What is Catalyst?
Four issues of Catalyst are mailed each academic year to some 5,000 UM theological students in more than 100 seminaries in the U.S.A.

AFTE
Catalyst is a project of A Foundation for Theological Education (AFTE).

What is the John Wesley Fellowship Program?
Each year AFTE awards up to five John Wesley Fellowships to assist gifted United Methodists in their doctoral studies at the finest universities.

Back Issues
Several back issues of Catalyst are now available on-line.

Subscriptions
Subscription is free for UM seminarians, and is available to all others for $5 per year.

WHERE TRADITION MEETS VISION
REFORMED THEOLOGY AT ITS GROWING EDGE

“There’s never been a new idea at Princeton Seminary,” said the great Reformed theologian, Charles Hodge, bragging about the institution where he served as a professor from 1840 to 1877. In our fast-paced, innovative, twenty-first century context, it is hard to imagine making this statement with pride in one’s tone. Like his sixteenth-century predecessor J. Calvin, Hodge did not believe church reform was about improving our theology, but about returning, ever-afresh, to the great truths that lie at the heart of our faith.

Reformed theologians still believe the Christian tradition is replete with insights about God and humanity that can never be over-rehearsed. And yet they are certainly not averse to having new ideas! Following the lead of K. Barth (1886-1968), contemporary Reformed theologians try to think in ways that are both old and new, simultaneously emphasizing both the consistency of God’s Word and its capacity to take on new shape in every particular situation.

The Posture of Reformed Theology
Reformed theologians, as Christian theologians, believe that the sovereign God is providentially involved in all of life; they seek to understand and to articulate exactly how. What is God’s Word in relation to cloning? Substitutionary atonement? Recycling? Inclusive language? While Reformed theologians often disagree about what shape God’s Word takes in relation to these pressing issues of our day, they do share a common commitment in exploring how Scripture and the confessions of the church can be brought relevantly to bear.

Because the work of Reformed theology is a never-ending quest to discern the ever-new shapes of God’s unchanging Word, it cannot be approached with the presumption that one is always right. The reality of serious disagreement among Christian believers is sobering, and should provoke prayerful self-reflection. As we have been increasingly sensitized to the ways in which Christian symbols and doctrines have been used to harm as well as to heal, Reformed theologians have begun to confess the ways we have misidentified the shape of God’s Word at the expense of human life. Some of the new things being confessed by Reformed theologians today are that Calvin was too dictatorial in Geneva, that the church did not take a strong enough stand in relation to Hitler, and that we were wrong to invest in multinational corporations that perpetuated apartheid in South Africa. Reformed theologians such as A. Boesak (Black and Reformed), J. von Wijk-Bos (Reformed and Feminist) and J. DeGruchy (Liberating Reformed Theology) argue that we have too often neglected the liberating impulse of the Reformation that appreciated the dynamic quality of the Christian tradition.

Although Reformed theology insists that talking about God requires humility, this does not mean that what we say should be watered-down or overly careful. Subject to the work of the Holy Spirit in our midst, we strive to generate new and better ideas than those that have missed or distorted what we know of God, and ourselves, in Jesus Christ (cf. S. Guthrie, Always Being Reformed [Westminster/John Knox, 1996]).

How do we speak, simultaneously, with both humility and conviction? How do we remain faithful to the tradition that is our inheritance, while at the same time working for reform? Our commitment to living in these dialectical tensions is nicely articulated in the recently-announced logo for Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary’s centennial campaign, which I have used as a title for this essay. But what does it look like, exactly, when tradition does meet vision?

Because this question is impossible to answer in the abstract, in the remainder of this essay I will consider three loci in which the creative tension between tradition and vision is especially salient.

Reformed Spirituality
The growth of nondenominational megachurches, coupled with demand for both “contemporary worship” and for “more liturgical” worship, has challenged Reformed churches and seminaries to reflect on what Reformed spirituality looks like. One predominant concern is to articulate what constitutes spiritually edifying worship practice. At one extreme are those who would like to do away with standard orders of worship, substituting “praise songs” for hymns and spontaneous prayers for written ones because they experience them as more “Spirit-filled.” At the other extreme are those who hardly stray from the suggested texts and prayers because to engage these liturgies, they believe, is to reflect in our practice that worship is a communal event, not a personal possession. Many pastors and church leaders are trying to negotiate amidst these differing views by planning different worship services, in different worship styles, for different times on Saturday evening/Sunday morning.

Reformed theology is responding to this debate by exploring the inextricable relationship between ecclesiology and spirituality. Because we are members of the Christian community even when we worship alone, personal piety is properly understood only in relationship to the life of the church. Whether prayer is being engaged by an individual, a small group, or a large congregation, those who pray join in the ongoing prayer of the “great cloud of witnesses” who are eternally interceding on behalf of all the saints.

Embracing the truth that worship brings together the many members of Christ’s body leads us not only to consider the value of common liturgies; it also reminds us that these liturgies developed as particular members shared their worship practices with the body as a whole. “Contemporary” worship styles, the practices of believers from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds, and “new ideas” for how our worship life can be enriched should therefore be welcomed. Reformed ecclesiology and spirituality, championing the communal nature of our life together, holds both that Christian worship will not be reduced to “what works for me and my friends” and that particular perspectives will be included.

Reformed Theology and the Bible
“Sola Scriptura!” Luther and Calvin cried. But Reformed theologians recognize that “Scripture alone” does not mean that Scripture is the only element that needs to be considered in making theological statements. Experience, reason, and tradition all come into play. Finally, though, it is always through the “spectacles of Scripture” (Calvin) that all other resources are interpreted. Through the work of the Holy Spirit, we are able to hear the Word proclaimed, interpret the Word written, and encounter the Word revealed in Jesus Christ.

The flagrant snag is this: Although Reformed theologians agree that God’s Word is discerned via Scripture, they often disagree about how Scripture is to be interpreted in relation to a particular issue or dilemma. Hermeneutical conflicts are currently no more clearly evident than in our disagreements about homosexual ordination. Reformed thinkers on both sides of the debate claim to defend their positions “biblically,” but have different understandings about what is “biblical.” Those arguing “for” the ordination of homosexuals often uphold a canon within the biblical canon, explaining that the biblical principles of fidelity and inclusion should naturally take precedence over certain passages (such as the Levitical codes) that need to be understood in context. Those arguing “against” homosexual ordination often hold that their view is self-evidentially more biblical because it reflects a more literal reading of the text and does not privilege certain texts over others.

What may help those who take these differing political stands to converse more productively with one another is the historical/theological recollection that sola Scriptura presupposes tota Scriptura, or “Scripture in its entirety.” Both the refusal to dismiss troublesome pericopae and the willingness to identify the intra-biblical tensions and predominant systematic themes reflect commitment to working faithfully with the whole of the biblical canon.

While this commonality might be fruitfully used as a matrix for conversation between dissenting groups, such discussions have been slow in coming due to a problem that is more radical than any political disagreement: the crisis of biblical illiteracy.

Our context demands a compelling theological rationale for reading the Bible. Why do we care about being “biblical,” anyway? Is it so that we can offer evidence for what it is that God wants and thinks? On the contrary, the Reformed commitment to working faithfully with the biblical canon is not as much to master and present God’s view as it is to continuously recognize anew that God’s living Word cannot be encapsulated in footnotes to our political positions. (For more on a Reformed approach to hermeneutics, see Jack Roger’s Reading the Bible and the Confessions the Presbyterian Way [Geneva Press, 1999].)

Reformed God-Language
Related to the challenges of articulating a Reformed understanding of worship and improving biblical literacy are lively discussions regarding language for God. While congregations are becoming increasingly comfortable with using inclusive language for human beings, referring to God other than as “He” or “Father” is often met with resistance. Reformed theology insists that worship should include multiple ways of naming the infinite God, and that all the ways God is addressed be “biblical.” But again, does this mean we should address God only with titles found in the Bible? Or can extra-biblical names that are consistent with what the Bible teaches about God also be used?

There is no question that the movement from the Christian tradition’s growing sensitivity to the concerns of persons who have been marginalized by the Christian tradition to conscious inclusion of these voices in the tradition has precipitated both fruitful and painful conversations about the parameters of God-language. Fortunately, these conversations are far richer and theologically nourishing than a simple yes or no debate over whether or not we can appropriately call God “Mother.” A good example of Reformed theology’s resistance to discussing particular issues apart from the tradition as a whole is seen in the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s recent efforts to consider the matter of inclusive language in the context of reflection on the doctrine of the Trinity.

Conversations about inclusive language in relationship to the doctrine of the Trinity build on Reformed work on the doctrine of God done in response to the problem of human suffering. As Barth and Moltmann have noted, the doctrine of the Trinity reminds us that the suffering of the Son on the cross was not merely a necessary step on the way to accomplishing the ultimate goal of resurrection. On the contrary, because the Son is eternally united with the Father and the Spirit in the divine triune life, what happened on the cross is not only something God did for us, but who God is for us. To think about the cross in trinitarian perspective is to come to the disturbing and yet hope-full realization that the God who suffered in the person of Jesus Christ is a suffering God who is really with us, right now, in the midst of our pain.

Seeking to understand what the cross reveals about the divine character, Reformed theologians have recently been talking about God as one who is vulnerable as well as omnipotent (cf. W. Placher, Narratives of a Vulnerable God [Westminster/John Knox, 1994] and A. Case-Winters, God's Power [Westminster/John Knox, 1990]). Although saying that God is both “vulnerable” and “omnipotent” might seem like a contradiction when we consider these terms in the abstract, their coexistence in the particular actions of the triune God cannot be denied. As we marvel that the God of the universe is cradled in the arms of Mary, as we witness the Holy Spirit’s defiance of organizational efficiency, our contemporary understanding of what constitutes “power” is challenged to the core.

Insights into how the doctrine of the Trinity helps us envision where God is in relation to human suffering manifest profound concern with issues of inclusivity. Those who are suffering are left behind by non-trinitarian portrayals of God that compromise on God's sovereign, incarnational involvement in the particularities of our lives. Our language for God must continue to expand to make room for those whose faithful response is to lament the suffering wrought by racism, sexism, and classism. As Christian believers, we are compelled to explore how reflection on the Trinity can help us convey, in our God-language, that the God who meets us as Father, Son, and Spirit lives and acts for all.

Reformed Theology Today
Reformed theology refuses to separate vision and tradition. Because nothing can separate us from the love of God known to us in Jesus Christ, we engage current concerns about worship, biblical authority, and God-language without fear that to get it “wrong” means we have less of a relationship with God. We are also free from the tyranny of thinking that, because God is steadfast, it does not matter how we think about these issues. As those loved by the sovereign God, we are free to care deeply, to explore deeply, to take risks for the sake of better understanding who God is and who we are in relationship to God.

As Reformed theology continues to seek understanding of the Christian faith, it will encounter new challenges to articulating how the content of this faith speaks to our twenty-first century lives. Speaking with both humility and conviction, the Reformed church looks forward to being reformed in the coming years, confident that we are a place where tradition and vision meet because God the Holy Spirit is present and active in our midst.

For more information on Reformed theology, see Johnson, Leith, and Stroup, A Reformed Reader (2 vols.; Westminster/John Knox); McKim, Encyclopedia of Reformed Theology (Westminster/John Knox, 1992); Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding (Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1991) and Willis and Welker, Toward the Future of Reformed Theology (Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1999).

By Cynthia L. Rigby, Associate Professor of Theology at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary.