The first century mission Churches in Asia and Europe made headway precisely because they confronted the world with a way of life, and not with a speculative system. (pg 6)which sounds wonderful and which I agree with until you read a passage like,
Orthodoxy varies from age to age, and each age has read back its own particular brand of orthodoxy into the apostle. (pg. 13)
This sounds an awful lot like the initial underpinnings of relativism and the social gospel. Action is more important than belief and belief can change and you never know the truth. Well, I am not sure the apostles would agree with both statements. I am convinced that they believed the truth of a way of life, but I am equally convinced that that way of life was grounded in a very specific, non-accomodating view of truth. In fact, it was the truth that formed their way of life, not the other way around.
I may have totally misunderstood the book, but that is my core problem and when the cores are out of focus, I have a hard time dealing with the rest of the text. That said, there are many good snippets in the book. Thoughts that will stay with me, but in the end, I have read much better books as a whole.
Posts
Since we were supposed to be reading this together and I flaked out on you, I should probably craft a response :0) I think you are right that Stewart is not interested primarily in doctrine. But on the other hand, I think he is also interested in taking Paul as he was and not as he became to be seen. Not as a theologian, but as a passionate apostle. I'm not sure he dismisses orthodoxy because he does have some negative things to say about heresy later on. But here is a clearer statement of his theological agenda, I think (just from skimming around):
ReplyDelete"Religion without theology" is a familiar modern cry. But it is a foolish cry. Such a religion, supposing it could exist, would at once degenerate into sentimentalism. Spinoza's well-known dictum that faith should "not so much demand that its doctrines should be true, as that they should be pious," will not do. Christian theology became inevitable on the day when the wold was face with the question,m "What think ye of Christ" Whose Son is He?" Personal experience is indeed the primary thing... but it begets reflection... What does this event in my life imply about the God who sent it? What is the eternal reality to which the specifc experience points? (21)
So yeah, it's classical liberalism (the biblical authors are telling us their personal experience of God, not God's message to humanity). But maybe he's still valuable in that he helps us look at Paul without reference to theological systems that have accrued to him.
Rob -
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarity. I agree that he is speaking about experience and that there are problems he is noting. Particularly that simply "good theology" isn't going to transform people. There are lots of folks with good theology, who can spout out the 5 solas and prove them from Scripture, who know the ins and outs of justification, sanctification and glorification, etc. but whose lives are never changed by such knowledge. Hence, the focus on "being united with Christ" I appreciate that part and you said it better than me. In fact I couldn't figure out how to get that out on paper until you primed the mental pump for me.
However, I think that final statement of yours "it's classical liberalism (the biblical authors are telling us their personal experience of God, not God's message to humanity)," is where the whole thing loses its power. To turn it into a personal message is to miss the forest for the trees. This is a message addressed to individuals, but it is also a message to the entire human race regarding the situation they find themselves in. It's personal and its corporate and to believe it is just about me and my experience is to relativize the whole thing. That is where we are living in 2010 with a culture that drunk deep of individual interpretation from the wells of liberalism.
I am still thinking about alot of his statements related to union with Christ and loving them, but they only make sense to me in light of good doctrine. Whatcha think?