We were privileged to have Randy Maddox of Duke Divinity School here at IWU today for our Spring Religion colloquium. Ken Collins was here a few weeks ago for the Cox Holiness lectures, so we've feasted on Wesley scholars this semester.
But Maddox wasn't here to talk about holiness. Rather he spoke about Wesley and care for the world. Steve Conrad, a biology professor, responded.
Much of his presentation (which I think he just gave at WTS as well) had to do with the misperception that Judeo-Christian views have been the primary culprit behind negative attitudes and actions toward the environment. He showed that Christians in about five different disciplines have shown that this is not the case at all. For example, he argued that it was Frances Bacon in the 1500's who first interpreted the phrase "subdue" the earth in terms of domination, with industrialization therefore being very biblical...
I think almost all of us learned something about Wesley we didn't know. Wesley believed that in the eschaton all the beings of the world moved up the scale of being. So animals would be able to speak in heaven. We will become like the angels. Maddox's point was that it was very Wesleyan to take into account not just issues of the environment that affect humans but that God grace was on all, including the animal kingdom.
Some interesting side conversations were had. He seemed to differ somewhat with Mark Noll's precise sense of evangelical history and saw Don Dayton as the best push back on that score. I introduced the issue with my sense that Wesleyans didn't really start calling themselves evangelicals until the 50's (in other words, that we "became" neo-evangelicals but had not been engaged at all in the rhetoric of fundamentalism prior to that time).
Then Drury shared something about the Pilgrim Holiness Church I had never heard before. The leaders got down and prayed in the 50's about a controversial figure called Billy Graham, whether to identify or distinguish themselves from him. They decided to side with him. And thus the Pilgrim Holiness Church might be said to have become "evangelical." Of course it was also in the 1950's that Stephen Paine, clearly a neo-evangelical, introduced the word inerrant into the Wesleyan Methodist vocabulary.
Another point of difference between Maddox and Noll was on the topic of when science and faith really divorced in "faith-full" American Christianity (I'm refusing to use the word evangelical here). Noll dates it after the Civil War. Maddox thinks it is after WW1. My question was when science and faith will rejoin. He thought it was beginning to happen.
Another observation drawn had to do with the respective trajectories of Maddox and Ken Collins. Collins started out Catholic and so apparently emphasizes the Wesley the Protestant more. Collins is more of a historical theologian and so aims at appropriating Wesley as Wesley. Maddox started out Nazarene and so is more comfortable emphasizing the more "catholic" dimensions of Wesley, and as a constructive theologian is interested in appropriating Wesley for the church universal.
These are great days for IWU's intellect. I think its heart has always been good.
Showing posts with label Ken Collins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ken Collins. Show all posts
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
An Interview with Chris Bounds 2: Total Depravity
Ken Schenck: I understand that there are different interpretations of Wesley on his view of total depravity? How does Randy Maddox's understanding differ from Ken Collins'?
Chris Bounds: “There are as many interpretations as there are readers.” While this is not completely true of Wesley, there certainly are many different interpretative lenses (sometimes irreconcilable) through which Wesley is understood and explained. As such, there are definable “schools of understanding” of Wesley.
1. For example, Wesley is seen principally through a Reformed or Calvinist lens by George Croft Cell, through Lutheran Pietism by Franz Hildebrandt, through Puritanism by Gordon Rupp, and through the Eastern Church Fathers by Randy Maddox. Also, Wesley has been (re) interpreted through more contemporary lenses, such as the liberationist perspectives of Theodore Jennings and the process theology of John Cobb.
Specifically, in regard to Randy Maddox and Ken Collins, their differences in working with Wesley are rooted in two areas. First, Ken Collins locates Wesley’s theology in the Western theological tradition of Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Pietism – the Roman Catholic/Protestant tradition. Maddox seeks to understand Wesley more in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, particularly in the Eastern Church Fathers.
2. Second, Collins is a historical theologian and Randy Maddox is a systematic theologian. As a result, Collins is more committed to Wesley and Wesley’s particular theological thought than Maddox. Collins is more committed to Wesley’s theological understanding and views. He is reluctant to deviate from his understanding of Wesley.
Maddox is more committed to Wesley’s general theological methodology and goals. He is more willing to “think outside of the box.” He is more willing to allow for Wesley to be wrong or to speculate what Wesley might have discarded from/or incorporated into his theology had he had other theological/doctrinal resources to draw upon. Foremost for Wesley, according to Maddox, is building a theology that makes humanity truly responsible for actions and decisions and cooperating with God in the work of salvation.
3. These general differences can be seen in their respective treatments of Wesley’s doctrine of “total depravity.” Both Collins and Maddox agree on what Wesley’s teaching is on the creation of humanity, the Fall of humanity and the “natural state” of humanity as “totally depraved.” They agree on what Wesley’s doctrinal teaching is on these three interrelated doctrines of humanity. Also, they agree that Wesley’s teaching is rooted in the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition of the Anglican Church.
However, Maddox is far more speculative and open to the possibilities of what Wesley might have developed theologically if he had other sources (particularly Eastern Orthodox teachings) available to him. For example, Maddox in Responsible Grace speculates that Wesley might have embraced open theism to resolve the tension of foreknowledge and determinism and Maddox appears to approve of this direction.
More specifically, Maddox recognizes that Wesley follows the Western tradition in painting Adam and Eve as fully mature in the Garden before their Fall. The image and likeness of God in them was perfect. They had perfected reasoning, understanding and judgment. This is the reason why their disobedience is seen as so offensive and why the consequences of the Fall are seen as so “total” and devastating for all of humanity. Adam and Eve were fully aware of what they were doing in their act of disobedience.
However, in the Eastern tradition Adam and Eve are not seen as fully mature. The image and likeness of God was not fully formed in them. They were made to grow fully into the image and likeness of God through the exercise of their free will. They were immature. While their disobedience has devastating consequences for all, the disobedience is seen as being done by “children” and not fully informed, fully mature human beings, thus not as serious or devastating as the Western tradition. Maddox explicitly speculates that if Wesley would have had the Eastern teaching on Adam and Eve, he would, most probably, have moved in this Eastern direction.
While Maddox speculates here, he does not do this explicitly in regard to “total depravity.” However, Maddox’s speculative work on what Wesley might have done with the state of Adam and Eve before the Fall, leads me to believe that he is open to the possibility that Wesley might have been open to recasting “total depravity,” if more Eastern theology had been available to him.
Ken Collins, on the other hand would not. Collins from his solidly Reformed perspective of Wesley, strongly maintains the Western Reformed teaching on these issues. I would assume that he would not be open to recasting or re-visioning these doctrines as Wesleyans.
As such, there are no major differences between Maddox’s and Collins’ interpretations of Wesley’s teaching on “total depravity.” However, one appears more apt to believe that Wesley would have been open to re-vision the issues of the Fall, original sin, and “total depravity” from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.
Ken Schenck: Thanks, Chris, for taking the time to let us know a little of what is going on in the study and use of Wesley in theology.
Randy Maddox will actually be on campus here at IWU this Spring. It's too bad we couldn't have twisted Ken Collins' arm as well to get him here for a knock down, drag out... :-)
Chris Bounds: “There are as many interpretations as there are readers.” While this is not completely true of Wesley, there certainly are many different interpretative lenses (sometimes irreconcilable) through which Wesley is understood and explained. As such, there are definable “schools of understanding” of Wesley.
1. For example, Wesley is seen principally through a Reformed or Calvinist lens by George Croft Cell, through Lutheran Pietism by Franz Hildebrandt, through Puritanism by Gordon Rupp, and through the Eastern Church Fathers by Randy Maddox. Also, Wesley has been (re) interpreted through more contemporary lenses, such as the liberationist perspectives of Theodore Jennings and the process theology of John Cobb.
Specifically, in regard to Randy Maddox and Ken Collins, their differences in working with Wesley are rooted in two areas. First, Ken Collins locates Wesley’s theology in the Western theological tradition of Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Pietism – the Roman Catholic/Protestant tradition. Maddox seeks to understand Wesley more in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, particularly in the Eastern Church Fathers.
2. Second, Collins is a historical theologian and Randy Maddox is a systematic theologian. As a result, Collins is more committed to Wesley and Wesley’s particular theological thought than Maddox. Collins is more committed to Wesley’s theological understanding and views. He is reluctant to deviate from his understanding of Wesley.
Maddox is more committed to Wesley’s general theological methodology and goals. He is more willing to “think outside of the box.” He is more willing to allow for Wesley to be wrong or to speculate what Wesley might have discarded from/or incorporated into his theology had he had other theological/doctrinal resources to draw upon. Foremost for Wesley, according to Maddox, is building a theology that makes humanity truly responsible for actions and decisions and cooperating with God in the work of salvation.
3. These general differences can be seen in their respective treatments of Wesley’s doctrine of “total depravity.” Both Collins and Maddox agree on what Wesley’s teaching is on the creation of humanity, the Fall of humanity and the “natural state” of humanity as “totally depraved.” They agree on what Wesley’s doctrinal teaching is on these three interrelated doctrines of humanity. Also, they agree that Wesley’s teaching is rooted in the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition of the Anglican Church.
However, Maddox is far more speculative and open to the possibilities of what Wesley might have developed theologically if he had other sources (particularly Eastern Orthodox teachings) available to him. For example, Maddox in Responsible Grace speculates that Wesley might have embraced open theism to resolve the tension of foreknowledge and determinism and Maddox appears to approve of this direction.
More specifically, Maddox recognizes that Wesley follows the Western tradition in painting Adam and Eve as fully mature in the Garden before their Fall. The image and likeness of God in them was perfect. They had perfected reasoning, understanding and judgment. This is the reason why their disobedience is seen as so offensive and why the consequences of the Fall are seen as so “total” and devastating for all of humanity. Adam and Eve were fully aware of what they were doing in their act of disobedience.
However, in the Eastern tradition Adam and Eve are not seen as fully mature. The image and likeness of God was not fully formed in them. They were made to grow fully into the image and likeness of God through the exercise of their free will. They were immature. While their disobedience has devastating consequences for all, the disobedience is seen as being done by “children” and not fully informed, fully mature human beings, thus not as serious or devastating as the Western tradition. Maddox explicitly speculates that if Wesley would have had the Eastern teaching on Adam and Eve, he would, most probably, have moved in this Eastern direction.
While Maddox speculates here, he does not do this explicitly in regard to “total depravity.” However, Maddox’s speculative work on what Wesley might have done with the state of Adam and Eve before the Fall, leads me to believe that he is open to the possibility that Wesley might have been open to recasting “total depravity,” if more Eastern theology had been available to him.
Ken Collins, on the other hand would not. Collins from his solidly Reformed perspective of Wesley, strongly maintains the Western Reformed teaching on these issues. I would assume that he would not be open to recasting or re-visioning these doctrines as Wesleyans.
As such, there are no major differences between Maddox’s and Collins’ interpretations of Wesley’s teaching on “total depravity.” However, one appears more apt to believe that Wesley would have been open to re-vision the issues of the Fall, original sin, and “total depravity” from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.
Ken Schenck: Thanks, Chris, for taking the time to let us know a little of what is going on in the study and use of Wesley in theology.
Randy Maddox will actually be on campus here at IWU this Spring. It's too bad we couldn't have twisted Ken Collins' arm as well to get him here for a knock down, drag out... :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
