The realization of that place of tension should create humility and patience with ourselves and with one another in the work of theologizing in context. it reminds us of the ease with which our perceptions of the gospel can be deeply influenced by unconscious impositions of cultural and socio-structural perspectives on the biblical data. Contrary to Alfred Krass’s opinion, biblical theology does not pride itself on its “objectivity,” its “presuppositionlessness,” its “value-neutrality” [Alfred C. Krass, Evangelizing Neopagan North America (Scottsdale, Pa.: Herald, 1982), 95]. The “not yet” of biblical theology should make us “pervasively suspicious” about our ideas, our ideologies, our value judgments. (EWCW p. 226).

At the same time, that history of special revelation is organic in character. The Bible is not merely a heterogeneous collection of oods [sic] and ends, nor a symposium of biblical theologies. Biblical theology seeks to do justice both to the diversity of the divine testimony within the diversity of human settings and to the underlying unity of that testimony. It studies the data of revelation given in each period of cultural history in terms of the stage to which God’s self-revelation progressed at that particular time and place. But this unifying element is always the end point of the process, not the process itself. Its wisdom is always defined in terms of the administration of the mystery hidden in ages past, revealed in Christ, made known among all the world’s cultures, and consummated at his return (Eph. 3:8-10; Rom. 16:25-26; Col. 1:25-27). (Eternal Word and Changing Worlds, pp. 225-26).

The effect of this process on the Western churches is similarly destructive of missions. Seeing theology as an essentializing science and the creeds as the product of that kind of theological reflection inhibits us as well from facing up to our own contemporary missiological task and its risk. We assign all the problem of contextualization to distant, exotic places and worry about how others will avoid syncretism with this view of theology. We assume that such risks and such challenges are absent, or at least less pressing, in the West. We let our theologizing slip into a naive sort of idealistic pride in “our” model. We become less aware of the rosy presuppositional glasses with which we look at our rosy theological world. And our theology loses its evangelistic edge.

[M]Issiology’s task…becomes that of a gadfly in the house of theology. (p. 223)

“All the misery of the Presbyterian Churches is owing to their striving to consider the Reformation as completed, and to allow no further development of what has been begun by the labor of the Reformers…. Calvinism wishes no cessation of progress and promotes multi-formity. It feels the impulse to penetrate ever more deeply into the mysteries of salvation and in feeling this honors every gift and different calling of the Churches. It does not demand for itself the same development in America and England [and the author of this volume adds, Africa, Asia and Latin America] which it has found in Holland. This only must be insisted upon, that in each country and in every Reformed Church it should develop itself in accordance with its own nature, and should not permit itself to be supplanted or corrupted by foreign rule.” (pp. 221-22)

But, during my teaching years at Westminster, I began turning more and more to Harvie’s writings, for various reasons. Mainly, I wanted to make sure that current students would be exposed to one of the most creative and eclectic theological minds WTS has ever produced.

As I began rereading his works, especially Eternal Word & Changing Worlds, I began to realize something else, namely the extent to which Harvie’s mature reflections on the nature of Reformed theology and theological education overlapped with my own developing thoughts.

I would like to believe that my thinking reflected Harvie’s direct influence, and that may be the case, although if so, it would have been more through osmosis. More likely, my own spiritual/academic track forced me to do some synthetic thinking of my own. Harvie’s development as a thinker grew in no small measure out of his 20 years as a missionary in Korea and his work with prostitutes.

My own “trial by fire” at Harvard—which parallels that of many, many other evangelicals over the last few generations—was far less memorable, but no less personal and meaningful. What I share with Harvie is an experience of being forced to do synthetic, creative thinking by watching my own theological formulations leave a rather insulated world and interact with humanity. To put it more positively, EWCW is an example, too few and far between, in my opinion, of the WTS tradition moving beyond its defensive boarders and bringing its perspective to much-needed arenas—not to “correct” others but to engage them and so be more Reformed and Christian in thought as a result.

There are numerous literary high-water marks in the WTS tradition, and EWCW is one of them. In my opinion it is the single most penetrating and insightful theological work the WTS tradition has ever produced. One of the things that distinguishes this book from any other written by a WTS professor is the book’s missional (or as Harvie called it in the lingo of the day, “missiological”) focus, and how missional concerns should and in fact invariably do affect our theological constructs and how, as a result, we need to rethink the task of theological education.

The general point of EWCW is expressed in the subtitle: Theology, Anthropology, and Mission in Trialogue. Harvie’s goal was to produce a piece of synthetic, cross-disciplinary theology. His method is to look at the dialogue between cultural anthropology and theology in the past (18th-19th centuries), how present challenges affect the nature of that dialogue, and, Harvie’s vision for the future of theology and theological education. One of things I so appreciate about this synthesis is Harvie’s recognition that theology is not an isolated discipline, but should, and in fact invariably is, affected by general developments and progress in human thought. Harvie’s work was focused on the social science, but the same tenor of dialogue and mutual interaction is also relevant for theology and the physical sciences. (For example, see my review of The Bible, Rocks, and Time)

The book is divided into three parts, each part containing three chapters. Parts one and two, which Harvie entitles “Shaped by the Past” and “Challenged by the Present,” form the context within which his programmatic statements in part three (“Reaching for the Future”) are to be understood.

Parts three is where the money is. Parts one and two form the theoretical basis. My quotes will come from part three, and I will leave it to you who are interested to see how he supports his observations from parts one and two.

From time to time, I will post some quotes from EWCW. I won’t comment on them; I don’t need to. I hope it will encourage students of theology especially to familiarize themselves with Conn’s work and to be challenged in their own thinking about the task of theology.

Defining “inerrancy” is certainly a topic of discussion among Evangelicals, and opinions are voiced from one extreme of maintaining older paradigms at all costs to jettisoning the term all together as hopelessly over-qualified in contemporary discussion.

I am among those who feel that the term inerrancy has become for Evangelicals severely overqualified because of the recognition of the tensions between older formulations of the term and the developments in our understanding of the Bible and its world. The Evangelical understanding has diversified and developed—sometimes begrudgingly, perhaps—over the last several generations, which is a fact that is both desirable and unavoidable.

Continue reading…

On the last point (WCF), I have already expressed myself on this website. I won’t repeat my earlier comments here, other than stressing that a Protestant confessional commitment cannot allow that confessional commitment to have the final word—ever. A tradition with a healthy confessional commitment is one that is not only open to but seeks self-correction through the collective study of Scripture. To do otherwise is to deny functionally the Scriptural basis on which a confession rests.

As for the former, I wish to make a similar point.

Let me first clear away a misunderstanding. It is my opinion that if, say B. B. Warfield or someone of that era, were to be handed in copy of I&I in their time and place, they would not pat me on the back and say job well done. My appeals to the Old Princeton and Dutch Reformed traditions have never been a strained attempt at justifying my own thinking. Rather, it is to show, by being in conversation with my tradition, that some of the intellectual inclinations of these men can provide a dynamic trajectory for handling issues in biblical scholarship that were either not front-and-center then or were wholly unknown.

Continue reading...