Tony Jones is miffed that the paper he presented at Wheaton has been rejected for publication in a book that includes the papers presented by others. On his blog he expressed a bit of frustration that some theologians characterized his paper as a “disaster” and a couple of others wrote him detailed responses, critiquing specifics. Of course the several students who approached him later saying they appreciated his talk, in Jones’ estimation were sufficient counterbalance to the concerns of the theologians for him to characterize the response as “mixed”. Hmm.
The assignment, apparently, was for Jones to give some perspective on how the emerging church includes the patristic fathers in their “conversation”. Wheaton apparently told him that his talk was “off message” and “provocative but less than helpful”. Having read the entire paper now more than once, I have to say Wheaton could have been less gracious.
Since Jones chose to “deconstruct” Vincent of Lerins’, a rather important figure in the “new ecumenism” espoused by Thomas Oden and others, to refer to Vincent’s famous charge to seek what has been believed “always, everywhere and by all” as “hollow”, perhaps a bit of deconstructing of Tony Jones will be both “provocative” and “helpful”.
The Strike Zone
Jones begins with an illustration of how he thinks “Orthodoxy” is best understood, that of the “strike zone” in baseball. Any casual fan of the game knows that there is a bit of disparity between what the rule book defines as a strike and what the umpires actually call. He makes two important points. One, this fuzziness in the interpretation of the strike zone is pretty much accepted by players, managers, fans as just part of the way the game has evolved and nobody has much of a problem with the less than perfect correspondence between rules and actual practice. Two, even though the practice doesn’t quite match the rule book, no one is concerned too much that this fudging of the strike zone will go to a ridiculous extreme where pitches in the dirt are routinely called strikes. Of course he has to put in a good word for postmodern epistemology in the process, citing the following cute device:
• The pre-modern umpire says, "I call ’em as they are!"
• The modern umpire says, "I call ’em as I see ’em!"
• The postmodern umpire says, "They ain’t nothin’ ’till I call ’em!"
Clearly he favors the latter understanding of reality, that what is right, in the game of baseball, is what the umpire calls. Personally, I think the illustration of “what is a foul” in the NBA would have been more compelling if one is looking for a disconnect between “propositional” rules and “experiential” reality, but that is just me.
Now on the one hand, I have to give Jones credit for the clever illustration. And I think the illustration is useful in the limited area of application of Biblical knowledge. For example, most conservative Christians I know are pretty clear on the notion that “God hates divorce”. But when it comes to the issue of divorce and remarriage, most find themselves conflicted, and scripture is less than crystal clear. Jesus seems to say that unfaithfulness is a legitimate ground for divorce, and in such cases most otherwise conservative churches today allow remarriage in certain limited cases.
But what sort of “unfaithfulness” is sufficient to allow for divorce and subsequent remarriage? One case may involve a woman who was completely faithful and upright, but whose husband repeatedly cheated and eventually abandoned her. Another may involve a man whose wife, in a fit of confusion over strains in the marriage, committed a single act of infidelity. There are all sorts of circumstances that church leaders and spiritual mentors must look at, including the willingness of both partners to reconcile and the spiritual beliefs of both. Even if the strike zone is clear, applying it to human lives is not always easy. Most reasonable people are willing to allow the Pastors and Elders of the local church to evaluate such matters on a case by case basis, and are willing to say no application will measure up to the ideal.
But Jones wants to apply the strike zone illustration not to the application of moral codes to the actions of sinful individuals, but to theological definitions. And here the image falls apart.
For one thing, there are many other rules in the baseball rule book much less ambiguous than the strike zone. It is pretty clear to the average casual fan that a ball hit into the upper decks over the center field fence is a home run. Any umpire who dared claim “it ain’t a home run till I call it” after witnessing a 500ft rocket to center field would hardly be thought of as a great umpire/philosopher worthy of respect. Fans would universally insist, “that’s a home run whether you call it or not, and if you dare call it something else, there will be a riot in the stands”. Not everything in life, or in baseball, or in theology is ambiguous. You can’t be a little bit pregnant. Airplanes don't fly based on our perception of the laws of aerodymamics. We can't survive on perceived food.
Consider for example, the deity of Christ. The strike zone analogy simply can’t apply. He either was divine or he wasn’t. Will the perception of this church father or that modern Episcopal bishop or some other emerging church guru alter the reality of Christ’s actual state of being? Does Christ become divine based on the determination of a theologian? Can He be divine in a sort of “edge of the plate” fashion? Too close to call?
Theology recognizes spiritual truth, it does not create it. The fact that some truths are less visible than others does not alter the fact that theology is defined by God and only recognized by us. Most theologians for the last 2000 years assumed God made us and the world in such a way that we are able to recognize much of what He wanted us to know. And some things are pretty cut and dried.
What about Christ’s humanity? John the Apostle insists that those who deny that Christ is God in human flesh are manifesting the spirit of AntiChrist. How does this fairly absolutist, totalizing statement square with the “moving strike zone” analogy? It doesn’t. It can’t. It’s pretty much black and white, either/or. You are either in or out. It is not an affirming, inclusive statement. It is a very insistent statement.
Bottom line, I think the analogy tells us much more about Tony Jones than it does about the patristic fathers or the early church councils. But my real concern is with Tony Jones' treatment of Vincent.
No comments:
Post a Comment