I’ve noticed a tendency in terms of contemporary hot potatoes to assume that, or at least act as though, the debate is binary. I’m thinking specifically of the complementarian/egalitarian, EFS and Concupiscence debates.
What I mean is this. Often a specific theological position is developed in response to a perceived error, this may not be heresy but may be or it may be simply an over emphasis on something, a taking of an extreme.
It is important to remember that many theological positions have been developed in those ways. The doctrine of the Trinity was developed and fleshed out in response to Arianism and other heresies, complementarianism came in response to a perceived accommodation of radical feminism and when you look back at the Reformers you can see that on concupiscence people like Calvin are seeking to counter very specific Roman Catholic teaching.
Then what happens is that other Christians come along and they explore the issue further, noting that because theologians and their theologies are fallible that new risks have developed. So they articulate a different approach.
I think that out of this comes two problems. First, that the new developments are seen as in disagreement with historical positions because of their wording. The assumption is that, for example, the current Concupiscence position is the same as that of Calvin, Augustine etc and so someone who expresses differently is assumed to be in full disagreement with Calvin whereas, it may be possible that both sides have in fact ended up in a slightly different place to the reformer. Secondly it is presumed that they must therefore hold to the same views as Calvin’s opponents.
EFS provides another example. The prominent proponents of EFS were Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware. They were responding to approaches that they feared would lean into modalism. Their respondents from a neo-classical-theism position were concerned about subordinationism and a potential semi-Arianism.
There are other theologians who have contributed to the conversation, some like Mike Ovey were willing to use the EFS label. The presumption seems to be that if you use that label then you are holding exactly the same position as Grudem and Ware on everything. Yet it is clear from reading the three that there are differences in methodology and content.
Meanwhile others would not use the label but this does not mean that they land with the neo-classical-theists either.
Why does this matter? Well first because in the theological debates themselves, we end up in a situation where people talk past each other and where they assume the worst of each other. This makes good conversation hard.
Secondly it matters because it leads to a disconnect between the debate and the real life of church. Whilst the debate is going on, pastors are getting in with shepherding the flock. Many are unaware that the debate is happening. I suspect that EFS and concupiscence will pass most by.
It is important to be clear that this doesn’t mean that all those pastors are theologically ignorant on pastoral issues. They may not know the history of the debate. They may not have the same terminology but they are living the challenges on a day time day basis.
Faithroots 