Words

Below is the result of the work done for one of my seminary classes where we read Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World by Robert Webber. It is both a review and a reflection of this book.

The emergence of the postmodern world has brought much discussion to the evangelical church. Is the current church modern? Should it become postmodern? How can the church reach a changing culture? What should it look like? In answer to these kinds of questions, Webber writes this timely book: Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World. The book is written to convince evangelicals of the need to recover parts of classical Christianity in order to reach this postmodern world. He discusses the church through history and explains how the classical position best fits the contemporary postmodern world. This thesis, while having merit since there is much that can be learned from classical Christianity, assumes that current Christianity is thoroughly modern in its forms and methods. This is not entirely correct. Still, Webber offers valuable advice to the evangelical church for reaching the current culture.

He begins by giving an argument for looking at history through paradigms. “The new hermeneutic rejects the Enlightenment view of the steady progress of civilization, and seeks to understand and appreciate each epoch of history within its own time, taking into consideration its geographical location, culture, and philosophical presuppositions” (13). Paradigm thinking helps us to understand history contextually, from the perspective of those living at that time (16). In this way the church, upon understanding its past changes, can deal with current change intelligently (17). The multitude of faith expressions are, in this light, attempts to relate Christianity to the culture of the current time.

The current paradigm is shifting from modern to postmodern. The modern worldview of the Enlightenment is crumbling and being replaced by a new worldview (14). In Webber’s eyes, this shift to a postmodern world is the most formidable challenge to the evangelical with three possible responses, understanding that this deals with complicated issues in broad strokes (12-14). First, the evangelical can attempt to preserve Christianity in its current modern form. Second, he or she can accommodate Christianity to postmodern forms. Third, the evangelical can carefully and cautiously take historic Christian truths and incorporate them in this new era. This book espouses the third option.

In this introductory section, Webber assumes that the evangelical church is thoroughly modern without adequate explanation. He devotes a few paragraphs to explain this concept, summing it up with the assumption that both liberal and conservative Christianity have become thoroughly enmeshed with modernity (18-20). His argument is that Evangelicals, taking cues from modernity, understand the Bible as the foundation of truth with reason as the tool to uncover it, and that truth is almost entirely propositional (20). They are committed to verbal and analytical forms of communication, faith is characterized through inner coherence and logic, the bible is analyzed, theology is systemized, and spirituality legalized (24). Postmoderns do not accept this understanding due to the scientific, philosophical, and communication revolutions. Evangelicals, therefore, need to rethink their connection with modernity and construct theology in such a way that is relevant to our culture.

Certainly a modernity that emphasizes business, progress, and the superiority of man, must be rid of within the church. This argument assumes, however, that verbal and analytical communication, logical analysis, and an uncovering of propositional truth is entirely modern and because postmodernity does not accept those forms the church must not use them. While these methods of understanding and relating Christianity should not be relied upon solely, they should not be disregarded. Their loss would be tragic for the Christian faith; instead, perhaps they should be supplemented. Webber offers other forms of communicating Christian truth which are not inappropriate, but should not replace what has come prior to postmodernity.

The rest of the book consists of five sections that demonstrate how a recovery of classical Christianity incorporated into the church is the effective response to the postmodern era. He explains how the Enlightenment has created problems in the church by fashioning a modern understanding of the particular component. Despite his inadequate dealing with the underlying assumptions, Webber presents some valuable ideas contained in the rest of the book that can help evangelicals deal with the contemporary culture. The rest of this paper will be a look at the remaining sections of his work and will find those things which can help the church reach culture.

The second section deals with Christ. He shows how Christ has been viewed throughout the paradigms of history, ending this historical overview with an explanation of two problems that we have inherited from the Enlightenment: one, a shift away from Christ as center to the bible as center and two, an inadequate handling of the power of evil. Webber posits Christus Victor, Jesus as the victor over the powers of evil, as the answer to these problems and suggests that this view must be recovered He then shows how the Christus Victor view is found in the apostolic and early church writings. He ends the section by portraying Christ as the center of all things in Christianity and the redeemer of creation. His goal is “to show how every aspect of the Christian life relates to Christ’s victory over the power of evil and to the ultimate renewal of all things” (66).

Part of his argument is that Christ is not the center in evangelical Christianity; instead, the Bible is the center. The rational understanding of the Bible has become the basis for evangelical belief. In his view, postmodernity will no longer stand for such an argument; therefore, what is needed is for the mystery of the person and work of Christ to be the starting point of faith. While Christ certainly must be the center of our faith, the difficulty is that we cannot know about the person and work of Christ apart from Scripture. Some may say that experiential knowledge is more important than knowledge of facts in a postmodern age. Certainly experiential knowledge is important, but is not the message that Christ created the world, became incarnate, lived perfectly, died on the cross, was raised on the third day to conquer sin and death, and will come again to restore all things? Is that not the basis for our faith? That understanding comes from the pages of Scripture. So while Webber rightly points to a recovery of Christus Victor as the center; that does not necessarily require one to give up arguing for the reliability of Scriptures.

I agree with Webber’s point that a recovery of Christ as the center will highlight creation, incarnation, and re-creation (63). It is important to have a correct understanding of the work that Christ has done and will do. Holistic redemption is an important subject for the church to understand today. Too often personal experience and personal relationship with God outweighs every other Christian doctrine. Part of Christianity’s greatness is that God is doing something larger than any individual and yet he still loves and cares deeply for individuals. It is important that we not overlook the larger story of what God is doing in Christ through creation, incarnation, and re-creation.

The third section deals with the church as a kind of continuation of Christ’s presence in the world. The church will draw people to faith not because of a logical argument, but because of the experience of a welcoming and hospitable community of God (70-72). Webber finds two problems inherited from the Enlightenment: one, an emphasis on pragmatism which leads to a business or political like church and two, an emphasis on individualism which fails to realize the importance of other believers by stressing personal experience (75-76). In answering these problems he insists that the church should be seen as the sign of Christus Victor; the community of people who demonstrate the victory of Christ over evil by making his presence known in this world. He explains that the church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic body, but our disunity exists over divergent views of apostolicity (88). “[E]vangelicals need to go beyond talk about the unity of the church to experience it through an attitude of acceptance of the whole church and entrance into dialog with the Orthodox, Catholic, and other Protestant bodies.” (89). Evangelical indifference to historical roots must change since “[i]n a postmodern world the rational arguments for the existence of God are cold and lifeless. But a community of people who allow themselves to be interpreted by God’s saving event in Jesus Christ and become formed as a true and living example of a local and universal oneness will speak volumes to the world about the saving Christ who dwells within them.” (90)

Webber’s point concerning a pragmatic and business-like mentality in the church, from my experience, is correct. The pastor is a CEO attempting to run an efficient organization. The church has capitulated with the market-driven society to the point that some local congregations are attempting to appeal to a particular market segment. Methodology that succumbs to doing “whatever works” is rampant. To its detriment, the church has become about meeting the consumer’s felt needs and this must be corrected.

He is also correct in seeing the opportunity for critics of the church to point to our overall disunity as a major flaw. The church, as the body of Christ, is supposed to demonstrate love for each other, pointing to the love within the Godhead. The schisms that have occurred dim the light that we should be. Unfortunately, Webber does not provide clear-cut ways for Evangelicals to bring this unity to Christianity as a whole. Acceptance and dialog, while potentially beneficial, does not answer the long standing doctrinal and emotional issues that continue to divide Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. Still, an attitude of humility in accepting one another is a positive step towards reconciliation.
In the fourth section, he presents worship as both a proclamation and re-enactment of God’s mighty deeds as well as an offering of praise and thanksgiving to the Creator of the world (94). This understanding of worship is ripe for connections with the postmodern culture because, as the classical understanding did, it deals properly with mystery and uses imagery (94-95). Despite this opportunity for connection, two problems still exist. The first is the postmodern commitment to the relativity of all metanarratives to which evangelicals must answer by remaining steadfast in the conviction of the universal nature of the Christian narrative. The second is the shift to an audiovisual society with symbolic communication to which evangelicals must answer by learning to communicate symbolically (95-96).

Webber finds three Enlightenment inherited problems. One, our emphasis is wrongly placed on worship style –reason or emotion. Since culture is shifting from conceptual language to symbolic and from empirical knowledge to subjective and experiential, it is important to see worship as the celebration of God’s mighty deeds. Two, we have lost the order of worship, which is very way these deeds should be proclaimed (104). Three, we do not know how to communicate symbolically, which must be done through use of space, the order of worship, music, baptism, Eucharist, the Christian Year, and the arts. Webber believes that too much of Christianity is fascinated with market-driven pop-Christianity; instead, we must recover the historical theology of worship, which is an epiphany of God’s saving work in history (113).

In agreement with Webber, the answer to postmodernity’s relativity of metanarratives is to fight for the classical understanding of the universal nature of the Christian worldview. Without this foundation, it is difficult to find absolutes amongst a world of shifting beliefs. Christianity must remain steadfast in this approach. His discussion of the recovery of worship is also on target with contemporary Christianity. Much of the so-called “Seeker Sensitive” attitude is about flashy, appealing music and dramas that get people into the church doors, but do little to stimulate a proper Christian understanding. The Christian’s responsibility in worship, is indeed to proclaim the mighty deeds and character of God. It should not be about “come and see,” but about “go and be.” Still, some of Webber’s discussion centered on symbolic communication that, while not wrong, seems to dismiss verbal analytical forms. I believe that both forms are important, and since neither is inherently wrong, it is important to use a balanced approach to both of them. Some people will be communicated to one way, and others in another way. It is important not to overlook the value of each.

The fifth section deals with spirituality. In typical fashion, Webber traces it through the paradigms of history ending with two categories of inherited problems of the Enlightenment. The first category deals with what we negate: the historical resources of the Holy Spirit, the relation of Christ’s work to history and culture, and connection of mind and spirituality. The second deals with what we affirm: a legalistic spirituality that emphasizes both what a person does and an over-familiarity with God that substitutes part of the truth of God for the whole. In answering these problems he looks to the early church, which suggests both “that the spiritual norm is the balance between… the negative and the affirmative…” and that balance is difficult to achieve (130). “Through the negative, we assert the necessity of rising above life to encounter God through self-abandonment and quiet. In the positive, we meet God in the responsibility of life, in the process of history, in the issues of the day. One without the other is incomplete, although at times an individual or church is called to place greater stress on one than on the other….We must learn, then, not to have a spirituality, something we turn on at a particular place or time, but to be spiritual, as a habit of life, a continuous state of being.” (137-138)

Webber’s assessment that spirituality is the hardest area for Christians to “get” is truly correct (117). Christians are so quick to grab on to part of the truth (either the negation or the affirmation) and live and proclaim that way as the entire truth. I agree with his desire for Christians to find a balanced approach. Indeed, in classical Christianity, as in contemporary Christianity, it is possible to find examples of people stressing one side over the other. A balanced approach is hard to find. Even in my own life, I have seen the wrestling between both seemingly diametrically opposed stances of the negation and affirmation. His summation is so necessary then, that Christians are not called to have spirituality, but to be spiritual as a state of being.

The sixth section deals with mission as a threefold task of evangelism, education, and social action, which will inherently stand in contradiction to the norms of society (140). Dealing first with evangelism, a problem from the Enlightenment is the focus on individualism: the welfare of the individual is the sole end of evangelism (144). Individualism inadequately handles the role of the individual in community, unduly stresses the cross above Christ’s victory over evil, loses the nurturing role of the church, places decision as Christianity’s sole substance, divorces evangelism and obedience, and improperly westernizes other cultures (144-146). In response to the Enlightenment problem postmodern evangelism announces and inaugurates the kingdom of God calling for obedience through the local church in relative forms of communication.

Problems with current evangelical education are the role of moralism, reduction of learning to factualism, and the failure to see things holistically. He explains the role of education in the early church in terms of seeker, hearer, kneeler, and faithful. In postmodern education the church will be a model of living Christianity, baptism will be the image to emphasize growth in knowledge and wisdom, and the community will learn to grow together.

Enlightenment thinking led the church to work in the world through political structures. Webber explains classical Christianity’s contrasting approach in terms of: the church as separate from, identified with, and seeking to transform the world. The church in the postmodern world should: acknowledge the power of evil and present an alternative culture, recognize the reality of its belonging to the structures of this world, and seek to transform it by affirming the new order in midst of the old (170-171). The church’s actions are thus motivated by Christus Victor and the theology of recapitulation.

This last and longest section of Webber’s work has much value to offer Christianity. The individualistic and western approach to evangelism is truly in need of what classical Christianity has to offer. I believe, whether postmodern friendly or not, the classical approach is more biblical than that of much of contemporary evangelism. While it attempts to reach the individual, that is not evangelism’s highest aim. Christian evangelism is about proclaiming the inaugurated kingdom of God in this world. In agreement with Webber, not all current forms should be replaced, but rather extreme ones. Others should be kept and merely supplemented.

Proper education is an area that is severely lacking in the church today, so Webber’s discussion is quite timely. Too often education centers simply around moralism, as though that is the highest goal of Christianity. His approach of model living and teaching the deep truths of God is important for Christians today. It helps to avoid simple moralism by teaching to and living for the higher aim of bringing glory to God through one’s life.

While rightly affirming that the church should not work through its current political methods, Webber does not adequately explain the last component of his three-fold approach to mission, that of the role of the church in society. He argues that the church should offer an alternative culture that exists within the contemporary culture while seeking to transform it. This appears to be merely a combination of all the various ways that the classical church dealt with society throughout its history. He does not give adequate space to answering potential questions of this view. How can one both be part of a culture and yet not? How can one be in an alternative culture, yet seek to transform another culture? While the things he presents are not wrong, the explanation of their synthesis seems lacking.

In sum, the work Webber presents has valuable contributions to give to evangelical Christianity. He rightly points out some of its flaws and weaknesses and offers some positive solutions that will help the church reach the contemporary culture. He goes too far, however, with regards to the suggested enmeshment with modernity. While forms of consumerism with its market-driven, capitalistic, and individualistic methods and beliefs pervade the church and must be rejected; the methods of verbal and analytical communications that present propositional truth should not be abandoned. This book offers some thoughtful advice on how to re-think areas of evangelicalism that are sorely needed. Through some of these proposed changes contemporary evangelical Christianity can be better suited to reach the world in which it finds itself.