Seeking to Ward of Modernity...Get it? Ward off?
Perhaps what is most compelling about Graham Ward and his Radical Orthodox counterparts is their courage to allow us to be truly Christian again. Ward unabashedly embraces a project that is truly apologetic; yet, his enterprise is not the silly, fear-driven fideism endorsed by Barth,[1] nor the thoroughly modern “decide-for-yourself” apologetic of 19th and 20th century Evangelicalism. In effect, Ward essentially skips modernity completely as he resents the fact that biblical criticism and recent systematics have so often been captive to modern tools of historiography and scientific investigation, modes of thinking that he contends are no outdated and obsolete.[2] Hence, it is easy to resonate with the Radical Orthodox sentiments and their complete disdain for the trappings of modernity. It is true enough that modernity is no friend to Christian theology, yet its influence is ever-pervasive. But what remains mostly undetected, however, is that modernity robs Christianity of its voice. Once we have become committed to the tenets of modernism, consciously or otherwise, we are literally unable to present and understand the Christian faith as it truly is. There have been some feeble attempts, such as those by postliberals at the Yale school, to overcome the imposing challenge of unadulterated modernism. Yet, for all their talk of “Christian-grammar” and cultural linguistics, they are overwhelmed by the irony of not being able to actually say anything. This is where Ward’s Christological approach becomes so refreshing. It goes beyond the postliberals by presenting a Christology with legs. Ward writes, “The point I wish to make is that Christological reflection was not simply an intra-ecclesial discourse…Christological discourse was born not simply for catechesis but for mission.”[3]
As has been mentioned, to accomplish this missional Christology, Ward passes over modernity completely. Ideally, Ward suggests a return to pre-modern sources (such as the Greek and Latin Fathers) while simultaneously recognizing that an un-nuanced transposing of pre-modern thinking onto a postmodern context is both impossible and unwise.[4] Though a pre-modern philosophical environment can obviously not be simplistically reduplicated, Ward rightly affirms that these sources can be modeled and re-appropriated. Ward points to famed paleo-modern apologists Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria and their efforts to make Christianity “comprehensible, and tolerable, if not attractive” to Hellenistic minds as the archetype for his apologetic efforts.[5] However, the key to his entire endeavor is the asking of different questions. In seeking to construct a truly postmodern apologetic, Ward debunks the concerns of modernity and replaces them with questions that are more savvy to the postmodern context. Ultimately, these are questions of contemporary meaning as opposed to questions of historical reality. It is my contention that Ward’s opening lines set up an overarching hermeneutic by which he reads history, Scripture, and Christology as a whole: “…the Christological question begins not with who is the Christ or what is the Christ; it begins with where is the Christ.”[6]
This question of what Jesus means for us now[7] supplants the questions of Schweitzer, Bultmann, and even Barth. According to Ward, this quest for the historical Jesus is important, but it misses the point. Actually, Ward’s treatment of the question of the historical Jesus is both refreshing and accurate. With a few strokes of the pen, Ward exposes the inanity of the whole inquiry: “It is Jesus of Nazareth who is the Christ…the death of Jesus makes no sense outside of historical claim to be the Christ; a claim that the Church accepts as foundational in the manner Peter accepted it at Caesarea Philippi.”[8] Thus, Ward is not afraid to be polemical; his flippant treatment of historical Jesus scholars betrays Ward’s hermeneutic of trust. Again, the question is not who is the Christ, but where is the Christ. This indeed influences his biblical hermeneutics, which Ward concedes may by misguided or misinformed. This hermeneutic, though dubious from a biblical studies perspective, is most evident in his reader-response criticism of Mark. His questions about the text are not historical; rather, they are musings on desire and mimesis, of existential consequence. In my estimation, Ward reads parables as they are intended to be read; as menacing and puzzling questions that plunge the reader into some form of crisis but are ultimately resolved in the metanoia that is Christ himself, the “alternative epistemology.”[9] This results in Ward’s theology of narrative, in which questions of critical time especially are dissolved into the concerns of narrative time. In this brilliant move, Ward contends that historical and geographical time are important, yet, and this is where his hermeneutic comes in, they serve an eschatological time and transcends, but does not disregard, mundane historical meaning.[10] By adopting this ancient yet fresh hermeneutic, Ward is able to truly speak in the postmodern context without fearing or ignoring history. This puts his apologetic ahead of the impotence of Barth, the futility of the Yale school, and the silliness of modern apologetics.
[1] By this I mean that Barth considered apologetics “anathema” because “The world is so lost, so secularized, so ignorant of God that both Christ and subsequently a theology of Christ operate above and beyond such a world, in contradistinction to it. Dogmatics is fundamentally a countercultural activity” as quoted in Graham Ward, Christ and Culture (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 14-15. This main seem pious on the surface level, yet I believe that Barth’s unconscious commitment/fear of modernity causes him to make statements like this. He flatly dismisses modern logic because he respects it so much; he fears that his Christ will not stand up to the rigors of modern historiography.
[2] “We are no longer bound by Enlightenment rationalism, nineteen and twentieth century preoccupations with subjectivism, psychologism, historical positivism, humanism, ameliorism, liberalism and the pursuit of freedom.” Christ and Culture, 6.
[3] 16-17. The idea of a missional Christology is simply brilliant. You can’t deny it. However, it is debatable as to how missional Ward’s Christology actually is, simply because much of it can only be described as inaccessible.
[4] 20.
[5] 16. Other notable examples could include Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus, whose works read more like Greek philosophy than Christian theology.
[6] 1.
[7] This, as it seems to me, comes dangerously close to the silly liberalism of thinkers like Marcus Borg.
[8] 23.
[9] 44.
[10] This is what Ward is saying on 49-51, if I am reading him correctly.
As has been mentioned, to accomplish this missional Christology, Ward passes over modernity completely. Ideally, Ward suggests a return to pre-modern sources (such as the Greek and Latin Fathers) while simultaneously recognizing that an un-nuanced transposing of pre-modern thinking onto a postmodern context is both impossible and unwise.[4] Though a pre-modern philosophical environment can obviously not be simplistically reduplicated, Ward rightly affirms that these sources can be modeled and re-appropriated. Ward points to famed paleo-modern apologists Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria and their efforts to make Christianity “comprehensible, and tolerable, if not attractive” to Hellenistic minds as the archetype for his apologetic efforts.[5] However, the key to his entire endeavor is the asking of different questions. In seeking to construct a truly postmodern apologetic, Ward debunks the concerns of modernity and replaces them with questions that are more savvy to the postmodern context. Ultimately, these are questions of contemporary meaning as opposed to questions of historical reality. It is my contention that Ward’s opening lines set up an overarching hermeneutic by which he reads history, Scripture, and Christology as a whole: “…the Christological question begins not with who is the Christ or what is the Christ; it begins with where is the Christ.”[6]
This question of what Jesus means for us now[7] supplants the questions of Schweitzer, Bultmann, and even Barth. According to Ward, this quest for the historical Jesus is important, but it misses the point. Actually, Ward’s treatment of the question of the historical Jesus is both refreshing and accurate. With a few strokes of the pen, Ward exposes the inanity of the whole inquiry: “It is Jesus of Nazareth who is the Christ…the death of Jesus makes no sense outside of historical claim to be the Christ; a claim that the Church accepts as foundational in the manner Peter accepted it at Caesarea Philippi.”[8] Thus, Ward is not afraid to be polemical; his flippant treatment of historical Jesus scholars betrays Ward’s hermeneutic of trust. Again, the question is not who is the Christ, but where is the Christ. This indeed influences his biblical hermeneutics, which Ward concedes may by misguided or misinformed. This hermeneutic, though dubious from a biblical studies perspective, is most evident in his reader-response criticism of Mark. His questions about the text are not historical; rather, they are musings on desire and mimesis, of existential consequence. In my estimation, Ward reads parables as they are intended to be read; as menacing and puzzling questions that plunge the reader into some form of crisis but are ultimately resolved in the metanoia that is Christ himself, the “alternative epistemology.”[9] This results in Ward’s theology of narrative, in which questions of critical time especially are dissolved into the concerns of narrative time. In this brilliant move, Ward contends that historical and geographical time are important, yet, and this is where his hermeneutic comes in, they serve an eschatological time and transcends, but does not disregard, mundane historical meaning.[10] By adopting this ancient yet fresh hermeneutic, Ward is able to truly speak in the postmodern context without fearing or ignoring history. This puts his apologetic ahead of the impotence of Barth, the futility of the Yale school, and the silliness of modern apologetics.
[1] By this I mean that Barth considered apologetics “anathema” because “The world is so lost, so secularized, so ignorant of God that both Christ and subsequently a theology of Christ operate above and beyond such a world, in contradistinction to it. Dogmatics is fundamentally a countercultural activity” as quoted in Graham Ward, Christ and Culture (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 14-15. This main seem pious on the surface level, yet I believe that Barth’s unconscious commitment/fear of modernity causes him to make statements like this. He flatly dismisses modern logic because he respects it so much; he fears that his Christ will not stand up to the rigors of modern historiography.
[2] “We are no longer bound by Enlightenment rationalism, nineteen and twentieth century preoccupations with subjectivism, psychologism, historical positivism, humanism, ameliorism, liberalism and the pursuit of freedom.” Christ and Culture, 6.
[3] 16-17. The idea of a missional Christology is simply brilliant. You can’t deny it. However, it is debatable as to how missional Ward’s Christology actually is, simply because much of it can only be described as inaccessible.
[4] 20.
[5] 16. Other notable examples could include Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus, whose works read more like Greek philosophy than Christian theology.
[6] 1.
[7] This, as it seems to me, comes dangerously close to the silly liberalism of thinkers like Marcus Borg.
[8] 23.
[9] 44.
[10] This is what Ward is saying on 49-51, if I am reading him correctly.
posted by ryan tafilowski at 9:32 AM
2 comments
