I agree. I believe that the “stakes,” “tethers,” and “cords” of classical orthodoxy; the Reformation understanding of the gospel; and Great Awakening beliefs and behaviors including missions/missiology reflect what the evangelical movement and its mission should be if it is to have a future (Figure 1). It goes without saying that I cannot do justice to the whole of that history. I probably will not do justice to all that Sweeney has in mind, and for that I apologize. I ask the reader to think of what follows in Part I as no more than a series of snapshots of the history involved and to do his or her own study to fill in the gaps of which there will be many.
Figure 1. Three sources of Evangelicalism
Of the many references that undergird Part I, a little book on the great tradition coauthored by David Dockery and Timothy George and published by Crossway has been most helpful to my purpose.3 Of the words used in the title of that book the one most likely to give pause to some readers is the word “tradition.” However, Dockery and George quote the Methodist scholar Thomas Oden, who says, “All that is meant by tradition, then, is the faithful handing down from generation to generation of scripture interpretation consensually received worldwide and cross-culturally through two millennia.”4 Oden’s phraseology is worth pondering—“scripture interpretation,” “consensually received,” “worldwide and cross-culturally,” “handed down through two millennia.” That is precisely what we are attempting to discover here, and it is not only good, it is “essential to evangelicalism.”
1. Sweeney, “Introduction.” See also, Sweeney, American Evangelical Story, 82.
2. Sweeney, “Introduction,” 2.
3. Dockery and George, Great Tradition.
4. Oden, Rebirth of Orthodoxy, 32.
Chapter 1
“Based on Classical Christian Orthodoxy”
Acknowledging a special debt to Douglas Sweeney’s historically oriented definition of what it means to be evangelical on the one hand, and what has proved to be a complementary study of The Great Tradition of Christian Thinking by David Dockery and Timothy George on the other, we begin our study with the early church and the apostolic fathers. With the completion of the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus and his return to the Father, where did they find true doctrine and divine direction? Paul answers that question in large part when, addressing the church at Thessalonica, he admonished believers to “stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter” (2 Thess 2:15). The Christian great tradition begins with the inspiration and inscripturation of the word of God and proceeds with its proclamation, dissemination, and instruction.
The Scripture Canon: The Old and New Testaments
Wherever the Christian faith has been found, there has been a close association with the written Word of God, with books, education, and learning. Studying and interpreting the Bible became natural for the early Christian community, having inherited the practice from late Judaism.5
The great tradition is not only rooted in the biblical text itself but also in the history of the study and interpretation of the biblical text. It shows that, historically, Bible interpretation was informed by approaches inherited from intertestamental Judaism and the Graeco-Roman world of the apostles. However, with the passing of the apostles various needs surfaced: the need for an authoritative Scripture canon, the need to clarify and defend apostolic beliefs and practices, the need to encounter and counter false religionists, the need to reply to heresies within the church, and the need to respond to persecution from without the church. In one form or another—and to one or another degree—these challenges continued and were met by the church throughout the classical period and beyond.
The single most important part of the Christian Tradition is, of course, the New Testament itself.6 Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would bring what he had taught them to the minds of the apostles and “guide them into all truth” (John 16:13). That promise was extended so as to include the apostle Paul and Luke the historian. Scholars disagree as to the date of the pastorals, Peter’s epistles, Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Gospel of John, but it is safe to say that by the end of the first century or very shortly thereafter the early church possessed at least a good part of the New Testament and accorded it the authority that went with apostolic authorship. With that authority and additional agreements among the churches, the New Testament canon essentially as we have it today was accepted by the churches before two more centuries had passed. That Bible came to be our Bible and with it came the true truth and undivided authority that forever attends the word of God.
The apostolic witness contained in the writings of the apostles, then, was the authoritative source for addressing key issues that faced the early church. The following table summarizes these issues and key figures and events in the second through the fifth centuries of the church.
Figure 2. Three main elements of classical orthodoxy
Hermeneutics: Interpreting and Applying the Written Word
Following the death of the apostles, and as the church moved into the second century, more attention was given to ways of understanding and applying Scripture to everyday life and thought. Which books and letters are authentic? How is the New Testament to be understood? What is the relationship of New Testament books to the Old Testament? Marcion (ca. 85–160) and the gnostics abandoned the Old Testament and interpreted the New Testament according to their own ideas. Justin Martyr linked the testaments with each other, both being an outgrowth of the Logos. Toward the end of the second century Irenaeus and Tertullian improved on the understanding of Justin and also stressed the mutuality of both testaments and theological tradition.7 Two schools of interpretation were most influential.
The School at Alexandria
Origen (185–254), who studied under Clement (ca. 150–215) of the school at Alexandria, was one of the first great scholars of the church and a leader of a catechetical School of Alexandria. In First Principles Origen systematized the rules of faith and distinguished between “necessary” doctrines delivered by the apostles and other doctrines. He believed that Bible interpretation must of necessity follow the rule of faith including the doctrines of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit; the doctrine of spiritual beings including angels and Satan; and the doctrine of last things such as the reward of the righteous and the condemnation of the wicked.
Origen’s work represented a response to the interpretations of Marcion and the gnostics and thus met a growing need of the church during the early centuries. However, Origen went beyond the teachings of the apostles in maintaining that the Scriptures are subject to a threefold interpretation. “For as man is said to consist of body, and soul, and spirit, so also does sacred Scripture” he wrote.8 Accordingly, he concluded, there is the literal or historical meaning which corresponds to the body; the moral sense or higher stage or meaning corresponding to the soul; and, finally, the highest sense of all corresponding to a man’s spiritual nature. Only by allegorizing the Bible in this way can we “enter into its Holy of Holies,” said Origen.9 However, Origen’s fanciful hermeneutic was rejected by the early church.
The School at Antioch
It remained for the School of Antioch, represented by men such as Theodore of Mopseustia (ca. 350–428) and John Chrysostom (354–407), to develop an improved method of Bible interpretation for the church—a method less given to Platonic imagination and more in-line with Aristotle’s “down-to-earth” orientation. Antiochene hermeneutics decried