Everything Old Is New Again: A Comparative Assessment Of The Postconservative Proposals Of John Franke And Roger Olson

By Michael D. White

[Michael D. White is a Ph.D. candidate in systematic theology at Wheaton College, Wheaton, Ill.]

I. Introduction

A chorus from Peter Allen’s popular musical, The Boy From Oz, intones optimistically:

Don’t throw the past away,
You might need it some rainy day.
Dreams can come true again!
When ev’ry thing old is new again.[1]

By God’s common grace, wisdom sometimes appears in the most unlikely of places—even flamboyant Broadway musicals. If we evaluate recent theological trends by the light of this chorus,[2] then we should reckon recent retrievals of the tradition for contemporary Christian theology as wisdom.[3] Conversely, proposals sometimes arise which assure us our “Dreams can come true again,” with the qualification that we need only adopt certain new methodologies and habits of mind. The recent postconservative proposals of John Franke and Roger Olson constitute an example of the latter.

After reading a manuscript submitted for his review, Samuel Johnson reputedly quipped to a young author, “Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good.”[4] Preliminarily, I suggest that the same can be said of Franke’s and Olson’s proposals. In my judgment, what can be counted as wisdom is not original to post-conservative theology as construed by Franke and Olson, but instead is already accounted for in the tradition. What is genuinely new is the verbiage and packaging of their proposals—which are generally unhelpful. Thus, everything old is new again, but with respect to the proposals of Franke and Olson, this adage carries a slightly different thrust. In what follows, I will argue for this assessment by interacting with the recent monographs by Franke and Olson respectively, before concluding with summary remarks on their postconservative approach.

II. John Franke And The Character Of Theology

As his subtitle indicates, Franke’s monograph is an exercise in setting forth the nature, task, and purpose of theology.[5] In broad terms, this is what Franke has in view when he speaks of the character of theology. Though Franke describes this monograph as “a sort of prequel”[6] to his more methodological work, co-authored with Stanley Grenz,[7] the book remains largely an exercise in method. From the outset Franke seeks to produce an alternative to customary approaches of articulating theology. As he explains, the moniker “postconservative” is relative to his own social setting and personal history within conservative churches and institutions; the alternative he sets forth moves beyond stereotyped conservative approaches to theology.[8] As the label pertains to his style of theology, Franke describes postconservatism as an approach “with an inherent commitment to the reforming principle [that] maintains without reservation that no single human perspective, be it that of an individual or a particular community or a theological tradition, is adequate to do full justice to the truth of God’s revelation in Christ.”[9] As could be surmised from the label, post-conservative theology bears a conscious affinity to the postliberal school and narrative theology more generally. Franke desires “to make common cause” with Hans Frei and others in order to overcome views of knowledge and certainty held in common by both conservatives and liberals.[10] Congruent with this broad common cause, five marks characterize Franke’s vision of theology. I will examine each of these in turn.

1. Theology In A Postmodern Age And Nonfoundationalism

The first characteristic of Franke’s postconservatism, and perhaps its meta-characteristic, is an urgent desire for change in light of the dawn of postmodernity. While modernity insatiably hungered for certain, objective, and universal knowledge, ultimately this hunger proved not only insatiable, but unsatiable. Postmodernity recognized the inherent perspectival nature of knowledge and therefore doubted the legitimacy of metanarratives, thereby prompting an epistemological crisis. The extent of this crisis remains a matter of debate, how-ever.[11] Franke himself views the postmodern situation as an opportunity. He explains,

We must also be attentive to the fact that the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves are not available to us in the form of timeless and undisputed teaching. Instead, we learn from the history of Christian thought that doctrines and the conceptions of God and the nature of the human condition, as well as many other significant matters, have been developed and formulated in the context of numerous social, historical, and cultural settings and have in turn been shaped by these settings. This suggests that in the discipline of theology we must take account of the particular social and intellectual settings in which we engage in theological reflection and exploration.[12]

In agreement with the majority of the philosophical world, Franke jettisons classical foundationalism and its attendant emphases on certainty and universality. In its place Franke selects nonfoundationalism, which views “human knowledge as an evolving social phenomenon shaped by the practical implications of ideas within a larger web of beliefs.”[13] Nonfoundationalism characteristically favors coherentist over correspondence theories of truth and emphasizes a narrative approach to theology.[14] As we will see, the nonfoundationalist model and the postmodern situation from which it springs exert considerable influence on Franke’s approach to theology.

2. Trinitarian Theology And Karl Barth

The second mark of Franke’s approach to theology is the twin influence of Trinitarian theology and Karl Barth.[15] Emphasizing that God in his triunity is the subject of theology, he states the methodological implications as follows:

Trinitarian theological explication runs in two directions. On the one hand, it moves from the self-disclosure of God in and to creation, centered on the coming of Christ and the ongoing work of the Spirit, to the eternal life of the Triune God. Viewed from this perspective, theology (proper) is dependent on Christology and pneumatology. On the other hand, theological construction moves as well from the eternal reality of the Triune God, which is confessed by the ecumenical church of all ages, to an understanding of the Trinitarian persons in the creative and redemptive work of the one God. In this sense, Christology and pneumatology can be ventured only in light of theology (proper).[16]

The Trinitarian explication of theology also entails an emphasis on mission. The classic doctrine of the missio Dei not only pertains to the Godhead, but also has implications for the church, which is sent into the world by the Triune God. If theology is truly to serve the church, then it must “move from theology with a mission component to a truly missional conception of theology.”[17]

For Franke, a nonfoundationalist framework necessitates two alterations in the customary approaches to the doctrine of Scripture and the nature of theological sources. He appeals to both Barth and Trinitarian theology in rearticulating these. First, as a nonfoundationalist, Franke accepts the Wittgensteinian insight that the socio-cultural world in which we live is a linguistically construed world of our own creation.[18] This poses a problem for the Christian doctrine of Scripture as classically understood, inasmuch as human language is inherently inadequate to provide immediate access to the divine. Franke concludes that divine revelation does not “break in” and thereby provide direct access to the divine, but instead posits that revelation is indirect. Franke appeals to Barth in articulating the doctrine: revelation consists of both “an objective moment, when God reveals himself through the veil of a creaturely medium, and a subjective moment, when God gives human beings the faith to understand what is hidden in the veil.”[19]

A further consequence of the nonfoundationalist framework is the necessary dubiety of theological resources. As a result, all “convictions and commitments, even the most long-standing and dear, remain subject to ongoing critical scrutiny and the possibility of revision, reconstruction, or even rejection.”[20] This awareness of the situatedness of human knowing leads Franke to “embrace a principled theological pluralism.”[21] Moreover, the authority of respective theological sources is necessarily relativized. Franke avers, “The ultimate authority in the church is not a particular source, be it Scripture, tradition, reason, or experience, but only the living God. Therefore, if we must speak of ‘foundations’ for the Christian faith and its theological enterprise, then we must speak only of the Triune God, who is disclosed in polyphonic fashion through Scripture, the church, and the world.”[22]

This approach, however, employs a false dichotomy. The question is not who the authority for the church is—of course the authority for the church is the living, Triune God—but the question is how that authority is brought to bear. Even the Westminster Divines could hold these closely together, affirming that “the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined . . . can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”[23] Franke wrongly separates the instrumentality of the Triune God’s authority from the authority of God himself. This error demonstrates the importance of properly articulating the doctrine of Word and Spirit in establishing the nature of authority in revelation.

It might briefly be noted that some theologians question whether contemporary retrievals of the doctrine of the Trinity for Christian theology truly constitute a renewal, as is often claimed. Bruce Marshall sees precedent for much of the current Trinitarian discussion in the nineteenth-century work of both Schleiermacher and Johann Baptist Franzelin and concludes that “the past century’s reflection on the Trinity arguably embodies not so much the renewal as the eclipse of trinitarian theology as an ongoing tradition of inquiry.”[24] If Marshall is right, postconservative appeals to Trinitarian theology would be among the first to fall to his critique.

3. Culture And The Necessity Of Contextualization

Contextualization is the third mark of Franke’s postconservative theology. He asserts, “The quest to construct theology free from the influence of culture is misguided. We simply cannot escape from our particular setting and gain access to an objective, transcultural vantage point. All views emerge from a particular location. Hence, all theology is, by its very nature as a human enterprise, influenced by its cultural context.”[25] This position further entails that context must function as an authority to which the theologian must listen.[26] Context so influences theological articulation that Franke describes theology as “a cultural practice of the church,” with its aim to set forth the community’s mosaic of beliefs that form its core.[27]

4. Pneumatized Conception Of Resources For Theology

A fourth mark of Franke’s approach is the distinctive activity of the Spirit in empowering theological resources. The constructive theological conversation “focuses on the work of the Spirit in seeking to develop a nonfoundationalist, contextual, and inherently reforming approach to theology by means of an inclusive and pneumatological model of the theological task.”[28] Here Franke’s approach to the Scriptures and tradition surfaces: it is the Spirit who enables them to serve as more than creaturely instruments.

With respect to Scripture, Franke appeals to the Reformation concept of Word and Spirit. In particular, he urges that with Calvin, Protestant scholarship would do well to continue to hold to the inseparability of Word and Spirit in its articulation of the doctrine of Scripture. But Franke does not advocate the adoption of the doctrine of Word and Spirit as developed by Calvin and the Reformed Scholastics without modification; instead, he “seeks to amend an aspect of the tradition by prioritizing the role of the Spirit in relation to Scripture.”[29] Whereas Calvin maintained that the Spirit bound himself to Scripture,[30] Franke asserts,

It would seem more appropriate to say that Scripture is bound to the Spirit, who, in the divine economy, inspired it and continues to speak through it. Saying that the Spirit is bound to Scripture runs the risk of collapsing the Spirit into the text and allowing human beings to move from a position of epistemic dependency with respect to the knowledge of God to one of mastery.[31]

Franke finds further justification for the prioritization of the Spirit by interpreting the aforementioned Westminster language such that “the Bible is authoritative in that it is the vehicle through which the Spirit speaks.”[32] From this basis, Franke concludes, “The Bible is the instrumentality of the Spirit in that the Spirit appropriates the biblical text for the purpose of speaking to believers today.”[33] Accordingly, although Franke maintains that exegesis is of crucial importance for the church, it nevertheless cannot exhaust what the Spirit might say through the text. This is because “the Spirit’s speaking does not come through the text in isolation but rather in the context of specific historical-cultural situations and as part of an extended interpretive tradition.”[34]

Franke’s use of the Westminster language is revealing. While the Confession speaks of the authority of the Spirit speaking in Scripture,[35] as seen above Franke employs the more clearly instrumental preposition through to describe this authority.[36] Franke follows Stanley Grenz in this respect,[37] and while both cite Westminster as a precedent for their use, neither acknowledges their conceptual alteration nor offers a rationale for it. What is unsettling is not Franke’s view of Scripture as instrument,[38] but the application of this conviction such that Scripture tends to function merely as an instrument. To be sure, Franke means to resist such an approach. In response to a similar critique levied by Richard Gaffin,[39] Franke affirmed, “No attempt is made to suggest that it is only the Spirit’s contemporary appropriation of the text that invests it with authority. The Spirit, by inspiration, has spoken normatively in the text of canonical Scripture.”[40] Thus Franke can speak of Scripture as the norming norm. Nevertheless, his greater goal is to seek “an understanding that provides for the continual work of the Spirit in addressing the church in its various cultural settings and circumstances in order to affirm the authority of the Spirit in governing the church through the ages.”[41] But we must demur from this significant shift in emphasis. With good reason the Reformers professed sola scriptura and not solus spiritus—it is Scripture that is the normative and objective authority for the church. Indeed God does guide his church by means of the Spirit, but this occurs in concert with his Word, and not separate from it. Returning to Franke’s use of the Westminster language, surely the shift in prepositions alone is not determinative for a merely instrumental view of Scripture. But as used in Franke’s narrative, the choice of through reflects a conscious decision about the nature of Scripture which is decidedly inconsistent with the Westminster statement in which it is rooted.[42]

The instrumentality Franke assigns to Scripture also extends to culture; theology should not only respond to culture, but also learn from it.[43] This happens when we are attentive to the voice of the Spirit speaking through the culture, which in turn can help readers more correctly discern what the Spirit is saying through the Scripture. Franke acknowledges that the Spirit speaking in culture can never speak against the text, and this because the Spirit’s speaking through Scripture and culture “do not constitute two communicative acts but rather one unified speaking.”[44] But at this point Franke departs very much from Barth indeed. For Barth, culture as a source of revelation signifies nothing less than natural theology—which is to be rejected above all.[45] Michael Horton suggests that Franke is here closer to Paul Tillich’s method of correlation and adds that Barth would have “shuddered in horror” at many of Franke’s statements.[46]

Franke’s account of tradition similarly appeals to the Spirit, though in this case the language of instrumentality is dropped in favor of Catholic themes. It was the Spirit whose work formed the Christian community that produced and authorized the biblical texts; nevertheless, “apart from the Christian community, there would be no canon of authorized texts.”[47] Franke makes this observation in service of another: just as the Spirit guided canonization, so too the Spirit guides the trajectory of church tradition. Thus, tradition bears authority in the same manner as Scripture (if not to the same degree), because the source of their authority is the one and the same Spirit. Because of this common origin, Franke suggests an organic unity between the two such that, though distinguishable, Scripture and tradition are “fundamentally inseparable.”[48] As local and situated, elements of the tradition provide not binding authority, but a “hermeneutical context or trajectory” for constructive theology—and especially so where there is near universal acceptance of a particular doctrinal confession.[49] Thus, while the Spirit may speak through tradition, this speech is always local and situated, and therefore authoritative only with respect to the particular context into which the Spirit speaks.

Notably, Franke provides no clear criterion for discriminating between the Spirit’s voice and the church’s own voice as it employs the theological resources.[50] Nor does there appear to be a norm that can prevent the church’s use of such resources from reducing to an echo chamber, since the deposit of both Scripture and tradition are merely instruments. This potential for relativism troubles even Olson.[51]

5. Mission As The Purpose Of Theology

The final mark of Franke’s approach we will observe is the purpose of the theological task—”assisting the work of the Spirit in the formation and the development of Christian community.”[52] The church has a particular mission— “to be the image of God and to carry on the mission of God in the world”—and it is this mission which theology supports in the church. Franke broadly sketches the details of this vision. First, theology assists the church in the task of world creation, wherein it is shaped into a particular people gathered around a particular person, Jesus the Christ. This people is shaped by a particular narrative, the Spirit-appropriated Scripture, to the end that “it functions as a community of memory and hope and provides an interpretive framework through which its members find meaning in the personal and communal stories.”[53] Second, theology rightly pursued is church dogmatics, that process by which the church articulates and confesses its convictions as it seeks to understand itself and its way in the world.[54] Finally, theology is an inherently ecumenical enterprise in that it works to establish the church in unity and truth. Christian unity includes a visible component and theology assists in calling for and producing the realization of this unity in truth.

Though much in Franke’s work merits comment, we must first provide a similar exposition of Roger Olson’s work before setting forth our own analysis.

III. Roger Olson: Reformed And Always Reforming

If Franke’s work is more a sober and methodological outline of postconservative theology, then Olson’s reads as an exuberant promotional piece, sprinkled with polemic.[55] Olson sees Franke’s work as representing well the spirit of post-conservative theology, and therefore he conceives of his own work as an attempt to move ”both behind and beyond it.”[56] That is, he endeavors to delineate a post-conservative style and clarify the postconservative understanding of the authority of tradition. While both Franke and Olson mix descriptive and prescriptive elements into their accounts of the postconservative vision, Franke more often favors the former and Olson leans heavily on the latter, while attempting to set forth postconservative norms. Consequently, while Franke more frequently refers to postconservatism as a style of theology, Olson speaks more concretely of postconservatives—practitioners of the art who work in a certain way.

Notably, not everyone Olson deems postconservative is willing to accept the label. Stanley Grenz, whom Olson regards as the “epitome of a postconservative theologian,”[57] preferred the label postmodern evangelical.[58] Telford Work, who blurbed Reformed and Always Reforming and is in agreement with postconservative theological distinctives, regards the label as “more trouble than it’s worth” and adds that it is “rashly triumphalist, historically confused, philosophically incoherent, and needlessly divisive.”[59] And the work of Kevin Vanhoozer, who describes his theology as postconservative,[60] nevertheless is to be distinguished from postconservative theology as Olson conceives it.[61]

Olson’s thesis is that evangelical theology can become more evangelical by being less conservative. The label conservative, as Olson defines it, is not a theological or even less a political marker; rather it represents a certain style of doing theology. Olson is stridently opposed to what he terms conservative evangelical styles of theology and he does not hesitate to name names and draw boundaries to clarify who is “in” and “out.”[62] He offers several features as illustrative of conservative evangelical theology, which include (1) treating the essence of Christianity as right doctrine, (2) a commitment to revelation as primarily propositional, (3) a view of evangelicalism as a bounded set category, and (4) a suspicion of postmodernism.[63] Also significant for Olson are styles of theology that adhere to tradition and are unwilling to consider new ideas. Such conservative styles are “contrary to the spirit of evangelical faith, which elevates the Bible over tradition.”[64] To become more evangelical by becoming less conservative, then, means to jettison such styles of doing theology. By contrast with Franke, Olson appears less concerned to chart a new path for theology in the postmodern climate, and more determined to overcome certain unfavorable styles of performing theology. Olson is nothing if he is not colorful, and in what follows I will attempt to arrange the themes of his approach into a coherent picture.

1. Style, Not Substance

Olson identifies postconservative theology as primarily a style of performing theology and not as a method or a set of fixed beliefs. Postconservative is thus a “‘fuzzy’ category defined by a gravitational center without definite boundaries.”[65] Though there are unifying hallmarks,[66] for Olson it seems postconservative theology is better observed than described. In other words, we recognize postconservative theology when we see it. This priority of style over substance has several entailments. First, Olson emphasizes transformation as opposed to information. Olson explains: “Postconservatives do not reject a propositional aspect to divine revelation, but they wish to stress that revelation is given primarily for the purpose of redemption through personal encounter and relationship.”[67] While admitting that knowledge does indeed transform, Olson questions whether knowledge is the sole or most important means of effecting change in people. Second, consistent with the emphasis on transformation, postconservative theology is a pilgrimage and a journey, not a discovery and a conquest.[68] There is no destination at which constructive theology may cease with the knowledge that it has achieved a definitive and final theological expression. Instead, “reconsideration and reconstruction of doctrines...is required by our finitude and fallenness.”[69] Finally, and most significantly, experience and not doctrinal belief is judged to be the essence of evangelical faith. Olson judges that conservative evangelicals customarily view authentic Christianity as a matter of holding correct doctrinal beliefs as drawn from the propositions of Scripture.[70] By contrast, he asserts that

apart from transforming experience (conversional piety), authentic evangelicalism does not exist even where doctrinal correctness is present. And that where right experience (orthopathy) and right spirituality (orthopraxy) are present in Jesus-centered living, authentic Christianity and even evangelical faith may be present even if doctrinal correctness is not yet fully present—provided that movement in the right direction is clearly discernible.[71]

Olson fires a final salvo at those who would insist upon a doctrinal basis for faith:

They tend to forget that there was authentic Christianity before there was orthodoxy. And orthodoxy changes; one can deny it but one cannot escape it. What does not change about authentic Christianity is the experience of being transformed by the Holy Spirit in relationship with Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.[72]

2. Change Is Good

The second characteristic of Olson’s vision of postconservative theology is reflected by his title, taken from the Reformation slogan semper reformanda.[73] As journey and not destination, postconservative theology remains open to new ideas in its effort to articulate faithfully biblical truth. Consequently, postconservatives take an open posture toward a variety of developments in theology. For Olson the distinguishing feature of postconservatives is not that there is a monolithic adherence to new ideas, but rather that the style of this brand of theology inherently welcomes them and is not quick to prejudge them as heresy. Accordingly, ideas ranging from open theism to new thinking on the atonement to inclusivistic soteriologies all are granted a voice within postconservatism.[74] When Olson speaks in terms of orthodoxy, he adopts the adjective “progressive.” He explains, “Orthodoxy should be progressive because tradition is a living reality; it continues to grow and develop as the Word of God becomes fresh in each new generation.”[75]

3. Disengaging From The Tradition

Finally, Olson urges the severing of moorings that tie evangelical theology to the tradition. In so doing, he repeatedly insists that conservative evangelicals “elevate some tradition, whether implicitly or explicitly, to the status of a magisterium for evangelical theological identity.”[76] He proceeds to make explicit the comparison with Rome,[77] and charges that for Wayne Grudem this magisterium consists of the thirty-four works of systematic theology from the evangelical tradition with which Grudem sees himself in continuity.[78] In Olson’s judgment, conservative evangelical theology has become hopelessly entangled in the authority of tradition. Therefore, in order to become more evangelical, it must become less conservative by letting go of its grip on tradition.

As for postconservatives, a distinction is made between the Great Tradition and traditions. The former represents the early ecumenical consensus coupled with the common teaching of the Protestant Reformation, while the latter nods to lesser “received traditions” developed since the Reformation. Postconservatives are committed to working within the Great Tradition, while they maintain suspicions about tradition in general. Despite a commitment to the Great Tradition, Olson avers, “No doctrine is in itself sacrosanct; all doctrines are open to reexamination.”[79] He clarifies, saying, “Any part of tradition can be overturned by the fresh theological reflection of the faithful community of God’s people if it is determined to be inconsistent with the letter or spirit of Scripture.”[80] Naturally, postconservatives are wont to shun tradition because of the stifling effect it bears on the revisioning task intrinsic to postconservative theology. Thus, tradition may serve “as a guide, but not as a police officer.”[81]

Notably, in response to critics of the movement, Olson provides a postconservative account of heresy. In the context of orthodoxy as a “growing and dynamic identity rather than a static deposit,” heresy consists of a “blatant denial of the central impulses of the redemption story of God in Christ for us.”[82] Though orthodoxy does find guides and helps in the Great Tradition and in evangelical traditions, the ultimate and sole master remains “the voice of Jesus Christ speaking through the Holy Spirit in Scripture.”[83] Of course, heresy is seldom blatant. While hindsight clearly perceives Arianism as heresy, the matter was not at all clear in the fourth century. Moreover, determining “the central impulses of the redemption story” is a taller order than Olson seems to think—who gets to determine these central impulses and by what criteria? That Olson offers a response to the heresy question is commendable, though his present answers will likely do little to satisfy his critics.

In closing, it should be noted that Olson’s view of tradition is as much colored by his own Pietist Arminian convictions as it is by postconservative commitments.[84] He seems to harbor deep resentment towards the Reformed stream of the evangelical tradition; this is the so-called “magisterium” he frequently tar-gets.[85] Telford Work even suggests that Olson’s postconservatism represents only “the latest counterattack in the long struggle between Calvinists and Arminians over the evangelical mantle.”[86] Olson’s disengagement from the tradition is thus part of a larger personal metanarrative.

IV. The Postconservatism Of Franke And Olson Compared

For all their similarities it is useful here to draw attention to several substantive differences between Franke and Olson before proceeding to our critique.[87] Given Olson’s appreciation for Franke’s work and his desire to move beyond it, it may be better to speak of differences in emphasis rather than outright disagreements. Nevertheless, the following surface as noticeable contrasts between the two.

First, Olson distances himself from Franke’s appeal to culture as a theological resource, and even speaks for other postconservatives in shunning this approach as tantamount to relativism.[88] Attendant with this wariness is a substantial difference in emphasis on the role of culture in theological construction in Olson vis-à-vis Franke.

Second, and coordinate with the first, is the sharp difference in the status of tradition as a theological resource. Olson states bluntly that “Franke expresses a more traditionalist mood.”[89] While he uses Franke’s positive statements to ward off objections that postconservatives ignore the tradition, he distances himself from Franke’s tacit nod to the tradition as authoritative, insofar as the Spirit speaks through it. In general, it appears that Olson rejects Franke’s instrumental view both of Scripture and tradition.

Third, while nonfoundationalism is a controlling paradigm for Franke, Olson is seemingly less committed to a particular epistemology. Olson can speak of nonfoundationalism as a model for postconservatives, but more frequently he refers to the group as critical realists or postfoundationalists. While all nonfoundationalists are necessarily postfoundationalists, the converse does not follow. This contrast is strengthened by Franke’s greater relative affinity for the post-liberal school and narrative theology. While Franke converses with and orients himself toward Protestant theology as broadly conceived, Olson, by contrast, is more concerned with an in-house, evangelical conversation. The thrust of Olson’s book and his interaction with sources make his argument inherently more particular.

Finally, Franke is clearly the more communally oriented of the two. This manifests itself in Franke’s insistence that theology exists for the sake of the mission of the church in order to shape it into a community rightly gathered around the risen Christ. The emphasis in Olson, however, is decidedly more individualistic. Olson’s emphasis on transformation generally retains this sense, and Olson reveals his own low ecclesiology in his individualized understanding of creedal confession.[90]

V. Summary Thoughts On Postconservative Theology

It would be irresponsible to dismiss postconservative theology out of hand, and practitioners of theology would do well to attend humbly to its insights. These consist in its incorporation of Trinitarian theology; its retrieval of the Reformation conception of Word and Spirit; its critique of the modernist framework for theology, including evangelicalism’s over-reliance on propositional theology; and its emphasis on community formation as an end of theology. But, notably, these critiques are in line with observations made by those inside and outside the evangelical camp—there simply is not much new here. With this said, wholesale adoption of postconservative theology is ill advised. Though postconservatives do accurately perceive certain problems in evangelical theology, they are by no means alone in this awareness.[91] Moreover, their revisioned solutions do not improve upon options already available in the tradition and in fact frequently come with a host of their own difficulties. We now turn to assess their proposed solutions.

First we consider the epistemological situation. Franke in particular insists that nonfoundationalism represents the appropriate response to the postmodern situation, but as his difference with Olson on this point shows, nonfoundationalism is not the only option. There are several options—usually under the banner of critical realism—which take the postmodern critique seriously and yet guard realism and correspondence theories of truth. These include modest foundationalism,[92] postfoundationalism,[93] Neo-Calvinism,[94] and Reformed epistemology.[95] Though I will not duplicate here what others have persuasively argued elsewhere, it must suffice to say that nonfoundationalism is not the only game in town. Moreover, there are questions about the viability of a nonfoundationalist epistemology for Christian theology. Indeed, it continues to struggle against charges of relativism. John Thiel asserts, “Nonfoundational criticism and theology seem to represent completely incompatible modes of argumentation and stances on the possibilities, limitations, and authority of human knowing.”[96] The nonfoundational reworking of truth, authority, and the supreme status of the community all depart from classical theological approaches to the same matters and raise the specter of relativism.[97] With increasing frequency evangelicals are concerned to take the postmodern critique seriously; nonfoundationalism is neither the only nor best option.

This analysis suggests a second complaint, namely, the tendency of Franke and Olson to present options in terms of dichotomies. One may choose to be either a classical foundationalist or a nonfoundationalist. Either tradition functions as a magisterium or it has no authority at all. Scripture is either a static, lifeless document or it is an instrument used by the Spirit to say new things today.

Revelation is either transformative or informative. These options, especially as represented by Olson, seem to embody the postconservative style of argumentation. By presenting opposing views in the worst possible light, postconservatives are able to present themselves as the only reasonable option. While perhaps an effective strategy in certain circles, distortion of truth is the end result.

Third, while Olson’s claim that some conservative evangelicals function with an informal magisterium might be counted as clever rhetoric, the lack of evidence for such a claim relegates his assertions to the level of name-calling. Further, the extent to which Olson desires to distance himself from the tradition in order to pursue fresh articulations of theology seems counter to the very humility postmodernity was supposed to inculcate. The church need not, at the dawn of postmodernity, discard two thousand years of theological development for fear of unwarranted authority. The church for many years has confessed sola scriptura while at the same time acknowledging that sola scriptura need not mean nuda scriptura. Olson and Franke anticipate that semper reformanda entails wholesale revisions as the gospel is articulated afresh in culture after culture. Yet this very notion runs counter to the superintending activity of the Spirit through time. As the Spirit guides theological reflection in communities through time, we should expect not disparate theologies, but essential continuity, as the reflection has been enabled and directed by one and the same Spirit. Projects such as the Africa Bible Commentary suggest that, at least with respect to biblical interpretation, essential continuity is borne out.[98] Essential continuity is to be distinguished from transcultural theology, however. While the former anticipates that the same basic theological themes will be developed around the globe in a contextualized manner, the latter presupposes an abstract, culture-neutral theology. One need not affirm postconservatism to deny the propriety of the latter, yet express confidence in the development of the former.

Fourth, with respect to the issue of culture, it might be noted that Franke’s interest in contextualization is not without precedent in the tradition. Rather, Christian theology has always arisen in response to particular questions of particular people in particular cultures. As Barth details at length, this recognition typifies the difference between Lutheran and Reformed confessional statements. Whereas the Lutheran Formula of Concord represents a universal statement of the church’s faith for all time, Reformed statements were consciously situated and local. Barth states, “The Reformed confessions are and desire to be nothing other than mere human confessional acts, over against which the revelation of God in Scripture also stands constantly as a given. They position themselves in the bright light of history.... They bear the marks of the occasional, of relatedness to a specific time and situation, of the unique.”[99] This observation need not denigrate Franke’s contribution, for certainly Franke lays greater emphasis on the role of culture methodologically. Nonetheless, emerging dialogues with the burgeoning church in the global South suggest that evangelical theology can gain skill in contextualization apart from postconservative theology.

Finally, both Franke and Olson approvingly cite Puritan pastor John Robinson, who famously proclaimed that God has yet more truth to break forth from his holy Word. The same concept is behind Franke’s statement, “The Bible is the instrumentality of the Spirit in that the Spirit appropriates the biblical text for the purpose of speaking to believers today.”[100] As we have seen, in this case the prepositions are the crucial signifiers. While the Westminster Confession affirms the authority of “the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture,” Franke alters the preposition to through, which reflects his tendency to view Scripture primarily as the instrument by which the Spirit can speak and guide the church. On this view, exegesis alone cannot exhaust what the Spirit might say through the text, because “the Spirit’s speaking does not come through the text in isolation but rather in the context of specific historical-cultural situations and as part of an extended interpretive tradition.”[101] In giving priority to the Spirit in the Word-Spirit relationship, though Franke means to resist it, the Bible functions less as the norma normans and more often as the instrument by which the Spirit may exercise his authority.[102]

Yet the potential for disaster here is great: without an inherently authoritative norm, how can the church distinguish between its own voice and the Spirit’s? This was precisely Calvin’s fear when he urged that it is the Spirit that must be bound to the Word—so that the Spirit’s governance would not be so “vague and unstable” as to warrant any manner of sundry interpretations.[103] Predictably, once Scripture is conceived as primarily an instrument to be deployed by the Spirit, the floodgates are open to permit myriad other instruments. Franke’s concept of culture as a theological source reflects this outcome. But on what basis may we speak of Scripture as primarily an instrument to be deployed at various points by the Spirit? While assuredly the Bible is the “sword of the Spirit,” with equal confidence we may affirm that the Word is θεόπνευστος.Is the Bible in Franke’s schema so local and situated that it serves no more than an instrumental purpose? It is best to affirm that the Spirit speaks in the Scripture with the all-surpassing profundity of the Triune God, such that the depths of Scripture can never be exhausted. This same Spirit who speaks in the Scriptures perpetually and inseparably abides with them, vivifying them and rendering them effective in human hearts.

VI. Conclusion

Everything old is new again. Unfortunately in our survey we have seen that the aspects of postconservative theology that are truly “new” are the least desirable. These include epistemological commitments, novel accounts of the function of theological sources, and a certain style of performing theology. And these new features of their theologies are wrapped up with some “old” insights that are said to be new—the importance of the Trinity for theological method, the inseparability of Word and Spirit, the community-forming function of theology, and the rejection of Enlightenment modes of thought. To be sure, John Franke and Roger Olson seek to defend the truth of the gospel and present it to a culture and church in dire need of good news above all else. For this they are to be thanked. But just like flamboyant Broadway shows, sometimes flashy, new wardrobes and shiny sets are insufficient to produce a hit.

An earlier version of this article was presented to both the Wheaton College Postgraduate Systematic Theology Seminar (February 2008) and the Midwest Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (March 2008). I am grateful to both groups for their formative responses. I am further indebted to Dr. John Franke, who courteously read a draft of this article and provided extensive and incisive feedback.

Notes

1. Peter Allen and Carole Bayer Sager, “Everything Old Is New Again” (lyrics and music © 1974, Peter Allen and Carole Bayer Sager), Online: http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/theboyfromoz/ everythingoldisnewagain.htm (accessed 29 February 2008).
2. (Which is not necessarily a practice I would commend.)
3. The Ressourcement movement constitutes but one notable example.
4. Though frequently attributed to Johnson, the origin of the quotation is uncertain. See Ralph Keyes, The Quote Verifier: Who Said What, Where, and When (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2006), 106.
5. John R. Franke, The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005).
6. According to Franke it is a prequel in that it “introduces, recapitulates, refines, and anticipates its major themes by providing an exposition of the nature, task, and purpose of theology that gives rise to the methodological proposal developed in the earlier work” (ibid., 9-10). The earlier work is Beyond Foundationalism; see below.
7. Stanley J. Grenz and John R. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001).
8. See Franke, Character of Theology, 9.
9. Ibid., 79.
10. Ibid., 9. See Hans W. Frei, Types of Christian Theology (ed. George Hunsinger and William C. Placher; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1992). In personal conversation, Franke revealed that his appreciation lies more with Frei than it does with Lindbeck. For distinctions between the two, see Paul DeHart, The Trial of the Witnesses: The Rise and Decline of Postliberal Theology (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2006).
11. For the conversation, see, e.g., Stanley J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996); Millard J. Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith: Evangelical Responses to the Challenge of Postmodernism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998); Douglas R. Groothuis, Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000); Bruce E. Benson, Graven Ideologies: Nietzsche, Derrida and Marion on Modern Idolatry (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002); Kevin J. Vanhoozer, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology (Cambridge Companions to Religion; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Myron B. Penner, ed., Christianity and the Postmodern Turn: Six Views (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005); James K. A. Smith, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006).
12. Franke, Character of Theology, 14.
13. J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, The Shaping of Rationality: Toward Interdisciplinarity in Theology and Science (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 64.
14. For a further treatment of nonfoundationalism, see William C. Placher, Unapologetic Theology: A Christian Voice in a Pluralistic Conversation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1989), 24-36; John E. Thiel, Nonfoundationalism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994); Stanley Hauerwas, Nancey C. Murphy, and Mark Nation, eds., Theology Without Foundations: Religious Practice and the Future of Theological Truth (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994); Stanley J. Grenz, Renewing the Center: Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000); 184-217; and van Huyssteen, Shaping of Rationality, 61-109.
15. Though for structural reasons I have grouped these two influences together, it should be noted that Franke is quite opposed to Barth’s actual model of the Trinity and instead prefers the social model. (Witness, e.g., his address at the 2008 Wheaton Theology Conference entitled, “God Is Love: The Social Trinity and the Mission of God.”) Nevertheless, Barth is far and away the most significant influence on Franke’s Trinitarian thinking, though thinkers such as Jüngel, Moltmann, Jenson, Rahner, and Pannenberg make appearances and contributions.
16. Franke, Character of Theology, 65.
17. Ibid., 71.
18. Ibid., 74.
19. Ibid., 76. Note, however, that a properly articulated doctrine of Word and Spirit could effect the same result.
20. Ibid., 78.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid., 78-79.
23. WCF 1.10, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era (vol. 2 of Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition; ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie R. Hotchkiss; 4 vols; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003), 608.
24. Bruce D. Marshall, “Trinity,” in The Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology (ed. Gareth Jones; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2004), 200. In his essay, Marshall critiques the Trinitarian theologies of no less than Karl Barth and Karl Rahner. See “Trinity,” 186-97.
25. Franke, Character of Theology, 90.
26. Ibid., 85.
27. Ibid., 105.
28. Ibid., 130.
29. Ibid., 131.
30. Calvin makes this understanding clear. He argues rhetorically against those who regard it unworthy of the Spirit to be subject to the Word, saying, “But it is the way which he has chosen for the confirmation of his majesty among us. We ought to be satisfied, as soon as he communicates himself to us. But, lest the spirit of Satan should insinuate himself under his name, he chooses to be recognized by us from his image, which he hath impressed in the Scriptures. He is the author of the Scripture: he cannot be mutable and inconsistent with himself. He must therefore perpetually remain such as he has there discovered himself to be. This is not disgraceful to him; unless we esteem it honorable for him to alter and degenerate from himself “(Institutes of the Christian Religion [ed. B. B. Warfield; trans. John Allen; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949], 1.9.2).
31. Franke, Character of Theology, 131.
32. Ibid., 132.
33. Ibid., 133.
34. Ibid.
35. WCF 1.10
36. Franke begins by using the Westminster language of in, but he quickly moves to the collocation in and through and then prefers to use through almost exclusively. See especially Character of Theology, 130-38.
37. See Stanley J. Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology: A Fresh Agenda for the Twenty-First Century (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity 1993), 113-36; Grenz, Renewing the Center, 206-7; Grenz, “Articulating the Christian Belief-Mosaic: Theological Method after the Demise of Foundationalism,” in Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method (ed. John G. Stackhouse; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 125-29; and Grenz, “The Spirit and the Word: The World-Creating Function of the Text,” Theology Today 57 (2000): 357-74.
38. To cite just two examples, the tradition can well speak of Scripture as an instrument in a variety of contexts. For example, in a soteriological context, The Formula of Concord can say, “There are only two efficient causes, the Holy Spirit and God’s Word as the instrument of the Holy Spirit” (Epitome 2.19, in Creeds and Confessions, 175). With respect to Scripture, Calvin can remark, “The Word is the instrument by which the Lord dispenses the illumination of his Spirit to believers” (Institutes of the Christian Religion [ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1960], 1.9.3).
39.  Richard B. Gaffin Jr., “Response to John Franke,” WTJ 65 (2003): 328-30.
40. John R. Franke, “Postmodern and Reformed? A Response to Professors Trueman and Gaffin,” WTJ 65 (2003): 341.
41. Ibid.
42. On this point, see further Everett Berry, “Theological vs. Methodological Postconservatism: Stanley Grenz and Kevin Vanhoozer as Test Cases,” WTJ 69 (2007): 122. In personal conversation, Franke acknowledged that while he is operating within the heritage of the Westminster statement on Word and Spirit, he does depart from the standard at certain points. Because Franke holds to open confessionalism, he is not troubled to move beyond the standards while remaining in their general trajectory.
43. See Franke, Character of Theology, 140-43.
44. Franke adds, “Consequently, theology must listen for the voice of the Spirit, who speaks normatively and universally through Scripture but also particularly and locally in the variegated circumstances of diverse human cultures. Hence, Scripture, which functions as theology’s norming norm, is always in conversation with culture, which functions as theology’s embedding context” (ibid., 142).
45. See Karl Barth, “No!,” in Natural Theology (London: Centenary Press, 1946); and John W. Hart, Karl Barth vs. Emil Brunner: The Formation and Dissolution of a Theological Alliance, 1916-1936 (New York: Peter Lang, 2001).
46. Michael D Horton, “A Stony Jar: The Legacy of Karl Barth for Evangelical Theology,” in Engaging With Barth: Contemporary Evangelical Critiques (ed. David Gibson and Daniel Strange; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2008), 375.
47. Franke, Character of Theology, 151.
48. Ibid., 153.
49. As, e.g., in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. See ibid., 158.
50. Franke does point to the work of Leslie Newbigin (The Gospel in a Pluralist Society [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989]) as a starting point to address this issue. See Character of Theology, 89-92. However, though Christian theological talk will always be culturally embedded, the church is nevertheless commissioned to think and speak after the transcendent, and indeed, transcultural triune God. For this reason the tradition has emphasized the normative deposit of divine revelation in Scripture as the norma normans and objective authority.
51. See below, and Roger E. Olson, Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 114.
52. Franke, Character of Theology, 166.
53. Ibid., 179.
54. See ibid., 181-83.
55. Olson, Reformed and Always Reforming.
56. Ibid., 14.
57. Ibid., 15
58. Stanley J. Grenz, “An Agenda for Evangelical Theology in the Postmodern Context,” Didaskalia 9 (1998): 2.
59. Telford Work, “Don’t Call Me Postconservative,” Christianity Today 52 (February 2008): 79.
60. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 278-91.
61. As has been recognized by various contributors to Reclaiming the Center: Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern Times (ed. Millard J. Erickson, Paul Kjoss Helseth, and Justin Taylor; Wheaton: Crossway, 2004). See, e.g., pp. 17 n. 27 and 156-57. Vanhoozer’s canonical-linguistic framework for theology is bound closely to Scripture, and conceives of speech-act theory as a helpful tool for speaking of what the Holy Spirit does in Scripture. Postconservatives, and Grenz in particular, instead use a modified form of speech-act theory to enable the Spirit’s revelatory work apart from Scripture. For a helpful accounting of the differences between Vanhoozer and Grenz, see Berry, “Theological vs. Methodological Postconservatism,” 105-26.
62. Representative conservative evangelicals include Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, J. I. Packer, Millard Erickson, Wayne Grudem, Norman Geisler, and D. A. Carson (Reformed and Always Reforming, 20). Representative postconservative theologians include Stanley Grenz, Clark Pinnock, John Franke, Kevin Vanhoozer, John Sanders, Amos Yong, Nancey Murphy, James McClendon, Miroslav Volf, Hal Knight, and Brian McLaren (28). Incidentally, Olson labels figures such as Donald Bloesch and Alister McGrath as “mediating theologians” (see 29-31). That Olson is quick to name names is ironic, since the sharp delineation of boundaries is characteristic of attitudes Olson wishes to repudiate. See, e.g., his disdain for this approach on pp. 18, 59. Perhaps modernist, evangelical habits are difficult to give up.
63. Other features include (1) the elevation of some tradition to the status of an informal magisterium for theology, (2) a suspicion toward the constructive task of theology, (3) a “small tent” view of evangelicalism, (4) an ahistoricism with respect to theological method and a commitment to transcultural theology, (5) a close kinship to fundamentalist roots, manifest in harsh polemics and easy charges of heresy, and (6) a theology performed with a defensive posture toward liberal theology. See ibid., 22-26.
64. Ibid., 17.
65. Ibid., 16.
66. These include (1) a regard for the essence of Christianity as a transforming experience and distinctive spirituality, (2) a regard for revelation as something more than propositions, (3) a view of the constructive task of theology as always unfinished, and (4) an openness toward postmodernity and nonfoundationalist approaches to theology. See ibid., 28.
67. Ibid., 54. Olson points to Carl F. H. Henry and Paul Helm as representative of the emphasis on revelation as information.
68. Ibid., 55.
69. Ibid., 57.
70. Ibid., 71.
71. Ibid., 84.
72. Ibid., 94.
73. It is noteworthy that while Olson envisions the postconservative movement as the sole group faithful to this slogan, a fine collection of essays by decidedly non-postconservative authors has recently appeared which, working within the tradition, also seeks to be faithful to the slogan. See A. T. B. McGowan, ed., Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 2006).
74. See Olson, Reformed and Always Reforming, 105-23, 209-34.
75. Ibid., 201.
76. Ibid., 23. See also pp. 17, 19, 185, 188, 193.
77. Ibid., 188.
78. Ibid., 103. See Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 17.
79. Olson, Reformed and Always Reforming, 29.
80. Ibid., 194. But this seems inconsistent with his previous statement, “No doctrine is in itself sacrosanct.” Olson demonstrates that it is difficult indeed to remain evangelical and operate without a commitment to the inherent authority of Scripture.
81. Ibid., 191.
82. Ibid., 207-8.
83. Ibid., 208.
84. Ibid., 34.
85. Ibid., 47-53.
86. Work, “Don’t Call Me Postconservative,” 79.
87. The aforementioned differences in purpose and tone should be kept in mind.
88. “In my opinion, and no doubt in the opinions of many postconservative evangelicals, culture is a tool of theological construction insofar as it provides the questions and means for intelligible expression, but it cannot be viewed as a vehicle of the Spirit’s voice. The Spirit speaks through Scripture and possibly through ongoing prophecy and illumination of Spirit-filled people of God—although the latter form of ‘speaking’ would be subordinate to the voice of the Spirit through Scripture. Franke opens the door to criticism of his theological proposal when he says, ‘In addition to listening for the voice of the Spirit speaking through Scripture, theology must be attentive to the voice of the Spirit speaking through culture.’ This does open the door, however unintentionally, to a kind of relativism. Fortunately, Franke does not walk through that door” (Olson, Reformed and Always Reforming, 114). See also his comments on pp. 196-97.
89. Ibid., 14.
90. He avers, “I wish to affirm that I, too, am a ‘confessional evangelical’ because I also confess the gospel. A difference lies in the fact that I, like many postconservatives, prefer to confess my own faith for myself rather than affirm or swear allegiance to a historic creed or written confessional statement. My own statement of faith is no less a confession of faith, however, than is another evangelical’s signing of the Westminster Confession or the Baptist Faith and Message” (ibid., 75). Such an approach to confessions is consistent, of course, with Olson’s Pietistic outlook.
91. This, it should be observed, is counter to Olson’s apparent belief that prior to Clark Pinnock and Stanley Grenz no evangelical thinker had critiqued or questioned certain aspects of evangelical theology, or suggested resources for dealing with the difficulties observed. Olson, for example, praises Pinnock for saying, “The primary point of revelation was not to communicate truths or to prove there is a God but to announce something that happened” (Clark H. Pinnock, Tracking the Maze: Finding our Way Through Modern Theology from an Evangelical Perspective [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990], 159.) Olson continues citing Pinnock: “Revelation encompasses historical actions, verbal disclosure, and personal encounters” (Pinnock, Tracking the Maze, 171). Olson then offers his own commentary: “Postconservatives worry that conservative theology is too caught up in the idea of cognitive Christianity to the neglect of Christianity as a personally transforming and personally involving relationship” (Reformed and Always Reforming, 54-55). As if, with due respect, Pinnock were the first to make this critique!
92. David K. Clark, To Know and Love God: Method for Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003), 152-64.
93. van Huyssteen, Shaping of Rationality, 111-77.
94. As reflected by the work of Abraham Kuyper (“Sphere Sovereignty,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader [ed. James D. Bratt; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998]); Herman Bavinck; and Herman Dooyeweerd (A New Critique of Theoretical Thought [trans. David H. Freeman and William S. Young; 4 vols.; Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1953-1958]).
95. As represented by Alvin Plantinga (Warranted Christian Belief [New York: Oxford University Press, 2000]); and Nicholas Wolterstorff (Reason Within the Bounds of Religion [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976]). See also Plantinga and Wolterstorff, Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God (South Bend, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983).
96. Thiel, Nonfoundationalism, 41. Indeed, he remarks further that “the nonfoundational critique seems to extend to the most fundamental authoritative claims of theology itself, apart from which theology—at least Christian theology—would simply lose its identity” (ibid.).
97. The charge of relativism is not new, of course, and nonfoundationalists have offered thoughtful responses to the charge. See, e.g., Mark Nation, “Living in Another World as One Response to Relativism,” in Theology Without Foundations, 229-44; and Nancey C. Murphy, “Textual Relativism, Philosophy of Language, and the Baptist Vision,” in Theology Without Foundations, 245-70.
98. Tokunboh Adeyemo, ed., Africa Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006).
99. Karl Barth, The Theology of the Reformed Confessions (trans. Darrell L. Guder and Judith J. Guder; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 20. I am indebted to R. Michael Allen for pointing me to this precedent.
100. Franke, Character of Theology, 133.
101. Ibid.
102. See ibid., 130-38.
103. John Calvin, “Reply to Sadolet,” in Theological Treatises (ed. J. K. S. Reid; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954), 229.