Is the Reformation Over? A Conversation Among Friends, a report

Last weekend at Nazarene Theological Seminary in Kansas City, MO, I attended the conference entitled "Is the Reformation Over? A Conversation Among Friends."  Inspired by the question asked by a recent book by Mark Noll, Rev. Dr. John Wright set up a series of interviews with George Lindbeck, David Burrell, and Stanley Hauerwas.

My comments are coming a little late onto the scene, but admittedly, I have been swamped with coursework until now.  In the meantime, however, some reports have been blogged:

• The Tim Suttle Weblog
• La Perruque
• Kruse Kronicle

With that stage already set, I think the most important theme I heard in John's questions and in the responses to them by Lindbeck, Burrell, and Hauerwas, is one of friendship.  All three of these guys have either attended or taught at Yale, and in one way or another over the years have deeply influenced each other through their work.  And, while Burrell is (I think) the only one who has ever published a whole book out of these three on the topic of friendship, it was clear that this was a theme that pervaded the entirety of the discussions.  Friendship, defined in an Aristotelian sense, has more to do with what friends share as common ends/goals, as opposed to mere agreement on issue X or Y.

George Lindbeck was the first to be interviewed on Friday morning.  He retold some of his profound adventures as a Lutheran observer at the Second Vatican council in the early 1960's.  He told  some wonderful stories about the friendships he developed with the Catholics there and the other Lutheran observers.  The story that stands out for me is one where Lindbeck and his wife were over at a priest's house for dinner during the time of the council, and afterwards, the priest offered Lindbeck's wife a cigar, and she took it!  They had an after-dinner smoke, and this was just one of many gestures of friendship that continued over the years.

Before moving on to Burrell's interview, I did want to touch on Lindbeck's response to the reaction to his most popular book, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age.  The image he associated with its reception was on-the-mark: Nature of Doctrine has been much more of a "rorschach blot" than anything else, as seen by the myriad interpretations that people have read into the book, most of them not having much to do with Lindbeck's original intentions.  He expected ecumenists who were well-read in theology to read it!  Also, of importance was that whenever he waxed [Clifford] Geertzian, he was always thinking of Thomistic/Aristotelian habitus.  Furthermore, he affirmed that Christian theology should always be built upon Biblical foundations, but he does admit that he contradicts himself a bit in his own book.  Lastly, he also confirmed that what he is doing in The Nature of Doctrine and in much of his other life's work, especially as found in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, is in the form of Thomas Aquinas' quaestionis.

These last points were very helpful for me (and hopefully others as well), especially because I had just finished a paper last semester attempting to tease out these ideas with the main idea being that The Nature of Doctrine cannot be rightly interpreted apart from the ecumenical telos in Christ, which has been the main goal of the work of Lindbeck both proceeding that book as well as after.

George Lindbeck left us with the following: "One mistrusts entirely predictions of what the future will be."  It was meant both as a warning to not trust our own predictions and as a hopeful reminder to trust in the providence of the Triune God.

David Burrell immediately established himself not only as a guy who loves to tell stories, but also as one who tells them well.  The beginnings of the discussion around Burrell began with some early autobiographical information, and quickly worked its way toward his relationship with his teacher Bernard Lonergan.  Lonergan taught him the distinction between those who need certitude, and those who search for understanding.  We are a people who tend to always search for something graspable and certain, yet the great theologians are actually those who are not expounding upon the right answers, but are those who ask the great questions.  Through this search for understanding, Burrell continued the friendship theme by further describing theology as usually done between a master and apprentice.  Maybe George Lucas got some things right in the end, after all.

An important point that Burrell raised was the difference between a division and a distinction.  For thinking theologically, this is paramount.  For instance, the Trinity is one God having one essence but three distinct persons; also the distinction between nature and grace is an important one: if grace is a gift, then what is nature? -- a given?  No, both are gifts, and one completes the other and brings it to its fullness in the Triune God.

The last bit I want to touch upon in regard to Burrell and friendship is his inter-faith work on Thomas Aquinas, Moses Maimonides, and Avicenna (Ibn Sena).  Burrell has shown in some of his books that Thomas Aquinas, in addition to Aristotle, is quite indebted to both Maimonides and Avicenna -- indeed, Burrell said that on five key issues, Thomas is indebted to Maimonides.

Burrell's final words were to remind us that the central task of theology is that faith in Jesus is central as well as to be Christian community as the body of Christ that is always welcoming and understanding as opposed to fearful of others (a kind of certitude).

Stanley Hauerwas was as interesting, hilarious, and profound as ever, and also said things that surprised many.  Somehow, he was able to recall a list of all the books he had ever read at Yale under each professor that assigned them.  In this telling, some of his formation around Thomas Aquinas and Wittgenstein emerged early on. Something that resonated with Burrell's earlier statements was when Hauerwas said that most people tend to miss the investigative enterprise of Thomas' work.  Similarly, friends have told me that the thought of Thomas cannot be grasped by getting to a 'pure Thomas' but upon a more careful reading, one will find that his thought is much more of a labyrinth and not nearly as systematic as we think it must be.

Likewise, Hauerwas said that his own work has always intentionally been non-systematic; instead, it has been much more engaged in the task of "theological journalism," attempting through never-ending re-descriptive articles to show how things really are.  Thus, theology is fundamentally teaching speech in an attempt to not let language "go on holiday."

"It's one thing to read Aquinas, it's another thing to pray with somebody who reads Aquinas," said Hauerwas.  Later on, he said that friendship and the life of prayer are internally related to each other.  In this vein he pointed to Jean Vanier and the L'Arche communities to teach how how to be as Christians.

Hauerwas' closing words were to be not afraid, because Jesus is Lord!  He went on to say that another of our primary tasks is to defeat the speech-act of "Jesus is Lord, but that's just my opinion."  And perhaps surprisingly to some, Hauerwas told us that we can never read the bible enough, because it teaches us the grammar we need to live the Christian life.

After the three main interviews, there was a panel discussion between John Wright and the three guests.  I didn't really take any notes at this point, but it was a good conversation as well, which was further followed up by a Q&A session. For now, unless somebody took some better notes, we will just have to wait on the content of this conversation until this conference hopefully gets transcribed and edited into a book, which John Wright plans to do.

I am not entirely sure how I missed this, but I only found out last night over dinner with my wife Tiana and some really good friends of mine that in the month of January, the week of 18-25th is "On Christian Unity Week."  The 18th is also the day the conference started, which, though perhaps providential, is a humbling reminder that this conversation is not only happening at seminaries in Kansas City, but also across the world.

[In closing, here is my Flickr gallery of the pictures I took of the conference.  Enjoy!]

Comments

[Geoff Holsclaw]

eric,
thanks for pulling this update together for us.

I have a question, though. Given the title of the post, what did the participants think about the Reformation and its continuation? Are we headed for a Roman Return (which sounds like the third enstallment in a Church History Trilogy: 1) Church Wars; 2) Counter-Reformation Strikes Back; and 3) Return of the Romans).

anyway, that was a bit off topic, but really: what of the Reformation, Ecumenicism, and church unity.

[Eric Lee]

Geoff,

Good question. Others who have attended the conference have wondered the same thing. Some have wondered if this entails a return to Rome. Some have at the very least, just came away realizing we all have so much more work to do. I think its true that more good questions than solid answers themselves were raised.

However, something I didn't highlight above, which was just as crucial to the discussions as was the theme of friendship, was the idea of "reconciliation without capitulation," something Lindbeck talks about in his works. If you've read The Nature of Doctrine (this phrase is mentioned on p. 16), you'll remember that he focused upon staying within the particularities of our own traditions. That is where all that Geertzian "thick description" stuff comes from.

Lindbeck is still committed to that, however, he is also the only one who used the 'return to Rome' language because he is so hardcore Lutheran and knows that the original movement was a branch within the Roman Catholic church. That being said, he knows most other denominations are not comfortable with that language.

Hauerwas probably wouldn't be, either, especially considering he often says that you need to stay with those who have hurt you. He also had reservations about staying within those particularities and histories especially because some of those histories include bad reactionary stuff and so he wouldn't want to define himself as such. This might provide some insight as to why he kind of thinks of himself in a kind of ecclesial "no-man's land."

So, to return to the "reconciliation without capitulation", maybe I can offer the following document as a wonderful example:

JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION, by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church. Lindbeck helped pen that when he was in the LWF, and I know that at least on the Roman Catholic side, the Focolare were involved (a good friend of mine is in this wonderful movement).

My point is, okay, so they agree now on this huge issue -- now what?

As mentioned above, John surmised that the form both in this document and deeply implicit in his NoD is this Thomistic form of the quaestionis, which is a dialectical form. The reason this is offered is because at least in Lindbeck's case, it shows where unity and agreement was achieved yet difference was maintained.

So, all that to say, I think in some respects, the reformation could be 'over'. The one 'respect' here is that the Lutherans the the Catholics now agree on that fundamental issue which caused the split! So, one could say, as John Wright has suggested to me, that "The Reformation is Over because the protestants have 'won'." Thus, the Lutherans did finally reform the RC church. However, as I'm sure anybody who is reading along right now is saying, "but it's not as simple as that!" And they'd be right. There was another whole host of issues and stuff that went on in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation that caused further division.

That, and at the conference, the topic of "What about the Eastern Orthodox?" was barely even broached. That seems like a whole other conversation with other issues and an older history, but I know Dave Belcher has convinced me that they are crucial and may help show the way in this.

So in sum, a 'Return to Rome?' Not quite. But there is real unifying work being done on the ground in various movements in Roman Catholicism: the Focolare, Communion & Liberation, and within Protestantism: the work of George Lindbeck, my pastor, and countless others who take Jesus' prayer for unity in John 17 seriously. I pray we all find that unity in Christ.

Geoff, good question. Sorry for the lengthy answer!

Peace,

Eric

[David]

Christ is Born!

Thank you my friend for taking the time to describe your experience for all of us who were unable to participate in this event. I am deeply appreciative of your work.

[geoff holsclaw]

eric,
no problem about the lengthy answer. It was great.

The reformation has won; but not quite. there a theme for a book.

Would you say that the participants think that there may never be a formal unity among institutions, but rather a practical unity on the ground?

And yes, I do think that the Orthodoxy church may have the resources to help with this question, but sometimes they are all too ready to bash the West before helping it.

[Eric Lee]

Would you say that the participants think that there may never be a formal unity among institutions, but rather a practical unity on the ground?

At the very least they might have said that, especially considering that they all affirmed in some way that ecumenism is mainly done in practice. Yet, they also affirmed that the goal, of course, would still be to all celebrate the Eucharist together. I think somebody asked a question about this because they felt excluded from the communion with their friends.

The other dimension to the talks about fragmentation had to do with all the pentecostal denominations that are growing incredibly fast all around the world, many of whom, while they might be having 'revivals' of sorts, don't usually seem to be interested in ecumenical talks and practice. I would love to be proven wrong on that one, though.

Peace,

Eric

[Lee]

Eric, thanks for this great summary and follow-up comments.

I'll simply throw two observations into the mix:

1. By no means do all Lutherans (nor, for that matter all Catholics) think that the JDDJ resolved the issue of justification. Several eminent Lutheran theologians in Germany in particular found serious flaws in the JDDJ (Eberhard Jungel comes to mind). This isn't to disparage the good and important work that folks like Prof. Lindbeck have done, but it does suggest that the proper concern for unity shouldn't be used to paper over theological differences, something that seems to happen at times in ecumenical dialogues.

2. I wonder how these kinds of talks can/should "trickle down" to the laity. What I mean is that your average Protestant in the pew probably rarely, if ever, even considers the possibility that she should "return to Rome." How can the laity be brought into these kinds of discussions in order to avoid the impression of theologians or church bureaucrats trying to exert some kind of top-down pressure? Does this suggest that some kind of grass-roots "bottum up" ecumenism is the way to go? (Taize might be an example of this...)

Thanks again for the insightful discussion.

[Eric Lee]

Lee,

Thank you for the comment. Actually, the end of your point #1 and your #2 were also heavily touched upon at the conference. Namely, they all said in some fashion that ecumenical stuff is always in fact 'ground-up' and that it actually 'trickles up', in reality. It always begins in friendships, and not just friendships between professors or bishops and pastors or whatever.

Although I'm still learning about it, my friend in the Focolare movement describes what she does also in these terms, but using different language.

Thanks for reminding me of this.

I wasn't aware of the disagreements about the JDDJ, but I guess that is to be expected. I actually only heard of the JDDJ at all about 4 months ago, so I'm admittedly pretty new to this stuff.

Peace,

Eric

[Shellie]

Excellent quote: "It's one thing to read Aquinas, it's another thing to pray with somebody who reads Aquinas," said Hauerwas."

Appreciate the report.