Recent debates within Evangelicalism whether over if The Son submits to the Father, it is sinful to use empathy, the extent to which we can attribute emotions to God or temptation is a sin in itself have been marked by a dividing line between those who consider themselves to what is termed classical-theism and those they see as not being.
Classical Theism properly speaking is to do with a specific view of God, an emphasis on his otherness or transcendence. It is likely to be associated with doctrinal positions such as God’s unchanging, sovereign, infinite nature and his impassibility. However, it is possible to hold those doctrinal positions and not be considered a classical theist.
This is because first of all, Classical Theism is associated with particular historical periods. It is about theology shaped first by Greek philosophy, specifically Plato and Aristotle, then by the church fathers such as Athanasius and Augustine. However, it is possible to have a deep love and interest in those people and periods and to have a theology that has been developed in conversation with their writing and still not be a classical theist. I am tempted to add that there is a particular desire right now to recover Aquinas and Scholasticism and this is seen as central to the classical theist (or neo-classical-theist) movement.
Crucially though, Classical or what is really a Neo-Classical Theism* is about methodology, about seeking to recover the tools, methods and systems of thinking of those historical figures. It’s also about a reliance on the creeds and (if you are reformed), confessions of the Church. And this means finally that it’s possible to affirm the creeds and various confessions, to state your agreement with Augustine and Athanasius but still to discover that you are not considered within the orthodoxy of classical theism because you have reached conclusions or articulated things in a way that is considered not to be in keeping with those people, creeds and confessions as interpreted by the current guardians of such a classical-theist orthodoxy.
I personally love church history, hold to the doctrines outlined above and will happily seek to engage with the Creeds etc I suspect though that I would not be considered a classical theist. But then, I have seen people with a far greater expertise in these things than me and far greater too than the guardians of this supposed orthodoxy written off. So, I’m not too worried. Indeed, I think there are good reasons to be cautious about getting caught up in this neo-classical theist movement.
Here’s why. First of all, I am concerned by the way in which the charge of Biblicist is used pejoratively against those who don’t agree with the movement’s conclusions or follow its methodology. There is a concerning dismissiveness towards those who seek to put into practice our supposed Evangelical belief that Scripture is true, sufficient and clear. Obstacles are put between God’s Word and the hearer. It’s not merely that we hear it as interpreted by the Creeds , confessions, church fathers and reformers. There is a further filter because we are hearing it through the interpretation of those intermediaries interpretations by our contemporaries.
This leads to my second point. The creeds, confessions, church fathers and reformers are fallible. Modern interpreters are also fallible too. This has been brought home to me as I’ve witnessed their engagement with contemporaries. Often I’ve been concerned at how unreliable their representation of their interlocutors has been. That leaves me wondering how reliable their interpretation of ancient sources is if they struggle to accurately interpret and represent their contemporaries. Indeed, when I’ve gone digging into those older sources, I’ve not been persuaded by those interpretations confidently asserted as infallible gospel.
My third concern is that when it comes to their conclusions, there is I think a skewing of their focus even on the Doctrine of God. First, the focus on God’s infinite and eternal sovereignty is important but as I argue in Who is God, there are two things we need to see in order to get a vision of the true God his greatness and his goodness. If process theologians are perhaps concerned about his goodness at the expense of his greatness, I wonder if others, especially from the neo-classical-theist end of things can be concerned with his greatness at the expense of his goodness and that can skew our understanding of doctrines such as impassibilitty.
Similarly, we need to remember that whilst in the EFS debate, neo-classical=theists were concerned that other views might over-emphasise the distinction between the persons, the criticism the other way was on an over emphasis on oneness that risked losing those distinctions. Whist one side were sounding the alarm about neo-Arianism the other side were alarmed at the risk of a neo-modalism.
Fourth, there is the question about the extent to which classical theism reflects the culture, worldview or philosophy of it’s context. That may also explain variation within classical Christian theism between those coming primarily from a Platonic and those from an Aristotelian perspective. There are two issues here. First that theologians are not necessarily experts in philosophy or specific schools. Second that not enough attention has been given to the differences within classical theism.
Fifth, I am concerned at what comes across as a form of intellectual snobbery and exclusivism. There are two elements to this. First, classical=theism can be seen to go hand in hand with other aspects of classicalism such as a classical education. This then feeds into the sense that there are an inner circle, a modern day, self-appointed magisterium who have empowered themselves to judge the orthodoxy of the rest of us. Secondly, debates are conducted in a manner and using language which seems far removed from the practicality of everyday church life and pastoral ministry. For whose benefit is this happening?
Those concerns leave me convinced that whilst a true and proper recovery of knowledge from the church Fathers and Reformers is surely helpful, I’m not convinced that the Neo-Classical-Theist movement is helpful to the church.
—
note Neo-Classical Theism is a term that has been applied at different times. It is applied to some who disagree with the supposed classical theist approach because they are seen as revising it. However it has also been applied over the past 5-10 years to those articulating a claimed classical theist approach. I use it intentionally here to distinguish the contemporary attempts to interpret apply and recover classical theism exactly to make the point that it is new and it’s interpretation of the past is questioned.
Faithroots 