Kevin Wayne
September 16th 2005, 03:05 PM
Since many of you may not be familiar with Thomas Oden, and his particular place in the modern Evangelical move back towards historic Orthodoxy, I have here provided a modest list of resources that will hopefully wet your appetite for investigating inyo his contributions.
From the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_C._Oden) , a general rundown of Oden:
Thomas Clark Oden (October 21, 1931 - ) is an American Christian theologian associated with Drew University in New Jersey. An ordained United Methodist Elder, he is also perhaps the "Father of the Paleo-Orthodox movement" and arguably one of the most influential churchmen of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. He has proven to be very important in the contemporary ecumenical movement and in Christian evangelical circles.
Oden coined the term paleo-orthodoxy for his approach to theology. The term is derived from the roots "paleo" (meaning "ancient") and "orthodox" (meaning "correct belief"), so it essentially means "ancient correct belief". The movement relies to a great extent on patristic sources. It is generally associated (though not exclusively so) with evangelicalism.
Oden has published a series of books not only calling for a return to "classical Christianity" but also provided the tools to do so. He believes strongly that Christians need to rely upon the wisdom of the historical Church, particularly the early Church, rather than on modern scholarship and theology, which is often, in his view, tainted by political agendas
From the Wikipedia article on Paleo-Orthodoxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Orthodoxy):
Paleo-Orthodoxy is a Christian theological movement of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. It is not a formal, organized movement, but comprises essentially a return to "classical Christianity" by many theologians, scholars, pastors, and lay people. The term is derived from the roots "paleo" (meaning "ancient") and "orthodox" (meaning "correct belief"), so it essentially means "ancient correct belief". The movement relies to a great extent on patristic sources. It is generally associated (though not exclusively so) with evangelicalism.
The giant of the movement is United Methodist Thomas C. Oden of Drew University, who has published a series of books not only calling for a return to "classical Christianity" but also provided the tools to do so. Oden, who apparently coined the term "paleo-orthodoxy", believes strongly that Christians need to rely upon the wisdom of the historical Church, particularly the early Church, rather than on modern scholarship and theology, which is often, in his view, tainted by political agendas.
Oden writes, "The term paleo-orthodoxy is employed to make clear that we are not talking about neo-orthodoxy. Paleo becomes a necessary prefix only because the term orthodoxy has been preempted and to some degree tarnished by the modern tradition of neo-orthodoxy" (Requiem, p. 130). Oden's desire is, "...to begin to prepare the postmodern Christian community for its third millennium by returning again to the careful study and respectful following of the central tradition of classical Christianity" (After Modernity...What?, p. 34). Oden himself has written that he hopes, "...to make no new contribution to theology" (Life in the Spirit, p. vii).
Oden is general editor of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (http://ivpress.gospelcom.net/accs/meet_tom_oden.php). This is from an interview with him on the ACCS website, wherein he shares his concerns that gave rise to the series:
An Interview with Thomas C. Oden
General Editor, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture
Conducted by Dan Reid
InterVarsity Press Senior Editor, Reference & Academic Books
REID: How did the idea for the ACCS arise?
ODEN: I think it came to me when I was preparing a sermon on a text. I suddenly realized that what I had been doing as a theologian could be applied to preaching--that it would be possible to go back to the Fathers of the Church series, look up the Scripture reference and find all kinds of material for that particular text. So that was an "Aha!" experience for me.
REID: What confirmed in your mind that you should proceed with the project?
ODEN: I believe it did not come until the Washington, D.C., feasibility consultation in December 1993. The project had been brewing in my mind for several years, my Ph.D. students were excited about it, and I wanted to gather together the best people I could think of and ask whether it could and should be done, and whether we had the resources to carry it out. Drew University brought together top patristic scholars from around the country. We seriously evaluated the positives and negatives, and there grew out of that body a strong consensus that this was something we could and should do.
REID: There has been a considerable amount of prepublication enthusiasm for the ACCS. Do you think the time is particularly ripe for the project?
ODEN: Almost everyone I talk with about the project responds positively, wondering why this was not done fifty years ago or more. I do think this is a ripe time among the several different audiences--Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant evangelical--and for different reasons.
Among Roman Catholics there has been since Vatican II a fixation on the documents of Vatican II, so much so that they have tended to forget their patristic grounding. If you go back to Roman Catholic scholarship of fifty and one hundred years ago, you will see constant reference to patristic writers. Now, I'm very pleased with much that Vatican II did, but I think that they have tended during this period of opening the windows to the modern world--aggiornamento--to lose something of their exegetical roots.
The Orthodox have always been committed to patristic exegesis, but they have generally focused on Eastern exegesis. They've had such riches in the Eastern tradition that they have not felt a need to go into Western tradition. I think there is a growing awareness of the Western tradition on the part of the Orthodox, and they are ready to look further into the history of exegesis.
Evangelicals have entered into the world of historical-critical scholarship in a fairly healthy way, but it has left them hungry, with a sense of something essential missing. I think there is a growing awareness among them that the work of the Holy Spirit in the period between Augustine and Luther, and even before Augustine, in the Eastern tradition, is largely a closed memory.
Among each of these three audiences, there is a hunger regarding a long-delayed project that has not matured. The resources for doing scholarly work in this area have diminished greatly in the last two centuries, and that is part of the reason why there is a readiness for this project.
REID: I have heard you make some critical comments regarding modern biblical interpretation of Scripture. What do you think has gone wrong in biblical interpretation that needs to be set right?
ODEN: The heart of the answer is an ideological captivity to the assumptions of the Enlightenment. By those assumptions I mean naturalistic reductionism, autonomous individualism, hedonic narcissism and absolute relativism. These describe the two-century hegemony of the ideology of modernity. And there is an inordinate dependence of historical-critical scholarship on that ideology.
Twenty-five or thirty years ago, when I was a young theologian and a Bultmannian, it seemed like the assumptions of modernity would go on forever. But the worldview of modernity is now suffering an intense inward collapse. I strongly commend historical scholarship. But I would argue that a great deal of modern biblical scholarship needs to be freed from the narrow assumptions of modernity.
Here’s a .pdf file (http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/41/41-1/41-1-pp055-068-JETS.pdf.) which details how he applies his exegetical methods ro Romans 1:12-20, using his appeal to Ancient Christian authorities.
And finally, from a CT co-interview with J.I. Packer (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/103/22.0.html) regarding their book One Faith: The Evangelical Consensus:
What gave the two of you the idea for this book?
Oden: We were in the airport waiting to come back after the Amsterdam 2000 conference. We got to talking about how the evangelical tradition had a cohesive consensus on so many major doctrinal affirmations, but that these had not been brought together in a synoptic way. The idea emerged there in Amsterdam that Jim and I might cooperate in trying to produce such a document.
Dr. Packer, you've had a hand in writing some of these statements yourself. How many of the statements in this book did you help to create?
Packer: I helped draft The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration and the Amsterdam Declaration. I also wrote the exposition of inerrancy for the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, and I did the first draft of the Willowbank Declaration. That may be the lot.
Because of their polemical background, some of these statements become shibboleths—precise word tests to discover who is in and out. Is that a valid function for these faith statements?
Packer: No statement ever ought to become a shibboleth for anybody so that it's just a question of whether the right word is heard on the lips of the other guy. The statements, like all confessional statements, are ring fences around orthodoxy and truth. What's important is that in the organizations that sponsor the statements, everybody should be inside the ring fence rejoicing in the truth. They don't have to do it necessarily in the same words as the confessional statement uses.
I spend a lot of time with my students, trying to disabuse them of what I call "the magic word syndrome." That is the idea that you're not affirming something unless you affirm it in familiar language. I tell them that anything that you really understand you can express in different words. This is apropos of whether you do or do not use words like infallible and inerrant.
From the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_C._Oden) , a general rundown of Oden:
Thomas Clark Oden (October 21, 1931 - ) is an American Christian theologian associated with Drew University in New Jersey. An ordained United Methodist Elder, he is also perhaps the "Father of the Paleo-Orthodox movement" and arguably one of the most influential churchmen of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. He has proven to be very important in the contemporary ecumenical movement and in Christian evangelical circles.
Oden coined the term paleo-orthodoxy for his approach to theology. The term is derived from the roots "paleo" (meaning "ancient") and "orthodox" (meaning "correct belief"), so it essentially means "ancient correct belief". The movement relies to a great extent on patristic sources. It is generally associated (though not exclusively so) with evangelicalism.
Oden has published a series of books not only calling for a return to "classical Christianity" but also provided the tools to do so. He believes strongly that Christians need to rely upon the wisdom of the historical Church, particularly the early Church, rather than on modern scholarship and theology, which is often, in his view, tainted by political agendas
From the Wikipedia article on Paleo-Orthodoxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Orthodoxy):
Paleo-Orthodoxy is a Christian theological movement of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. It is not a formal, organized movement, but comprises essentially a return to "classical Christianity" by many theologians, scholars, pastors, and lay people. The term is derived from the roots "paleo" (meaning "ancient") and "orthodox" (meaning "correct belief"), so it essentially means "ancient correct belief". The movement relies to a great extent on patristic sources. It is generally associated (though not exclusively so) with evangelicalism.
The giant of the movement is United Methodist Thomas C. Oden of Drew University, who has published a series of books not only calling for a return to "classical Christianity" but also provided the tools to do so. Oden, who apparently coined the term "paleo-orthodoxy", believes strongly that Christians need to rely upon the wisdom of the historical Church, particularly the early Church, rather than on modern scholarship and theology, which is often, in his view, tainted by political agendas.
Oden writes, "The term paleo-orthodoxy is employed to make clear that we are not talking about neo-orthodoxy. Paleo becomes a necessary prefix only because the term orthodoxy has been preempted and to some degree tarnished by the modern tradition of neo-orthodoxy" (Requiem, p. 130). Oden's desire is, "...to begin to prepare the postmodern Christian community for its third millennium by returning again to the careful study and respectful following of the central tradition of classical Christianity" (After Modernity...What?, p. 34). Oden himself has written that he hopes, "...to make no new contribution to theology" (Life in the Spirit, p. vii).
Oden is general editor of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (http://ivpress.gospelcom.net/accs/meet_tom_oden.php). This is from an interview with him on the ACCS website, wherein he shares his concerns that gave rise to the series:
An Interview with Thomas C. Oden
General Editor, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture
Conducted by Dan Reid
InterVarsity Press Senior Editor, Reference & Academic Books
REID: How did the idea for the ACCS arise?
ODEN: I think it came to me when I was preparing a sermon on a text. I suddenly realized that what I had been doing as a theologian could be applied to preaching--that it would be possible to go back to the Fathers of the Church series, look up the Scripture reference and find all kinds of material for that particular text. So that was an "Aha!" experience for me.
REID: What confirmed in your mind that you should proceed with the project?
ODEN: I believe it did not come until the Washington, D.C., feasibility consultation in December 1993. The project had been brewing in my mind for several years, my Ph.D. students were excited about it, and I wanted to gather together the best people I could think of and ask whether it could and should be done, and whether we had the resources to carry it out. Drew University brought together top patristic scholars from around the country. We seriously evaluated the positives and negatives, and there grew out of that body a strong consensus that this was something we could and should do.
REID: There has been a considerable amount of prepublication enthusiasm for the ACCS. Do you think the time is particularly ripe for the project?
ODEN: Almost everyone I talk with about the project responds positively, wondering why this was not done fifty years ago or more. I do think this is a ripe time among the several different audiences--Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant evangelical--and for different reasons.
Among Roman Catholics there has been since Vatican II a fixation on the documents of Vatican II, so much so that they have tended to forget their patristic grounding. If you go back to Roman Catholic scholarship of fifty and one hundred years ago, you will see constant reference to patristic writers. Now, I'm very pleased with much that Vatican II did, but I think that they have tended during this period of opening the windows to the modern world--aggiornamento--to lose something of their exegetical roots.
The Orthodox have always been committed to patristic exegesis, but they have generally focused on Eastern exegesis. They've had such riches in the Eastern tradition that they have not felt a need to go into Western tradition. I think there is a growing awareness of the Western tradition on the part of the Orthodox, and they are ready to look further into the history of exegesis.
Evangelicals have entered into the world of historical-critical scholarship in a fairly healthy way, but it has left them hungry, with a sense of something essential missing. I think there is a growing awareness among them that the work of the Holy Spirit in the period between Augustine and Luther, and even before Augustine, in the Eastern tradition, is largely a closed memory.
Among each of these three audiences, there is a hunger regarding a long-delayed project that has not matured. The resources for doing scholarly work in this area have diminished greatly in the last two centuries, and that is part of the reason why there is a readiness for this project.
REID: I have heard you make some critical comments regarding modern biblical interpretation of Scripture. What do you think has gone wrong in biblical interpretation that needs to be set right?
ODEN: The heart of the answer is an ideological captivity to the assumptions of the Enlightenment. By those assumptions I mean naturalistic reductionism, autonomous individualism, hedonic narcissism and absolute relativism. These describe the two-century hegemony of the ideology of modernity. And there is an inordinate dependence of historical-critical scholarship on that ideology.
Twenty-five or thirty years ago, when I was a young theologian and a Bultmannian, it seemed like the assumptions of modernity would go on forever. But the worldview of modernity is now suffering an intense inward collapse. I strongly commend historical scholarship. But I would argue that a great deal of modern biblical scholarship needs to be freed from the narrow assumptions of modernity.
Here’s a .pdf file (http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/41/41-1/41-1-pp055-068-JETS.pdf.) which details how he applies his exegetical methods ro Romans 1:12-20, using his appeal to Ancient Christian authorities.
And finally, from a CT co-interview with J.I. Packer (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/103/22.0.html) regarding their book One Faith: The Evangelical Consensus:
What gave the two of you the idea for this book?
Oden: We were in the airport waiting to come back after the Amsterdam 2000 conference. We got to talking about how the evangelical tradition had a cohesive consensus on so many major doctrinal affirmations, but that these had not been brought together in a synoptic way. The idea emerged there in Amsterdam that Jim and I might cooperate in trying to produce such a document.
Dr. Packer, you've had a hand in writing some of these statements yourself. How many of the statements in this book did you help to create?
Packer: I helped draft The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration and the Amsterdam Declaration. I also wrote the exposition of inerrancy for the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, and I did the first draft of the Willowbank Declaration. That may be the lot.
Because of their polemical background, some of these statements become shibboleths—precise word tests to discover who is in and out. Is that a valid function for these faith statements?
Packer: No statement ever ought to become a shibboleth for anybody so that it's just a question of whether the right word is heard on the lips of the other guy. The statements, like all confessional statements, are ring fences around orthodoxy and truth. What's important is that in the organizations that sponsor the statements, everybody should be inside the ring fence rejoicing in the truth. They don't have to do it necessarily in the same words as the confessional statement uses.
I spend a lot of time with my students, trying to disabuse them of what I call "the magic word syndrome." That is the idea that you're not affirming something unless you affirm it in familiar language. I tell them that anything that you really understand you can express in different words. This is apropos of whether you do or do not use words like infallible and inerrant.