Printer-Friendly Version

David Platt

New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary  

Abstract  

The purpose of this paper is to provide a comparative analysis of selected theological issues in the third century and the twenty-first century in order to demonstrate similarities between the climate for preaching during these two time periods. Theological issues selected for analysis include religious pluralism, moral relativism, and biblical skepticism. If the theological issues confronting contemporary preachers have parallels in third-century culture, the church might benefit from further study in the strategies for preaching in the third-century church.    

Introduction  

Historical theologian Robert Wilken contends that contemporary Christian thinkers have much to learn from early Christian thought. Specifically, Wilken proposes that though religious pluralism and relativism are identified in contemporary discussions as new challenges to Christianity, these challenges have confronted the church since her inception. He posits, �For the first four hundred years of Christian history a traditional religious culture set the agenda for many Christian intellectuals and its spokesmen energetically contested what seemed to be the pretensions of the new religion� (Wilken 1992, 89-90). Similarly, New Testament scholar and homiletician James Thompson posits that contemporary Christian preaching faces many of the challenges that once faced early Christian preachers. He writes, �Preaching in a post-Christian culture has much to learn from the preaching of a pre-Christian culture� (Thompson 2001, 10). Consequently, Wilken and Thompson encourage theologians and homileticians to study early Christian leaders in order to draw implications for addressing the issues confronting contemporary Christianity.  

The contentions of Wilken and Thompson are significant for the relationship between preaching and theology today. If, as many homileticians claim, preachers are facing a �new pluralistic world,� then a historical survey of early preaching is hardly able to provide implications for contemporary preaching. However, if church fathers preached in a climate similar to that of contemporary preaching, then the shape of their preaching might reveal implications for homiletics today.  

The third century provides a particularly significant glimpse of a preacher confronting the theological issues present in a pre-Christian culture. One of the most notable critiques of Christianity, The True Doctrine, was written by Celsus near the end of the second century. This work reflects many of the theological arguments that had formulated in Greco-Roman belief during that time period. In the century that followed, Origen began to confront those theological issues in both his writing and preaching. Labeled by many as the father of Greek preaching, Origen was one of the foremost expositors in the early church and a master of apologetic argument. Frederic Farrar concluded that �in the history of the early church there is no name nobler or more remarkable than that of Origen� (Farrar 1889, 290-292). The question thus presents itself: Do contemporary preachers confronting a post-Christian culture have anything to learn from the example of an ancient preacher who boldly faced a pre-Christian culture? Consider the similarities between three important theological issues dominant in both the third and twenty-first centuries: religious pluralism, moral relativism, and biblical skepticism.  

Religious Pluralism  

Religious pluralism is the belief that �no single option among the available varieties in a pluralistic situation can be judged superior to the others� (Stackhouse 2002, 5). Throughout her history, the church has had to face the challenge of other religions. Wilken writes that �the oldest and most enduring criticism of Christianity is an appeal to religious pluralism" (Wilken 1992, 89-90). Christianity was born into an ancient culture permeated by a variety of faiths.  

John Stackhouse, however, identifies four unique features that distinguish the pluralism of contemporary culture from preceding time periods: (1) scope, (2) amount, (3) pace of change, and (4) doubt (Stackhouse 2002, 36-37). In regard to the scope and amount of pluralism, Harold Netland couples the rise of religious pluralism with the �unprecedented exposure people in the West have today to adherents of other faiths� (Netland 1991, 28). Similarly, the pace of change in contemporary culture has been accelerated due to technological advances and the availability of travel to different parts of the world. Finally, the doubt associated with present-day pluralism is extreme; this theological issue is rooted in philosophical foundations that question the very cornerstone upon which modernity in the twentieth century was built.  

Nevertheless, the pluralism of the third century provides a number of parallels with these �unique� distinctions. The influx of mystery religions, Gnostic groups, oriental religions, and Christian heresies, all in addition to Judaism, combined to make the scope and amount of pluralism in the third century both large and diverse. The instability of the empire opened the door for religious leaders to rise to influential positions more quickly than they had in the past (Smith 1992, 15). Though lacking the technological advances that have fueled the growth of pluralism in contemporary culture, the pace of change for these new religions was comparatively quick for a culture previously dominated by emperor worship. In addition to the variety of religious options, the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, Philo, and Plotinus comprised �the deeper religion of most intelligent people� (Kelly 1978, 14). The increase in both religious and philosophical systems contributed to an increase in skepticism. The impact of pluralism on the church in the third century is certainly comparable to the breadth of this theological issue in the twenty-first century.  

More specifically, many parallels exist between notable critics of Christianity in these time periods, most particularly John Hick and Celsus. Celsus and Hick both have identified different belief systems as conditioned responses to the one divine Reality. Celsus brought together ancient polytheistic and modern monotheistic religions under one divine Reality who had many names. He wrote, �It makes no difference whether we call him Zeus the Most Hight, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or Amoun like the Egyptians, or Papaeus like the Scythians� (Origen, Contra Celsum V.45). In parallel fashion, Hick published his work, God Has Many Names, in which he aimed to form a unifying vision for all religious traditions. He wrote, �One then sees the great world religions as different human responses to the one divine Reality, embodying many different perceptions which have been formed in different historical and cultural circumstances� (Hick 1982, 8-9). Both Celsus and Hick have disagreed with the Christian claim of exclusivity. Celsus called Christian belief a �rebellious utterance of people who wall themselves off and break away from the rest of mankind� (Origen, Contra I.14, V.25, and VIII.2) Clearly the challenge of pluralism, though new to the church in her first centuries of existence, would prove to be a prevalent obstacle for preaching over 1500 years later.  

Moral Relativism  

The presence of moral relativism in the third and twenty-first centuries reveals more similarities between these time periods. The seemingly natural result of the religious pluralism of Origen�s day was a moral relativism that permitted a wide diversity of ethical standards. Morality was thrown into question and �the state emerged from the convulsions of the third century almost entirely deprived of moral authority and relying upon force alone� (Rostovtzeff 1933, 349). According to Celsus, the ancestral traditions and customs determined moral codes, and one custom�s morality was not normative for an entire culture. He argued, �These customs have in fact existed, and Pindar seems to have been right when he said that custom is king of all� (Origen, Contra V.35). Consequently, no one religious viewpoint had the authority to assert moral judgments on another.  

The approach to morality in the third century is strikingly similar to the moral relativism of contemporary culture, where no particular community has the authority to apply moral judgments universally. Standards are only �true� so long as they are applied within a certain community. In contemporary culture, many claim that moral and ethical �norms and standards are specific, contingent, historically produced, and potentially revisable� in any given situation (Fish 1994, 39). As any absolute standard for morality is abolished, morality itself is deconstructed.  

The prevailing parallel in third and twenty-first century moral relativism is the role of community in determining morality. Many today claim that right and wrong only conform to the dominant forces in a given culture. Likewise, in Origen�s day, with the quest for a new basis of morality triggered by the decline of the empire, no universal moral authority existed that could be attributed to the entire culture. Morality, in both the third and twenty-first centuries, has been defined according to the community.  

Biblical Skepticism  

In both of the cultures under consideration, biblical skepticism has constituted a major issue confronting preachers. First, critics of Scripture in the third and twenty-first centuries have questioned the factuality and historicity of Scripture. During the third century, Jewish Rabbis and Gnostic heretics alike developed an anti-Christian exegesis that denounced the unity of the Old and New Testaments. Celsus specifically argued that in the Old Testament God the Father promised to make the people of Israel rich and powerful but in the New Testament Jesus told the rich young man that he could not come to the Father. Celsus thus questioned, �Did [God] condemn his own laws and change his mind, and send his messenger for quite the opposite purpose?� (Origen, Contra VII.18). In addition, pagans mocked the biblical narratives that recounted a virgin birth and resurrection while philosophers attacked the historical reliability of the biblical records. According to Celsus, Jesus �fabricated his story of birth from a virgin� and his resurrection was attested by a �hysterical female� who �wanted to impress the others by telling this fantastic tale, and so by this cock-and-bull story to provide a chance for other beggars� (Origen, Contra I.28 and II.55). Similarly, the need exists for contemporary preachers to defend the factuality of Scripture amidst the pervasive influence of scientific evidence on contemporary thought. Though Scripture includes historical occurrences, many miracle stories are disallowed in postmodernity.  

Moreover, textual critics in the third and twenty-first centuries have devalued the importance of a text�s historical situation. The Hellenized form of allegory adopted by many critics in the third century disregarded history. The result was a method of interpretation �unrestrained in its speculation� (Hanson 2002, 64). Likewise, contemporary interpretive methods often ignore the historicity of the text. Both cultures have confronted critics who minimize the historicity and factuality of the Bible�s claims. In addition, biblical skeptics in both cultures have criticized Scripture according to its pragmatic value. In the third century, many denounced Scripture because it lacked practical application, particularly in its basis for moral and ethical authority. In a similar way, contemporary critics have often evaluated texts such as Scripture solely according to their pragmatic value, asserting that a text�s authority is based on its application in a certain community (Grenz 1997, 101).  

Another parallel is the role of the interpreter as he approaches Scripture in each of these cultures. The allegorical interpretation that dominated the third century required an interpreter to find a deeper, spiritual meaning in a text. This quest for the spiritual meaning exalted the role of the interpreter, who was �motivated by a desire to read various types of Greek philosophy into a given text or to remove difficulties which offend philosophy in it � (Hanson 2002, 64). Similarly, in contemporary culture, Scriptural interpretation is dependent upon a dialogical interaction between the interpreter and the text. The role of the community in the interpretive process, whether it be the community of Platonic philosophers in the third century or the particular communal situation in contemporary culture, has received heightened priority. In the prominent interpretive methods of both time periods, the interpreter, whether individual or communal, has been king.  

One final similarity is evident in the goal of prevalent interpretive processes in these respective cultures. Many biblical interpreters in the third century were less consumed with identifying meaning in a text and more concerned with finding a spiritual interpretation through an encounter with the Bible. Likewise, in postmodern interpretations of Scripture, an objective meaning is often not recognized in a passage of Scripture; therefore, there is no one way to interpret a text. In the minds of many biblical skeptics in both cultures, therefore, the goal for interpretation has been to have an encounter, or experience, with the text. Consequently, preachers have been challenged to �ground Christian faith in a more general human phenomenon of religious experience� apart from an objective interpretation of Scripture (Weston 1999, 179). Though confronted by different interpretive methods, preachers in the third and twenty-first centuries have faced similar challenges regarding biblical skepticism.  

Conclusion  

Although the challenges facing the Church in the twenty-first century make take on new forms, the theological issues Christians are called to confront are not completely new. In light of the fact that the theological issues confronting contemporary culture have parallels in third-century culture, the Church might benefit from further study in the strategies for preaching in the third-century Church. In the words of Curtis Chang, �As a church sustained by God for two millennia now, we need not look upon the postmodern challenge as completely unprecedented� (Chang 2000, 9). The possibility exists that the fathers of the church might possess ancient wisdom for preaching to postmodern man.

 

Reference List  

Beckwith, Francis J. and Gregory Koukl. Relativism. Grand Rapids : Baker Books, 1998.  

Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Mind. New York : Simon and Schuster, 1987.  

Caputo, John D.  Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida. New York : Fordham University Press, 1997.  

Chadwick, Henry. Introduction to Origen, Contra Celsum. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Cambridge : At the University Press, 1953.  

Chang, Curtis. Engaging Unbelief. Downers Grove : InterVarsity Press, 2000.  

Clendenen, E. Ray. �Postholes, Postmodernism, and the Prophets: Toward a Textlinguistic Paradigm.� In The Challenge of Postmodernism. Edited by David S. Dockery. Grand Rapids : Baker Books, 1997.  

Dockery, David S. �The Challenge of Postmodernism.� In The Challenge of Postmodernism. Edited by David S. Dockery. Grand Rapids : Baker Books, 1997.  

Erickson, Millard J. Truth or Consequences. Downers Grove : InterVarsity Press, 2001.  

Farrar, Frederic W.  Lives of the Fathers. New York : The Macmillan Co., 1889.  

Fish, Stanley . Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1980.  

               . There's No Such things as Free Speech, and It's a Good Thing, Too. New York : Oxford University Press, 1994.  

Foot, Phillipa. �Moral Relativism.� In Relativism: Cognitive and Moral. Edited by Jack W. Meiland and Michael Krausz. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982.  

Grenz, Stanley J. �Star Trek and the Next Generation: Postmodernism and the Future of Evangelical Theology.� In The Challenge of Postmodernism. Edited by David S. Dockery. Grand Rapids : Baker Books, 1997.  

Hanson, R.P.C.  Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen�s Interpretation of Scripture. London : Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.  

Harnack, Adolph. History of Dogma. Vol. 2 and 3. Translated by Neil Buchanan. New York : Dover Publications, 1961.  

Hatch, Edwin. The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity. New York : Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1957.  

Henry, Carl F.H. �Postmodernism: The New Spectre?� In The Challenge of Postmodernism. Edited by David S. Dockery. Grand Rapids : Baker Books, 1997.                 

Hick, John. God Has Many Names. Philadelphia : The Westminster Press, 1982.  

              . An Interpretation of Religion. New Haven : Yale University Press, 1989.  

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. New York : Harper & Row Publishers, 1978.  

Kerr, Hugh Thomson. Preaching in the Early Church. New York : Fleming H. Revell Company, 1942.  

Lienhard, Joseph T. �Origen as Homilist.� In Preaching in the Patristic Age. Edited by David G. Hunter. New York : Paulist, 1989.  

McGrath, Alister. Intellectuals Don�t Need God: And Other Modern Myths. Grand Rapids : Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.  

Mohler, R. Albert, Jr. �The Integrity of the Evangelical Tradition and the Challenge of the Postmodern Paradigm.� In The Challenge of Postmodernism. Edited by David S. Dockery. Grand Rapids : Baker Books, 1997.  

Netland, Harold A. Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth. Grand Rapids : William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991.  

Origen. Contra Celsum. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Cambridge : At the University Press, 1953.  

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition. Vol. 1. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press, 1971.  

Phillips, Gary . "Religious Pluralism." In The Challenge of Postmodernism. Edited by David S. Dockery. Grand Rapids : Baker Books, 1997.  

Robinson, Haddon. �When Foundations Tremble.� Leadership (Spring 1993): 140.  

Rostovtzeff, M. A History of the Ancient World. Vol. 2. Rome . Translated by J.D. Duff. Oxford : At the Clarendon Press, 1933.  

Shiffrin, Seana Valentine . �Moral Overridingness and Moral Subjectivism.� Ethics 109 (July 1999): 772-794.  

Simon, Marcel. "From Greek Hairesis to Christian Heresy.� In Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition. Edited by William R. Schoedel and Robert L. Wilken. Paris : Editions Beauchesne, 1979.  

Smith, John Clark. The Ancient Wisdom of Origen. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1992.  

Stackhouse, John G., Jr. Humble Apologetics. New York : Oxford University Press, 2002.  

Stanton , G.N. �Aspects of Early Christian-Jewish Polemic and Apologetic.� New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 377-392.  

Thompson, James. Preaching Like Paul. Louisville : Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.  

Wilken, Robert L. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. New Haven : Yale University Press, 1984.  

               . �Religious Pluralism and Early Christian Thought.� Pro Ecclesia 1, no. 1. Fall 1992): 89-103.

---