Skip to content

Uneasy Bedfellows: Finding a Home in Two Conflicting Theological Movements

by Carson T. Clark on July 17, 2011

Preface

I dedicate this post to TFC’s Vena the Younger and Archdean Shelton, who were my professors, mentors, and friends. It’s with a grateful heart that I say, “Thank you!” for the time and energy they invested in my life. My beliefs are in many ways a synthesis of not only what they taught me, but also where they pointed me. Perhaps the greatest “tip of the cap” I can offer is to say that their guidance taught me to see theology not as a platform for intellectual sparring, but as the pursuit of God–both knowledge of and relationship with Him.

Introduction

When I’m discussing theology with people I’ve never met before, there’s always that moment when they find out that I’m not a Calvinist, egalitarian, or some other popular, easy-to-use category. Next comes convincing them that I’m not the annoying, pseudo-rebellious, thinks-he’s-mysterious guy–the one who doesn’t want to be labeled even though the label fits perfectly. Finally comes the “so what the heck do you believe, anyway?” comment. Generally this is where the conversation dies.

For some time I’ve been telling people that I embrace both paleo-orthodoxy and postfoundationalism. This is inevitably met by one of three facial expressions:

  1. The most frequent one is this puzzled look that says, “Could you please use English, good sir?” I imagine it was the look on my face the first time I watch the Architect’s speech in Matrix Reloaded when he kept saying stuff like “vis-a-vis”, “ergo”, and “modalities.”  Even if I explain the gist of it, they don’t care to take the conversation further.
  2. The other common response says, “You think you’re better than me?!?” like The Mandelbaum Seinfeld episode. It doesn’t matter if I try to humbly define the words and explain what I mean. The conversation comes to a shrieking halt because there’s this presumed sense of arrogance since I had the audacity to use technical terms in ordinary conversation.
  3. Occasionally I’ll get the academic snob look like from the Harvard grad student in the Good Willing Hunting bar scene. That look precipitates a broad dismissal on the grounds that either a) I’m using big words to sound smart without having any idea what they mean or b) I’m confused because I’m claiming beliefs that are illogical and contradictory. Well, isn’t that lovely? Jackass.

Since I can’t seem to have a meaningful face to face discussion about this, I thought I’d write an post surveying the positions, explaining their relationship, giving my perspective, and suggesting resources.

A Primer on Paleo-Orthodoxy

Paleo-orthodoxy is a broad, “ancient-future” theological movement within evangelicalism. The term literally means “ancient correct beliefs,” indicating a perceived consensus of belief prior to the Great Schism of 1054. Practically, it emphasizes the importance (or necessity) of church history and tradition.

Within the movement there’s a significant degree of variance. On one extreme are those who’d say tradition should be authoritative or even binding. They’d point to the seven ecumenical councils as a truly unified representation of the Church (universal), suggesting that they should be understood as authoritative for all subsequent traditions. On the other extreme are those who’d say tradition should simply be much more respected and valued. They see the widespread ignorance of laity and clergy alike concerning the ancient church as problematic, creating a situation where Protestants affirm the necessity of such Patristic developments as the canon of Scripture and doctrine of the Trinity without knowing or appreciating the institutional church’s role in how those things came to be. All are critical of the underlying restorationist impulse of Protestantism, seeing the anti-tradition tradition as antithetical to the intensely historical nature of the biblical faith.

Paleo-orthodox Christians believe that God has sovereignly guided His people in and through culture and history. More to the point, they reject the radical biblicist tendency to see church history as helpful but ultimately superfluous. They believe Christians ought not leapfrog 2,000 years from the New Testament to the present, but see an almost artistic beauty in that period. It’s the continuation of the Bible’s redemptive narrative; the tale of Christ’s protecting and guiding His bride; a seamless extension of Scripture’s plot, motifs, and themes. They see church history as the Bible’s epilogue, explaining what happened after the New Testament cliffhanger.

The movement tends to be ecumenically-inclined, looking to pursue as much unity as possible not only among Protestants but also with Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox. This explains the ecclesiastical diversity of its major writers, including Thomas Oden (Methodist), Alister McGrath (Reformed Anglican), Christopher Hall (Episcopalian), D.H. Williams (Baptist), Robert Jenson (Lutheran), Geoffrey Wainwright (Methodist), Andre Purves (Presbyterian), and the late Robert Webber (Episcopalian).

In sum, the spirit behind this movement can perhaps best be described by Christopher Hall’s comment that, “The church does not thrive in the first century, fail in the second, and then revive in the sixteenth. The Spirit never deserts the church.”

A Primer on Postfoundationalism

Postfoundationalism is a broad, postmodern philosophical movement that has been carried into the theological realm and is gaining clout among segments of evangelicalism. It’s a chronological term that literally means “after foundationalism.” Practically, it’s a response against the philosophical principles and aspired rational certitude of the Enlightenment, which are denounced as having failed. 

The epistemological engine propelling postfoundationalism is Critical Realism, which trumps a perspectivist alternative to pure objectivism and sheer relativism. If the objectivist says, “Absolute truth exists and is thus knowable. Through our empirical senses and mental faculties we’re capable of understanding” and the relativist says, “Absolute truth is a myth and is thus unknowable. Everything we think is a product of our limited senses and perceptions,” then the perspectivist says, “Neither option is adequate. Truth exists as that which corresponds to reality, but we can only know it partially and never grasp it fully.” I’ll refrain from calling it a moderate or “middle-way” because most postfoundationalists are highly critical of the two-dimensional, ideological spectrum intellectual framework, but I will say that it’s an alternative path forward.

Evangelical postfoundationalists overlay the perspectivist alternative with a theological grid, suggesting that all truth points to and derives from God, who is Truth, but we’re incapable of knowing truth perfectly because of our finitude and fallenness. Consequently, for a postfoundationalist theologian the task of theology is never complete. There’s always more facts to consider, insights to explore, perspectives to integrate, complexities to grasp, errors to fix, etc. That is, the task of the theologian isn’t merely to repackage old truths in order to effectively communicate them to an audience in ever-new cultural-historical contexts, but an ongoing process of nuance, clarification, refinement, and overhaul of old theology as well as actually building new theology. It’s more a creative task than a repetitious task; more like painting than building something on an assembly line.

Nearly all self-describing postfoundationalist evangelicals would strongly advocate respect and appreciation for tradition and history, but they would ultimately affirm that all doctrines should potentially be up for revision as merited by new evidence. Among the most well-known postfoundationalist theologians are Kevin Vanhoozer (Presbyterian), Roger Olson (Baptist), John Franke (Presbyterian), Scot McKnight (Baptist), LeRon Shults (unaffiliated), and the late Stanley Grenz (Baptist). These thinkers tend to be quite vocal in their criticism of a cerebral faith that’s detached from practical life, preferring a much more holistic spirituality.

In sum, the spirit behind this movement can perhaps best be described by Roger Olson’s comment that “Christians can admit that, like every other set of truth claims, what they believe is open to correction and revision while they continue to believe and worship and practice their faith.”

Why the Conflict?

As you can see, these movements share little in common. In two years of study I’ve only found four major points of convergence. First and foremost, they’re both a direct response to the failure of Modernity. Second, they’re both minority positions under the big umbrella of evangelical theology. Third, they’re both increasingly popular among younger evangelicals who are dissatisfied by the doctrines and practices they learned growing up. Fourth (and seemingly coincidentally… although I’m certain there’s a link), both seem to value art and appreciate a rich, aesthetic liturgy. Other than that, they’re generally moving in opposite directions.

Here’s a list of contrasting features of the movements:

  • Paleo-orthodoxy is more historical; postfoundationalism is more philosophical.
  • Paleo-orthodoxy emphasizes the past; postfoundationalism emphasizes the present and future.
  • Paleo-orthodoxy tends to be conservative; postfoundationalism tends to be moderate to progressive.
  • Paleo-orthodoxy leans heavily upon our fore-bearers; postfoundationalism says we lean too heavily upon them.
  • Paleo-orthodoxy is more institutionally-driven, e.g. Anglicanism; postfoundationalism is more relationally-driven, e.g. emerging church.
  • Paleo-orthodoxy offers a challenge to Sola Scriptura; postfoundationalism is almost a new wave of Sola Scriptura.
  • Paleo-orthodoxy favors historical and systematic theology; postfoundationalism favors exegetical and biblical theology.
  • Paleo-orthodoxy opposes Protestant liberalism; postfoundationalism opposes Protestant fundamentalism.

This past fall I joined a group of Presbyterians at their pub night. At two separate points of a conversation on contemporary theologians I mentioned liking Roger Olson and D.H. Williams, both of whom are professors at Baylor University. “Wait, wait, wait… You said Olson and Williams??” shot back the other guy. “They’re like oil and water. Virtually the only thing they share in common is that they’re Baptists, and even then that just points to the troublesome ambiguity of the term.” Touché.

Neither of these camps get along particularly well with mainstream conservative evangelicalism because they challenge the status quo. But even more so they don’t get along with each other. Reason: They’re advocating contrary visions for the future of evangelical theology. Nevertheless, as Philip Yancey once wrote, “Truth is not found in one extreme or the other, but in both extremes together.” In that spirit, I claim to be both paleo-orthodox and postfoundationalist.

How I Reconcile the Two

A basic knowledge of my spiritual journey is crucial for understanding how and why I reconcile paleo-orthodoxy and postfoundationalism. To make a convoluted story as concise as possible, after leaving my fundamentalist Pentecostal background I spent the next decade as something of an evangelical vagabond exploring numerous ecclesiastical bodies—Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Restoration, Holiness, Free, Covenant, Anabaptist, Emergent, non-denominational Bible-churches, and house churches—before committing to the Anglican tradition. So while I’m part of one tradition, I pretty much consider myself a mutt of Christendom. In that process, I came to a perspective that was principally neither Protestant nor Catholic (nor Orthodox).

I was thoroughly confused before coming to the Anglican tradition. On the one hand, I was critical of Protestant appeals to Sola Scriptura given their endless disagreements and contradictions. Yes, theoretically the biblical text should be authoritative (in so far as it’s rightly interpreted and discerningly applied), but Erasmus was correct. In practice, this will never be so. If nearly 500 years of Protestant fragmentation has taught us anything it’s that the Bible cannot be the sole standard on matters of doctrine and practice. On the other hand, while I couldn’t accept the full elevation of tradition nor exclusivity found in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, these traditions profoundly impacted my theological conceptions. They taught me that the essential teachings of Jesus were:

  • Passed to His apostles.
  • Transmitted as apostolic tradition.
  • Considered authoritative before the Bible was available.
  • Maintained by the early church fathers.
  • Responsible for warding off destructive heresy.
  • Instrumental in establishing the biblical canon.
  • And, in retrospect, represent a historic consensus of belief.

But what about those areas outside of apostolic tradition where there is no clear apostolic belief nor ecclesiastical consensus? It seems to me that where no such historic unity exists a diversity of belief must be allowed. In this way, my theological conceptions became starkly divided between orthodoxy, i.e. “right beliefs,” and adiaphora, i.e. “things indifferent.” (Thus my affinity for Richard Hooker.) Orthodoxy is where my faith is rooted. Adiaphora is where I get truly excited about the creative task of theology.

Some might be thinking, ‘Cut the jargon and give it to me straight. What does this mean?’ Concerning orthodoxy, I consider myself definitively paleo-orthodox. Concerning the adiaphora, I consider myself passionately postfoundationalist. Tangibly, I have an unwavering grasp on essential doctrines like the Trinity but consider all secondary–but still very important–doctrine, e.g. justification, potentially eligible for revision as merited by new evidence.

To be completely transparent, I’m not aware of any theologian who explicitly shares this hybrid perspective. I suspect that N.T. Wright is close, though. I say this because he’s a bonafide evangelical who’s claimed by postfoundationalists like Roger Olson as their own, but he’s also a former Anglican bishop, which causes me to think he’d probably have a great deal of affinity for Alister McGrath’s paleo-orthodox perspective. Of course, it’s always troublesome to claim a theologian for your perspective who doesn’t self-identify in that way.

Lastly, I never set out to reconcile paleo-orthodoxy and postfoundationalism. I’m not guilty of the fallacy “argument to moderation.” These beliefs were already pretty congealed in my head before I studied the theological movements. All I’m doing is accepting that both terms are accurate, if imperfect, descriptions of my beliefs. I’ve simply embraced what seems to be the truth wherever I’ve found it.

Recommended Works

Paleo-orthodoxy

Postfoundationalism

From: Uncategorized
  • Dan Sanders

    I’m sure you know we don’t see eye-to-eye on all matters of theology/philosophy. However, I find this post to be coherent and concise despite its’ length. Furthermore, I find your reconciliation to be consistent and not merely a moderate position for the sake of being moderate.

    However, what struck me the most was your last sentence: “I’ve simply embraced what seems to be the truth wherever I’ve found it.”

    I’ll simply respond with one of my favorite quotes: “What you look for, you will find.” You have quite a good philosophical/epistemic orientation as far as I’m concerned, and that’s something we do agree on.

    • http://carsontclark.wordpress.com Carson T. Clark

      Thanks, Dan.

      A thought… Usually in life one’s passions/interests align with one’s talents/abilities. If you’re athletic, you tend to like sports. If you’re musically gifted, you tend to like music. And so on and so forth. Yet occasionally people will be decent to good at something without enjoying it so much. That’s how I feel about math. I’ve always done well at it, but I find the process arduous at best. To a lesser degree, I feel the same way about philosophy. It’s not what you’d call my “bag of chips” such as disciplines like history, cultural anthropology, and theology, but I’m still able to employ philosophy decently (not with excellence) when needed. This much is certain: Philosophy takes it out of me. You remember ‘Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3: The Manhattan Project’ for NES? You had a special move, but it subtracted life to use it. That’s me and philosophy.

  • Dan Sanders

    Yeah, that’s me and most Theology really. Took me a while to admit it though. I find Philosophy refreshing and most Theology exhausting.

  • Kim Larsen

    This is good. Despite all the -ism and -ist and post- language! :0)

    I suspect that where I have differed with you at times can be attributed to the filters of our experience. You were greatly influenced by your Evangelical experience, even if the impact sent you in another direction. I didn’t grow up with that culture even though some of the theology and practice I was raised in is similar. Therefore, you had a profound experience of something that barely registers for me. And, therefore, we don’t always speak the same language to the extent that speaking about faith inevitably hits emotional targets.

    But here, you have named much of my wondering and I thank you.
    The Yancey quote you’ve shared before is right on: ““Truth is not found in one extreme or the other, but in both extremes together.”

    I wonder though if the marriage of those 2 viewpoints isn’t more likely with this tweak:
    I don’t like to think of theology as being up for revision. But the way we understand it, which is to say apologetics, which puts the theology in context for us, that swerves and meanders and sometimes distorts, even as it clarifies.

    Error sometimes doesn’t get corrected for a very long time. I would not so humbly suggest that is the case with a few specific RC dogma. Or with the whole muddle of Western Protestantism. But the true theology won’t get “discovered” in any new way. It will get RE-discovered in our old ways.

    I may have some semantics wrong there. Maybe you can help me puzzle them out.
    This is a good exercise.
    A blessing.
    Thank you!

  • Kurt Anders Richardson

    Hi Carson,
    I enjoyed your essay on two areas that may or may not resonate with the larger theological and religious philosophical world. Many of the authors from the two sides would actually see each other as collaborators in a larger project of Christian believing and thinking. But what I can appreciate is that their texts have been competent vehicles for introducing you to serious theology, both historic and contemporary. Probably the most important area in your discussion for me is the issue of Christian plurality and the implication that the overwhelming diversity is only a Protestant problem and not Catholic and Orthodox. In actual fact through the 20th century Catholic and Orthodox diversity has become amazingly complex – one simply has to see beyond the rhetoric of ‘catholicity’ to see it. The myriad if institutional bodies within each, especially the Catholic of course, is positively dizzying. The ways in which the Vatican manages or gestures in managing it all is as much a function of how a centuries old religious institution holds property and pays bills as papal authority as such. Paleo-orthodoxy as some like to use the term, is another reminder regarding patristic theology and how it has been configured for a new generation of theological students. Post-foundationalism is particularly interesting because it actually reflects an epistemological attitude that has been foisted upon us by critical realism: however infallibly the truth might be knowable, human fallibility precludes it as a human experience. It is a condition based upon the ontological condition summed up in the 17th century motto: ‘finitum non capax infinit’ – the finite cannot comprehend the infinite. Wherever infallbility functions, the human being does have have the cognitive equipment to hold it and to manage it. We may exercise faith in divine infallibility but it is otherwise unavailable to the structions of the human mind, let alone human institutions.
    The works of the great theologians of the 20th century: Karl Barth, H.U.v. Balthasar, Karl Rahner, Thomas Torrance, transcended these two issues before they arose and even make them at best irrelevant and at worst an awful distraction.There was and is no theology without scriptural exegesis and close reading of the theological traditions; there now can be no anthropological claim to infallibility. The latter is not about relativism in the last, there is great epistemological success without infallibility.
    Finally, for now, what is most difficult is assimilating the teachings of the Holy Spirit through the providential leadings of the last century both in terms of earlier formulations and then reforming them. Infallibilism in a holy grail for many and they wish to make it a possession which of course can only be possessed by God. The honored past is also part of that holy grail and its privileged narratives have such a powerful hold on the imagination of many; even to the point of living epistemological more in those narratives than in their own times and places and the faith that is required of them moment by moment in community and as individuals.
    So theology is a profoundly challenging task since it can get so off track even in the midst of exmploying its best resources.
    Best,
    KAR

  • Kurt Anders Richardson

    Oops, the sentence midway should read: ‘Wherever infallbility functions, the human being does not have have the cognitive equipment to hold it and to manage it.’

  • Kurt Anders Richardson

    Hi Carson,
    Since I wrote a bit, let me actually repost it in a better version.
    Sincerely,
    KAR

  • Kurt Anders Richardson

    Hi Carson,
    I enjoyed your essay on two areas that may or may not resonate with the larger theological and religious philosophical world. Many of the authors from the two sides would actually see each other as collaborators in a larger project of Christian believing and thinking. But what I can appreciate is that their texts have been competent vehicles for introducing you to serious theology, both historic and contemporary.
    Probably the most important area in your discussion for me is the issue of Christian plurality and the implication that the overwhelming diversity is only a Protestant problem and not Catholic and Orthodox. In actual fact through the 20th century Catholic and Orthodox diversity has become amazingly complex – one simply has to see beyond the rhetoric of ‘catholicity’ to see it. The myriad of institutional bodies within each, especially the Catholic of course, is positively dizzying. Each, and many individual Catholic authors, exercise conspicuous degrees of autonomy with respect to their ideas and how they hold and propound them. The ways in which the Vatican manages or gestures in managing it all is as much a function of how a centuries old religious institution holds property and pays bills as papal authority as such.
    Paleo-orthodoxy as some like to use the term, is a contemporary reminder regarding patristic theology. However, the movement has also reconfigured patristic theology in its own way for a new generation of theological students. Post-foundationalism is particularly interesting because it actually reflects an epistemological attitude that has been foisted upon us by critical realism: however infallibly the truth might be knowable, human fallibility precludes it as a human experience. It is a condition based upon the ontological condition summed up in the 17th century motto: ‘finitum non capax infinit’ – the finite cannot comprehend the infinite. Wherever infallbility functions, the human being does not have have the cognitive equipment to hold it and to manage it. We may exercise faith in divine infallibility but it is otherwise unavailable to the processes of the human mind, let alone human institutions.
    The works of the great theologians of the 20th century: Karl Barth, H.U.v. Balthasar, Karl Rahner, Thomas Torrance, transcended these two issues before they arose and even make them at best irrelevant and at worst an awful distraction.There was and is no theology without scriptural exegesis along with close reading of the theological traditions. But there now can be no anthropological claim to infallibility; it is an exclusive domain of divine being and action. The result is not relativism in the least, indeed, there is great epistemological success and advancement in catholicity and orthodoxy without infallibility.
    Finally, for now, what is most difficult is assimilating the teachings of the Holy Spirit through the providential leadings of the last century both in terms of earlier formulations and then their necessary reformulations. Infallibilism in a holy grail for many and they wish to make it a possession which of course can only be possessed by God. Mutatis mutandis, the honored past is contained within that holy grail. The privileged narratives of the past have such a powerful hold on the imagination of many; even to the point of inhabiting epistemologically those narratives more than their own times and places. As a result, they are often profoundly detered from exercising the faith that is required of them in the present, in community and as individuals.
    So theology is a profoundly challenging task since it can get so off track even in the midst of exmploying its best resources.
    Best,
    KAR

  • Eugene

    You’ve just put some of my un-processed ideas into shape. Thanks a lot, Carson!

  • Morgan Guyton

    As I said on Facebook, there is a deeper logic that holds these two together or at least we were drinking similar koolaid at Duke. Perhaps it’s our reaction to fundamentalist upbringings; we have to prove that we’re not liberal and more orthodox than the sad, insultingly shallow woodenness of fundamentalism. But at the same time what Augustine and Origen et all do with the Bible in their allegorical hermeneutics goes over quite well with the “life is a poem not a science project” ethos of postmodernity. There’s a lot that’s stupid in postmodernity. The part that isn’t stupid is a return to a pre-empiricist, pre-positivist weltanschauung, a “second naïveté” as Ricoeur would say. Read Hans Boersma’s Heavenly Participation. It’s hot even if he is a damn Calvinist.

  • David Purser

    Hey Carson, A hybrid, at least in my opinion, is McGrath – he is paleo-orthodoxy, but he also calls himself a Critical Realist and draws heavily on Barth, C.S. Peirce and Bhaskar. I would recommend reading his Scientific Theology – especially volume 2 in which he deals with Reality. You will find a great explanation of his version of critical realism and the relationship between science and theology. I think you will resonate with it.

  • Jim G.

    Carson, I think you would enjoy knowing a good friend of mine, Jim Hart, who took over Webber’s work after his passing. I would be happy to make the introduction.

    Great piece here, and my only comment concerns your categorization of the Emergent movement as postfoundationalist. I believe they are post-postfoundationalist. I think this is demonstrable from your list of contrasts, e.g., that they are not part of a new wave of Sola Scriptura, but have leapt beyond the fringe to ex-Scriptura. They tend to treat exegesis as license, in many cases, for example, justifying homosexual relationships, or twisting both Scripture and history in order to promote a new kind of universalist syncretism, whose main ingredients are Christian terminology and socialist philosophy.

    Bowing out of the discussion now. Got to get back to my own Anglo-Presbycostal life and writing. Thanks for the link, and for a wonderful article.

    I love you, Carson Clark.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1241063000 Dan Martin

    Carson, thanks for this post. It gives me both some clarity on your perspective and a framework for me to stretch our discussion a bit.

    First a thought on your (I believe, accurate) characterization of Paleo-Orthodoxy. You alluded to the “perceived consensus of belief prior to the Great Schism of 1054.” This is exactly what bothers me most about Patristic and Paleo-Orthodox adherents. While defending against the Protestant Reformation by “not leapfrogging the last 2,000 years” to use your phrase, my sense is that they seem to leapfrog the first 1,000 years. What I mean by this is that they seem to think the last 1,000 years, and in particular the last 500-600, is the only part of Christian history that merits re-examination using anything remotely approaching a critical lens. Put another way, I would submit most Paleo-Orthodox seem to me to have expanded the Apostolic period to encompass the entire first four or five centuries of the church. To me, this is at least as troubling, and perhaps more so, than failing to acknowledge the thought of that period at all.

    Second, you have repeatedly quoted Christopher Hall’s pithy statement that “the Spirit never deserts the church.” That’s one of those almost-truisms that runs the risk of becoming a straw man argument (who can oppose it without “blaspheming the Holy Spirit?”). I would suggest, rather, that we ought to consider if, how, and when the church has perhaps deserted the Spirit. This, IMO, is the sad story of far too much dogma-in-development.

    In contrast (and no surprise to you, I suspect), I resonate strongly with your characterization of Postfoundationalism, with one massive caveat: you characterized the Postfoundationalist perspective that “…all doctrines should potentially be up for revision as merited by new evidence.” My objection would be to the use of the term “new.” While we do have the opportunity to come up with some new evidence as older texts are discovered, or as new things are learned about old cultures through archaeology and/or contemporary history, I would argue that we *also* need to weigh the “old” evidence anew. In other words, we must consider not merely different evidence, but also carefully analyze the contexts and lenses through which existing evidence was evaluated the first time. To over-simplify, while the US Constitution protects its citizens from retrial for the same crime, Biblical exegesis should *always* be subject to retrial by each subsequent generation of the Body of Christ. That which is well-grounded will survive; that whose foundation is more shaky deserves to be disturbed.

    I was struck when I read your “reconciliation” section, when you described how the “essential teachings of Jesus” were passed on, preserved, etc. This is absolutely true; I have already acknowledged this to you in comments in prior discussions. What you may be missing, I think, is this: Not only the essential teachings of Jesus were so preserved & passed on. So were a variety of other things that were not taught by Jesus. I would therefore extend your next paragraph, to state that there are things that ought to be recognized (at least) as adiaphora, even among that body of teachings around which ecclesiastical consensus appears to exist.

    All that said, I reiterate that this post was helpful as we continue to seek to understand and sharpen each other. Great work!

  • http://www.iws.edu Jim Hart

    Carson,

    Thanks for your thoughtful post. Jim G. thought we should connect, and I see why. At our school, the Robert E. Webber Institute for Worship Studies (www.iws.edu), we tend to resonate with elements of both paleo-orthodoxy (which, I may remind you, actually means ancient correct worship, not beliefs–although beliefs are revealed, or in fact, repose in the liturgy) and postfoundationalism. Seminar speakers here have included Stan Grenz and Chris Hall, and the “Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future” that Bob penned counted Kevin Vanhoozer and D.H. Williams among its primary authors.

    I am also an Anglican, or kind of an post-EvangecostalEpiscoAnglopalian. Thanks again for your reflections. I hope we can meet sometime!

  • http://danutm.wordpress.com DanutM

    Carson dear,
    It took you two years to write this and I have to expedite my little comment in a few minutes, as I need to leave soon for the airport.
    I read your text with the greatest interest, but my baby sitting responsibility this week for three very active boys (My daughter was away) did not allow me many spare moments even for my job.
    Anyway, I respect and admire those I know in the two camps you have mentioned.
    Personally, I feel closer to the paleo-orthodox camp, simply because of its stronger appeal to spirituality. Although I appreciate and agree with many of the insights of the postfundationalists, philosophy is not my preferred discipline. I value it as an instrument, but I am wary of its speculative bias.
    That will be all for now. I will treasure this text. Thanks.

  • Pingback: Uneasy Bedfellows: Finding a Home in Two Conflicting Theological Movements « Musings of a Hardlining Moderate « Persona

  • http://danutm.wordpress.com DanutM

    And one more point. I think NT Wright transcends these categories. I would put him,in a different one, including, as Kurt suggested, Karl Barth, H.U.v. Balthasar, Karl Rahner, Thomas Torrance, and maybe just one or two more.

  • http://www.facebook.com/scunning Scott Cunningham

    Awesome post. So helpful – thank you for being so clear, and especially for telling your personal story interwoven. This is so approximately similar to where I find real some things to be intolerable and some things to be necessary, yet it’s in my case very often on a more piecemeal kind of thing. But as I bounce through your post, and particularly this list of the “postfoundationalism vs paleo-orthodoxy”, I can see how if nothing else, these two movements can be really useful for trying to place this spiritual journey into a kind of taxonomy that can be better understood (my journey anyway). I’m looking forward to reading and re-reading this post again in the future.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.w.brandkamp John William Brandkamp

    Well I finally got around to reading your essay Carson, and boy am I glad I did. So much of what you share here is very similar to my own journey. And it’s funny that I just started reading Beyond Foundationalism this past week! I may come back and reread your post with an idea of posting my own thoughts in relation to yours. I can’t be sure of when though. You should check out Scot McKnight’s post today about Chris Smith’s new book on Biblicism and its impossibility. I think you’ll like it.

  • Jeffrey O’Rourke

    I appreciate this post, the first half anyway! My appreciation for and reading of the Fathers has led me to the place where I have come to accept the Tradition as you outlined it
    “…the essential teachings of Jesus were:
    Passed to His apostles.
    Transmitted as apostolic tradition.
    Considered authoritative before the Bible was available.
    Maintained by the early church fathers.
    Responsible for warding off destructive heresy.
    Instrumental in establishing the biblical canon.
    And, in retrospect, represent a historic consensus of belief.”
    I was trained in and then ministered for 25 years in a tradition that disdained the Fathers and thus was ignorant of them. I was not aware of other evangelicals who were moving in the same direction I was – I do not encounter them anywhere! So I thank you for that part of the post.

  • http://www.facebook.com/leostaley Leo Staley

    Forgive me for not getting to this sooner.

    I deeply appreciate this post, and discover that i am certainly post-foundationalist, and want to be paleo-orthodox, but can’t. I’d love to dialogue with you about it.

    second, as to your trouble articulating yourself, i suggest keeping something like this in your proverbial back pocket, ” I embrace two traditions/paradigms/frameworks (paradigms is my favorite, but may not work as a “simple english” effort) which are seem to conflict, but in the end, are complementary. they’re both in the minority, but gaining numbers, and bascially boil down to an appreciation, respect, almost reverence for church history and tradition; and a realization that the church must always move forward creatively, leaving behind what should be left behind, discovering what hasn’t been found. the first is called paleo-orthodoxy, the second is called post-foundationalism”

    I REALLY hope that my simple english summary accurately grasps what you’re saying here.

    on another note, How is post-foundationalism a NEW sola scriptura? I agree that sola scriptura isn’t enough, but “tradition,” isn’t the solution because it’s made so many mistakes that it can’t be relied on very heavily for correct interpretation of scripture. I’m still looking for the way forward on this though.

  • Pingback: Uneasy Bedfellows: Finding a Home in Two Conflicting Theological Movements « Musings of a Hardlining Moderate