New York, or Philadelphia, in evangelical Methodist and Baptist rather than the more elitist Presbyterian, Congregational or Episcopal religious settings. "Methodism was the dominant, almost the established religion," he later wrote in an autobiographical piece for The Forum, "and western Methodism was almost as rigorous as Puritanism, and tenfold more ardent. "30 By Western standards and Methodist precepts, life was a struggle. Like Mark Twain, whose Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn were published shortly after the Circuit Rider, Eggleston helped to found a literature of the Middle West which is filled with rich images of religious as well as social institutions. Eggleston had early come to look upon the novel as a means of making "a contribution to the history of civilization in America. "31 And some years later, reflecting on his literary progeny, Eggleston considered that what particularly distinguished them was their 13
The Asbury Seminarian contribution to the social history of the American people. The individual characters [he wrote] are here treated to a greater degree than elsewhere as parts of a study of society - as in some sense the logical results of the environment. Whatever may be the rank assigned to these stories as works of literary art, they will always have a certain value as materials for the student of social [and I would add, church] history.32
Footnotes 'Edward Eggleston, The Circuit Rider: A Tale of the Heroic Age, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1924 (cl878), p. vii. 2The standard biography is William Pierce Randel, Edward Eggleston, Author of the Hoosier School-Master. Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1962 (reprint of 1964 edition). JEggleston, Circuit Rider, p. vi. 4Eggleston, "Formative Influences," The Forum (New York) vol. IO (l 889-1890), p. 289. SMethodist Episcopal Church. Minnesota Conference Minutes, 1865. 6Cited in Randel, Edward Eggleston, p. 46. 7"Beranger, the Poet of the People," Ladies' Repository, vol. XX, December 1860, pp. 726-729. 8"An Incident of the Indian Massacres of 1862," The Ladies' Repository, vol. XXIV, December 1864, pp. 709-71 l. 9 The Atlantic Monthly, vol. 33, June 1874, pp. 745-747. 10 Schribner's Monthly, vol.8, July 1874, pp. 374-375. 11 Lippincott's Magazine, vol. 13, June 1874, pp. 776. 12The Nation, vol. 19, September 24, 1874, p. 207. 13 Eggleston, The Circuit Rider, chapter 27, pp. 252-266; Eggleston, Roxy, pp. 66-72, 85-94. 14 For church and cabin revivals, see Circuit Rider, I03-I09, 153-165, Hoosier School-Master, pp. 97-I05; Roxy, pp. 66-72. ISEggleston, Circuit Rider, p. vi. 16/bid. 1 7Eggleston, 290. 18 /bid. 19 Eggleston, WEggleston, 21Eggleston, 22Eggleston, 23Eggleston, 24 Eggleston,
14
"Formative Influences," The Forum, New York, vol. IO, 1889-90, p.
Circuit Rider, pp. I IO, 158-159. Circuit Rider, p. vi. Circuit Rider, p. 220. Circuit Rider, pp. I06-I07. Circuit Rider, pp. 185-186. Circuit Rider, pp. 130, 163-164; see also his portrayal of Charles
Heros and Heroines Whittaker, the Presbyterian minister, in his Roxy). 2sEggleston, Circuit Rider, pp. 130, 158-159. 26Eggleston, "Formative Influences," The Forum (New York) vol. IO (1889-90), p. 285; Circuit Rider, pp. 158-159. 27 Eggleston, "Denominational Peculiarities: Methodism," The Christian Union (New York) vol. II, no. 22 (June 2, 1875), p. 458. 28/bid. 19Schlesinger, Arthur M .. "Edward Eggleston: Evolution of an Historian," in his Nothing Stands Still. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1969, pp. 47-64. JOEggleston, "Formative Influences," The Forum (New York) vol. 10 (1889-90), p. 285.
l•Eggleston, The Mystery of Metropolisville, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Literature House, Gregg Press, 1970 (reprint of 1873 edition), p. 7. 32Eggleston, "Formative Influences" pp. 286, 289; see also "Edward Eggleston: An Interview," The Outlook (New York) vol. 55 (1897) p. 433).
15
An Attitude of Servanthood by H. Mark Abbott Bernard of Clairvaux said, "Learn the lesson that if you are to do the work of a prophet, what you need is not a scepter, but a hoe." He did not mean that all prophets must also be gardeners, but an essential ingredient for vital spiritual leadership is an attitude of servanthood. While getting my blood pressure taken in a drug store not far from Houghton, the attendant congratulated me on my health and said, "You must be living right." My son, who was about five years old at the time, knew that I was being complimented and announced in a loud voice, "My dad knows everything!" That kind of boasting is understandable among children, but when evidenced in adults it is a far more serious matter. Segments from all four Gospels combine to imply that periodic discussions erupted among Jesus' disciples regarding who would be greatest in the Kingdom. The setting in Luke 22 is the observance of the Passover Supper and should probably be linked with John's report of the footwashing incident. Possibly, the dispute regarding greatness arose when the disciples were getting ready to take their places at the Passover table. In a society so conscious of class and rank, the place where one sat at dinner was more than a casual concern. The tables were arranged in a U-shape with the host sitting at the base of the U in the center. At the right hand was the guest of first honor, at the left, the guest of second honor. Next on the right hand would be the third place of honor, next on the left hand, the fourth place of honor, etc. Apparently observing their desires for preeminence, Jesus put on a servant's towel and washed the feet of men who called him "Lord" and "Master." He even washed the feet of Judas who would betray Him. When He finished acting out His lesson, Jesus resumed His place at the table and gave the disciples a verbal lesson on who is really great in the Kingdom of Heaven. The key to what Jesus taught was servanthood: servanthood which H. Mark Abbott is pastor of First Free Methodist Church, the campus church of Seattle Pacific University. 16
An Attitude of Servanthood characterized His own attitude, servanthood which the disciples must demonstrate, and servanthood which was the basis for rewards.
The Model for Servanthood "For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves" (Luke 22:27). The verb literally means to wait on tables. In any culture, a diner tends to be esteemed more highly than the one who waits on the table. Jesus was saying, "though I actually deserve being waited on and being served, I have come to serve. I am among you as one who waits on tables rather than being the diner." After His visual parable in John 13, Jesus told His disciples, "I have given you an example that you also should do as I have done to you" (verse 15). Jesus is the model for servanthood. He is not telling us to do something He was unwilling to do Himself; rather, He sets an example of humble servanthood. Paul described the extent to which Jesus went in service in Philippians 2; the extent to which He emptied himself of His divine prerogatives to become a man, a slave, and to die as a criminal. The Cross clearly portrays the extent to which Jesus was willing to go in redemptive service. Then, Paul exhorted, "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 2:5).
The Requirements of Servanthood Jesus set before the disciples a negative and a positive definition of the service required of them. Negatively, He said, "You are not to be like the world." The leaders of this world are often r,haracterized by at least two things Jesus says should not be seen among his disciples. One is a preoccupation with the achieving of control. Jesus says "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them." They are authoritarian in operation. They exercise control over their underlings and make them feel decidedly inferior. They are preoccupied with earthly status, and pull rank regularly. The Kingdom of God, however, the Church, is not to be like an organizational hierarchy depicted as a triangle with a few big shots in privileged positions of power and control at the top, and all the other peons in mundane, unimportant roles on the bottom. Obviously, the organized church must have structure and channels of responsibility. But if we visualize the church structure, let it be a diagram tipped on its side with every person and ministry viewed as important and serving together. The digger of ditches, the janitor, the faculty 17
The Asbury Seminarian member, the student, the president are all serving the Lord together and with significance in God's eyes. Christ's disciples are not to be preoccupied with the achieving of control, and they are not to be preoccupied with the obtaining of credit or honor. The verb in the last half of Luke 22:25 is in the third person, suggesting the translation, "get themselves called benefactors" or, as the New International Version states it, "call themselves benefactors." The prevailing custom of Gentile rulers was to adopt a pious, high-sounding title, thus, benefactor, even though they were complete villains in practice. The title was a device for claiming credit, honor, glory for anything good which happened. In the poet's corner of Westminster Abbey is a bust of John Milton. It reads, "In the year of our Lord Christ, One Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty and Seven, this bust of the author of Paradise Lost was placed here by William Benson, Esq., one of the two auditors of the imprest to his Majesty King George II, formerly Surveyor of the works to his Majesty King George I. Rysbrack was the statuary who cut it." The question is, who is this all about? It is actually about William Benson, who put up the memorial as a device to get his own unimportant name mentioned. He was making sure he was getting the credit, the honor, the applause. It is easy as a pastor to make sure people know who really was responsible for some good thing that happened. It is easy as a pastor in a staff situation to be annoyed when other staff carry out your ideas at your request, and then they get the credit. To serve Christ is to do good so that praise and honor may go to Him; not to be known as benefactors, but as servants. There is no limit to the amount of good a person can do if he or she doesn't care who gets the credit. Richard Foster has put it this way, "Nothing disciplines the inordinate desires of the flesh like service, and nothing transforms the desires like serving hiddenness. The flesh whines against service, but screams against hidden service. It strains and pulls for honor and recognition." Thus, Jesus said not to be like the world in the achieving of control and the asserting of credit or honor. That is the negative side of His definition of service. Now, notice the positive contrast. First, we are to become as the youngest family member. In the ancient world, age gave privilege. 18
An Attitude of Servanthood The older a person grew, the more he became worthy of honor, status and privilege. The youngest was at the bottom of the pecking order. Jesus was saying, the truly great in His Kingdom would not exploit their positions even though they might deserve them. Instead of acting like the high and mighty, they would act like ordinary people. Second, we are to become servants. But, what is service? Let me give you a home-made definition. Servanthood is unself-conscious giving of self, redemptively on behalf of others, from a position of strength. Let me expand that briefly. It is unself-conscious. We are not to be humble servants and proud of it. In C.S. Lewis' Screwtape utters, there is this advice given by a chief devil down in hell to an underling devil sitting on a Christian's shoulder: "I see only one thing to do at the moment. Your patient has become humble; have you drawn his attention to the fact? All virtues are less formidable to us once the man is aware that he has them, but this is especially true of humility. Catch him at the moment when he is really poor in spirit and smuggle into his mind the gratifying reflection, 'By Jove, I'm being humble,' and almost immediately pride - pride at his own humility will appear." Karl Barth was once on a bus in Basel, the Swiss city in which he lived and taught for so many years. A tourist sat down beside him, and Barth struck up a conversation, "You are a visitor, yes? And what do you want to see in our city?" The man said, "I would like to see the great theologian, Karl Barth. Do you know him?" "Oh yes," said Barth. "I shave him every morning." The man went away satisfied, telling his friends he had met Barth's barber. That is unself-conscious greatness. Service is not only unself-conscious, it is also a giving of oneself redemptively on behalf of others. E. Stanley Jones once wrote, "Greece said, 'Be moderate - know thyself.¡ Rome said, 'Be strong - order thyself.' Confusianism said, 'Be superior - correct thyself.' Mohammedanism said, 'Be submissive - bend thyself.' Modern materialism says, 'Be industrious - enjoy thyself.' Christianity says, 'Be Christlike - give thyself.'" It is in serving one another that we bring out the best in each other. Just as Christ's self-giving was redemptive, ours can be also. Service is unself-conscious giving of self redemptively on behalf of others. This forms a position of strength. We need to remember that meekness alone is not a merit. Jesus served from strength; He knew 19
The Asbury Seminarian who He was and what His mission was. This knowledge gave Him a solid basis for service. The person who knows he or she is a child of God, and values himself or herself as such, can serve effectively. For emphasis I repeat, Christian servanthood is unself-conscious giving of self, redemptively on behalf of others, from a position of strength. We are not to be like the world in a preoccupation with achieving control or asserting credit, but we are to be like Jesus, who was the model of service, and His disciples who met the requirements for service.
The Rewards of Servanthood There are rewards for servanthood, but they may not be the kind . 22:29-30) reports that most contemporary people work for. Luke' (m Jesus is making a sure and certain covenant with those who would serve Him and others. Jesus promises that the disciples will" ... eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom." The Messianic banquet, the eating and drinking with Him in His Kingdom symbolizes the joy of service. This is not just a joy to come hereafter, it is also a joy in serving Jesus and His Church now. The poet George Herbert was a member of a small group of friends who met regularly to play their musical instruments. On his way to a meeting of this group, he passed a carter whose vehicle was stuck in the ditch. George Herbert laid aside his instrument and went to the man's help. It was a long job, and he finished covered with mud. When he arrived at the house of his friends, it was too late for music. He told them what had detained him on the way and one friend said, "You have missed all the music." Herbert smiled, "Yes," he said, "but I will have songs at midnight." He knew the satisfaction, the joy, the reward of having done the Christlike thing. Beyond the joy of present, faithful service, there is the bliss which we will enjoy when we fellowship at the Master's banquet table. Those who would serve are promised not only heavenly joy, but a holy vocation. They are promised that they will "sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes oflsrael. "To judge means to rule, to lead, in that eternal Kingdom. Though the disciples were not to expect earthly glory and power, they could confidently anticipate the privilege of ruling with Christ when His Kingdom would finally come to pass. This is both hereafter and here and now. Jesus promised not only an ultimate vocation of leadership in His coming Kingdom, but He 20
An Attitude of Servanthood also promises us an honorable vocation of servanthood now in this life. Many are called to various vocations of Christian leadership, but more basically, all of us are called to servanthood. It is on the basis of our effective functioning as servants that our spiritual effectiveness depends. Jesus said, "I, the Lord and Master am among you as one who serves." If we follow His example and become His servants, He has promised that we will be rewarded.
21
Examining the Case for Pluralism 1
by Jerry Walls I Doctrinal Pluralism has been a favorite target of conservative United Methodists for some time. Many would echo the opinion offered in a Good News editorial that the official acceptance of pluralism "will be recognized someday as the most serious mistake in the history of American Methodism. "2 Moreover, there are signs that others besides conservatives are having second thoughts about the validity of doctrinal pluralism. There is a slight change of wording in the 1980 Discipline which is at least noteworthy in this regard. The Discipline for 1972 and 1976 asserts that "theological pluralism should be recognized as a principle" (par. 69, sec. 3, 1976 ed.). The new Discipline is milder in simply stating that "we recognize the presence of theological pluralism." The farmer statement clearly affirms pluralism as a positive good. The latter, while ambiguous, could be taken as a mere empirical observation that the United Methodist Church exhibits considerable doctrinal diversity. And anyone would have to agree with that. However, it would not be wise to make too much of this isolated change, for the theological statement as a whole still reflects a decidedly pluralistic perspective. In the following, I aim to subject the idea of theological pluralism to a rather careful analysis. It is an issue worth pressing to determine whether, indeed, theological pluralism should be recognized as a principle, or whether our acceptance of it should be recognized as a serious mistake.
II I wish to proceed by questioning the historical allusions which are used to undergird pluralism. I am referring to the way Wesley's notion of "catholic spirit" is construed in the fallowing: Reverend Walls is pastor of the Zion United Methodist Church in Wauseon, Ohio. 22
Examining the Case for Pluralism . . . the theological spectrum in the United Methodist Church ranges over all the mainstream options and a variety of special-interest theologies as well. This is no new thing. Our founders supported what Wesley called "catholic spirit" which also prevails in much contemporary ecumenical theology (p. 73; page references are for the 1980 Discipline). What is interesting here is the equation of Wesley's catholic spirit with what "prevails in much contemporary ecumenical theology." The intended point is obvious. If the contemporary theological scene exemplifies Wesley's catholic spirit, then those who are critical of it are out of step with Wesley and the true Methodist tradition. So this is the question: Does Wesley's notion of catholic spirit provide a precedent for modern theological pluralism? If we exmine his famous sermon on the subject, I think we must conclude that the answer is clearly no. In that sermon, Wesley warned against the careless use of the phrase "catholic spirit." He wrote: "There is scarcely any expression which has been more grossly misunderstood, and more dangerously applied." He goes on to say: "A man of truly catholic spirit, has not now his religion to seek. He is as fixed as the sun in his judgement concerning the main branches of Christian doctrine. "3 For Wesley, catholic spirit did not mean tolerance toward those who would tamper with the basic doctrines of Christianity. As Albert Outler puts it: "Wesley is quite specific and quite adamant about the essential doctrines of Christianity - and quite 'orthodox'!" Of course, this raises the question of which doctrines Wesley considered essential. In response to this, I again cite Outler, this time from his introduction to Wesley's A Letter to a Roman Catholic. He writes: "Nothing quite like this little essay in ecumenical theology appears anywhere else in his writings, but it is consistent with his familiar distinction between essential beliefs and heterogeneous opinions; it is also a fair sample of what he actually meant by ¡catholic spirit'. 5 So, according to Outler, we may learn from A Letter to a Roman Catholic, which doctrines Wesley held to be essential. And this will, in turn, help us determine whether the contemporary theological climate exemplifies Wesley's catholic spirit. Now then which doctrines are essential according to Wesley? Not surprisingly,' he lists such points as the existence of God, creation, and God's sovereignty over creation; the deity ("God of God, very 23
The Asbury Seminarian God of very God'') and Lordship of Jesus, our Savior, through his death, resurrection and ascension; the deity of the Holy Spirit, the founding of the Church by Christ, the forgiveness of sins, and the final judgment. Moreover, Wesley includes in his list those doctrines which modern churchmen choke on most easily: angels, the miraculous conception of Christ, bodily resurrection and the reality of hell. For Wesley, these were not issues to be left open. They were not secondary.6 His idea of "smaller points" were such matters as church government, modes of worship, modes of baptism, and forms of prayer. 7 Indeed, Wesley was "quite orthodox!" In view of this, is it valid to equate Wesley's catholic spirit with contemporary theological pluralism? Is the contemporary scene marked by agreement on such points as bodily resurrection, the deity of Christ, or even the existence and sovereignty of God? It is no secret that the answer is no. The Discipline mentions "Christian naturalism and secularity" as examples of doctrinal opinion which must be regarded as at least viable from a pluralistic standpoint (p. 83). Is it even remotely possible to reconcile the miraculous conception and deity of Jesus with naturalism - even if it is called "Christian"naturalism? It would surely be a very odd variety of naturalism which could assent to such supernatural claims. Thus, if naturalism is an acceptable part of the pluralistic mix, then the doctrines which Wesley identified as central to Christianity must be moved to the periphery. But is it really appropriate to relegate Wesley's essential doctrines to the status of his "smaller points" and then commend ourselves for keeping his catholic spirit? I think not, and the attempt to bolster contemporary theological pluralism with Wesleyan legitimacy strikes me as strained and awkward at best. At worst, it is an example of the concept catholic spirit "dangerously applied," against which Wesley wisely warned.
III Now I wish more carefully to scrutinize the notion of pluralism itself. And I would point out that the principle of pluralism itself justifies my doing so. For pluralism demands an open-ended approach to theologizing. All claims to Christian truth deserve an open and fair hearing for their sifting and assessment. The viability of all doctrinal opinion demands that the processes of theological 24
Examining the Case for Pluralism development must be kept open-ended, both on principle and in fact (p. 83). If "all claims to Christian truth deserve an open and fair hearing for their sifting and assessment," then surely a fair hearing should be given to the claim that the present United Methodist policy of theological pluralism is inimical to Christian truth. However, this involves pluralism in a complicated dilemma. For, on the one hand, if the principle of pluralism is open to assessment, like all other claims to Christian truth, then it is possible that it could be shown to be fundamentally wrongheaded. And if it were shown to be wrongheaded it should be rejected. If, on the other hand, the principle of pluralism claims to be above assessment, then it assumes for itself a position which it denies to other theolgical claims. This seems inconsistent. Indeed, this raises serious questions about the very coherence of the United Methodist position on theological pluralism. In his discussion of the "conditions for coherence," philosopher Richard Swinburne explains what makes a statement incoherent: "Clearly if a statement P entails a self-contradictory statement, then Pis incoherent - for it has buried in it a claim that something is so and that it is not so - and it is not conceivable that things should be thus. "8 Elsewhere he states: "All self-contradictory statements are of course incoherent. But many incoherent statements are not straightforwardly self-contradictory. ''9 If an incoherent statement is not straightforwardly self-contradictory, it can be shown to be selfcontradictory by drawing out its implications. That is, the statement will entail other statements which contain contradictions. It is my hunch that the United Methodist statement on pluralism is incoherent in this manner, i.e., it is self-contradictory, but not straightforwardly so. In attempting to show this, I return to the dilemma I identified above. I will state the dilemma more fully and rigorously, and thereby vindicate my charge of incoherence. I will begin by stating what I will call the principles of pluralism.
I) All claims to Christian truth deserve an open and fair hearing. 2) All doctrinal opinion is viable. 3) The processes of theological development must be kept
25
The Asbury Seminarian open-ended. 4) On the basis of these, no claim to Christian truth can be acceptable which is "intolerant or exclusive" toward other serious theological opinions (all four statements are based on pp. 82-3 of the Discipline). I trust that this is a fair statement of what it means to affirm pluralism as a principle. Notice that there is no obvious self-contradiction in the four statements. However, we will go on to apply these principles to a particular case, and to draw out the implications. This will reveal the contradiction. 5) Orthodox theology is one important example of a claim to Christian truth which clearly falls within the doctrinal guidelines of the United Methodist Church. 6) Orthodox theology denies that all doctrinal opinion is viable (e.g. doctrinal opinion which reinterprets the incarnation in a way which denies the essential oneness of Christ with the Father, his pre-existence, miraculous conception, or bodily resurrection). 7) Orthodox theology holds that the main branches of Christian doctrine are "as fixed as the sun," so that the processes of theological development cannot be kept altogether open-ended. 8) The principles of pluralism and the claims of orthodoxy are mutually exclusive. 9) To affirm the principles of pluralism is to be exclusive toward at least one claim to Christian truth which clearly falls within the doctrinal guidelines of the United Methodist Church. 10) To be exclusive toward any serious claim to Christian truth violates the principles of pluralism. 11) So the principles of pluralism must allow as viable the claims of orthodoxy, yet the principles of pluralism also entail a denial of orthodox claims. 12) Therefore, the principles of pluralism are incoherent. The only way this conclusion can be avoided is by showing that one or more of the preceding premises are false. Otherwise, the conclusion must stand. 26
Examining the Case for Pluralism Now the question may arise of whether orthodox theology is the only example of a truth claim which cannot be definitely denied or affirmed without rendering pluralism incoherent. If we reflect on this for a moment, it seems apparent that any truth claim whatsoever which excludes its opposite will bring the same result. Anyone who insists on any truth claim at all cannot embrace the principles of pluralism without thereby calling his own truth claim into question. Apparently then, the principles of pluralism are compatible with only one kind of truth claim, and that is a tentative one. If all truth claims are tentative, then even contradictory claims can co-exist with some measure of consistency; for a tentative claim is, by definition, very much open to the possibility of being wrong. If all claims to Christian truth are viable, but none are clearly right or wrong, then pluralism is quite plausible. Something like this is involved in the following . . . . our awareness of the transcendent mystery of divine truth allows us in good conscience to acknowledge the positive virtues of doctrinal pluralism even within the same community of believers, not merely because such an attitude is realistic (p. 73). The suggestion here, I think, is that divine truth is too mysterious to allow any definite knowledge of it. And if no one has any definite knowledge of divine truth, it would be presumptuous to rule out any doctrinal opinion. There simply are no distinct criteria for such judgments. Now if this is an accurate account of divine truth, it is good news to the advocates of pluralism. The bad news, however, is that all doctrinal affirmations are thereby reduced to the status of speculation. (Perhaps even this is good news to the adovcates of pluralism). There is no room here for certainty. There is no basis for settled conviction. This goes against the grain of hearty belief which has traditionally characterized the Christian faith. Paul Homer is surely right in saying that "the language of faith, penetrated as it is with a consuming passion, is never relative, hypothetical, tentative, or experimental, as is the language of learning. " 10 Of course, this is not to say that we should never be tentative, nor is it to assume that everything is clear. Nor, again, is it to imply that our knowledge of
27
The Asbury Seminarian divine truth can be proven to anyone who questions it; nor is it to suggest that our knowledge of God is exhaustive. An element of mystery always remains. However, just because everything is not clear does not mean that nothing is. So the question persists whether any theological claims should be affirmed as clearly true or whether all such affirmations must be merely hypothetical or speculative, as pluralism seems to entail. If the advocates of pluralism accept the conclusion that all theological truth claims are speculative, their consistency problem remains. For the claim that "all theological truth claims are speculative" is itself a theological truth claim, and a very far-reaching one at that. Is it true, or mere speculation, that all theological truth claims must be hypothetical? If it is held to be true, then it must be admitted that not all theological truth claims have to be hypothetical. On the other hand, if it is mere speculation, why should we yield to it? Either way, it cannot be coherently maintained that all theological truth claims must be hypothetical or tentative. It is important to stress here that pluralism is an incoherent position precisely because it is itself an exclusive position which (inconsistently) denies the right of any theological position to be exclusive toward other serious opinions. Pluralism sets itself up as judge over all theological claims and excludes as unacceptable any which dare to claim more than a tentative status. The force of this must be clearly seen. Pluralism masquerades as tolerance. It appears to guarantee fairness and equal treatment for all serious opinions. The problem, to reiterate, is that some serious views claim more than a tentative status and are therefore exclusive in a way which places a definite stricture on pluralism. In this case, is it possible to give equal recognition to the exclusive claim and to the views which it excludes? It seems not. A standoff is inevitable and pluralism must side against all exclusive claims which are not content to accept a tentative status. It appears, then, that the only way to be consistent is frankly to admit that some truth claims are basic, normative, and nonnegotiable.11 If this is recognized from the outset, there is no inconsistency in denying that all doctrinal opinion is viable. On the other hand, to hold that all truth claims are at least viable, but none are more than tentative - as pluralism must - is to land immediately in contradiction. Of course, it does not follow from our taking certain truth claims
28
Examining the Case for Pluralism as basic and non-negotiable that they are in fact true. They could be false. But that is no reason not to take them as true and nonnegotiable. All of us, everyday of our lives, operate on the assumption that certain things are true, many of which we have not proven, and some of which could not be decisively proven. This is not only excusable, it is inevitable. Some things function for us as true and certain; and there is no reason why the claims of orthodox Christianity may not function for us in this way. (Full discussion of the issues raised in this paragraph would take us too far out of the way. I add it only to avoid - hopefully - misunderstanding of the view I have taken.) I must conclude that the principles of pluralism stand convicted at the bar of reason. In defining the role of reason, the Discipline states that "No claims are made for reason's autonomy or omnicompetence, but is does provide tests of congency and credibility" (p. 81 ). If the present United Methodist statement on pluralism is incoherent as I have argued, it clearly fails this test.
IV Perhaps it will be objected that I have not fairly represented pluralism. For doesn't the Discipline limit pluralism to "serious theological opinions developed within the framework of our doctrinal heritage and guidelines"? (p. 82). Does it not repudiate "theological indifferentism ''? Is it not true that it affirms a definite "core of doctrine''? Obviously, the Discipline does say such things. But what are we to make of such statements in view of what is also says about pluralism? If we take these affirmations seriously, are they compatible with the principles of pluralism? Or are we really supposed to take these affirmations seriously? In attempting to answer these questions, let us examine more thoroughly the statements cited above. First, let us consider the statement above that our doctrinal heritage and guidelines provide a framework for pluralism. In response to this I have only one question: is every opinion on the contemporary theological spectrum within our doctrinal guidelines? I do not think it can be seriously maintained that the entire plethora of today's theological opinions falls within the framework of our doctrinal heritage and guidelines. Therefore, it must be admitted that our doctrinal guidelines represent no limit at all on pluralism. For, as the Discipline observes,
29
The Asbury Seminarian the "theological spectrum in the United Methodist Church ranges over all the current mainstream options and a variety of specialinterest theologies as well." Not let us think for a moment about the statement about repudiating "theological indifferentism," which is defined as the "notion that there are no essential doctrines and that differences in theology, when sincerely held, need no further discussion" (p. 73). The problem here is not so much with what is said, but with what is not said. The unanswered question which is raised is: What is the point of further discussion? Is it to determine which theological beliefs are correct and which should be rejected? If so, then the denial of "indifferentism" would have some force to it. However, no such aim for further discussion is specified. This is not surprising, for it is hard to see how the principles of pluralism could be compatible with the attempt to establish the truth or falsity of specific theological views. This would go against the grain of pluralism's open-ended approach to theologizing. So we are simply left with the suggestion that the charge of "indifferentism" can be evaded if those with divergent views are willing to carry on discussion of their differences. It doesn't seem to matter what one believes. All that matters is that everyone remain open to discussion with those who do not share his views. This involves absolutely no preference for one theological view over another. I do not see how such a vague commitment to "further discussion" is sufficient evidence for denying the charge of theological indifferentism. Finally, let us give attention to the assertion that: "There is a core of doctrine which informs in greater or less degree our widely divergent interpretations" (p. 73). To begin with, what does it mean for a core of doctrine to "inform" our interpretations? Does this simply mean that we should be aware of what has traditionally been regarded as essential Christian doctrine in forging our statement of faith? Or does it mean that there are some identifiable doctrines which are truly basic, so that all acceptable theology must grow out of these doctrines and cohere with them? In response to this, consider this line from the Discipline: And we also honor the intent and import of the historic creeds and confessions, even as we encourage new ventures in contemporary affirmation and formulation" (p. 74). This is an important line, for it suggests the attitude to be taken toward the classic creeds, which must be recognized as containing the core of Christian doctrine. 30
Examining the Case for Pluralism Judging from this statement, the core of doctrine identified in the classic creeds has no binding force on contemporary theologizing. Our only responsibility is to "honor" such creeds and confessions. Apparently this means we are to respect the efforts of the classic theologians, even as the modern astronomer should appreciate the work of Ptolemy. Moreover, we should have some grasp of traditional views, even as an informed astronomer should understand Ptolemy's system. However, the contemporary theologian need not insist on maintaining the same core of doctrine just because that core was common to all the historic Christian confessions, any more than today's astronomer should feel constrained to defend Ptolemy. Notice also in the quote above how the core of doctrine is said to inform our theologizing, namely, "in a greater or less degree." Once again, we are constrained to ask what this is supposed to mean. For if the Discipline is really affirming a definite core of doctrine, then it should be assumed as the basis and framework for all legitimate theologizing. And if so, it would be misleading to say that any legitimate theology was less informed by it than any other. Indeed, any doctrine which properly informed our theologizing only to a greater or less degree should not be called a core doctrine. Finally, notice in the quote above the reference to our "widely divergent interpretations." Now if all our theologizing shares a common core, then it should converge at a number of significant points. Divergence would have definite limits, and would apply to secondary issues. It would not do to legitimize disagreement on basic issues as mere differences of interpretation. The word "interpretation" is certainly one of the most slippery in theology today. As Holmer notes: "The word interpretaion is much used, and invariably to justify widely divergent views, as when we say: 'Each to his own interpretation.' " 12 That is to say, it is often suggested that flatly contradictory views are merely different, but equally valid "interpretations" of the same doctrine. But, again, if a doctrine is so indistinct and unclear that it permits a whole array of conflicting "interpretations," then it hardly deserves to be described as a core doctrine. For the idea of a core suggests something solid and definite. It is one thing to expound a doctrine, to amplify, unfold and apply it to the various issues and circumstances which arise in a society. 13 It is quite another thing to revise a doctrine, even to the point of 31
The Asbury Seminarian changing its basic content and meaning. The former is properly interpretation, the latter is not. The difference is like that between a judge interpreting the law and making it. If a judge is permitted to make law under the guise of merely interpreting it, there are virtually no bounds to his pronouncements. In a similar way, the Discipline is ambiguous enough in its affirmation of a "core of doctrine" to allow theologians to make new doctrine, under the guise of merely interpreting the old.
v This matter of interpretation is really central to the whole issue of pluralism. It will therefore be necessary to pursue it in more detail. I will do so by continuing to press the issue of whether the Discipline affirms, in any meaningful sense, a core of doctrine. Let us consider another passage in which it purports to do so. This passage occurs in a section entitled "United Methodists and the Christian Tradition." We share a common heritage with all Christians everywhere and in all ages ... With them we acknowledge belief in the Triune God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (pp. 73-4). On the surface, this is an affirmation of one of the truly essential doctrines of historic Christianity, namely, the Trinity. Now the question I wish to raise is this: Is the Trinity an irreducible core doctrine, or is it subject to being "interpreted" in ways which depart from its original, historic meaning? Before proceeding further, let us take a moment to spell out the historic view of the Trinity. In Article I of the Methodist Articles of Religion we read that in the unity of the Godhead "there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." The meaning of this statement is further specified in the immediately following Articles which define in greater detail the identity of the Son and the Holy Ghost. Of the Son it is stated that he took man's nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin; that in him the two natures of God and man were perfectly joined; that he did truly rise from the dead and take his body, etc. My point here is that the initial affirmation of the Trinity assumes the statement about the Son which follows. Therefore, to affirm the classic doctrine of the Trinity is to state some very definite things about the Son and His relation to the Father and Holy Spirit. It is 32
Examining the Case for Pluralism very important to be clear on this. The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated, historically speaking, under the impact of the realization that Christ is Lord and God. The doctrine of the Trinity rests squarely on the conviction that Jesus Christ is "one substance" with the Father. Moreover, this conviction is bound up with the doctrines of His miraculous conception, atonement, and bodily resurrection.14 All of these beliefs are woven together, so to speak, as a web. In other words, if certain beliefs about Christ are not assumed, the doctrine of the Trinity begins to unravel, if not altogether disintegrate. We cannot eliminate or deny any of these doctrines without affecting the whole web to some extent. To imagine otherwise is to fail to realize the inner connections and consistency of these doctrines. is Let us return now to the section "United Methodists and the Christian Tradition" to see what beliefs about Christ are assumed in its affirmation of the Triune God. In reading this section, we look in vain for a re-affirmation of the beliefs which undergird the classic doctrine of the Trinity. Christ's miraculous conception is not mentioned, nor is His bodily resurrection. (The Sacrament of Holy Communion is described as a means of participation "in the risen and present Body of Christ." This, however, is apparently a statement about the church, not about Christ's bodily resurrection.) Nor is it affirmed that Christ is actually God, which is the meaning of the classic doctrine that He is "one substance" with the Father. Instead it speaks vaguely of "God's self-presentation in Jesus of Nazareth" (p. 74). Now I assume the adherents of pluralism would hold that the Discipline does indeed affirm the Trinity, while re-interpreting it in light of a more modern understanding of Christ. The question, however, is whether this view of Christ is adequate for sustaining the doctrine of the Triune God. As we continue to ponder these issues, it will be instructive to compare the strikingly similar issues which were involved in the formulation of the Nicene Creed, which is foundational to Trinitarian theology. The relevance of these issues for today will become apparent, I think, as the discussion progresses. In showing the comparison I will draw on the analysis of Nicaea by Roman Catholic theologian, John Courtney Murray. In his analysis, Murray points out that the Nicene formulation that Jesus is one substance (homoousion) with the Father 33
The Asbury Seminarian successfully avoided two fallacies, which he calls archaism and futurism. The archaists objected to homoousion on the basis that it is not a biblical term. According to this objection, only express biblical formulas may be used in stating the Christian faith. "At the root of the fallacy is the rejection of the notion that Christian understanding of the affirmations of the faith can and indeed must grow, at the same time that the sense of the affirmations remains unaltered. "16 While the archaist view was conservative in one sense, in a more important sense it was not, for it actually failed to conserve the Christian tradition. Murray explains. The trouble was that the Arian party was quite willing to recite the scriptural affirmations at the same time that it read into them an Arian understanding, the conception of the Son as a creature. The Fathers had, therefore, to go beyond the letter of the scriptural formulas to their sense. They stated the sense in new formulas, 'out of the substance of the Father,' 'consubstantial with the Father.' These formulas would not bear the Arian understanding. 17 To reject the Nicene formula was to refuse to rule out not only the Arian understanding of Jesus' Sonship; it was to leave the door open to other misunderstandings as well. Thus, archaism leads naturally to futurism. The futurist fallacy rests on the notion that the affirmations of Christian faith never have a final sense. They are constantly subject to reinterpretation in terms of any sort of philosophical thought. Development in the understanding of them is altogether open ended. It may move in any direction, even to the dissolution of the original sense of the Christian affirmations. is Both fallacies could only be avoided by spelling out what Scripture teaches about Jesus, with sufficient precision to exclude interpretations of Scripture which misrepresent or change its meaning. This assumes the main teachings of Scripture are clear enough that we can recognize when they have been distorted. There are correct interpretations of Scripture as well as incorrect, and the church 34
Examining the Case for Pluralism should distinguish the two. But the notion that normative statements of faith can be derived by correctly spelling out the teachings of Scripture involves an important assumption about the nature of the word of God given in Scripture. Murray shows this by pointing out that in the Patristic age the Christian based his faith ... on the events of the sacred history - the event of Christ supervening on the ancient events of the history oflsreal. He knew that in these events, which were irruptions of the divine into history, God was the 'speaking God' of the Letter to the Hebrews (1: 1). He knew that the word spoken by God came from Intelligence and was addressed to an intelligence. It was suffused with mystery, but it was nonetheless compact of conceptions that were somehow intelligible and of affirmations that were unconditionally true. He knew, finally, that, since they were true (as warranted by the 'speaking God'), the affirmations in the word of God put him in touch with reality ... The value of the word of God was in its truth, in the fact that it affirmed what is, what exists in an order related indeed to man's religious experience but only because it is itself antecedently real. So, when the Christian cried, 'Lord Jesus!', he was not simply uttering his religious experience of the risen Jesus. He was affirming that Jesus did rise from the dead and that he is the Lord. 19 This quote suggests that a more fundamental assumption underlies the Patristic understanding of the word of God given in Scripture: namely, that the events recorded in Scripture actually occurred as recorded. Most specifically, this applies to the incarnation and the events which disclosed it (the miraculous conception, ascension, and supremely, the resurrection). In other words, the question of how much confidence we have in Scripture largely resolves into the question of how much confidence we have that the events recorded in Scripture really occurred. That is, we do not believe these events occurred simply because they are recorded in Scripture so much as we believe Scripture because they have become convinced that these events occurred, and that God has revealed Himself through them. Moreover, our confidence in the
35
The Asbury Seminarian doctrinal and moral teachings of Scripture largely resolves into the question of whether we believe God has revealed Himself through intelligible affirmations which explain the meaning of His saving events and their implications for living.20 This understanding of the word of God clearly rules out the constant reinterpretation of Christian affirmations. Certainly understanding of them could not be altogether open ended. For if God's saving events actually occurred as recorded in Scripture, we have no right to construe or"interpret"them otherwise. And if we do indeed have a word from God Himself which He has invested with an intelligible, and therefore, determinate meaning, then we have no right to construe that word in any way which departs from its original meamng. The notion that God's word has a determinate meaning is very important. Here, I think is the basis for a legitimate Protestant appeal to the authority of tradition. Namely, the very idea of revelation seems to assume that when God speaks or acts to reveal Himself and His will, He does so in a way which will be correctly understood by the recipients of revelation. Therefore, if there has been a consensus within the church on certain doctrines, and it has been agreed that these doctrines are essential to Christianity, then it seems likely that God intended these doctrines to be maintained as essential throughout the ages. And indeed, there has been such agreement at the point of the Ecumenical Creeds, among Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant Christians. Now if God did not intend those doctrines to be maintained as essential it must seem odd, if not incredible, that the church throughout history has so persistently insisted upon them as vital to the faith. The question this raises is, why did God not reveal Himself and His will more clearly, so as to prevent this major misconception? Indeed, has God successfully revealed Himself at all if the recipients of the revelation misconstrued it so badly? Surely it is more plausible to suppose that God has revealed Himself and his will clearly enough, at least on major points, that the church through the ages would correctly understand what God has revealed. It is on this basis that the Creedal interpretation of Scripture carries an authority which should not be set aside without clear and compelling reasons.
36
Examining the Case for Pluralism
VI Now then, let us return to the current issues of interpretation and pluralism. By now the relevance of the Nicene controversies is probably apparent. Indeed, the contemporary issues can be stated in the terms we have just discussed. Accordingly, we can ask these questions: does the Discipline affirm the doctrine of the Trinity in a way which avoids the fallacies of archaism and futurism? What view of the word of God given in Scripture is assumed in its contemporary theological statement? Let us begin with the latter question, for as we have seen, the issue of what the word of God is underlies the other issues. In this light, consider the following statement from the Discipline. From our response in faith to the wondrous mystery of God's love in Jesus Christ as recorded in Scripture, all valid Christian doctrine is born. This is the touchstone by which all Christian teaching may be tested ... At the heart of the gospel of salvation is God's self-presentation in Jesus of Nazareth. Scripture focuses on the witness to Jesus' life and teachings, his death and resurrection, and his triumph within and over the agonies of history. Those who even now find in him their clue to God's redeeming love also find their hearts and wills transformed (pp. 73; 74-5). What understanding of the word of God is implied or assumed in this statement? Do we have in Scripture an intelligible word with a definite meaning which was given by God, and is therefore true? A careful examination of the above passage suggests a very different understanding of the word of God and, accordingly, of the criteria of theological truth. This is especially apparent when we consider what this passage affirms about Christ, on the basis of the Scriptural "witness." Notice in the first place that nothing is said to indicate that God Himself has given us a word to tell us who Jesus is. The focus is on our response, not on God's speaking. Who Jesus is or was in Himself or exactly how God presented Himself in Jesus is a mystery. However, it is still at least possible to find in Jesus a "clue" to God's redeeming love, and thereby to have our hearts and wills transformed. The transformation itself seems to be the fundamental thing, regardless of how or why it is connected with Jesus. Whether 37
The Asbury Seminarian or not He is the eternal Son of God, of one substance with the Father, is apparently irrelevant for this transformation. Now there is an enormous difference between the belief that Jesus is homoousion with the Father, and the notion that His is merely a "clue" to God's redeeming love. Indeed, the difference between homoousion and a "clue" epitomizes the gulf between historic Christianity and the understanding of the Christian faith represented in the Discipline. But the point for emphasis here is that this difference reflects different assumptions about the nature of Scripture. Another important indicator of how Scripture is viewed in the Discipline is the sentence above which refers to the "witness to Jesus' life and teachings, his death and resurrection." The significant word here is "witness." Elsewhere, the Bible is described as "the deposit of a unique testimony to God's self-disclosures" {p. 78). Now what are the implications of taking Scripture as a "witness" or "testimony" to God's revelation? Let us approach this question by considering the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in light of this understanding of Scripture. We must begin by drawing a clear distinction between affirming that Christ was raised from the dead, and merely affirming that the apostles gave "witness" to a resurrection.Notice carefully: the person who affirms the former is, to be sure, affirming his belief that Christ was truly raised; the person who affirms only the latter may or may not believe Christ was raised; he may only believe that the apostles experienced something which they described in their "witness" as resurrection. Therefore, it should be recognized that our Discipline does not clearly affirm Jesus' resurrection, since it only mentions the "Witness" to the resurrection. Now it may be thought that I have been unfair in not giving the Discipline the benefit of the doubt with respect to what it says about the resurrection. It may be thought that the distinction I have drawn is contrived or exaggerated. In response to this, I can only stress that the distinction is a real one and can be amply illustrated from modern theology. To substantiate my claim, let us consider briefly the treatment of Christ's resurrection by Harvard theologian Gordon Kaufman. According to Kaufman, faith in the resurrection began with a series of "appearances" of the risen Christ to the disciples. These "alleged appearances were in fact a series of hallucinations produced by the
38
Examining the Case for Pluralism wishful thinking of Jesus' former disciples. Kaufman offers this as "a reasonable conjecture about what happened." Consistent with his conjecture Kaufman asserts: "When the early Christians spoke of the 'resurrection of Jesus,' they were presenting their explanation of tht However, the disciples were changed through these experiences and Kaufman ascribes this to the activity of God. For him, then, the essential thing about the Christian faith is that God is still "working a genuine transformation of human existence. It should be clear from this instance that one can altogether reject the classical understanding of Jesus' resurrection, while heartily affirming that "Scripture focuses on the witness to Jesus' life and teachings, his death and resurrection." Indeed, Kaufman is a good illustration of the point I made above that there is a close connection between confidence in Scripture and confidence in the events it records. Since he does not believe in Christ's bodily resurrection, he must reconstruct the biblical account of it. Our Discipline, in its failure to clearly affirm Christ's bodily resurrection, leaves the way open for such reconstruction. This uncertainty toward the resurrection allows the possibility that the biblical "witness" to it is nothing more than a human explanation of conjectural religious experiences. Now in view of the fact that the Discipline places the accent on human witness in its account of the nature of Scripture, we must ask this question: does it avoid the fallacy of futurism? The answer, I am afraid, is no. If the Scriptures are only a witness to God's self-revelation, and if our response in faith is the real touchstone for testing Christian doctrine, then there is no reason why the meaning of that witness may not undergo continual re-interpretation, in keeping with our own changing responses to it. If the title "Son of God" (for instance) as applied to Jesus by the biblical writers only reflects their response to what they witnessed in Jesus' life, then we may legitimately ask whether the meaning of "Son of God" is as definite and as important as the Creeds insist. If our own response to God in faith provides us with an accurate test for Christian teaching, then we may feel free to interpret our response in a way which does not require that Jesus is the eternal Son of God who was actually raised from the dead. If the essential thing is the transformation of our hearts and wills, and this does not depend on the antecedent reality of Jesus' being homoousion with the Father, then the identity of Jesus is an open
39
The Asbury Seminarian
question, the doctrine of the Trinity evaporates. Clearly then, the Discipline does not affirm the Trinity in a way which avoids the falacy of futurism. This is due not only to the fact that the Scriptures are seen primarily as a human "witness" to revelation, but also to the related notion that human "response" is the real touchstone for testing Christian doctrine. Now, what about the fallacy of archaism. In the first place, the Discipline is not guilty of this fallacy in the same sense that the opponents of the Nicene Creed were. As we recall, they maintained that only express biblical terminology was acceptable for stating the faith. The problem with this was that the Arians read their view into the biblical affirmations. One of the purposes of the Creed was to spell out the meaning of the scriptural texts in a way which prevented this. Now the Discipline certainly does not limit us to express biblical terminology in stating the faith in our age. Nevertheless, it is deficient in a way which remarkably parallels the archaist fallacy. The deficiency lies in the fact that the Discipline employs orthodox creedal language, but does not spell out its meaning in a way which rules out unorthodox views. Like the archaists of old, the authors of the Discipline apparently think it is sufficient to recite traditional phrases such as "Triune God," even though they refrain from specifying their meaning. Their reasons for refusing to be more specific, however, have nothing to to with the archaist suspicion of novel terminology. Rather, I suspect the authors of the Discipline deliberately avoided being more specific in order to allow different interpretations of their words. We are now in a position to return to the question with which we began the preceding section, namely: does the Discipline affirm the Trinity as an irreducible core doctrine, or is it subject to being "interpreted" in ways which depart from its original, historic meaning? The answer, I think, is clear from the foregoing discussion. Since the Discipline does not affirm the Trinity in a way which avoids either of the fallacies which the Nicene Creed was formulated to avoid, it leaves the way open to any number of heterodox interpretations. In view of this fact, it is misleading for the Discipline to suggest that the United Methodist Church is united "with all Christians everywhere and in all ages"inaffirming belief in the Triune God. For the only doctrine of the Triune God which could plausibly be thought 40
Examining the Case for Pluralism common to all Christians in all ages is the classic, orthodox one. If we are not prepared to stand fast on the core of doctrines which have been agreed upon by Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant Christians, we should not pretend to share in the consensus of all Christians in all ages. It appears the United Methodist Church is faced with the choice of continuing in its present course of permitting unlimited pluralism, or of clearly reaffirming the essential doctrines of historic Christianity. Like the Nicene Fathers, we can either leave the door open to continual reinterpretations of the faith, or we can spell out the faith clearly enough to place some limits on interpretation. If we take the latter course we must regain confidence that the saving events recorded in Scripture actually occurred, particularly the incarnation and the events connected with it. We must regain confidence in the fact that we have a real word from God, which puts us in touch with what is real and true, independent of our experience. We must learn to stress the limiting force of this word more than the open-ended variety of human responses and interpretations. We must return to truly giving Scripture primacy over experience as we to grips with the need for doctrinal authority (cf. Discipline, p. 81 ). This is not to minimize the importance of experience for theological reflection, or of that transformation of our hearts and wills which the Discipline emphasizes. We must always be vitally concerned to see lives (and society) transformed through the power of the gospel. But we must also insist that such tranformation is rooted in reality and truth. If we are not concerned for the truth claims of Christianity, we fall into the abyss of allowing our religious experience to be accounted for in terms of "wishful thinking" (a la Kaufman). If we do not insist that the doctrines of Christianity are true, it is hard to see how we can be taken seriously. I am reminded of a statement by Bertrand Russell which we would do well to ponder in this regard. I can respect the men who argue that religion is true and therefore ought to be believed, but I can only feel profound moral reprobation for those who say religion ought to be believed because it is useful, and that to ask whether it is true is a waste of time. 24 When we focus on personal transformation without settling even the 41
The Asbury Seminarian most basic doctrinal questions, we have become so concerned with Christianity's usefulness that we have become indifferent to its truthfulness. Let us be warned: when we emphasize transformation through the gospel to the detriment of the truth of the gospel, the transformation itself is undermined.
VII In the previous three sections I have argued that the Discipline imposes no limits whatever on pluralism, although it seems in places to do so. I have maintained that it fails to clearly affirm even the core doctrines of Christianity, although it purports to do so. I have shown this with respect to the closely related doctrines of the Trinity, the deity of Jesus and the resurrection. However, the fact that the Discipline purports to affirm a core of doctrine, and seems to set limits on pluralism, does point up a measure of ambivalence in our official theological statement. On the one hand, there is something of an attempt to remain true to the historic Christian tradition. But on the other hand, this attempt is swallowed up by the more persistent commitment to pluralism. The Discipline seems to want it both ways, but it invariably yields to the pervasive pressure of pluralism, even when ostensibly setting limits on it. Since the Discipline is ambivalent with respect to pluralism, we might wonder why it is so persistent in taking a pluralistc stance. This is especially puzzling since the case for pluralism is so frail. Philosophically, it appears to be incoherent. Theologically, it breeds confusion by leaving open all boundaries between truth and heresy. It is suspect historically because the allusions which are used to support it are highly dubious. It is even detrimental from a devotional standpoint, for it undermines the certainty which should characterize religious belief and commitment. All of this makes us wonder whether there was something besides the intrinsic merits of pluralism which motivated our Church to give it official recognition. This hunch is substantiated at least somewhat by one of the passages in the Discipline which I have already analyzed to some degree. This passage follows a paragraph which explains and repudiates the confessional traditon, i.e., the tradition which supposes "that a doctrinal statement of some sort could be drawn up that would be normative and enforceable for an entire Christian body" (p. 72). As opposed to this, the Discipline states:
42
Examining the Case for Pluralism Our older traditions and our newer experiments in ecumenical theology provide a constructive alternative to this confessional tradition. This is fortunate because the theological spectrum in the United Methodist Church ranges over all the current mainstream options and a variety of special interest theologies as well ... our awareness of the transcendent mystery of divine truth allows us in good conscience to acknowledge the positive virtues of doctrinal pluralism even within the same community of believers, not merely because such an attitude is realistic (pp. 72-73; my emphasis). What is interesting here is that the acceptance of theological pluralism is admitted to be a virtual necessity, given the present theological mix of the United Methodist Church. But then a rationale for pluralism is offered which seems to elevate it to the status of a positive good. Necessity is thereby transformed into virtue. To put it bluntly, the United Methodist Church allowed "the fading force of doctrinal discipline" to fade out altogether. It reached the point described in the following: "Where everything counts as theology, we can safely say that scarcely anything really counts. Clearly, we have become uncertain of the criteria or even whether there are any at all. ''25 But to arrive at such a point would bother churchmen who had a sense of their responsibility to be true to the Christian tradition, which has always insisted that legitimate theology has some definite boundaries. They could not endorse pluralism with good conscience. It is in this light that the quote above takes on signifcance. Notice that the rationale for pluralism is intended to allow us in good conscience to acknowledge the positive virtues of doctrinal pluralism. That is to say, we need not feel guilty if it seems to us that we have strayed away from historic Christianity in our toleration of theological pluralism. For did not our founders support what Wesley called "catholic spirit"? Do we not honor the intent and import of the classic creeds? Moreover, we are not endorsing theological indifferentism. We are simply trying to maintain a proper awareness of the transcendent mystery of divine truth. By thus thinking, our conscientious churchmen may be able to embrace pluralism with good conscience. For after all, he has little 43
The Asbury Seminarian choice. It is a hard fact that our church is pluralistic. But it is easier to espouse pluralism if there are some positive reasons for doing so, other than the fact that we have little choice in the matter. As is often the case, reasons which arise out of necessity are shaky ones. Such "reasons"are usually recognized as mere rationalizations. That is, they are attempts to construe what is the case, as what ought to be the case. This, I think, is at least partly the case with the arguments for pluralism which we have examined. It is easier to rationalize our failures than to repent of them. Indeed, perhaps the matter of conscience is at the heart of the pluralism issue. The issue certainly is not whether people would change their theological views if the Church were to restrict its official recognition of pluralism. Undoubtedly, many would not. The question is whether the church should give its blessings to pluralism, just because it is the status quo. Should it seek to soothe the consciences of those who reject the doctrines of historic Christianity? Or should it have the courage to hold steady in clearly affirming the essential doctrines of historic Christianity, even if this may disturb the consciences of persons who reject those doctrines? Perhaps if the church were to take this course, it would at least encourage greater care and thoughtfulness when it comes to personal theological commitments. Moreover, it would convincingly repudiate the commonly held opinion that United Methodists can believe anything they wish.26 Then we may hope for that "doctrinal reinvigoration" which our church so urgently needs "for the sake of authentic renewal, fruitful evangelism, and the effective discharge of our ecumenical commitments" (p. 50). In closing I would like to stress that this essay was written, not in a spirit of contention, but in a spirit of genuine concern for our Church and the gospel which was committed to the Church. I have attempted to argue my case fairly and carefully. If the case I have argued is sound, it seems clear that the Church should revise its position with regard to pluralism.
Footnotes I am grateful to Dr. William J. Abraham for his very helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. 2 Good News, March-April, 1981, p. 64. 3 Works, (Wesleyan Methodist Book Room, 1872), 5:501-2.
44
Examining the Case for Pluralism 4 John
Wesley, (Oxford, 1964), p. 92. SJohn Wesley, p. 492-93. 6See, for instance, his opening comments in his sermon "Of Hell" Works, 6:381. 1 Works, 5:499. 8 1he Coherence of Theism, (Oxford, 1977), p. 19. 9p. 14. 10 1he Grammar of Faith, (Harper & Row, 1978), p. 65. 11 Cf. Holmer: "I wish to insist here that the core of theology for Protestants, not only Catholics, is a divine 'magesterium' which is the same from age to age." p. 12. 12 Jhe Grammer of Faith, p. 4. IJHolmer is helpful here. See pp. 10-13. 14 See Thomas F. Torrance, Space, Time, and Resurrection, (Eerdmans, 1976), pp. 46-60. ISWhen I speak of a web of belief, I do not mean to suggest that there is a logical or necessary connection between such events as Christ's miraculous conception and resurrection, and his deity. However, these are important events which disclosed the incarnation, and if they are doubted, the incarnation itself is called into question. 16 1he Problem of God, (Yale University Press, 1964), p. 48. 17 Jhe Problem of God, p. 46. IH Jhe Problem of God, p. 49. I9Jhe Problem of God, pp. 41-2. 20 Cf. William J. Abraham: "It is only because God has spoken His word that we can have any assurance about what He has done in creation and history and about His intentions and purposes in acting in creation and history. Without His word, the alternative is not just a tentative, carefully qualified guessing at what God is doing, but a radical agnosticism." Divine Revelation and the Limits of Historical Criticism, (Oxford, 1982), p. 21. It is in such an atmosphere of agnosticism as Abraham describes, that pluralism flourishes. United Methoidist Abraham makes a powerful case for the importance of "divine speaking" in the form of propositional revelation in chapter 4 of his The Divine Inspiration of Holy Scripture (Oxford, 1981 ), as well as in chapter l of the work just cited. 21systematic Theology: A Historicist Perspective, (Scribners, 1968), p. 422. 22systematic Theology, p. 421. His italics. 23Systematic Theology, pp. 429-30. Notice the similarity with our Discipline. 14Why I Am Not A Christian, (Simon and Schuster, 1957), p. 197. 2s The Grammar of Faith, p. 3. 26See Bishop Jack M. Tuell's denial that United Methodists can believe anything they wish. The Interpreter, March-April, 1982, p. 8. Bishop Tuell goes on to stress that United Methodists are bound together by belief in a "core of doctrine." But as I have already argued, our Discipline is far too vague on this point to give any force to such a claim.
45
Book Reviews Spirituality and Human Emotion, by Robert C. Roberts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982, 134 pp. This book on the significance of emotion/ emotions in the spiritual life is authored by Robert C. Roberts, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Western Kentucky University. In a recent issue of Christianity Today (Sept. 2, 1983), is an article featuring ten religious leaders who were asked the question, "What Book Has Influenced You Most?" Dr. Ronald H. Nash, head of the Department of Philosophy and Religion at Western Kentucky University answers in terms of this volume by his colleague, Dr. Roberts. He states that the reading of the book has resulted in his gaining a much more balanced view of the place of both reason and emotion in the spiritual life. This is a book about emotions - what they are; how they are occasioned; how they can be controlled and made contributory to wholesome living. It is the author's thesis that serious thinking, mature thinking, influences emotional response and this in turn influences spiritual growth. So he contends for a person's thinking to be dominated by Christian concerns in order that the most wholesome emotional responses will result. In a real sense, the book becomes an apologetic for the Christian Faith - from a psychological perspective. In the last three chapters the author discussed in detail three of the essential Christian emotions: gratitude, hope, and compassion. It is significant to me, in my work in Spiritual Formation, that this book came into my hands during a period when I was struggling-in-depth with what I considered to be the imperative of the control of emotions by the Christian. It is an extremely helpful book, filled with valued insights. I commend it to every concerned reader. Frank Bateman Stanger President Emeritus Asbury Theological Seminary The Christian Pastor, Wayne E. Oates, (Third Edition, Revised) Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1982, 298 pages. Here is a comprehensive and practical guide for the average pastor of the local parish in the discharge of his ministry of pastoral care. It is "a handbook for stress management in the 'Christian combat."' The personal qualities of the pastor as well as the duties of his office are addressed. Wayne Oates has the unique ability of taking a small segment of a larger subject and expanding upon it with clarity and thoroughness. This is what he
46
Book Reviews seems to do in this twice revised major work. The book is divided into two sections: The Pastoral Task, and Pastoral Methods. Each section includes four chapters. The author writes from a strong evangelical point of view. He also has a high appreciation for the medical and psychodynamic disciplines of the healing art. He speaks with authority, and is unafraid to commit his views to the reader. His bibliography, references, and quotes are extensive, reflecting a breadth of knowledge beyond the subject of the book. The focus on biblical theology comes through the text strongly and clearly. It is testimony to the author's ability to give himself professionally to psychiatry and the behavioral sciences in a university medical center, and still maintain a blend of faith and science in a balanced way. Oates is comfortable in both worlds. He offers this faith-science blend as a plausible privilege for every Christian pastor. The author's predilection to the pastoral ministry is obvious by his focus on the minister's task of reconciliation. The pastor does indeed possess all the resources necessary to bring healing and restoration to his people. However, he must know how to use the tools of his trade, and be wise in their application. Oates stands with the generalist pastor who in recent years has tended to become the object of critical discounting by elitist pastoral psychotherapists. He sounds a strong note of warning to the latter when he says, "Elitism in pastoral counseling confuses both the good theology and the good psychotherapy of the generalist pastor." The book will bear reading and rereading by pastors who find themselves plodding steadily, and sometimes wearily, on the unending road of counseling and care giving. It should be kept within reach. V. James Mannoia Professor of Pastoral Ministry Asbury Theological Seminary
Issues in Missiology: An Introduction, by Edward C. Pentecost, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI., 1982, 205 pages, $11.95. Issues in Missiology is an attempt to put into a brief and simplied form the science of missions, with an emphasis on the contribution of the social sciences to that field. It draws particularly from the fields of anthropology, psychology, sociology, and communications. The book is described as "academic without being heavy." Some of the major subjects treated in the book are: the biblical basis of missions, the relationship between the Christian faith and culture, .the church's nature and function, and the basic components of the communication process. The reader will find the numerous diagrams most helpful in understanding the writer's treatment of the subject. Edward C. Pentecost is associate director of the World Missions Research Center and assistant professor of World Missions at Dallas Theological Seminary. He writes from a definitely evangelical perspective. Students of missions and laypersons interested in missions should find this publication
47
The Asbury Seminarian most helpful in their understanding of the world mission of the Church. John T. Seamands John Wesley Beeson Professor of Christian Missions Asbury Theological Seminary
The Spiritual Needs of Children, by Judith Allen Shelly. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1982. Why does God hate me? Why am I sick? Many children ask such questions, especially while lying sick in bed. The adults who help them nurses, doctors, parents, Sunday School teachers - sometimes feel inadequate to meet the spiritual needs expressed. Must we leave the challenges solely to hospital chaplains? Judith Allen Shelly says no. She believes that Jesus has given everyone a mandate to care. This book provided the tools to put our concern into action. It first describes the spiritual growth and development of children, from infants through teenagers. Then it explains how to recognize and meet such needs as forgiveness, love and meaning when children and their parents express them in a variety of ways. This book derives from a task force of child-care professionals, sponsored by Nurses Christian Fellowship. They attempt to answer the question, "Are children capable of a meaningful relationship with God?" The answer is a resounding yes! "The whole religious quest consists of opening the doors of childhood to the incursions of the Eternal." While it is recognized that the needs and abilities of children differ according to stages of development, it is also true that when children are constantly nourished in the faith through prayer and Bible teaching, in the context of a loving family and supportive Christian community, they are likely to encounter the living God and develop a deep and stable faith. We cannot limit God to working in the proper stages and ages, or through the "right" channels, but we can observe that he usually does. This book is encouraging from this standpoint, but it takes an eclectic approach to spiritual development with an attempt to put it in the context of one-to-one relationships between parents, nurses and other professionals, and the child. This work is highly recommended reading for those who are serious about meeting the spiritual needs of children. Dr. Herbert W. Byrne Professor of Christian Education Asbury Theological Seminary The Sorcerer's Apprentice: A Christian Looks at the Changing Face of Psychology, by Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, lnterVarsity Press, 1982. Delivered at the 1982 John G. Finch Symposium on Psychology and Religion at the Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Seminary, Dr. Van Leeuwen writes as an academic psychologist who became a professing Christian only near the completion of her doctoral training. As I read this volume, faces and names of my own colleagues in the fields of experimental and clinical psychology kept coming before my mind. I
48
Book Reviews could share with her the message that "North American psychology is in a state of profound transition and that now, perhaps as never before, Christians in the field have a very clear opportunity to help shape the future of their discipline" (pp. 11, 12). Not that it will be easy - what reformation ever is - but I also find in today's professional psychological and psychiatric climate an openness to accurate, devout, patient and consistent practicing and well-trained Christians who can be scientific, educational, clinical and spiritual at the same time. The name of the book may be misleading, more focused on a lecture series than a wider audience. The parable is that of the Sorcerer's Apprentice who attempted the magic without the master's experience and know-how and almost drowned when he couldn't stop the broom from bringing pails of water to the house. Psychology, attempting to use natural science's methods to study personality, suggests the author, in a context of increasing secularism, self-confident rationalism and technologism, uses an experimental mode which only fragments persons. Dr. Van Leeuwen makes a telling point when she points out that human beings are neither big rats nor slow computers. And defends social psychologists especially when she suggests that social scientists are often better than their theory, which may be one way "in which God the Holy Spirit mercifully holds rampant evil in check" (p. 145). The book is well footnoted, which is helpful to the thoughtful scientist reader, though the index is small to the point of being helpless. The writing style is clear, her references to sources thoughtful. Though the writer is a social psychologist, there are sensitive clinical insights throughout the book. One this reviewer could say a nonpsychological "amen" to was her rationale for the antireligious attitudes which have been consistent in psychology since it left philosophy to become a "science." Those students who were training to be ministers primarily for the intellectual content, left the Church as soon as viable professional substitutes arose and "took with them a reactionary bitterness toward the religious training they had endured without wholehearted belief' (p. 41). This reviewer found much of this in a study of fifteen years ago when he questionnaired five hundred psychologists in the American Psychological Association who recorded a theological degree in the Bibliographic Directory of the AP A. One subject wrote, "I do not want anything to do with this d--- religion. I had enough of it rammed down my throat as a child and enough brainwashing in seminary. Don't contact me again." But keep in mind, the present "profound transition" and the "very clear opportunity . . . Christians . . . have to help shape the future of their discipline." John M. Vayhinger Professor of Pastoral Care and Counseling Asbury Theological Seminary
Five Gospels: An Account of How the Good News Came To Be, by John C.
49
The Asbury Seminarian Meagher. Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1983. An unusual book, full of new and fresh insights. The author writes incisively and provocatively. His thesis is that the Gospel developed gradually and through changes beginning with John the Baptist until our Lord's ministry with attendant oral and transcribed witness through selected individuals and groups of disciples. A notable feature is the emphasis on "Dominion" rather than the "Kingdom" of God as a key theme. A climactic stage is reached when the fourth Gospel is analyzed and expanded to include what is termed "the Ultimate Gospel." Interacting as he does with more conservative scholarship. Meagher is aware of the evangelical and historic testimony of past generations. This is a well investigated subject, passing through the sieve of classroom discussion and lecture seminars, and producing the suggested findings in a well-written book. Serious students of the Christian origins will find much to challenge conventional belief and at the same time relate personal faith in trustworthy scripture as the foundation of an apologetic geared to teaching-preaching in our day. The author is professor of Religious Studies and of English at St. Michael's College, the University of Toronto. He is also past president of the American Academy of Religion. Ralph G. Turnbull Adjunct Professor of Preaching Bethel Seminary-West Campus, San Diego, California
The Epistles of John by Hershel H. Hobbs. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983, $9. 95. Here is the distilled wisdom of a scholarly pastor after a lifetime of study and pastoral ministy. The three short works of John are linked in a trilogy of truth. The evil of gnosticism, the assurance of eternal life, and the deity of our Lord are dealt with in relevance to this generation. Utilizing the Greek text, the author whets the appetite with concerned exegesis and concise meanings. The exposition is based on thorough research to bring out of the treasury "things new and old." Major interpreters are cited and the hermeneutics is judicial and down to earth. Bibliography should include Fellowship in the Life Eternal, by the British Methodist scholar, George F. Findlay. As in previous books, Hobbs relates his findings in clear and realistic homiletical outlines and analysis. This is a book for the pastor and seminarian who does not have access to major and expensive works on John's epistles. Mountains Into Goldmines, by Dennis Voskuil. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983. Voskuil attempts a critique of Robert Schuller's self-esteem theology. He flags the self-deification tendency, the view of sin, the transference of theological categories to psychological language and thought patterns, etc. Alongside his negative criticism Voskuil commends Schuller's theology; examples: Dr. Schuller's healthy antidote to the theology of self-negation,
50
Book Reviews the gospel's power to build self-esteem, the recognition of the pivotal role of self-esteem in human lives, etc. This book, no doubt, is one of the early critiques in what eventually will become a long list of dialogical discussions about popular Robert Schuller. Donald E. Demaray Granger E. and Anna A. Fisher Professor of Preaching Asbury Theological Seminary
Contemporary Theologies of Mission, by Arthur F. Glasser and Donald A. McGavran. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, 250 pages; $12.95 paperback. One of the most controversial missiological questions of the day is: What is the precise nature of the church's mission. In this publication Glasser and McGavran, colleagues on the faculty of the School of World Mission at Fuller Theological Seminary, have sought to deal with this issue in a comprehensive and scholarly fashion. The authors seek to accurately describe four theories of mission that dominate today: the conciliar, liberationist, Roman Catholic, and evangelical. These four divide into "two contradictory streams"; the first two contending that mission is everything that the church does outside its four walls with the supreme purpose of creating a better world, while the latter two positions declare that mission involves the proclamation of the Gospel and the establishment of indigenous churches as God's permanent agents of evangelization and social reform. The authors attempt to be as fair and objective as possible, and seek to deal with the issues in an honest and forthright manner. This is a publication that all persons interested in the Christian mission of our day will certainly want to study. John T. Seamands John Wesley Beeson Professor of Christian Missions Asbury Theological Seminary Mainline Churches and the Evangelicals, by Richard G. Hutcheson, Jr., John Knox Press, 1981. Written by a self-styled "liberal," and retired fleet chaplain of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Brother Hutcheson has written one of the fairest books on the current "liberal-conservative" situation in the mainline churches (and "out" side as well). From an adequate amount of broad research (though he mentions Asbury only once) he has assessed the strengths and intrusions of the conservative movements in the United States in the mainline denominations. A Presbyterian himself, he points out the lack of parachurch organizations in the liberal camp, "precisely because the official organizations are the channels used and controlled by the liberal-ecumenical groups within the denominations" (p. 76). The book is a dedicated and reasonable plea for a centrist position in
51
The Asbury Seminarian pluralist mainline denominations to respect both wings of the Church in Christian fellowship and to moderate (at least) the "stranglehold" of the liberal-ecumenical groups currently in control of those mainline churches. I could only wish I could afford to send this book to the leaders of my own United Methodist Church and the Good News movement, to both the liberal and conservative seminary faculties where I've been privileged to teach, and to call us all, with humility, forward to the solid bases of the Gospel. Dean Kelley so clearly points to that "indispensable function of religion" which is, as Hutcheson repeats, "to explain life in ultimate terms." Hutcheson summarizes the conservative position as "the uniquely Christian answer to the question of life's meaning, the life view and style resulting from the Christian answer, and the demands placed on the believer by that answer - these are the reasons the evangelicals and mainliners in the classic tradition have regarded Jesus Christ not as an option among many, but rather as an embodiment of ultimate truth, and have regarded Christianity not as a means of social ends, but rather as a self-validating end. The evangelical purpose - the imperative to share the good news, to make available to others the only fully satisfactory answer to the question of life's meaning - is grounded on this base" (p. 178). John M. Vayhinger Professor of Pastoral Care and Counseling Asbury Theological Seminary Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, by Bruce M. Metzger. An Introduction To Greek Palaeography. New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1981. ix and 150 pp. Professor Metzger, dean of New Testament textual critics, has given us another splendid text with which to study the text of the New Testament. His earlier books, The Text of the New Testament ( 1968) and The Early Versions of the New Testament (1977), have already become standard texts for courses on textual criticism of the New Testament. This one will join them. In the format the present volume is very much like the two volumes edited by W.H.P. Hatch and published 50 years ago, though this more recent text takes account of new discoveries and techniques. The first third of the volume has to do with Greek palaeography and includes all the standard topics. It is characterized by Professor Metzger's well-known lucid style and apt illustration. Brief appendices on how to estimate the date of a manuscript, how to collate one and, finally, statistics relating to Greek New Testament manuscripts close out this part of the work. The rest of the volume is a collection of 45 facsimile pages of important and representative manuscripts. Most are lifesize reproductions. Each facsimile is preceded by a brief description of the manuscript, its history, text, significance, and bibliography. Professor Metzger has sought to provide facsimiles which reveal unusual, intriguing or significant features. His choices demonstrate the judicious character we have become
52
Book Reviews accustomed to finding in all his work. This work also saves the student time and effort by including both uncials and miniscules under one cover - a happy decision. This will be a standard text and reference work for the next generation. Robert W. Lyon Professor of New Testament Interpretation Asbury Theological Seminary
The Christology of &rly Jewish Christianity, by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981 (reprint of original 1970 publication). Baker has done an excellent service in reprinting this marvelously concise yet complete survey of the Christological dynamics of early Jewish Christianity. In five clearly presented and carefully discussed chapters, Longenecker sets forth an extremely competent portrayal of Jewish Christianity, taking into account both the range of positions of contemporary scholarship on this topic as well as the new information which has come to light through the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi documents. Longenecker first sets forth his definition of early (30-132 A.D.) Jewish (Christians whose conceptual frame of reference and expression was Judaism) Christianity (Jerusalem oriented), surveys five major hypotheses regarding Jewish Christianity, sets forth the materials from which he proposes to develop a picture of Jewish Christianity's Christology, and defines his methodology (an examination of the appellatives of Jesus in the materials of early Jewish Christianity). Next, Longenecker discusses the distinctive images and motifs of Jewish Christian Christology: Angelomorphic (unfortunately he overlooks the book of Revelation, a Jewish Christian work which employs this image of Jesus quite strongly), the Eschatological Mosaic Prophet, (again neglecting Revelation in his discussion of the Moses-Elijah confluence of the eschatological prophet which seems to be identified with Jes us in Revelation 11), the New Exodus and New Torah, the Name, the Righteous One, the Shepherd and the Lamb, the Rejected Stone - Copestone, Beginning/ Firstborn motif, Descent/ Ascent motif. The succeding two chapters treat "Messiahship and its Implications" and "Lordship and Attendant Features." The first examines the range of Jewish messianic perspectives and their dynamic interplay in application to Jesus by Jewish Christians (including an excellent discussion of Jesus' selfunderstanding of his messiahship vis-a-vis Wrede, Bultmann, et. al.). The second provides a somewhat weak discussion of "Lordship," especially in countering. the prevailing opinion of less conservative scholarship that "Lord" was a term applied to Jesus on Hellenistic soil. While Longenecker has some excellent hypotheses here, he fails to fully develop their potential. The concluding chapter draws together the findings to clarify how, under the experience of the resurrection and Pentecost, early Jewish Christianity
53
The Asbury Seminarian amalgamated their rememberance of Jesus' teaching and Old Testament expectations into a functional as well as an ontological Christology. This book will abundantly illuminate both the pastor's and the scholar's study, understanding, and interpretation of the New Testament. M. Robert Mulholland Associate Professor, New Testament Interpretation Asbury Theological Seminary
Companion to Hymns of Faith and Life, Lawrence R. Schoenhals, Editor. Winona Lake: Light and Life Press. 415 pp. with Selected Bibliography and Indexes. 1980, $8.95. Dr. Schoenhals gives us, in this remarkable handbook, a wealth of material, material not only to interest the reader but practical data useable in sermons and the regular work of the Church. An introduction by Bishop Paul N. Ellis graces the early pages of the volume. Dr. Schoenhals takes the Articles of Religion and illustrates each in turn with representative hymns. A most valuable contribution for clergy desirous of driving home church teaching in ways other than and along with preaching and catechetical work. The bulk of the volume lies in the notes on the hymns. Every hymn and hymn tune finds a place in this companion. Here we have scholarly and accurate presentations of hymn stories and facts, something not always available in hymn story books of a popular and undocumented nature. A Selected Bibliography, and Indexes (composers, writers, Scripture, tunes, first lines, etc.) close the book. Donald E. Demaray Granger E. and Anna A. Fisher Professor of Preaching Asbury Theological Seminary How to be a Seminary Student and Survive, by Denise George, 1981 How to be a Seminary Student and Survive should be read by all prospective seminarians. Denise George writes from personal experience and knows the plight of seminary student and spouse. She offers practical suggestions, starting with the decision to attend seminary, and gives careful case histories to identify and build practical suggestions for advice. The author aims to touch the day-to-day life of the typical student. Without platitudes or panaceas, Mrs. George faces squarely issues not often talked about, such as divorce and family planning. This book offers more than survival; Denise George presents sustenance for anyone who wishes to make seminary experience more beneficial in preparation for ministry. Mark Brickzin Asbury Theological Seminary Student Student Map Manual, Historical Geography of the Bible Lands, consultant, J. Manson. Jerusalem: Pictorial Archive. (Distributed by Zondervan), 1979, $34.95.
54
Book Reviews This Student Manual for the study of Bible lands is part of a three-fold study project. It is based on large format wall maps using an eastern rather than the usual northern orientation. The second unit is a set of 2500 colored slides for projection on a screen. The third is the Student Map Manual which is the subject of this review. In this volume the names are keyed to Aharoni, Land of the Bible, to Avi-yonah, Macmillan Bible Atlas and to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. The innovation in this system is the emphasis on visual projection on screen and on maps as distinct from printed pictures and detailed information. Also innovative is the use of the east, rather than the usual north orientation. This makes possible the wide screen presentation and makes better use of available space (less of the unused Mediterranean Sea portion). Included in this Student Manual are sixteen regional maps based on the wall maps, another section of ten map displays in chronological sequence of archaeological sites through the Byzantine period. These are based on the Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. The major portion of the volume consists of a series of sectional maps showing historical-geographical changes from the Early Bronze (3000 B.C.) to Byzantine Era (A.D. 600). Especially helpful is a series of maps dealing with Jerusalem from Davidic times to the Byzantine period. Another valuable feature is the inclusion of the ancient Roman road system. The complex matter of biblical-historical proper names is treated with great detail. Another helpful feature is the inclusion of primary sources and the best of recent (secondary) sources. Especially helpful is the contour coloring of maps by M. Kaymon of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. It is designed for the student who anticipates a visit to the Land of the Bible and also as the best available substitute for such a visit. The user can be assured of its accuracy and completeness. Highly recommended. George A. Turner Professor of Biblical Literature Emeritus Asbury Theological Seminary
A Theology of Church Leadership, by Lawrence 0. Richards and Clyde Hoeldtke. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980. This work is an attempt to set forth the biblical and theological bases for church leadership. The basic premise of the book is: As the body of Chris,..t, the Church is a living organism; it is not, basically, an organization. This concept has many implications for the life of the church and the place members and leaders have in the body. Christ is the present, living head of the body and has committed Himself to serve it. Leadership in the church is leadership under Christ, and leaders must therefore be servants. The "headship" of human leaders does not imply position above other members, but relationship with them. Authoritarian and managerial attitudes are not appropriate to the leaders of the church.
55
The Asbury Seminarian Their authority is the authority to build. The authors of this book emphasize the activities of the church are not task or projectoriented, but people oriented. The members are ends, not means, and the dynamic processes of growth must come through interaction. Mission is based on the Incarnation: As the Father sent Christ into the world, so Christ has sent His followers. It is in this sense that Christ's Incarnation continues through the life of the church. Wherever believers walk, Jesus' presence should be felt. This is mission. The church will be able to move forward into the future with enthusiam only as it goes back to the Word with honesty and boldness. This book contains over 40 charts to help leaders understand and develop dynamic church fellowships. Several exercises are offered for group interaction. From an evangelical standpoint, this book has much to commend it. Its emphasis on biblical and theological rootage for leadership is good. In some circles, however, one might be concerned about the rather arbitrary interpretation of some biblical terms. Of great concern to me was the apparent disregard for the importance of Old Testament concepts on leadership. I get the impression that God's directives in the Old Testament do not apply today. It seems there should be a place for leadership styles revealed in Old Testament situations. Both writers of this volume appear certain that "leadership among" people is the only way leadership is valid. While it is certainly true there is no place for "bossy type" leadership in the church, to others, people leaders must also be "out front" in order for leadership to be leadership. This does not seem incompatible with the teachings of Scriptures. In spite of these short-comings, the book should have wide usage in developing programs of leadership in the church. Herbert W. Byrne Professor of Christian Education Asbury Theological Seminary
56