AEF Report

The Ancient Evangelical Future Call Conference: A Few Reflections from a Participant,
by David E. Fitch

Many of you may have been familiar with the Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future.  Robert Webber began to sculpt this call about a year ago. The beginning draft of the AEF Call embodied much of Robert Webber’s arguments already written in his Ancient-Future book series of recent years. Through much effort by Bob and his associates (Ashley Gieschen and Phil Kenyon), and the four editors, Howard Snyder, Kevin Vanhoozer, D.H. Williams and Hans Boersma, the Call went through numerous revisions and ended up with 350 endorsers including myself. It appeared in Christianity Today in September. The AEF Call was aimed squarely at established evangelicalism. It argued against a gospel reduced to propositions, modernist individualism in the church, and an evangelicalism that had caved in to pragmatic and consumerist versions of church practice. Instead, Webber and friends called evangelicals to renew the category of Biblical Narrative as the primary category by which we understand truth, Scripture, worship, spiritual formation and embodied justice in the world. After almost a year in process, this “Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future”  birthed what is to be the first of several annual conferences on the Call this past December at Northern Seminary.

The Conference brought together Brian McLaren, Frederica Matthewes-Greene, Aaron Flores, Martin Marty and Lauren Winner to engage with the Call over their respective areas of primary concern. I offer the following observations of the presentations and my own reflections of what I saw as important issues raised by the Conference on the Call.

Brian McLaren presented first and kicked off the conference with a well delivered coherent challenge to the importance of several issues the Call was addressing which coalesced with many of the concerns in the Emerging (Emergent) church movement. Brian’s uncanny ability to bring together many sources and synthesize key observations was ideal for this kind of conference. I thought he was challenging and erudite, and set the tone for the rest of the conference.

I, as a faculty member at Northern, was asked to respond. I raised two questions for Brian which recurred several times during the conference.

1) A central theme of the AEF Call was that the church must get back into the task of narrating our Story before the world, as opposed to marketing to the world etc. The prologue of the AEF Call asked, “Who Gets To Narrate the World?”  Brian raised this question from the call and he answered by saying “no one.” Rather, according to Brian, we must take the position that “nobody gets a privileged position.”

In my response, I asked, if we do accept that there are no metanarratives in the Lyotard sense, should the question even be “who gets to narrate the world?” Or should the question be instead, how can we narrate the Story we have been given more faithfully so that  the truth of our story in Christ can be fully displayed and tested in the contest of narratives that has become our postmodern reality in the West? Should the question for this conference be, How can we become less distracted with the various modes of selling the gospel, or defending it using meta foundations that no longer exist and instead return to the narration of the gospel of Christ so that the powerful living reality of God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost in a people can do the speaking?

I think Brian might have agreed with me on this. For me then, the Call would seem to imply that we must first recognize that our relationship to the world is not one where we are trying to out argue, out reason, or engage in a contest on the basis of some neutral public language with those who might disagree. It is not the task of trying to translate our language into some public discourse. It is not even first the task to somehow search for correlations between our own Story and that of a so-called wider culture. It is (with Milbank) first to recognize that reality is about narration and that we must fully engage in the process of narrating our Story in Christ passed down through the apostles in the Church until He comes. Our relation to the rest of the world is not to assume a superior position over other narratives, but to enter alongside and allow the extension of our Narrative to engage the alternative worlds and their narratives until the Eschaton.

I suggested that this could be done humbly, non-violently and vulnerably because our story informs us that God is sovereign and at work both in us and in the world to bring all of creation towards His completion. This position is nicely articulated by Romand Coles, who favorably comments on Yoder in his Beyond Gated Politics. In Beyond Gated Politics he quotes (p. 115) Yoder as saying “In contrast to narratives that claim to possess sovereignty by securing a continuous relation to an authorizing origin, “Jesus is Lord” is the solicitation to a perennially unfinished process of critiquing the developed tradition [by receiving challenge from exterior narratives] from the perspective of its roots (Priestly Kingdom 15-17).

All that to say, this question of “Who Gets to Narrate the World?” came up again several times over the 2 days of the conference.

2) Brian McLaren also urged us to realize that for the church to go forward in the postmodern, post-Christendom context, it would require both a deep ecclesiology and a generous orthodoxy. Brian was arguing for evangelicals to recover a place in the church catholic. To which I responded with a hearty 'Amen.' 

For me however the question of a deep ecclesiology together with a generous orthodoxy posed a potential oxymoron-ish combination which may not make sense. For if we evangelicals do in fact gain a deeper appreciation for the high-church liturgical traditions and the justice oriented traditions of Mainline Protestantism, we may in fact find ourselves requiring a more defined Orthodoxy rooted in the historic traditions of the church. In other words, by embracing Ecumenical Christianity “deeply”, it might not mix well with “generously.”

And so for me, the question to Brian and the conference was how is this deep ecclesiology possible without turning the church into an introverted, internally driven inward looking sectarian community withdrawing from cultural engagement?  Of course I have not been one to worry about this because I see the power of Yoder, Hauerwas and, yes, even Milbank as the ability to engage culture more substantially, more peacefully (in the case of Yoder and Hauerwas) than any contrived Rawlsian classic political liberalism or derivative versions thereof. I am always wary of those who would deny religious language or identity into the public sphere and call it peacefulness. But I digress.

Back to the question concerning generous orthodoxy and deep ecclesiology, I asked specifically whether liturgical church could be combined with Brian’s notion of generous orthodoxy because liturgy is certainly a self defining exercise that asks us to define ourselves and our words Scripturally and historically. Wouldn’t his lend itself to a more narrow defined community than a generous one, at least as McLaren has defined it?

I could go on. Aaron Flores brought to the table how the Call actually asks of all ethnic and or minority groups coming to the Call “to expense their differences.” He pointed out how most of the language of the AEF Call is white evangelical establishment language. He argued that the Call by asking minorities to use this language, was in essence denying their cultural contributions and saying we don’t need or want your participation. Indeed Aaron points to the obvious situation we are in who have grown up in old-line evangelicalism, modernity and all its pitfalls. The evangelicalism of N. America and Christianity Today is largely a “white man’s religion.”

The Call has many more problems, not the least of which is the category of Narrative which seems to be passé. VanHoozer’s and Sam Wells’ use of Drama seems to be more encompassing and advances over the older Narrative theologies. Nonetheless, I think that many great questions were raised.

In Summary:
1.  Who Gets To Narrate the World?
2.  Is deep ecclesiology together with a generous orthodoxy possible?
3.  Is modernity mainly the problem of White Evangelicals? In that case could the AEF Call have spoken in a language that made sense to anyone else other than White Evangelicals? 

In sum, that’s my quick take.

David Fitch

Comments

[Jonathan Erdman]

Two things.

First, I really like the idea and general direction of this line of thinking.

Second, A point of clarification:
On the one hand Brian asked the question "Who gets to narrate the world?" The answer is no one: No one gets a privileged position. Ok, but then you also talk about a "call." Aren't these two things mutually exclusive? A "call" is a directive to change. It is a call to arms. It reminds me of the early church's call to "repent." The repentance motif runs throughout the Scriptures, not just in the early church. It is a call to change. In short, is it not a narrative to the world? It challenges the world to change its present course - to change its narrative and to journey in a different direction.

Is it disingenuous to issue a call and then to claim that we are not privileging our narrative?

[len hjalmarson]

I'm trying to fit the discussion into an established framework. The one that comes to mind is Hans Frei and his five types of modern theology, or five hermeneutical forms. Unfortunately, the position you are advocating doesn't fit neatly into his types. We need a sixth type, and perhaps it is this: theology as creative Christian retrieval for church and culture. John Webster describes this way of doing theology. He writes..

"It is important to note that those who might be termed post Liberal have undertaken a good deal of descriptive doctrinal work. This has meant, on the one hand, a commitment to giving renewed attention to the internal structures of Christian doctrine, both in its constituent parts and in its interrelations, and, accordingly, to offering expositions of doctrine which are not directed by apologetic concerns but by a sense of responsibility toward the grand ideas of the Christian tradition. On the other hand, this approach to the doctrine has also put forward a criticism that, if modem doctrinal work has failed, the failure has often been under level of descriptive adequacy... Post Liberal theology has sought to revisit Christian doctrine, asking not so much what might be wrong with it but what resources it may contain to redefine or illuminate current perplexities the. [Webster, theology after liberalism P. 55] And Archie Spencer comments, "What distinguishes this type of theology from all the rest is its desire to retrieve and preserve the best of both theology and culture into order to bring it to bear on the perplexities that came from both arenas. It is not concerned with apologetics, nor is it reductionist or exclusive. Rather, it takes more seriously the need to correlate the answers of Christian theology to the questions of culture left open by modernity."

[Andy]

David - great post.

You wrote "For me however the question of a deep ecclesiology together with a generous orthodoxy posed a potential oxymoron-ish combination which may not make sense. For if we evangelicals do in fact gain a deeper appreciation for the high-church liturgical traditions and the justice oriented traditions of Mainline Protestantism, we may in fact find ourselves requiring a more defined Orthodoxy rooted in the historic traditions of the church. In other words, by embracing Ecumenical Christianity “deeply”, it might not mix well with “generously.”

I'd like to hear more about why you think deep ecclesiology might not lend itself to generous orthodoxy.

[Jason Hesiak]

I have a thought/question as well. I too liked the post. But I have often thought about if or why the "post-liberal" critique is relevant only to white-protestants. It seems like it does have a pretty narrow audience, but narrow nonetheless. Like it seems, since its largely an issue of epistemology, that it would include almst anyone Westernized, maybe even many Protestantized Catholics whose sacramental lives are at the margins of their souls. But that's not the real thrust of my question. The real thrust of my question is...I hope someone can point me in the direction of studying this issue more. To whom exactly are many of my most heartfelt concerns releant...exactly with whom do I share my concerns, and exactly why (probably a dumb question embedded in the critique itself, but...)? So yeah, that's my question. Thanks.

And I liked the critique/questioning of the idea of having both general and generous orthodoxy. Get's me thinking in a helthy way, I think. Thanks,

Jason

[David Fitch]

To Jonathon ... The question, "who get's to narrate the world?" was actually asked in the Call as an attempt to assert that this is the pressing question evangelicals must address (as opposed to say how can we successfully attract more people into church services). You can read it by clicking on the link to the AEF Call in the post. Brian McLaren was cautioning against taking up a position of superiority. So in a way, the Call is asking the question as a means to call the church to repent and meet this challenge.

To len, another of your patented great comments. I can't off the top of my head remember what Frei named his 5 types, but I believe that one of his types most resembles his own (and Lindbeck's) postliberal return to Narrative which would fit nicely into where I saw the Call going. But Webster is great.

To Andy, I actually think that "generous orthodoxy" as Brian McLaren delineates it, requires some theological moves which don't make sense in the postliberal universe of what used to be called "Narrative theology." For postliberal theology is heavily indebted to the linguistic turn, Wittgenstein,etc., and the dependence upon language to shape experience. The more liturgical we get, the more defined our lingusitic structures (and experience of God) become, thereby endangering our ability to translate (which is a bad word) or to correlate experiences with those who are not also shaped by the same lingusitic structures. This sets up a potentially us versus them. This has always been a "beef" of those not sympathetic with this project. Gustafson and Stout (less so) among others have been two of the more prominent complainers. I think there are some problems and yet I pointed to Romand Coles and his brilliant use of Yoder in his chapter on "the wild patience of Yoder" as an example of the way an embodied politics can actually engage the world of competing narratives in more substantive ways than those offered by Stout, Gustafson etc.

And As for Jason, well I do believe there is a reality here. And I'd like to hear from Anthony Smith on this (postmodernnegro.com). But I don't believe the current postliberal theologies, as well as all the other theological reactions to postmodern thought, are irrelevant to the non-white Western church. I could on, but I think I'll blog on this in the future. For now I'll point to Cornel West and bell hooks for their brilliant insights.

Blessings

[Josef]

Hi,
I am just starting to learn about Radical Orthodoxy. I have a very basic question that I would be very happy if anyone would help me answer:

If RO doesn’t acknowledge the secular/ sacred-distinction, how come so many RO theologians talk about counter culture? Doesn’t the whole Constantinian critique feed of the very dualism it won’t acknowledge?

[Eric Lee]

Josef,

Although I'm not entirely sure what it has to do with this post, which "RO theologians" use this word? I'm not familiar with any of them that use this word. 'Alternative' is used (e.g. James K.A. Smith), but that is because they both get their conception of the 'heavenly city' (civitas dei) from Augustine as well as this notion that evil is only a lack/privation of the good (see Augustine's Enchiridion -- Lee over at A Thinking Reed has just blogged about this) and not just an opposing, dualistic, Manichean negation.

Key here to remember might also be the very important difference between division and distinction. This conception is extremely important in theology both for conceiving of the Trinity (i.e. one essence and three distinct persons but not three divisions) as well as, conceiving of an alternative city, the city of God. The city of God is that which all of humanity is called to participate in, and that which does not is not dualistically divided, but is lacking and therefore not oriented toward its true end in God. Thus, in fact, when rightly conceived within this Augustinian framework, there is no [unacknowledged] dualism at all.

Hope this helps.

Peace,

Eric