1 of 6
My thanks to Books & Culture for inviting me to respond to Thomas C. Oden's "Calm Answer" to my critique of "The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration," and to Oden for trying to answer the critique calmly. Naturally, third parties will judge for themselves whether or not there is enough calmness in his answer to make a true contrast with agitation in the critique.
Oden writes that he and his fellow drafters of "Celebration" had hoped to be spared "this sort of public squabble." What then of their statements in "Celebration" that "doctrinal disagreements call for debate" and that "useful dialogue … requires not only charity in our attitudes, but also clarity in our utterances"? On what grounds has Oden classified the present debate as a "public squabble" rather than as a "useful dialogue"? And since my discussion of imputation, which captures more space by far than lesser topics, deals with the self-proclaimed center of "Celebration," how can he rightly accuse me of an attack on the "edges"?
I accept Oden's statement that "the drafters of 'Celebration' sought to be as inclusive as possible of major evangelical voices"; but as explicitly stated in the critique, my concern has been that whatever the drafters' intention, at points the wording of "Celebration" excludes, or at least can easily and naturally be read as excluding, such voices. Oden's suggestion to the contrary notwithstanding, nowhere have I said or hinted, nor have I entertained the thought, that it "is not a decent goal" for "'Celebration' … to define those points of common understanding upon which diverse evangelicals agree." My criticisms do not imply an assault against that worthy goal. By and large they have rather aimed to help achieve it by insuring that the wording of "Celebration" not exclude certain evangelicals. It is therefore out of bounds for Oden to ask, "Why would not our critic wish to see such an irenic effort succeed … ?"
"It is an exaggerated and defensive and tendentious reading of 'Celebration' that leads the critic to conclude that 'such evangelicals' as Arminians are being 'kept outside the fold.'" So writes Oden. But this statement of his is itself exaggerated, defensive, and tendentious. For I asked a question which he has now transmuted into a conclusion. Then, after applying to Arminians a phrase of mine that has nothing to do with them as such—rather with all those, whether Arminian or not, who think that Jesus' "one act of righteousness" refers solely to his propitiatory death on the cross—Oden asks whether I think the "prominent Wesleyans and Pentecostals and Charismatics" who endorsed "Celebration" did not read it, did not know how to read it correctly, did not endorse it with integrity, or do not know their own true beliefs.
Well, I said that I was "surprised and puzzled to see … the names of drafters and endorsers … recognizable as Arminian, Holiness, Pentecostal, and otherwise charismatic," and that "their subscription to 'Celebration' deserves respect." I even asked myself "whether I am being too picky." Do those statements and this question sound like an arrogating to myself of superior intelligence or a discrediting of others' integrity?
Oden does not help me out of my puzzlement over the reason or reasons why Arminians, Holiness people, Pentecostalists, and other charismatics have not seen in "Celebration" some wording that negates their beliefs in free will, a second work of grace, and an empowering baptism in the Holy Spirit unentailed in justification. For with one exception, Oden's assertions to the contrary do not constitute an exegesis of "Celebration" that would indicate how its wording might be construed at points as compatible with those views. I did engage in an exegesis of "Celebration," one that raised doubts deserving, I think, a more exegetical than assertive comeback.
share this page
RSS Feed
