An Appraisal of Thomas C. Oden's
Postmodern Orthodoxy

    One significant approach to this problem comes from Thomas C. Oden, a professor and theologian at Drew University. Oden argues against any form of accommodationism and calls for a return to classical Christian orthodoxy in all its trappings. He writes in the introduction to his systematic theology, "Some may think it mildly amusing that the only claim I make is that there is nothing whatever original in these pages. I present no revolutionary new ideas, no easy new way to salvation."[1] In fact, his theological writing is riddled with so many parenthetical references to ancient writers that it is very difficult to read. In After Modernity... What?, Oden argues for a postmodern orthodoxy which will set the stage for the theology and practice of the ecumenical church in the age to come. In my evaluation, this emphasis on historical orthodoxy seems the only possible approach for doctrinal theology, but leaves much to be desired in the area of apologetics. In addition, Oden's cry of the death of modernism and his analysis of postmodernism is good but rather premature.

    In the intellectual and philosophical climate of our day, the type of historical orthodoxy that Oden proposes is radically different from the norm. As he points out, there is a marked emphasis on novelty and innovation in modernity, what he has called "the idolatry of the new,"[2] and "modern chauvinism."[3] Oden points out that while modernity has much to offer us, "the modern hubris that assumes it has finally discovered the true nature of religion is surely not modernity's strength."[4] He maintains that theology and biblical interpretation should not be arrogantly based on modern critical techniques, but should seek to learn from the history of the church, recognizing the doctrinal consensus of the ancient worldwide church as a valid basis for interpretation. Oden also carefully warns against a dogmatic and undiscriminating acceptance of all things ancient and stresses a need to learn from modern criticism.⁴

    True to his claim, Oden's systematic theology is striking in its unoriginality and unadulterated orthodoxy. He seeks to faithfully represent the consensual theology of the ecumenical church-- that is, the core, unchanging tradition that the worldwide church had consensus on, especially in the doctrine-delimiting creeds and counsels. He emphasizes the `theandric premise', which sees Jesus as fully God and fully man, as the key to understanding Christ's person and office. He maintains the triune nature of God, the reality of the resurrection, justification by grace through faith, in short, everything the creeds and counsels assert. At the same time, he seeks answers to contemporary problems such as gender equality, poverty and liberation, sexuality, psychological analysis, and historical criticism.[5]

    Oden's approach to theology is exceptionally appropriate to the modern situation in terms of doctrinal formulation. It begins with a sound rejection of the modernistic hubris that assumes that all new theology and philosophy is inherently better than the old. He ridicules the idealization of novelty in modern thought, from the empty novelty of Dadaism to religious studies, "with its new theologies every spring season, a wide assortment of `new moralities,' `new hermenueutics,' and (note how the adjectives suddenly have to be pumped up) `revolutionary breakthroughs.'"[6] It is important for theologians in our era to begin with such a recognition of the absurdities and arrogance of modern thought as they enter into the search for the truth about man and God. It also emphasizes two rather obvious facts:

    First, since there have been almost two thousand years of thinking about an eternally unchanging God, the consensus of the majority of church history about matters of doctrine should be given more weight than the legion of idiosyncratic theologies that have emerged in the last century and a half. Oden points out that a person interested in Islam would look to a place that teaches the traditional form of the faith rather than queer theologians who claim to be the true voice of Islam while practicing none of its disciplines.[7] Likewise, the person looking for authentic Christianity should look to its classical roots rather than the bizarre teachings of form critics and process theologians who hardly resemble what Christianity has taught for so long.

    Second, there is no reason to assume that modern critics and theologians know the historical or doctrinal truth of the Bible better than classical theologians simply because they have more accurate information about physics or astronomy. If anything, historical verifiability and accuracy decreases with time. It is only reasonable to assume that scholars such as Origen and Jerome had a much better grasp of the events that happened in their recent history than modern scholars. Furthermore, the consensus of the early church should be the obvious guide for Scriptural interpretation, because it carried faithfully the tradition and doctrine handed down from the original apostles who were taught by Jesus himself. Oden sees the Spirit revealing God not only through canonized Scripture but also through the living tradition of the community of faith, handed down from the apostles. He can claim true postmodernity here, as he employs a chastened form of modern historical criticism which admits of its limitations and respects tradition. In a time where there are hundreds of different ideas about history and doctrine and the church is split into multifarious denominations because of doctrinal squabbles, Oden offers a realistic way of establishing a truthful interpretation of the Bible.

    Oden's theological approach is especially appropriate to modern thinking because it shows this intellectual integrity in its use of history, and also because it stresses ecumenism, offers real doctrinal substance, and is profoundly applicable. The stress on ecumenism represents a consistently postmodern approach which appreciates diversity of experience while insisting on an absolute core of true Christian doctrine. Although ecumenism can often be rightly criticized as relativistic, Oden's approach shows integrity. He seeks to find a balance between the classical disciplines of polemics and irenics, with the polemicist strenuously defining and delimiting what is and is not Christian truth while the irenicist seeks to find unity and make peace in the church. He writes of the original disciplines, "While polemics tried precisely to identify the forms of the dissensus falling between faith and unfaith, irenics looked for the deeper forms of consensus within the community of faith."[8] Both disciplines are pursuing definitive truth and doctrinal purity while at the same time seeking unity and fellowship. Oden's historical-consensual approach to doctrinal theology makes way for a postmodern ecumenism that has the potential to unify the church without sacrificing truth.

    Oden's approach to theology also comes at an opportune time because it offers real doctrinal substance and a reason to believe it, in contrast to the confusion, relativism and ambivalence that ultramodernism sows. In the face of form criticism, deconstructionism, process theology, and death-of-God theology, Oden's paleoorthodoxy gives a basis for a personal relationship with the true God of the Bible. It grounds belief in Christ in a historical theandric person rather than the irrational Christ of faith that liberal theology has continually found itself left with. The substance of the orthodox gospel is profound and eminently meaningful, and it offers eternal life and meaning without compromising intellectual integrity. Oden's reliance on the patristic doctrines of the early church for forming doctrine and interpreting Scripture provide a valid and reasonable option to the doctrinal relativity of ultramodernity. The patristic faith has real substance-- it holds to one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, with a real life, death, resurrection and redemption; and the Holy Ghost who inspired and now illumines the Scriptures, who is alive in the community of believers. The content and substance of credal doctrines is a realistic answer to the diffuse, though imaginative, theologies of modernism and the false arrogance of modern criticism.

    The ancient faith is also appropriate to the current times because its substance implies and demands application. Secularism has left the modern person with no consistent grounds for morality or even action of any sort. In contrast, credal Christianity holds to a series of absolutes which demand moral attention and action. Modernism has been left with only empty rhetoric for its causes and equated strong feelings of moral outrage with true morality. The relativistic modern person can rail and curse against the horrible immorality of racism, sexism or environmental irresponsibility, but only orthodox Christianity provides a true and rationally coherent basis for these morals our conscience tells us are real.[9] Oden's return to classical Christianity means a renewal of the recognition of true morality and of the motivation, based on the love of God and the person of Christ, to follow it.

    Oden's historical approach to theology is appropriate to these confusing modern/postmodern times because it honestly evaluates what Christianity was meant to be by studying the doctrines passed down by the consensus of the early church. By basing Biblical interpretation on the consensual tradition, he escapes the presumption of modern critics to know what really happened in Jesus' time, who the writers of the Bible really were, and what they really meant. The weakness of his approach is that though it provides a good guide to defining what Christianity really is and what the apostles really taught, it does not help the postmodern very much to decide whether or not it is true.

    In communicating the gospel, there has always been a tension between accommodation to current culture and maintenance of tradition. In terms of apologetics, Oden errs too far on the side of tradition. His systematic theology includes a section of apologetical support for the existence of God[10], but it is limited to classical rationalistic and evidentialistic proofs from design, morality, causality, beauty, human nature, and so on. Though he tries to address current concerns about gender, sexuality and psychology, he has not gone far enough in defending the veracity of the historical Christian faith to the modern mind set. It is important to realize here that he can only be criticized for incompleteness, and it was probably never his intention to include a full apologetical defense of his doctrines in his systematic theology.

    How much accommodation of the gospel to the current intellectual and cultural situation is necessary or even permissible? I believe that Francis Schaeffer was correct when he wrote,

The Christian is to resist the spirit of the world. But when we say this we must understand that the world-spirit does not always take the same form. So the Christian must resist the spirit of the world in the form it takes in his own generation. If he does not do this he is not resisting the spirit of the world at all. This is especially so for our generation, as the forces at work against us are of such a total nature.[11]

The apologist has to defend the faith to his contemporaries in order to keep it alive and feasible, and this defense must necessarily change according to the needs and doubts of the society. Classical apologetics is concerned with rationalistic support for those whose thinking proceeds with along the lines of classical Greek philosophy. It is still capable of furnishing support for Christianity, but it can no longer strenuously argue its cause to the modern person who has naturalistic presuppositions and is entrenched in Existentialist thought. Rationalistic proofs simply do not address the problems and doubts facing contemporary people. In the effort to make Christianity relevant to the modern situation it is important that the vital doctrinal content remains the same, and Oden's approach is good for ensuring consistent doctrine in the face of apologetical entanglement with secular thought. But, in our era, which witnesses the complete corruption of liberal, rationalistic Enlightenment thinking, a different method is necessary, such as the one Schaeffer has developed, based in the modern person's inability to live according to his naturalistic presuppositions. Oden's lack of apologetical justification of his positions makes Christianity run the risk of anachronism.

    Finally, a word about Oden's treatment of postmodernism. Though he is right on the mark with his emphasis on a truly postmodern outlook, he is a bit premature in sounding the death knell of modernism. Oden has been through many of modernity's pet movements and theological fads, and he rightly observes that true postmodernism has to be consciously after modernism and be familiar with its struggles and follies. Postmodernism should be defined as that which has learned from modernism but thrown out its chaff, making use of traditional elements rather than simply selling another new outlook, which is the hallmark of modernity. He rightly criticizes deconstructionism as ultramodern[12], because it builds on modern premises rather than transcending them. But in After Modernity... What? he asserts that "[m]odernity is over, fully corrupted by its own premises. We are now in a postmodern period wherein the assumptions of modernity are no longer credible apart from a tiny group of introverted elites."[13] It seems, from my experience at a secular university, that deconstructionism and modern forms of criticism are still lurking around, still very much alive although quieted. And if deconstructionism is ultramodernism, modernism is far from dead. It is important for the Christian to be prepared as a postmodern ready to face premoderns, moderns, ultramoderns, as well as other postmoderns. Oden's historical approach to interpretation is reasonable to them all, but the way in which it must be defended is dependent on the world view of the attacker.

    Thomas Oden's consensual ecumenical approach to Biblical interpretation shows great promise as a way of honestly escaping modern relativism and heterodoxy and passing on the faith handed down from the apostles. It provides a humble, honest, and realistic way of approaching Scripture, armed not only with the tools and insights of 20th century writers but with the wisdom and genius of the entire church throughout history. Though Oden's work is imbalanced in the area of apologetics and does not adequately defend against the doubts and struggles of the contemporary person, it is a step in the right direction with its efforts to describe the real core of the Christian faith honestly and articulately.

Hall, Christopher A. "Back to the Fathers." Christianity Today (September 24, 1990).

Oden, Thomas C. After Modernity... What? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

_____. Life in the Spirit. [Systematic Theology Vol. 3] San Francisco: Harper & Row 1992.

_____. The Living God. [Systematic Theology Vol. 1] San Francisco: Harper & Row 1987.

_____. The Word of Life. [Systematic Theology Vol. 2] San Francisco: Harper & Row 1989.

Schaeffer, Francis. The God Who Is There. Downer's Grove: IVP 1968.

Wells, David F. No Place for Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1993. [1] The Living God, p. xiii.

[2] Hall, Back to the Fathers, p. 29.

[3] After Modernity... What?, p. 104.

[4] Ibid., p. 104.

[5] The Word of Life, p. xviii-xix.

[6] After Modernity... What? p. 32.

[7] Ibid., pp. 22-24.

[8] After Modernity... What? p. 173.

[9] see Galatians 3:28; Psalm 24:1.

[10] The Living God, chapter 4 "Whether God Is"; pp. 133-180.

[11] The God Who Is There, p. 18.

[12] After Modernity... What?, p. 11.

[13] pp. 104-105.