Part 1: Setting the Stage Personal history Observations Part 2: A Classical/Postmodern Christ Part 3: A Classical/Postmodern Church The theology of the church The historical view of the church Part 4: A Classical/Postmodern Worship Worship within the paradigms of history Recovering symbolic communication Part 5: A Classical/Postmodern Spirituality Part 6: A Classical/Postmodern Mission Appendix: Authority

In this book, Robert E. Webber discusses the paradigm shift from modern to postmodern thought and its relationship to Christian witness. He presents the thesis that Christianity has adopted a paradigm based on modern thought, and needs to change its paradigm to effectively communicate its message in the postmodern world. The paradigm that he claims will work best is that of classical Christianity, as it existed between the years 100-600 AD.

I shall pursue a review of this book as I read it, organized by the same outline that Dr. Webber uses in presenting the material.

Part 1: Setting the Stage

Personal history

Dr. Webber acknowledges that he brings his own history to the writing of the book, and invites the reader to bring his or her own history to the reading. My religious history begins with being brought up in a fairly conservative, traditional Southern Baptist church. My parents were both Sunday School teachers, and I was exposed to B. H. Carroll as the primary commentator to study. I absorbed Landmark principles through The Trail of Blood and some Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptists of eastern Kentucky. In graduate school at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, I sang for years in the choir of All Saints Antiochian Orthodox Church, while maintaining involvement with
Bloomington Baptist Church, a Southern Baptist church on the east side of Bloomington. I have been involved also with GARBC type Baptists in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, and American Baptist churches in Bloomington. Back in Tennessee, I am once again in the Southern Baptist fold. The last pastor of my former church was involved with Memphis Theological Seminary, a Cumberland Presbyterian seminary in Memphis. So I have a rather varied background to bring to the table.

Observations

Dr. Webber describes the change from a modern to a postmodern way of thinking in the world today. This is an example of a paradigm shift, where one predominant world view or way of thinking gives way to another. The question is, how is Christianity going to deal with this change? According to Dr. Webber, we can either resist the change or take advantage of it. We can dig our heels in, rail against the change, and try to maintain the status quo. Or, we can welcome the change, analyze it, and adopt a Christian paradigm in that addresses the mindset, questions, and concerns of the new secular paradigm.

He analyzes the various paradigms and paradigm shifts that Christianity has undergone in its history, and proposes the classical paradigm as the one that will best suit the new postmodern world. The fit is due to the classical emphasis on mystery, on the interrelatedness of God and His creation through the incarnation, and on the centrality of Christ as the focal point of all history, life, thought, and action.

Part 2: A Classical/Postmodern Christ

In this section, Dr. Webber focuses on the person and work of Christ and how it is central to Christianity and relevant to witness to a postmodern world.

The main emphasis is on the Christus Victor understanding of the atonement. In this view, what Jesus did in the atonement was to defeat Satan, the powers of evil, death, and hell, and by this victory win salvation and restoration, not only for man, but for all creation.

This view contrasts with the view that I have usually, and until recently almost exclusively, heard: the substitutionary atonement. In this view, what Jesus did on the cross was to take our place, taking on Himself our sin and the punishment we deserved, and imputing to us the righteousness of His perfect life.

I am currently struggling with the reconciliation of these views.

Part 3: A Classical/Postmodern Church

In this section, Webber compares the form and concept of the church in classical, medieval, and reformation times and argues that we need to move back to the classical model.

It is interesting that this reflects the thought pattern I have been following of looking at the church in terms of its early organization, before Rome tried to convince us that it is the only church. I'm still not ready to give up on the Baptists, though.

In the early days, Christianity spread into different areas and took on some of the culture of each area. There was a common body of belief and practice that got modified over time as the history of each area developed differently. Divisions came over time as the result of doctrinal controversies and misunderstandings. For example, the Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopian churches, among those known as Oriental Orthodox, rejected the duophysite declarations of the Council of Chalcedon, while yet claiming not to be monophysite. There is apparently now some rapprochement going on between these groups and other churches. An Antiochian priest, Father Athanasius Wilson, in Bloomington, Indiana, once remarked that this whole schism could probably have been avoided by the application of some Christian charity.

The more I read of this, the more convinced I become that the author is a former Landmark Baptist who has moved from that position to a paedobaptist position.

Webber claims that modern evangelicals have lost the theological and historical view of the church and need to recover it.

The theology of the church

Webber says that the Enlightenment has left us with a pragmatic, a-theological view of the church. This view is essentially that of the church as a human organization, such as a corporation or social club. He says that there are four theological views of the church found in the New Testament that we need to restore:

• The people of God
• The new creation
• The fellowship in faith
• The body of Christ

I have heard these terms, especially the fourth, used many times. I am not convinced by Webber's description of the church as "a new creation." That seems to me to apply more to the individual believer.

Webber would probably say that though we have used the terms, we have not truly lived them out or actualized their meaning.

The historical view of the church

In this chapter, Webber expounds on the statement from the Nicene Creed, "We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church." He discusses the nature of the church based on each of the words, one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

As an interesting sidelight, I recently visited St. James Anglican Church in Mempnis, a Reformed Episcopal church. They used a prayer book that left out the "in" and said "We believe one holy, catholic, and apostolic church." I wonder whether the omission was intentional. That seems to change the meaning to believing what the church says rather than believing something about the church. It is also interesting, coming from a group that split from the Episcopal church in 1873 and cannot unite with them now because of conflicts about ordination of homosexuals.

His historical view of the church approaches the antithesis of what I have studied as the Baptist view of the church. He says that the church is holy, but not by virtue of the holiness of its members. He says that the church will always be composed of both saints and sinners. The Baptist view is that the church should be composed of regenerate members. No doubt there will always be some deceived or insincere members, but the goal ought to be a membership of baptized believers.

Webber also says that we need to embrace the whole church in all its variety of manifestations. He admits that this is difficult to do consistently. I personally think it is impossible. He states that the differences between the various Christian denominations are mainly the result of historical accretions and particular traditions added to the "common catholic" tradition of the early church.

Webber shows, perhaps inadvertently, how hard it is to remain consistent in "embracing the whole church." In this very section, on page 89 of my edition, he says:

Well, then, he clearly does not accept the Roman church and its traditions uncritically. And they are not likely to give up their "added traditions" just to accomodate him or other evangelicals. They would maintain that there is no distinction in validity between earlier and later traditions, so there are no added traditions to give up. So is he embracing the whole church, or not?

I also find it interesting that the very churches that he wants us to embrace do not embrace us and our ideas as equal to their own. I recall being in a service in All Saints Antiochian Orthodox Church in Bloomington, Indiana, where they were receiving a new adult member into the church by chrismation. They started at the back of the church, symbolic of entry, where the priest asked the postulant several questions. I was expecting the usual, "Do you renounce Satan and all his pomp?" I was quite surprised to hear, "Do you renounce the false doctrine of predestination?" Now that would have stopped me right there. Clearly, the Orthodox Church has no interest in embracing my views.

Also, on this same page, he mentions the document Evangelicals and Catholics Together as a hopeful sign of dialogue between the groups. It is worth noting that R. C. Sproul takes great exception to this document, saying that it compromises the historical Reformed position on sola gratia, sola scriptura, and sola fide.

It is also worth mentioning Hank Hanegraaf and his frequent appeal to "the historic Christian faith." This sounds very similar to what Webber says, though no doubt to Hank it means something rather different. This very difference reveals the problem: who gets to decide what the historic Christian faith is? The definition would no doubt be different if given by Webber, by Hank Hanegraaf, by R. C. Sproul, by a Roman Catholic theologian, by an Eastern Orthodox theologian, by an Oriental Orthodox theologian, or even by a Nestorian.

All this reminds me of Tom Lehrer's statement, "There are people in this world who do not love their neighbor, and I hate people like that."

Part 4: A Classical/Postmodern Worship

Worship within the paradigms of history

I look forward to this section with much anticipation, as worship seems to be Webber's specialty. Webber calls on us to restore a theology of worship as the basis for what we do.

I freely admit that I never have understood what worship is. We say that we go to church to worship. But what does worship involve? There seem to be almost as many answers as there are churches.

We generally absorb our ideas about worship by experience rather than by sitting down with Scripture and rationally working out what worship is. That sounds like a very postmodern approach, right? We learn what worship is by what we grow up with. Yet, in this chapter, Webber advocates determining the proper form of worship by reasoning from Scripture. This sounds more like the modern approach! From my background and early experience, I could say that a standard traditional Baptist worship service consists of, approximately:

• The assembly of the people during quiet music and time for meditation and preparation (unfortunately, usually a time for talking)
• Perhaps a time of announcements
• A formal call to worship
• Singing of hymns
• A welcome to visitors
• A pastoral prayer
• More hymns
• Reception of an offering accompanied by offertory music
• Reading of Scripture, normally the text for the sermon
• Special music by choir, a soloist, or both
• A sermon
• An invitation
• A benediction

The order might vary, but these are the usual elements. There might be other elements added, such as time for testimonies or prayer requests. On special occasions, the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper would be observed.

When pressed on why we do it this way, or why these things constitute worship, we might be able to present some Scripture references admonishing us to pray, to sing, and to preach. But about the best answer we could usually come up with for this particular order of service is, "Because that's just the way we do it."

What should we be doing when we worship? Can we just design a worship service from scratch? If we do, what would it be like? What should we put in and leave out? In what order? What should be the style: formal and liturgical, or informal? To get into the current "worship wars," what style of music should we use?

There are even more fundamental questions that we might ask: questions about our fundamental assumptions that could easily go unrecognized. For example, do we have to do something definite to move from a state of "not worshipping" to a state of "worshipping"? Do we have to prepare ourselves in some particular way? Do we have to create a certain mood or state of consciousness? Do we have to focus our attention in a certain way? Most importantly, do we have to do something special to bring God's presence into the service with us?

Webber proposes that the basis of worship is telling and acting out the "Christian metanarrative": the story of Israel and Jesus, the incarnation, the mighty acts of God for our salvation, the victory of Christ over evil, and the hope of the return of Christ and the total redemption of all creation. He defines worship this way:

According to Webber, this definition leaves a lot of scope for the way in which this "rehearsal" is done: liturgical, informal, or spontaneous. It will be interesting to see how he works this out and the conclusions that he draws. He does seem to imply that worship should always involve both Word and Eucharist, much like the Church of Christ and Disciples of Christ. He even states that evangelical churches are losing members to liturgical churches due to a lack of emphasis on the Eucharist.

Recovering symbolic communication

I was regretfully disappointed in the presentation in this chapter. Apparently my expectations were misplaced. I was expecting a specific and detailed description of the form and order of worship. Instead, Webber deals mainly with general principles.

Webber begins this chapter by saying that symbolism is the language of religion. This is interestingly similar to what Albert Pike said in Morals and Dogma: "All religious language is symbolism." And he wrote that in the 1800s! Webber says that the modern paradigm, following that of the Reformation, exalts logical and word-based communication and minimizes or rejects symbolism. He advocates restoring symbolic communication in seven areas:

Webber makes some interesting and pointed observations about several of these areas, particularly the Christian year. He points out that many churches seem to observe more cultural and national days in their calendar than Christian ones.

His description of the order of worship is also interesting. He says that worship consists of four elements, and compares it to a gathering of friends in a home. The four elements of each kind of encounter are, stated in the Christian form: gathering, Word, Table, parting. The statement that he makes about the relationship is fascinating but also vaguely troubling:

Even more troubling are his statements about the ordinances. He sees them not as memorial, but as truly conferring grace.

This sounds dangerously close to baptismal regeneration.

This also sounds dangerously close to saying that the Lord's Supper becomes a means of salvation.

His basic conclusion is that restoring the fourfold pattern of worship and employing symbolic as well as logical communication is the best approach to reach both seeker and believer in the postmodern world.

Part 5: A Classical/Postmodern Spirituality

This is a really solid section. The author critiques the modern evangelical approach to spirituality: don't drink, don't smoke, don't play cards, and so on.

He talks about two paths of spirituality: inner, represented by Paul, and outer, represented by Matthew and the Sermon on the Mount. The key is balance. We have a tendency to "go to seed" on one or the other of these. It's all in Albert Pike: wisdom and strength in balance create harmony.

Part 6: A Classical/Postmodern Mission

I've read a bit of this. I'll have to review this and the previous chapter to write comments.

Appendix: Authority

Well, in the appendix, Dr. Webber finally makes a clear mistake. Following Vincent of Lérins, he regards what is authoritative is that which has "antiquity, universality, and consensus." Thus he concludes that the creeds are authoritative because they are ancient and universally accepted. The Protestant confessions, on the other hand, are not.

This sounds good, but it has an obvious flaw. The Chalcedonian creed is not universally accepted by all Christians. The Oriental Orthodox churches, including the Armenians and Copts, reject the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon over the monophysite-duophysite issue. So at least this creed is not universally accepted.

So you have a choice: you either admit that the Chalcedonian creed is not universal, or you deny that those who reject it are part of the orthodox church. This puts you right back in the situation that Dr. Webber was trying to avoid: espousing doctrines that are not accepted by all.

Dr. Webber never formally comments on the Oriental Orthodox, but it appears from his assumption that the Chalcedonian creed is universally accepted that he rejects their position, and possibly their claim to be Christian.

Religion page

Reading list

 Create your own free wiki!HelpPublic, not yet premium Privacy Policy RSS