1. The Reformed-Evangelical Sanhedrin

It is quite
impossible to reduce the reformed and evangelical traditions to a homogenous
grouping, but there are dominant tendencies within  such a family that have shaped and defined
the tradition. It is these dominant tendencies, defended by the leaders (Sanhedrin)
of such a clan, that must be noted and questioned—The Sanhedrin, in short,
have reduced and constricted the catholic vision to the smallest circle turns,
then questioned the Orthodoxy of those who differ with them. Such a tendency is
a form of single vision slumber and those who are yearning and questing for a
fuller notion of the faith journey must needs wake from such sleep. What are
the pills taken that lead to such a slumber and what will sleepers see once
they awake? Let me, all too briefly, bring to the table five pills often taken
that once digested lead to single vision sleep.

First, the
mainstream reformed-evangelical Sanhedrin tends to reduce the understanding of
the atonement to the penal-juridical view. Why is this the case? If this view
is questioned, the Sanhedrin suggests the reason for Christ’s coming is being
undermined and doubted. But, the historic church has held 6 notions of the
atonement: recapitulation, ransom, moral influence, christus victor,
deification and penal-juridical. It is more Orthodox to accept all six notions
in a polyphonic dialogue than reduce the issue to one position—who is really Orthodox?
It is probably more accurate to call the reformed-evangelical commitment to the
penal-juridical position heterodox.
Second, the
mainstream reformed-evangelical tradition tends to reduce Biblical exegesis to
the literal- grammatical- historical approach to the text. Why is this the
case? The historic church has recognized (and this can be found in the Bible,
also) four levels of interpretation of texts: literal-grammatical, typological,
allegorical and anagogical. Each level of interpretation opens the mind, heart,
soul and imagination to deeper levels of insight, wisdom and transformation.
Why the single vision slumber again. Why the shrinkage and constriction? I
remember once giving a homily and a well known professor greeted me at the end
of the Divine Liturgy and mentioned how much he enjoyed the homily, but he told
me it had nothing to do with the text. I had preached from the text, but rather
than doing a literal-grammatical exegesis, I had done an allegorical read of
the text. Such an approach was not considered valid. Why not? If the
literal-grammatical read dominates, then other possibilities are excluded. But,
this is not the more catholic position of the historic church. Sleep does
prevent us from waking to a larger and grander reality, though.

Third, the
mainstream reformed-evangelical Sanhedrin tends to equate an understanding of
the authority of the Bible to an inspired, inerrant and infallible text. Is
this how the historic church has made sense of the authority of the text? There
was no canonized text until the fourth century, alternate texts were used on
the journey to canonization and, in many ways, the living and unified body of
Christ (Corpus Christi) not the Bible, is the real authority. It was the church
in the Patristic era that canonized the text and it is the church that
judiciously interprets the text. The battle for the Bible is more a protestant and
reformed-evangelical dilemma than it is for holy mother church. There is a much
larger discussion about Church-Tradition-Bible in the historic church than in
the reformed-evangelical tribe. Again, reductionism dominates the day when
other sources of input are ignored.

Fourth, the
recent showings of Hellbound? in North America have brought the issue of
heaven-hell to front stage once again. The standard and establishment
reformed-evangelical position has been that those who do not accept Christ as
their personal saviour in this life are doomed and fated to eternal torment or,
as a merciful second option, simply annihilated. Has the historic church only
held these two positions? Is universalism the only answer to eternal torment
and the position of extinction? Is there a catholic position that is a via
media between universalism and eternal torment? Of course there is. Why,
though, has the reformed-evangelical position been reduced to the eternal
torment position when the catholic notion has been much broader, more gracious
and historically informed?

Fifth, the
reformed and evangelical tradition has tended, when doing apologetics, to
pander and play into the modern rationalist tradition. It is significant that
both reformed and evangelical theology tended to emerge at the same time as the
rise of the scientific methodology. It is somewhat ironic that reason is
priorized in both science and reformed-evangelical apologetics, yet reason is
never used to question a limited notion of reason. The modern notion of reason
that a certain type of science accepts (and reformed—evangelical apologetics
doff their caps to) is a reductionistic understanding of what it means to
think. Most of classical philosophy and theology was contemplative and
mystical, and the noetic way of knowing would view our modern understanding of
reason as a lower level of knowing. We do not need to read too far into the
writings of Plato, Aristotle and the Mothers/Fathers of the Patristic era to
know they had a much more refined and nuanced understanding of reason than the
rather crude empirical and logical approach of modernity. But, yet once again,
the reformed-evangelical Sanhedrin has uncritically accepted modern reason as a
form of engaging the world of apologetics and evangelism—-reducing the
meaning of reason to a one dimensional approach distorts both the more complex
meaning of reason and more diverse approaches to apologetics—single vision
slumber wins the day again.

In sum, the
mainstream reformed-evangelical Sanhedrin has slipped into a single vision
slumber. The pills that are often taken that keep them in such a deep sleep are
five: penal theory of the atonement, literal-grammatical exegesis, limited view
of Biblical authority, eternal torment for those who do not accept Christ in this
life and rationalist apologetics. It is never easy to get an addict off the
pills taken, but an awakening to a more robust and healthy historic and
catholic understanding of the faith will mean saying No to such addictive pills
and a walking into the expansive mountain air and high ridges of faith—such
summit sights are only offered to those who are willing to leave behind lowland
addictions.

2. The Emergent Church – Schism on Steroids

Piz Gloria

Ron Dart