Oden’s Classic Christianity is an exhaustive treatment of theological themes, such as one would expect from a multi-volume systematics. Given this - considering the breadth of this text and the limited space available here - a granular analysis of specific topics is therefore neither appropriate nor possible.
At its simplest, theology is “talk about God”. Christian theology, then, is talk about God from a Christian perspective. (In what follows, I will abbreviate Christian theology simply as theology.) Considering Christianity as a millennia-spanning global phenomenon, it should be rather unsurprising to discover some diversity of opinion as to what the task of theology is understood to be. Systematic theology, however, typically centers on particular themes such as the authority of the Bible, the identity of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of God, faith and reason, the relation of grace and free will, soteriological and eschatological concerns, the institution of the church, and so on, while attempting to offer a plausible and coherent theological account, synthesizing all of the aforementioned elements into an all-encompassing and totalizing scheme. Arguably, a systematic theological account is understood to be normative in the Church. However, this remains merely one possible theological method and the orthodox picture Thomas Oden wishes to present in Classic Christianity as “ecumenical consensus” could just as readily be described as the product of an imperially mandated synthesis wrought so as to consolidate Roman power. The orthodox appeals one so often hears - to history, to revelation, and to apostolic descent - invoked so as to ground, center, and authorize a certain interpretation of the tradition, thus fail to take this important fact into account. and Oden is no exception. Of course, this fact does not rise to the level of an argument per se. Rather, the point of these preliminary remarks are to provide some minimal contextualization with respect to the theological background, method, and overall approach of Oden's project.
While remaining squarely and at all times within an unapologetically Christian framework (anti-pun intended), Oden provides us with a concise and fairly convincing response to the question of why Christians ought to pursue theology, explaining: “When we fail to use our best intelligence around questions as to the nature of God, we diminish the power of faith by the dullness of our minds. We are called to love God with our minds, testing the validity of arguments concerning God” (Oden, 84).
Originally published in three volumes, Oden’s Classic Christianity was later edited and collated into an imposing volume of 850 pages. As already suggested, the text bears all the hallmarks of what one would expect to find in a systematic theology; from the nature of God to the study of last things, Oden has written a coherent and fairly exhaustive treatment of Christianity considered from Oden’s peculiar sense of ecumenicism that is best understood as largely synonymous and convergent with the “classical” apostolic tradition as articulated by the creeds, and as passed through Wesley. Indeed, Oden is best known for the emergence of what has come to be known as “paleo-orthodoxy” which at the time had set itself apart from the neo-orthodox camp, typically associated with Karl Barth and Reinhold Niebuhr. This theological movement of paleo-orthodoxy was one Oden helped create and was characterized by a commitment to retrieving a Christian perspective as would have been found to be common (so the argument goes) prior to the East-West schism of 1054. Considering the overtly conservative thrust of Oden's approach, it is curious to consider how, as an ostensibly Protestant movement, Paleo-orthodoxy attempts to “get behind” the Reformation, appearing on the theological scene on one side of things as a reaction against neo-orthodoxy, and on the other side as a response to the emergence of varieties of Christian fundamentalisms which appeared during the 20th century, instead striking out for a middle path between the two. In brief, paleo-orthodoxy comes on the scene as a species of Christian-primitivism with a proclivity to fetishizes an ancient (i.e., a more pure, rarified, or authentic) expression of Christian faith, one that is understood to be retrieved without any loss of resolution, that it then declares as normative for all Christians, everywhere.
What Oden offers his reader in Classic Christianity is a coherent and plausible systematic that speaks in a particular voice, aiming (or at least presuming) to articulate what is believed everywhere, always, and by everyone (Oden, XV). Putting aside all arguments as to the possible merits (or deficiencies) of this approach, Oden’s project should not in any way be understood to be a constructive endeavor. Indeed, Oden writes quite emphatically in the preface, “The only promise I intend to make… is that of unoriginality” (Oden, XV). One Christianity Today author (a publication at which Oden was once a chief editors), begins by reflecting on Oden’s career by writing: “[Oden’s] contribution to theology: nothing new. And that's what made him famous” (Christianity Today). For Oden, theology is understood as a purely archeological task to which nothing new need be added. Oden thus understands revelation as always-already received whereupon Christianity’s truths need only to be interpreted, received, and accepted vis a vis patristic consensus as articulated by creedal Christianity. Oden is therefore clearly a presuppositionalist who, according to his own Wesleyan hermeneutic, gives considerable emphasis to tradition over Scripture, or at least lacks the ability to draw any meaningful difference between the two. His is “a theology that cannot think”, as Heidegger might have said, which is to say nothing of its merits or of Oden’s overall success in what he set out to accomplish.
,
To that last point, Classic Christianity is admittedly an impressive and imposing text written in a clear and straightforward manner, one that is stylistically accessible and often times persuasive. Oden’s incorrigible scholarship remains evident at all times and he seems especially fond of, and makes ample use of Patristics sources to good effect, particularly Augustine, Aquinas, and Irenaeus who are frequently cited.
Although Oden states in the preface he is not interested in criticizing either modern liberal theology or the academic study of religion, there are times throughout the text where he appears to forget his own advice, launching into brief polemical interludes - though typically nothing very pointed or extensive - of those he considers to be his intellectual or cultural opponents. Even with these small demonstrations of self unawareness, I found the working through of Oden’s systematic theology to be a positive and enriching experience that has deepened my appreciation for the Wesleyan theological tradition to which Oden faithfully adheres.
As perhaps is already clear, I remain suspicious about the ultimate aims of any systematized theology because of an inborn habit, as I see it, to permit tradition to over-code (or perhaps underwrite) one’s own thinking. There is, I believe, a peculiar perversion discovered in systematic theologies as well, not in the sense of having deviated from a center, nor that a center may actually exist, but one found in the very givenness or presumption of such a center, and the often tacit disavowal of the historical context which made theological consensus possible in the first place. The point I want to make has less to do with the constructed nature of systematic theology, and more to do with wanting to emphasize and insist upon theology's syncretic, multivocal, and historically diverse expressions.
Just as Marion’s synthesized gospel was rejected as heresy by the Church, instead affirming the multiple and even contradictory elements present in those texts, we should reject performing a similar procedure upon theology. To demand that theology speak in a single voice is to render it mono-tonous, in the strictest sense of that word. It is to declare knowledge of God, humanity, and the world a completed task best left to the professionals, priests, and other taxonomers. The fashioning of theology into a club, either to wield or join, has always been the dream of the ruling Caesar. In contrast to this, may a thousand flowers bloom. May we cultivate vibrant and living theologies which neither leave tradition behind, nor negligently proceed under the spell of the One, but instead critically, faithfully, and continually engage in the task of theology, a task which must be ever renewed. Studies of historical articulations of Christian faith certainly remain one important aspect of this task, and one may very well discover through the course of such engagement, wellsprings of beauty and wisdom that can fund and energize contemporary formulations of faith. Yet, it is precisely this active and participatory quality which I believe must be emphasized in contrast to Oden’s paleo-orthodox approach, or any other approach claiming "ecumenical consensus". I hope I haven't come across as entirely ungenerous; it would be difficult for any reader to come away from reading Classic Christianity with an impression of Oden as an unthinking or uncritical theologian. Nevertheless, Oden’s enthusiastic abandonment of theology's constructive element amounts, in my estimation, to a form of theological malpractice.
Christianity Today. www.christianitytoday.com/news/2016/december/died-thomas-oden-methodist-theologian-who-found-classical.html. Accessed 28 Apr. 2021.
Oden, Thomas. Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology. HarperOne, 2009.
Comments