In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Journal of Early Christian Studies 11.3 (2003) 439-440



[Access article in PDF]
D. H. Williams, editor The Free Church and the Early Church: Bridging the Historical and Theological Divide Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002 Pp. xiii + 183. $24.

In the preface of this book we are informed that the collection of articles is not the result of a conference but "represents a joint effort of scholars who are seeking to define some of the problems and frame potential answers for what kinds of bridges can be built over the divide that has distanced free church Christianity from its patristic past" (xii). The studies are conducted with a sense of "ecumenical responsibility" (xii). Free church Christianity is taken to designate movements emerging from the "nonmagisterial part of the Protestant Reformation" (vii); the authors are identified in reference to their respective churches (181), and I will retain the labels in order to convey a more concrete sense of what is meant by "free church." In line with this decision, the present reviewer might mention that he is of Roman Catholic background with a keen interest in the history of biblical exegesis in all ecclesial traditions.

The volume is yet another indication of the present-day massive groundswell of interest among Protestant theologians in the patristic writings. The articles are grouped under three headings. Under Historical Interpretation we have "The [End Page 439] Canon of Scripture in the Church" by Frederick W. Norris (Christian Church); "Evangelicals, Irenaeus, and the Bible" by D. Jeffrey Bingham (Southern Baptist); and "The Correction of the Augustinians: A Case-Study in the Critical Appropriation of a Suspect Tradition" by Gerald W. Schlabach (Mennonite). Under Rereading the Legacy of the Protestant Reformation we have "Sola Scriptura in Zürich?" by Phyllis Rodgerson Pleasants (Baptist) and "Scripture, Tradition, and the Church: Reformation, and Post-Reformation" by D. H. Williams (American Baptist). Under Tradition and the Church we have "The 'Congregationalism' of the Early Church" by Everett Ferguson (Church of Christ); "The Authority of Tradition: A Baptist View" by Glenn Hinson (Baptist); and "Alexander Campbell and the Apostolic Tradition" by William Tabbernee (Disciples of Christ).

In a short review one can only table some samples of the goods. Running through all the essays is a willingness on the part of the scholars to examine old issues afresh, and then to acknowledge how such study leads to changed attitudes. Typical are Norris's concluding comments to his survey of the history of the Canon. He sees himself "in conversation with the church in every era and region" and happily remarks that "[k]nowing the Church's interpretations of scripture in each age deepens our sense of biblical truth" (24). This view, perhaps, is the most valuable contribution of the collection, namely, that good historical research can change minds.

While the general tone is cautious and respectful, one is struck at times by the recurrence of palate-cleansing statements. In his critique of what he terms "individualistic solipsism" Bingham remarks, "Adults function in company and have come to learn that prejudices which once seemed like eternal truths have powerful correctives in the complexities of history" (33). He also quotes Vanhoozer to good effect: "Fundamentalism thus preaches the authority of the text but practices the authority of the interpretive community" (37). Similarly Pleasants notes that "Scripture is not self-evident. Notwithstanding the protestations of the Reformers that they were presenting the plain meaning of Scripture, it was never plain enough that they agreed on what Scripture means" (78).

Tabbernee offers what can be taken as the most concrete instance of the willingness to offer a revisionist and corrective view of the interaction between the patristic and free churches in his account of Alexander Campbell (one of the founders of Disciples of Christ) and of his expertise in patristic material. It is fascinating to read that ". . . Campbell was able to read and translate the Latin Fathers when need arose. In fact, he was so fluent in Latin that, in his public debate with John B. Purcell, Roman Catholic bishop of Cincinnati...

pdf

Share