Bloesch initial commentary
gdeme...@msn.com
The Mediating Theology Donald Bloesch: Ecumenical, Catholic, Reformed, Evangelical
George Demetrion
August 26, 2006 (draft version)
Overview: Bloesch and Packer in Quest of Common Ground
Our shift in focus from what might be viewed, and with qualification, as the rational evangelicalism of J.I. Packer to the “fideistic revelationism” (Grenz, 1999) of Donald Bloesch represents a theological sea change even as Packer and Bloesch are much closer on core essentials that a close reading of their work and an examination of their historical influence might disclose. As Bloesch (1994) notes Packer, like himself, also “seeks to distance himself from an evangelical ‘self-reliant rationalism’ that minimizes or downplays the role of the Holy Spirit in biblical interpretation.” A difference is that Bloesch “would probably be more open to historical-critical study as an aid in biblical exegesis” (p. 335), although, as indicated in the pervious chapter, Packer is not averse, but may be more weary than Bloesh of the intrusion of liberal and neo-orthodox scholarship invariably diluting the disclosive word of God revealed both in and through the Scriptures. Bloesch is also weary, as his appropriation is highly selective. The primary difference is that Packer seeks to respond to the obscurantist charge through a fuller development of evangelical scholarship on its own terms while Bloesch is more attuned to the apologetic challenges of both deconstructing and reconstructing the many fruits of neo-orthodox and liberal biblical exegesis and theology for the evangelical purposes that he has identified.
Given this far from unimportant difference, both theologians build a biblical theology based on a dynamic interaction between the Word and the Spirit even as Packer gravitates more toward the polarity of the Word and Bloesch to the Spirit in their mutual acceptance of the dynamic necessity and interplay of both. In response to the trajectory of 20th century Protestant theology, both privilege the Word in the Bible-culture relationship. Bloesch, however, builds, at least in part, on the neo-orthodox vision of Karl Barth while Packer draws on the Princeton theology of Charles Hodge, Benjamin Warfield, and J. Greshem Machem in support of his nuanced concept of biblical inerrancy which he describes otherwise, not unlike Bloesch, as trustworthiness. These differences, Bloesch’s partial Barthian move and Packer’s qualified support of a rationalistic interpretation of the Bible, represent a sea change in theological consciousness even as both theologians have sought to confront modernity with what they take as the unequivocal biblical truth, stated so, even as we can only know in part.
Given the fundamentalist-modernist divide in contemporary U.S. Protestantism there is much more reception for Bloesch than Packer in mainline circles even as Packer has sought to exorcize the fundamentalist demon through a highly articulate evangelical theology. This makes their similarities even more striking, particularly in the consideration of their overarching themes and mediating roles in bringing into greater concord substantial sectors of evangelical discourse. In the very process of seeking broad ecumenical influence within their respective evangelical spheres both invariably engender criticism from the theological left and right. In bringing out something of his distinctive contribution there will be aspects in this chapter discussing Bloesch’s work, highlighting, even if only implicitly so, the differences between these two important theologians, particularly Bloesch’s more extensive encounter with neo-orthodoxy and Protestant liberalism. It is, nonetheless, important to keep in mind the profound similarities within the differences undergirding their divergent but complementary efforts of working out the relationship between the Word and the Spirit within the broad stream of issues facing 20th century Protestant theology.
At the core is their mutually mediating efforts in constructing a reformed-grounded ecumenical catholic evangelical theology, a vision by definition that, while beckoning, is one in which the reach perpetually extends beyond the grasp. It is toward such an effort that this project aspires through an irenic reading of each of the five biblical theologians examined in this book. In the process I attempt to probe into critical divergences as part of the effort itself of teasing out areas for potential breakthroughs toward a mediating ecumenical evangelical biblical theology, while staying attuned to persisting tensions and conflict. The quest for broad evangelical ecumenism in which “scripture reorients the world” rather than “absorbs the world” (Husinger, 2003, p. ix) can only obtain at best as a regulative ideal. Nonetheless, it is an enduring hope that fresh light on seemingly enduring problems can be shed in the process on some of the underlying issues confronting 20th Century American Protestant theology and biblical exegesis. The spotlight in this chapter is on Bloesch
Donald Bloesch, an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, obtained his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago in 1953. There he encountered the “extreme liberal theology” that challenged the fundamental precepts of his modestly conservative upbringing in the Evangelical and Reformed Church which merged with the Congregational Christian Churches that formed the UCC denomination in 1957. Rejecting the prevailing Whiteadean neo-naturalism of CTS, Bloesch cut his theological teeth on the neo-orthodox theologians of Barth, Brunner, and initially Tillich and Bultman (Colyer, 1999). However, the instincts of his early upbringing kicked in as he gravitated more exclusively toward Barth and Brunner, particularly the former in a full fledged embrace of orthodoxy, yet in dialogical encounter with the neo-orthodox and less empathetically, Protestant liberalism of the 1950s and 1960s as reflected in an early text, The Christian Witness in a Secular Age (1968). Bloesch’s various analyses of these schools of theology in this work and elsewhere are acute. Less evident are nuanced readings of the subtleties of secular philosophy and 20th century cultural trends which are somewhat stereotyped in his work
As Millard Erickson (1999) put it, from another perspective, Bloesch’s “partial Barthianism…does not represent a defection from a more traditional variety of evangelical theology” (p. 93). It is, rather, a deliberate embrace of historical reformist orthodoxy, though in a manner, like Barth in response to the epistemological challenges of 19th and 20th century modernity. Bloesch (1994) is not completely satisfied with the neo-orthodox designation. However, he prefers it to what he describes as “Thomas Oden’s ‘paleo-orthodox,’ [position]…as a too hasty return to the orthodoxy of the past” (p. 14). Rather, he prefers to steer the middle ground between a staid traditionalism not sufficiently attuned to the theological and pastoral challenges of contemporary life and a postmodern accommodationism with the secular assumptions of the era that is not sufficiently anchored in the core presuppositions of the faith. His “partial Barthianism,” along with his grounding in the reformed tradition of Calvin, Luther, and Peter Forsyth has provided him with the theological resources to chart out his mediating Christian Foundations project trough seven substantial volumes that cover the broad range of theological, cultural, and ecclesiastic concerns of contemporary Protestantism. Any effort to turn the culture-Bible axis of contemporary mainline Protestantism on its head that includes an exorcism, however imaginative of the fundamentalist-modernist divide, would do well to give close attention to Donald Bloesch’s important synoptic project.
Bloesch’s paradoxical depiction of God revealed ultimately through the witness of the biblical text as simultaneously divine and human is based on a polar-like opposition between fundamentalism and liberalism which needs to be questioned even as it serves important heuristic purposes in his theological vision. Stated otherwise, there is ideal typology pervasive throughout Bloesch’s Christian Foundations series. His analysis of the wide spade of biblical and theological discourse he seeks to comment upon is sometimes questionable in the depiction of the divergent perspectives with less than the full nuance that such work often warrants. Nonetheless, his typological portrayal provides an economical way of grounding his own mediating perspective in the stream of 20th century Protestant scholarship through which he seeks dialectical encounter with the evangelical and liberal Protestant sectors. Moreover, even in their occasional caricature his depiction of the core challenges in contemporary U.S Protestantism confronting historical orthodoxy is quite acute. At root, Bloesch is an evangelical Forced to choose between fundamentalism and theological liberalism he will accept the former without equivocation. Bloesch’s founding work with the conservative Biblical Witness Fellowship while at Dubuque Theological Seminary is indicative of his persisting criticism of the theological tendencies of the UCC mainstream of which he remains denominationally linked.
Fortunately this is a false dichotomy that Bloesch is not forced to accept. Moreover, he is highly critical of the “rationalism,” doctrinal narrowness, and biblical literalism that he finds in much of 20th century fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism. His concerns about theological liberalism in pointing away from the transcendence and sovereignty of God and the potency of the biblical revelation are considerably more pervasive. However, he appreciates the depth and range of its scholarship, its probing critical spirit, and connection to culture and society that is often marginalized in traditional Bible only evangelical discourse. This is so even given his profound concerns about the direction of the secular orientating assumptions that undergird much of Protestant liberalism at the dawn of the 21st century.
His primary objective is to expand the breadth and depth of 20th century conservative evangelicalism by infusing it with broadened theological streams through historical encounters with Augustine, Luther, and Calvin and selective appropriation of Barth and Brunner’s neo-orthodox position. As Bloesch (2006) states it in his Essentials of Evangelical Theology, “The need for evangelicalism to recover its identity and present a united witness to the church and the world is particularly acute in this time when a new modernism threatens to engulf mainline Christianity” (Vol. 1, p 1). It is this enriched evangelicalism, shorn of obscurantism and biblical literalism, by which Bloesch seeks to encounter neo-orthodoxy and Protestant liberalism, based on a “Reformed theology…to be always reformed in the light not only of Scripture, but also of the historical commentary on Scripture in the church tradition” (p. 4). His biblical theology can best be understood within the context of this broader evangelical objective in dialogue and critical confrontation with 20th century American Protestantism in all its major streams. In this respect his project is considerably more comprehensive than that of Packer’s notwithstanding their often unappreciated affinity in many of the core essentials of the faith and the challenges posed to it in the contemporary climate.
Willis Elliott
George Demetrion
August 26, 2006 (draft version)
Overview: Bloesch and Packer in Quest of Common Ground
Our shift in focus from what might be viewed, and with qualification, as the rational evangelicalism of J.I. Packer to the “fideistic revelationism” (Grenz, 1999) of Donald Bloesch represents a theological sea change even as Packer and Bloesch are much closer on core essentials that a close reading of their work and an examination of their historical influence might disclose. As Bloesch (1994) notes Packer, like himself, also “seeks to distance himself from an evangelical ‘self-reliant rationalism’ that minimizes or downplays the role of the Holy Spirit in biblical interpretation.” A difference is that Bloesch “would probably be more open to historical-critical study as an aid in biblical exegesis” (p. 335), although, as indicated in the pervious chapter, Packer is not averse, but may be more weary than Bloesh of the intrusion of liberal and neo-orthodox scholarship invariably diluting the disclosive word of God revealed both in and through the Scriptures. Bloesch is also weary, as his appropriation is highly selective. The primary difference is that Packer seeks to respond to the obscurantist charge through a fuller development of evangelical scholarship on its own terms while Bloesch is more attuned to the apologetic challenges of both deconstructing and reconstructing the many fruits of neo-orthodox and liberal biblical exegesis and theology for the evangelical purposes that he has identified.
Given this far from unimportant difference, both theologians build a biblical theology based on a dynamic interaction between the Word and the Spirit even as Packer gravitates more toward the polarity of the Word and Bloesch to the Spirit in their mutual acceptance of the dynamic necessity and interplay of both. In response to the trajectory of 20th century Protestant theology, both privilege the Word in the Bible-culture relationship. Bloesch, however, builds, at least in part, on the neo-orthodox vision of Karl Barth while Packer draws on the Princeton theology of Charles Hodge, Benjamin Warfield, and J. Greshem Machem in support of his nuanced concept of biblical inerrancy which he describes otherwise, not unlike Bloesch, as trustworthiness. These differences, Bloesch’s partial Barthian move and Packer’s qualified support of a rationalistic interpretation of the Bible, represent a sea change in theological consciousness even as both theologians have sought to confront modernity with what they take as the unequivocal biblical truth, stated so, even as we can only know in part.
Given the fundamentalist-modernist divide in contemporary U.S. Protestantism there is much more reception for Bloesch than Packer in mainline circles even as Packer has sought to exorcize the fundamentalist demon through a highly articulate evangelical theology. This makes their similarities even more striking, particularly in the consideration of their overarching themes and mediating roles in bringing into greater concord substantial sectors of evangelical discourse. In the very process of seeking broad ecumenical influence within their respective evangelical spheres both invariably engender criticism from the theological left and right. In bringing out something of his distinctive contribution there will be aspects in this chapter discussing Bloesch’s work, highlighting, even if only implicitly so, the differences between these two important theologians, particularly Bloesch’s more extensive encounter with neo-orthodoxy and Protestant liberalism. It is, nonetheless, important to keep in mind the profound similarities within the differences undergirding their divergent but complementary efforts of working out the relationship between the Word and the Spirit within the broad stream of issues facing 20th century Protestant theology.
Donald Bloesch, an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, obtained his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago in 1953. There he encountered the “extreme liberal theology” that challenged the fundamental precepts of his modestly conservative upbringing in the Evangelical and Reformed Church which merged with the Congregational Christian Churches that formed the UCC denomination in 1957. Rejecting the prevailing Whiteadean neo-naturalism of CTS, Bloesch cut his theological teeth on the neo-orthodox theologians of Barth, Brunner, and initially Tillich and Bultman (Colyer, 1999). However, the instincts of his early upbringing kicked in as he gravitated more exclusively toward Barth and Brunner, particularly the former in a full fledged embrace of orthodoxy, yet in dialogical encounter with the neo-orthodox and less empathetically, Protestant liberalism of the 1950s and 1960s as reflected in an early text, The Christian Witness in a Secular Age (1968). Bloesch’s various analyses of these schools of theology in this work and elsewhere are acute. Less evident are nuanced readings of the subtleties of secular philosophy and 20th century cultural trends which are somewhat stereotyped in his work
As Millard Erickson (1999) put it, from another perspective, Bloesch’s “partial Barthianism…does not represent a defection from a more traditional variety of evangelical theology” (p. 93). It is, rather, a deliberate embrace of historical reformist orthodoxy, though in a manner, like Barth in response to the epistemological challenges of 19th and 20th century modernity. Bloesch (1994) is not completely satisfied with the neo-orthodox designation. However, he prefers it to what he describes as “Thomas Oden’s ‘paleo-orthodox,’ [position]…as a too hasty return to the orthodoxy of the past” (p. 14). Rather, he prefers to steer the middle ground between a staid traditionalism not sufficiently attuned to the theological and pastoral challenges of contemporary life and a postmodern accommodationism with the secular assumptions of the era that is not sufficiently anchored in the core presuppositions of the faith. His “partial Barthianism,” along with his grounding in the reformed tradition of Calvin, Luther, and Peter Forsyth has provided him with the theological resources to chart out his mediating Christian Foundations project trough seven substantial volumes that cover the broad range of theological, cultural, and ecclesiastic concerns of contemporary Protestantism. Any effort to turn the culture-Bible axis of contemporary mainline Protestantism on its head that includes an exorcism, however imaginative of the fundamentalist-modernist divide, would do well to give close attention to Donald Bloesch’s important synoptic project.