<Theofragen>

I just finished attending the Emergent Convention in Nashville. I had a pretty good time dialoging with my friends about various apects of the Emergent conversation. (For summaries of the events check out my friends' comments at the shiverian and pomomusings). I did not learn all that much information-wise, but I did have several great conversations about church planting, hermeneutics, theology and homiletics. The two sessions I enjoyed the most were John Franke's, "Karl Barth for the Emerging Church" and Tim Keel's, "Reckoning with Intuition: Developing and Fostering the Creative Impulse in Self and Community."

Having attended this event, I was hopeful. I was encouraged by the increased number of women that were in attendance. It was also encouraging for me to take note of the many differnt questions that people are bringing to this conversation. Some folks I met were interested in new styles of worship. Others were interested in expanding the theological boundaries of evangelicalism. Others still were seeking a church that is more missionally minded and organic. There are many points of soidarity between emerging folks and myself. I was surprised by how many different types of conversations in which I was priveledged to engage. The conversation is far from over.

It seems that the Emergent conversation is moving away from the picayunne quibblings with theological and liturgical conservatives. I was encouraged by the large number of mainline pastors, seminarians and lay persons who contributed to the conversation. My new-found friend, Lindsay, who attends Columbia Theological Seminary, shared her initial perception of Emergent as being "a bunch of evangelicals who suddenly discovered that they could drink beer." The mainline contributions certainly facilitate emergence from petting quibblings with fundamentalists over theology and praxis.

Anyway, those are some of my initial reactions to the conversation this past week. It was sensitive, grace-filled, ecclesiologically-minded, and progressive. I really enjoyed it. Peace.

As a (post)evangelical, I have a high view of the authority of Scripture. I am also engaged in the Emergent conversation, so the issue of biblical authority comes up quite frequently in conversations with disavowed or disgruntled evangelicals who wish to obviate theological fascism, while maintaining the sufficiency of Scripture. A while back, Mark provided a helpful discussion on our presiding model of the Gospel, in which he asks about our sources for theological contruction in the Emergent church.

Evangelical Christianity for the last half-century has looked to the theology of Carl F. H. Henry as an ally in constructing an evangelical view of Scripture. (Henry was the principle author of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy). My contention is that Henry is so thoroughly wedded to the spirit of modernity that this commitment actually supplants the authority of Scripture. Henry's approach, in my mind, forces evangelical Christians into a quagmire of proof-texting and quibbling over modernist categories of “Truth,” “Fact,” and “Objectivity.” So, who might (post)evangelicals turn to if Henry is not longer our ally? I suggest we look to the theological proposals offered by Hans Frei.

Continue reading...

Following a close reading of Henry’s work on biblical inerrancy, sensus literalis and scriptural authority, it is clear that Henry’s understanding of the referentiality of the text forces him to make theological moves (inerrancy) that run contrary to a more thoroughly evangelical modus operandi. Frei's postliberal theology offers a proposed schema by which evangelical theology can progress apart from Henry’s dogmatically defended insistence on meaning-as-reference.

The central problem I have with Henry's theology is that he subordinates the authority of Scripture to modernity. Whereas Frei allows the Text to speak for itself--on its own authority--Henry submits its authority to historical-criticism, philosophical propositions and reason. Although many evangelicals, like Henry, claim to have a high-view of the Bible's literal sense, they actually have a high-view of the evangelical presiding model of biblical interpretation.

For instance, Barr notes,

[F]undamentalist interpretation does not take the Bible literally, but varies between taking it literally and nonliterally. This variation is made necessary by the real guiding principle of fundamentalist interpretation, namely that one must ensure that the Bible is inerrant, without error. Inerrancy is maintained only by constantly altering the mode of interpretation, and in particular by abandoning the literal sense as soon as it would be an embarrassment to the view of inerrancy held. (Fundamentalism, 46)

Although on the surface it appears that evangelicals attribute the highest esteem to the Bible's authority, under deeper scrutiny it becomes apparent that many evangelicals are more committed to defending their presiding model of interpretation than the Bible itself. The Yale theologian, Hans Frei, provides (post)evangelicals with a way out of this modernist vortex and enables us to retrieve a higher view of Scripture than that attested by Henry without all of the problems endemic to modernist categories of truth.

In an unpublished manuscript, Frei notes,

Here as far as I could see we have in the form of a realistic story the rendering of our salvation – in the form of a realistic story which of course claims to be true. In that in the form of a story that claims to be true we have the rendering of our salvation; but if it is not true that is still what it means, and for me the problem of the meaning on the one hand and the truth on the other hand were quite distinct. Even if I could not believe in its truth I wanted at least to be able to say I know the meaning of that which I cannot believe. I do believe it, but in the end I would still say, regardless, ‘This is its meaning.’ I did not want, in order to be able to believe it, to reshape its meaning in such a way that it would render a truth that is acceptable to me. That seemed to me to be playing dirty pool. And I did not for a moment think that in order to do this, in order to maintain what I hope would be some integrity in scriptural reading, that I had to turn fundamentalist; it did not seem to me for a moment that that was the case.

Frei obviates the modernist quibblings over Truth and Fact that have occupied so much of evangelical Christianity in the last 100 years by leading us past the picayune debates to the Text itself. That, in my opinion, is a breath of fresh air for many (post)evangelicals.

BTW: This is the first of a series of posts on Frei and Henry. (So if you did not understand what I wrote above don't worry, I will explain in more fully in later posts). Peace.

Emergent Convention 05

Henry vs. Frei (Introduction)

Unbelievable