Reformed Catholicity and the Need for Dogmatics Today

The Evangelical Theological Society has contributed valiantly to the defense of biblical inerrancy and its members have produced impressive summaries.  For the most part, though, evangelical systematic theology has been of the “catalogue-of-Bible-doctrine” variety.  Moreover, there have been significant debates in ETS over elements of classical theism (even among conservative non-open-theists) as well as over the doctrine of the Trinity.  For twentieth-century Protestant theologians—across the conservative-liberal divide—attitudes toward “scholasticism” ranged from mild disregard to solemn warnings.  The reason Protestant scholastics were so great, in my opinion, is exactly the reason esteemed conservatives expressed wariness: namely, their deep connection to the whole tradition of Christian theology, including patristic and medieval sources.  Thus, sixteenth and early seventeenth-century orthodoxy represents a sort of ressourcement that simultaneously gave specific texture to distinctive confessional systems while exhibiting remarkably informed engagement with the whole tradition of Christian theology.  They also interacted constructively and polemically with a wide range of contemporary philosophical, philological, and exegetical sources.

In some ways, what we’re beginning to see in mostly confessional Reformed circles today resembles the spirit of the ressourcement theologians of the twentieth century like Henri de Lubac.  Russian Orthodox exiles in Paris such as Vladimir Lossky pioneered a similar vision, often in conversation with de Lubac’s circle.  From these towering figures emerged a new generation, including John Meyendorff, Andrew Louth, John Zizioulas, and many others.  Ressourcement differs from repristination by drawing reflectively on traditions directly, many of which had been forgotten or buried in second-hand “manual-theology.”

Reformed Ressourcement

Renewed interest in this heritage among Protestants was initiated particularly by Karl Barth.  “Protestantism”—what Barth calls “Neo-Protestantism”—is not Christianity at all.  “It is heir,” he said, “not so much to the Reformers as to the left-wing opposition that the Reformers had to fight against.  Unbroken threads undoubtedly lead us from the Anabaptists to Pietism, Zinzendorf, and Schleiermacher, and from the Radicals to the Socinians, the Remonstrants, the Rationalists, and Schleiermacher again, and then from Schleiermacher to ourselves.”[1]  After reading Calvin and the Reformed scholastics as he lectured at Göttingen, Barth encountered “the mysteries of specifically Reformed theology.”[2]  Having once described Protestant scholasticism as “an empty canal,” he found himself, as he put it, “visibly in the realm of the Church.”[3]  Even in the Church Dogmatics he went so far as to declare, “Fear of scholasticism is the mark of a false prophet” (CD I/1, 279).  As we know, Barth travelled far from the shore of Reformed orthodoxy, but he engaged it.  “We are a generation that has to learn again, sometimes even by name, what are the presuppositions that a Thomas, an Augustine before him, and a Calvin after him could quietly take for granted…Is not the word ‘dogmatics’ an ominous one, a bogey that causes the children of light as well as the children of the world to shudder?”[4]  Yet, he adds, “None of the laughter or head shaking of our contemporaries and none of our faintheartedness ought to keep us from at least realizing the task…We have to consider the fact that ‘in some way’ we have to speak about God.  The question puts a pistol at the breast of theologians and through them at that of public…One can well understand why even theologians prefer an undogmatic Christianity.”[5]  However, “every theologian has to be a dogmatician.”[6]  Liberal theology in the wake of Kant laughed at Barth as a dilettante for this insistence.  Theologians can summarize what a particular religious group believes (Glaubenslehre), but Barth bravely called his project Church Dogmatics. 

And right from the beginning of the Church Dogmatics (I/1), Barth shows his debt to Herman Bavinck, especially to the “Deus Dixit,” that grounds all supernatural theology.  And through the translation work of recent years, Bavinck may be as well-known in the English-speaking world as he was in his native Holland.  John Webster told me that he felt Bavinck represented the most up-to-date interaction with modern theology and culture of his day from a classic Reformed perspective.  In this context, we cannot forget the pioneering work of Richard Muller, who encouraged a wide revival of interest in Reformed scholasticism, including fresh English translations of Latin works.  By coming in closer contact with this tradition, we go deeper into the broader catholic heritage that they held in high esteem.

The State of Dogmatics Today

There was nothing like a Tyndale House, Cambridge, for dogmatics in the UK or in the US., but Gunton and Webster created the closest thing to it.  And the International Journal of Systematic Theology was the fruit of this remarkable partnership.  Moreover, the reign of the Neo-Thomist manualist tradition since the First Vatican Council was challenged by Henri de Lubac and others in the mid-20^th century.  Their motto was ressourcement: returning to the sources of Scripture and the church fathers.  At the same time, Russian Orthodox exiles in Paris such as Vladimir Lossky pioneered a similar vision, often in conversation with the Roman Catholic ressourcement theologians.  Out of this circle came the influential works of John Meyendorff, Andrew Louth, John Zizioulas, and many others.

Gunton and Webster modelled the importance of working groups to help foster theological growth. Colin Gunton does not get enough credit as a formative influence on the revival of dogmatics by making King’s College London a center of ressourcement theology that included John Zizioulas, among many others.  Leaving his post as Oxford’s Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, John Webster became the Chair of Systematic Theology at King’s College, Aberdeen, where another rich ressourcement conversation emerged.  I had familiar conversations with Webster during this period and was privileged to participate in his St. Mary’s conversation with a paper where biblical scholars like I. Howard Marshall interrogated my thesis exegetically.  Professor Marshall told me he never missed these colloquia and he expressed how influential the interdisciplinary conversation was to his own research.  The St. Andrews Encyclopedia of Theology is another offspring of this interdisciplinary and interconfessional conversation.  Perhaps the richest fruit of the Gunton-Webster partnership was the International Journal of Systematic Theology.  Its first issue in 1999 flew the flag of dogmatic renewal, drawing Reformed voices to the dogmatic conversation alongside a range of others. Although there was no ETS member who contributed to this maiden voyage, things are changing dramatically.

Kevin Vanhoozer has led the way in enriching theological hermeneutics.  There is a renewed vigor for what Michael Allen and Scott Swain call “Reformed Catholicity.”  Under their leadership, the New Studies in Dogmatics is a major contribution to this trend.  Zondervan Academic has taken a leading role in publishing serious dogmatics conferences, such as the Los Angeles Theology Conference and Theo Global.  Swain’s work on Trinitarian theology is as exegetically anchored as it is seriously engaged with contemporary theologians, especially Robert Jenson. Baptists are joining the great conversation especially through the efforts of scholars like Matthew Barrett.  On and on I could go.

Being Reformed, Being Catholic

What can we do better to nurture this flowering enterprise?  First, Reformed Catholicity should be Reformed.  This encompasses those who embrace the Three Forms of Unity, the Westminster Standards, and the Thirty-Nine Articles.  There is a somewhat analogous Evangelical Catholic movement in Lutheran circles.  Baptists are joining the great conversation especially through the efforts of scholars like Matthew Barrett and his Center for Classical Theology.  At the beginning of his famous book, C. S. Lewis says that “Mere Christianity” is the hallway where we mingle together, learn from each other, and welcome new guests.  But we can’t live in the hallway; for that, there are different rooms.  These different rooms are churches, where we are warmed and fed.  That’s what church dogmatics means.  There are twin dangers on this score.  One danger is to aim at a generally evangelical dogmatics that I have described above.  But the other danger is to exaggerate our agreements with medieval thinkers; the Reformation was not a return to Aquinas but to the New Testament.  The deeper we’re rooted in our own confessional heritage, the more we will have to contribute and also to learn from others.

Second, precisely as Reformed, we need to become more catholic, growing in our engagement with other traditions from the depth of our own confessional convictions.  The hallway is important.  This includes not only interacting with people of other confessions but with our brothers and sisters around the world.  Even in the United States, Reformed theology is for the most part, ethnically and culturally, a subset within white evangelicalism.  The reasons for this are beyond my scope, but they should be addressed as part of this greater experience of Reformed catholicity.  Together with Bishop Justin Holcomb and Elizabeth Mburu, I am privileged to be involved in Theo Global conversations that challenge me to grow out of the Western monologue and learn from Christians in the Global South.  Among the latter, there is still a tremendous need to break out of regional theologies that are too influenced by post-colonial theory and often critical of Western resources that are enriching.  Yet among Western scholars, there is still a tremendous need to relate no longer to these brothers and sisters as simply beneficiaries of Western Christianity rather than colleagues in a common task.  There are evangelical biblical scholars and theologians in the Majority World who bring a wealth of history, cultural vantage points, and scholarly depth to the family reunion.  Speaking from the deepest convictions of our own confession, we will be equipped for this ongoing work of mutual edification and admonition.

[1] Karl Barth, The Gottingen Dogmatics: Instruction in the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. Hannelotte Reiffen; trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 211.

[2] Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth, 129.

[3] Cited Barth, The Göttingen Dogmatics, 304.

[4] Karl Barth, The Gottingen Dogmatics, 4.

[5] Karl Barth, The Gottingen Dogmatics, 5-6.

[6] Karl Barth, The Gottingen Dogmatics, 6.