Albany Via Media

June 18, 2010

To the Editor:

In response to Dr. Lyman:

1. Labels are always a problem — at best they are a sort of short hand. I use the term “progressive” because I find that it is generally less pejorative than terms like “liberal,” “revisionist” or the unwieldy “reappraiser” — and most especially because this is usually how my more liberal colleagues refer to themselves.

2. I prefer not to think of myself as a theological traditionalist, since I agree with Karl Barth that the Word of God is new every morning, and hence, just trotting out the same formulas is not enough. I also think that Newman's notion of “Development of Doctrine”, shorn of its Roman Catholic apologetic, makes a lot of sense. Serious theological reflection must engage the “signs of times.” This does not, however, amount to an endorsement of the glib assertions of continuing revelation by the Holy Spirit that are so prominent of late.

3. I rather like the term “orthodox” but I try to be careful how I use it, since those with whom I am often in disagreement do not think of themselves as “unorthodox.” And one cannot assume a consensus on what constitutes theological orthodoxy. Basically, it's not helpful to use the term without clarification — though I admit to having done just that in my earlier post.

4. My own theological education was at General Theological Seminary (MDiv) and Union Theological Seminary (PhD). Many if not most of my professors had strongly progressive leanings. While I was not satisfied with the prevailing theological method and outlook at these institutions, I would not dismiss it out of hand, and I have a lot of respect for many of those with whom I studied. On the other hand, I often felt I was hearing something less than the classic Christian faith that I assimilated from writers such as Ireneaus, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, the Caroline Divines, the Tractarians, Barth, Bonhoeffer, N.T. Wright and others who had become my theological heroes.

5. Very briefly, in my reference to the “parasitic” character of theological liberalism or “progressivism,” I was thinking of what has often been called “the hermeneutic of suspicion.” This entails a critique of foundational theological formulations in light of some sort of social or political analysis, and a recognition that theological assertion never takes place in a vacuum, but reflects its context. To some extent this is simply common sense, but this approach can also lead to an overbearing theological reductionism. A theological method that is largely a socio-political critique still presupposes a classic body of teaching — you could even use a traditional term such as “deposit of faith” — from which to draw, and with which to apply its particular critical method. But at the same time, its relationship to that body of teaching is largely one of discontinuity.

There is obviously more to say to on this topic, this will have to do for the moment.

Fr. Christopher Brown