A short essay written at the request of several “orthodox Anglicans”
Usually a book with the title, “Systematic Theology,” has many pages and sometimes comes in several volumes. Yet Dr Paul F.M. Zahl, now Dean of Trinity School for Ministry in PA, published a few years ago a book entitled, A Short Systematic Theology (Wm. B. Eerdmans). The text does not take up more than 100 pages! And in his preface he argues that there is real merit in such a short book (which I guess is about 40,000 words)- after all is not the New Testament itself a short book.
I ask myself after reading it:
Does his brevity prevent him from doing justice to his subject? I think so.
Does his brevity open him up to the charge of denying Articles I,II, & V of The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and thus of advocating error or heresy? I think so.
I think so, but I am not sure on both counts.
The impression he makes is of a dynamic Protestant theologian who is committed to the heart of the Lutheran Reformation (justification by faith alone), to the Protestant doctrine of penal substitution in the death of Jesus on the Cross, and to the insistence that true saving faith issues in works of love, and a life of true moral and spiritual freedom. At the same time, he causes one to think that he has doubts as to the veracity and usefulness of the Church dogma of the Holy Trinity and the Person of Christ as also of the need for carefully defined doctrines of the place of the Church and Sacraments in the economy of salvation.
Now to the content of his case, which is attractively presented.
Zahl insists that theology must begin from the bottom as it were and work upwards. He does not mean from contemporary human experience (like the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA and his advisers), but from the accounts of the historical Jesus found in the Four Gospels. So he starts with Jesus and notes wherein he is unique within Judaism. Then he focuses on his passion and crucifixion, which he shows provides the full and universal Atonement for human sins and sinfulness.
Further, and importantly, he interprets the death of Jesus on the Cross as penal, substitutionary Atonement, even as the Protestant Reformers explained and preached this doctrine. Yet the way he writes of this is not in sixteenth-century style but as one who has learnt much from his recent periods of study in Germany.
Then he proceeds by accepting the apostolic claim that Jesus was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven; and, on this basis, proceeds to ask how the same Jesus, now exalted, is present with us (“Lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the age”) when in fact he is actually absent from us as the historical Jesus. His answer is perhaps surprising – not in sacraments, not in preaching of the Word, not in church fellowship, not in the gifts of the Spirit etc., but he is found in “works of love”. Here he connects with the Protestant emphasis on justification by faith expressed practically in deeds of love. “I would not work my soul to save/ for that my Lord has done./ But I would work like any slave/ for love of God’s dear Son.”
It is only when he has presented all this that he suggests that it is appropriate to consider the full identity of Jesus, the crucified and ascended One. The identity of Jesus appears from what he achieves. And this is presented very briefly. For him, the church dogma of the Incarnation (Jesus is One Person made known in two natures, divine and human) is apparently useful but not necessary for it is too speculative.
With regard to the Church doctrine of the Trinity, he seems to be skeptical as to both its truth and its usefulness. For he says it is speculation based upon speculation (i.e., it is built upon the dogma of the Person of Christ). However, in his brief treatment he does not distinguish between the dynamic, biblically-based “economic” Trinity and the ”ontological” Trinity of church dogma (God as God is in and unto himself as Three Persons, One Godhead, in his own infinity and eternity) The biblical portrayal of the Father sending the Son into space and time to be incarnate by the action of the Holy Spirit, and then of the movement in the Spirit, through the Son to the Father in the sacrifice of prayer and good works of the disciples of Jesus, would seem to be a major theme of the New Testament. Is it not the case that for the New Testament there is the double “flow”: (a) from the Father through the Son and by the Spirit come creation, revelation, salvation and redemption and (b) to the Father through the Son and with the Spirit flow worship and service, prayer and good works?
What Protestant Reformers learned after their discovery of “justification by faith alone” was that the church dogma of the Trinity and Person of Christ (for this see the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils) in the pious, devout mind provides a paradigm which profoundly assists in the understanding and interpreting of Scripture unto holiness and salvation. In this realization, they joined Fathers such as Augustine and Bernard, Thomas Aquinas and Anselm.
Dr Zahl also reveals his departure from the full Protestant and classical Anglican tradition by his embracing and defending of the doctrine of God as passible, the God who in his deity, is subject to change of feelings and moods. It is one thing, we may recall, to attribute to the human nature of the Lord Jesus changing moods and feelings; it is yet another thing to deny the long-held doctrine of the impassibility of God the Father (see Article I).
Much more could be said about this little book for it does have the merit of being both readable and gently provocative of serious thought. At the same time, it is impossible to tell from It what value for salvation Dr Zahl places upon the historic Liturgy of the Church (wherein church dogma most carefully influences the content and style of prayers), the recital of the ecumenical Creed, the visible Church wherein are preached the Word and the Sacraments administered, and, as an Anglican, the classic Anglican Formularies (the authentic BCP, Ordinal and Articles). Would he agree that you cannot have God as your Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour without having the Church as your mother?
A final thought. In the “old days” at least in England, the fact of being the author of this book would disqualify him from teaching doctrine in one of the conservative evangelical theological Colleges in the Church of England (e.g., Oak Hill College, London) or being on the Board of the Church Society or the Church Pastoral Aid Society. I say “old days” for things have changed a lot in England as in the USA since the 1970s within “evangelical Anglicanism.” It is not clear to me now what in fact “evangelicals” actually believe for usually they do not accept or even study the Thirty-Nine Articles as a source of Anglican doctrine and also sit lightly upon the classical dogma of the first four ecumenical Councils.
November 3, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
No comments:
Post a Comment