Another thing needful
April 1, 2011
While evangelicalism has been in turmoil over pop theology the last couple of weeks, I have just started to read the second volume of Hans Küng's memoirs. Michael Holroyd reports Lytton Strachey as once saying that discretion is not the better part of biography. Even more so is this the case with autobiography, and Küng lacks discretion in spades. Indeed, egomania and indiscretion are surely vital components in an interesting autobiography and Küng has them both to an impressive degree. His autobiography is thus an unexpected page-turner. Every page contains some comment such as `I always enjoyed the brilliant speeches made in Rome; and not only the ones I myself wrote.' And how many times does he need to mention that Karl Barth thought he was a genius before the reader gets the message? If he were English, I would assume the two volumes thus far (1,000 pages in total; and then only reaching 1980) are one giant act of self-parody. But he is Swiss. And he is also based in Germany.
Küng's massive act of self-justification strikes quite a contrast to Benedict XVI's very slim memoirs which stop in 1978, just as he is about to become interesting. Discretion and modesty make boring autobiographies even if they are vital components of successful and influential ecclesiastical careers. There is no doubt who of these two men has had the greater impact on the Roman church. Deal-making beats bombast every time. But there is also no doubt as to who does the more exciting kiss-and-tell.
The intellectual weight of these men reminded me that one of the problems with evangelical Protestantism is surely that it no longer takes Roman Catholicism seriously; and, given the size of the Roman Catholic Church and the intellectual firepower of its theologians, that is a stupid and short-sighted mistake.
You can tell evangelical Protestantism's disregard for Rome by the parlous resources we have on the subject. Boettner is pre-Vatican II and so profoundly limited; Geisler is tendentious and, well, Geisler. That is one of the reasons why it is good to see Leo DeChirico's work being posted on Ref21. Here is someone who is based in Rome and who knows what it looks, sounds and reads like today.
Yet thoughtful evangelicals are converting to Rome all the time, or so it seems. And every time it happens, my instinctive response is the same: I can sympathise with the problem - often evangelical obsession with the mediocre, the passing, the trendy-- but I disagree with the solution. The difficulty is that there are no obvious resources to point friends to because evangelicals are too preoccupied with refuting The Shack or Rob Bell or getting upset because somebody somewhere has said a cruel thing about some other peripheral phenomenon that will be forgotten about in three years time. Of course, many people read junk and some even believe bits of it; and thus it is necessary to have a good refutation of such tripe. But once refuted (or perhaps `refuted once'), it should then be quickly forgotten.
Part of the problem is the continued belief that `evangelicalism' is a movement with a mission. It is not. It is an amorphous hotch-potch of institutions. As such, it lacks any real sense of what is important and provides little more than a context for bitter warfare about who owns the copyright of the e word, and for intramural fisticuffs about whatever happens to be the latest thing. Tiresome whining about who speaks for whom and about who is and who is not a senior evangelical theologian is simply that: tiresome whining. Evangelicalism looks increasingly like a photo opportunity, a chance for somebody you would never trust with the care of a hamster, let alone a soul, to be noticed outside of New Testament structures of accountability. It is also always entertaining when evangelicals and evangelical organizations talk of `ecumenism.' Is `ecumenism' not a function of the church rather than the individual or the parachurch? I often wonder what the typical Roman Catholic theologian thinks that an evangelical means when he uses the word. I am not sure that such an RC would have the necessary categories; and that is emphatically not a criticism of Roman Catholicism.
Meanwhile, intelligent conservative, orthodox Protestants continue to convert to Rome, and there are few if any resources to offer any response. Evangelicalism cannot mount such because it is not a church. That is a very serious problem, given that Rome thinks ecclesiastically. Thus, while evangelicals might see justification as the big issue that divides, Roman Catholics are more likely to see it as one of ordination (holy orders, sacramental authority etc.). The two issues are, of course, closely related, both historically and theologically. But by definition evangelicalism, with its sidelining of ecclesiology, neither can nor will offer a proper response. It is unlikely even to understand the question as a Roman Catholic might pose it.
Thus, I would suggest a way forward: let evangelicals continue to debate the merits or otherwise of The Shack or Eat, Pray, Love or the latest animated Hollywood fantasy movie. Somebody has to do it, after all, and I certainly cannot be bothered so to do. And let the church people who hold in high regard Paul's teaching in his letters to Timothy and Titus, who love the church rather than an "-ism," and who know that life is too short to waste on badly written potboilers (at least outside of an airport departure lounge) - let such people address themselves to matters of real theological, ecclesiastical and ecumenical importance.
Küng and Benedict represent in many ways the two possible paths of Roman Catholicism into the future. These men are substantial, worthy of sophisticated engagement. Post Vatican II Roman Catholicism is long overdue a thoughtful, learned Protestant response. It will not come from the evangelical camp while the most important contributions to theology and church life over which evangelicals obsess are considered to be written at a table in Starbucks rather than at a desk in the Gregorian. My guess is that evangelical preoccupation with the former is at least partly responsible for so many of its sons and daughters finding succour in the latter. We need a thoughtful, learned, respectful, confessional Protestant book on Roman Catholicism.
Küng's massive act of self-justification strikes quite a contrast to Benedict XVI's very slim memoirs which stop in 1978, just as he is about to become interesting. Discretion and modesty make boring autobiographies even if they are vital components of successful and influential ecclesiastical careers. There is no doubt who of these two men has had the greater impact on the Roman church. Deal-making beats bombast every time. But there is also no doubt as to who does the more exciting kiss-and-tell.
The intellectual weight of these men reminded me that one of the problems with evangelical Protestantism is surely that it no longer takes Roman Catholicism seriously; and, given the size of the Roman Catholic Church and the intellectual firepower of its theologians, that is a stupid and short-sighted mistake.
You can tell evangelical Protestantism's disregard for Rome by the parlous resources we have on the subject. Boettner is pre-Vatican II and so profoundly limited; Geisler is tendentious and, well, Geisler. That is one of the reasons why it is good to see Leo DeChirico's work being posted on Ref21. Here is someone who is based in Rome and who knows what it looks, sounds and reads like today.
Yet thoughtful evangelicals are converting to Rome all the time, or so it seems. And every time it happens, my instinctive response is the same: I can sympathise with the problem - often evangelical obsession with the mediocre, the passing, the trendy-- but I disagree with the solution. The difficulty is that there are no obvious resources to point friends to because evangelicals are too preoccupied with refuting The Shack or Rob Bell or getting upset because somebody somewhere has said a cruel thing about some other peripheral phenomenon that will be forgotten about in three years time. Of course, many people read junk and some even believe bits of it; and thus it is necessary to have a good refutation of such tripe. But once refuted (or perhaps `refuted once'), it should then be quickly forgotten.
Part of the problem is the continued belief that `evangelicalism' is a movement with a mission. It is not. It is an amorphous hotch-potch of institutions. As such, it lacks any real sense of what is important and provides little more than a context for bitter warfare about who owns the copyright of the e word, and for intramural fisticuffs about whatever happens to be the latest thing. Tiresome whining about who speaks for whom and about who is and who is not a senior evangelical theologian is simply that: tiresome whining. Evangelicalism looks increasingly like a photo opportunity, a chance for somebody you would never trust with the care of a hamster, let alone a soul, to be noticed outside of New Testament structures of accountability. It is also always entertaining when evangelicals and evangelical organizations talk of `ecumenism.' Is `ecumenism' not a function of the church rather than the individual or the parachurch? I often wonder what the typical Roman Catholic theologian thinks that an evangelical means when he uses the word. I am not sure that such an RC would have the necessary categories; and that is emphatically not a criticism of Roman Catholicism.
Meanwhile, intelligent conservative, orthodox Protestants continue to convert to Rome, and there are few if any resources to offer any response. Evangelicalism cannot mount such because it is not a church. That is a very serious problem, given that Rome thinks ecclesiastically. Thus, while evangelicals might see justification as the big issue that divides, Roman Catholics are more likely to see it as one of ordination (holy orders, sacramental authority etc.). The two issues are, of course, closely related, both historically and theologically. But by definition evangelicalism, with its sidelining of ecclesiology, neither can nor will offer a proper response. It is unlikely even to understand the question as a Roman Catholic might pose it.
Thus, I would suggest a way forward: let evangelicals continue to debate the merits or otherwise of The Shack or Eat, Pray, Love or the latest animated Hollywood fantasy movie. Somebody has to do it, after all, and I certainly cannot be bothered so to do. And let the church people who hold in high regard Paul's teaching in his letters to Timothy and Titus, who love the church rather than an "-ism," and who know that life is too short to waste on badly written potboilers (at least outside of an airport departure lounge) - let such people address themselves to matters of real theological, ecclesiastical and ecumenical importance.
Küng and Benedict represent in many ways the two possible paths of Roman Catholicism into the future. These men are substantial, worthy of sophisticated engagement. Post Vatican II Roman Catholicism is long overdue a thoughtful, learned Protestant response. It will not come from the evangelical camp while the most important contributions to theology and church life over which evangelicals obsess are considered to be written at a table in Starbucks rather than at a desk in the Gregorian. My guess is that evangelical preoccupation with the former is at least partly responsible for so many of its sons and daughters finding succour in the latter. We need a thoughtful, learned, respectful, confessional Protestant book on Roman Catholicism.
