It’s been 40 years now since Thomas C. Oden released his famous polemic Agenda for Theology: Recovering Christian Roots – and another 30 since his revision titled After Modernity… What? Agenda for Theology. In the world of theology, it is one of the more famous polemics of the latter twentieth century. It is famous as a blistering critique of modern Christian theology, and as perhaps the most significant break with that project since Karl Barth’s own exodus. So, is the book still relevant 40 years on? Yes! I, for one, think it is as relevant as ever.

The revised book begins with a story from J.I. Packer. In his preface, he tells of a family who lives by the seaside. One day, they see that their home is in immanent danger from the tide, which is eroding the shoreline. Some see this and decide to fortify their home; others see this and go off to brave the waves, searching for new land. Some time later, one of the latter seafaring brothers returns home on a tattered boat, bringing stories of exotic lands. This brother, it seems, has decided to return for good; the journey was a mistake.

So it is, Packer suggests, for Thomas Oden, who has travelled the seas of modern – or rather, modernist – Christianity to return and tell the tales of a more “experimental” theology’s failures. In telling this tale, Oden calls his fellow liberal voyagers to a postmodern return home: he beckons them to set sail, not for some new and uncharted waters, but for a land they left so long ago, they can hardly remember it. The climate is gentle, he promises, and the soil bears fruit; the old legends of a harsh, barren wasteland are untrue. He has come back, and so should we all; and in this book, he intends to tell us why.

The story is beautiful, but I think it leads us slightly astray as we begin the book. Packer calls Oden’s newfound (old) way of theologizing “the authentic evangelical method,” and I am inclined to agree (10). Oden’s is the best kind of evangelical method – for it is an evangelical call to hold on, not only to the great Protestant doctrines of grace and the supreme authority of the Scriptures, but also to the Eucharist, the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, and the Patristic Consensus (where it may exist) of the first millennium of the church.

It is a call, not just to return to our Protestant roots, but through our Reformation forebears to go back to the church fathers and mothers themselves, to drink deeply of the groundwater of pure, patristic spirituality and theology.

But this description also illustrates the sense in which Packer’s image misleads: Oden is here calling us, not just to the sparkling shoreline of the magisterial Reformation, with its deep (though critical) love of the fathers; rather, he is calling us through those great Reformers all the way back inland, to ascend the grand old sturdy mountains of conciliar, patristic orthodoxy.

THE MEANING OF PALEO-ORTHODOX THEOLOGY

This theological journey home Oden calls Paleo-Orthodoxy. I’ve taken this journey in my own way; and I have even chosen to use Oden’s term Paleo-Orthodox to label my own theology (and this blog). As you can imagine, that makes this anniversary pretty pertinent! But what exactly constitutes the Paleo-Orthodox perspective?

Paleo-Orthodoxy is a patristic form of evangelical Protestantism, one which takes seriously the need to have the tradition of the church as a guide in one’s interpretations of the Scriptures. This theology allows no single institution – like, say, the Roman Catholic Church – to claim this tradition solely for itself, and allows no magisterium – save a truly ecumenical church council (one involving the whole church east and west) – to arbitrate over doctrine. Thus it is not “Catholic” (or, as I would prefer to put it, “Roman”).

It also insists on the doctrine of grace alone through faith alone, places Scripture above tradition (though not my interpretation of Scripture), proclaims that we must get our consensus from mothers and fathers both Eastern and Western (this is true in theory, though often not in practice, for the East Orthodox Church), and refuses to attach the transmission of this tradition to a specific form of church polity or ecclesiology. Thus it is not “Orthodox.”

It rejects accommodation to modernity, and insists on traditional authority. Therefore it is not “mainline Protestant.”

And it rejects rationalistic, Biblicist understandings of the Scriptures. Therefore it is not “fundamentalist Protestant,” nor a “restorationist” form of evangelicalism.

And, finally, it insists that the Holy Spirit guides conciliar and patristic consensus, and thus commends these as free from error – as more, in short, than solid (but flawed) guides. It denies that “councils and creeds can err,” at least in their doctrinal pronouncements (canons, etc. of the councils might hold less authority, however). Therefore it is not quite “magisterial Protestantism” either (which is what Packer advocates) – though it is very, very close.

It is, instead, a form of evangelical Protestantism that sees the ecumenical councils, the patristic and matristic consensus of the first millennium of the church (prior to the great schism), and the real presence and efficacy of the sacraments as essential elements of the greater Christian tradition too long neglected by Protestants.

It places Scripture above tradition, but gives tradition a privileged place in its interpretation, and rejects our own personal interpretations where they and ancient consensus conflict.

It believes that Christ alone redeems us by grace alone through faith alone; but it believes that this is consistent with the patristic witness, even if it is sadly not a matter of total ancient consensus.

And finally, it believes that real, substantial spiritual experience, a changed life, and a process (however halting) of sanctification are necessary elements of the Christian experience. This, from what I can see, is the Paleo-Orthodoxy Thomas Oden advocates in After Modernity… What?

If I am right in my reading of this book (and I cannot comment on all of Oden’s other work), then I would consider myself a ready subscriber to Paleo-Orthodoxy. This approach to theology is, I think, needed as much as ever today.

The solid rock of Scripture, and the tradition which interprets it, are the only bulwarks against the shifting tides of modernity. They provide a foundation, and an excellent one at that.

The Scriptures, of course, provide incredible historical, miraculous, and evangelical testimony to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible is the criterion by which all doctrine must be judged.

And tradition provides a Biblically and philosophically compelling vision of God’s love for humanity – one which articulately addresses the challenge of pagan thought. The work of the ancient church is a treasure for the Christian world – one that allows us to be a treasure for the whole world. And it may be needed now even more than when Oden first wrote.

Check back soon for Part 2 of this essay!

DAN TATE is a writer and blogger at Christ & Cosmos. A former atheist, he’s been surprised and amazed by the God of all things, and he’s passionate about sharing the gospel in ways that respond to contemporary concerns about theology, philosophy, spiritual practice, science, art, and more. A lifelong writer hailing from Upstate New York, he has a B.A. from Allegheny College, an M.A. from Syracuse University, and an M. Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary.