The Mosaic of Christian Belief

I have been out of the loop recently because we just moved to Wheaton (Hello across Chicago, Sam!). We drove across country and have been busy packing and now unpacking all our worldly possessions (4500 pounds of them, half of which were my books). And besides that I have a German test on Friday. I don't know how much I'll be writing now that I have started my PhD program, but I'll still be contributing sometimes. Here is a thought from a book I read over the summer. I've attached my full book report if you want to read it.  

Anything by Roger Olson is worth reading in my opinion. The Mosaic of Christian Belief is a fascinating new way to present systematic theology to students and I think it could be revolutionary to the way we teach theology and write doctrinal statements. The basic content of the book is not all that interesting, but the format is fascinating. Each chapter is a theological topic and is divided into several sections. One section surveys those views that are outside orthodoxy, then another section surveys the various options within evangelicalsim. The reason I think that this is great is that it gives a new model for statements of beliefs which are layered: the first layer is the essential layer, and then the second layer is the debated layer. For example, the belief that Jesus is coming back would be the first layer, while the second layer would be that his coming is premillennial. This format allows us to state what we believe without being dogmatic and condemning. I think that great potential lies in this direction.

Any book by Roger Olson is worth reading. I grew to love church history largely through his Story of Christianity and my understanding of Arminianism was greatly improved with his Arminianism. He loves his subject and he knows how to help his reader be excited about as well. My reading of this book follows my reading of the other two books, although this one took a little while for me to realize its beauty.  I think that this book, while not very original in its content, is revolutionary in its method and will spawn many more such studies in the future.

Olson’s agenda is to present a different type of systematic theology. The key distinctions which he highlights he describes in the following way: “mediating (both-and as opposed to either-or whenever possible), evangelical, irenic in spirit and tone, nonspeculative and relatively simple for the uninitiated” (17, italics original). These goals make this book very different from other systematic theologies, as Olson does more describing of the range of views in a certain area rather than deciding for one specific view.  These distinctives also make the book somewhat more “shallow” in a certain sense, since many of the topics usually covered in a systematic theology are viewed as speculation by Olson and are not discussed. However, while Olson seeks to avoid speculation, he is not afraid to give his opinion, such as his belief in dichotomy (217).

The other key difference between this book and other systematic theologies is Olson’s focus upon historical theology. Olson desires that Christians know about the commonly accepted theology throughout church history.

Christians should know their religious heritage including the Great Tradition or consensus of basic Christian belief as well as they know their Bibles. In fact, one might go so far as to say that it is like a Third Testament although clearly not as inspired or inspired in the same supernatural way as the New Testament is in Christians’ eyes. (37)

            Since one of Olson’s joys of life is church history, his methodology is based around historical theology around rather than exegetical theology. He clearly outlines the format of the book:

No goal of achieving synthesis of all truth is even envisioned. Rather, in each doctrinal locus the problem of false alternatives will be described, the underlying consensus of Christian belief will be expounded, the alternatives to the overwhelming consensus of the Christian church’s teaching will be explained, the legitimate diversity of opinion and interpretation within Christian thought will be explored, and some possible unitive viewpoints that have the potential for reuniting Christians (especially evangelical Protestants) will be proposed. (26) 

            While this goal is clear, there are significant questions to be answered to make the methodology work. For example, how does one find the consensus of Christian belief? How does one determine the difference between an alternative to Christian belief versus diversity with the Christian view? What happens if the majority Christian view is wrong? Does it reflect on the eternal destiny of a person if their theology is considered alternative to the Christian consensus?

Some of these questions are addressed by Olson in the beginning of the book, but others are addressed throughout the course of the book by means of side comments about a particular issue. Olson defines the Christian consensus in the following way:

The Christian consensus or Great Tradition will be treated as a minimal set of core beliefs generally agreed upon by all or most of the church fathers plus the sixteenth-century Reformers. I believe that it existed as well in the medieval Catholic and Orthodox churches even though it was overlaid with numerous nonessential human traditions derived from more speculation and popular piety than from divine revelation or apostolic witness. (35-36)

            Olson does not state explicitly how to determine the difference between a view outside the consensus and a view that is part of the diversity of Christian belief. He does indicate that it is not an easy decision to place a view in the alternative category. “It is only with great fear and trepidation and even tears that any of us should ever exclude fellow Christian believers from the sphere of authentic Christianity, but unfortunately that must happen occasionally” (186). The closest he gets to describing his policy comes in the chapter on life after death, where the criterion seems to be that a view is part of the Christian diversity if it does not need correction to be fully Christian, although this raises more questions than it answers. What does it mean to be fully or truly Christian?

That is why they [purgatory, annihilationism and soul sleep] will be treated under the category heading of diversity in this area of Christian belief—not because I recommend them or believe they are valid but because it is possible for an authentically Christian person to hold them without (in our view) needing correction to become more fully and truly Christian in terms of belief. (321)

            While Olson focuses upon the majority view, he is not necessarily committed to the majority. He is at least theoretically willing to go against the Great Tradition if it is wrong. “In other words, we are looking for proper Christian beliefs, not merely beliefs held by most Christians” (49, italics original).

            Finally, a person holding a view that is alternative to the Christian consensus is not thereby automatically condemned to hell in Olson’s view. They simply are holding a wrong belief in a particular area. It would be interesting to know where Olson thinks the line of condemnation is crossed, but he never discusses the issue.

While it may seem harsh to call the fundamentalist view of Scripture heresy, the reader must remember that such a judgment is not a reflection on a person’s salvation. It is only to say that the belief in question is beyond the pale of acceptable Christian belief and teaching. (98)

The central significant contribution of the book in my opinion is the format. I have wondered for years how to do a doctrinal statement based on levels of certainty, and this book provides a model for such an endeavor. There are too many systematic theology books which tell the reader exactly what the author believes, but does not differentiate between central beliefs and unimportant beliefs. While some will be disappointed with the lack of discussion on some issues in this book, I think that Olson does a great job focusing upon the essentials and not getting sidetracked in speculation. “Beliefs matter but not all beliefs matter equally” (33).

            At several points Olson helps to show that a decision is not required in every either-or situation in theology, fitting in with his irenic and broad approach. The overly scientific background of much of modern evangelicalism falsely demands that all problems be of the either-or sort and have clear detailed answers. One example of this is found in the chapter on revelation. 

Finally, and once again, the either-or problem of false alternatives appears in the division between finished revelation and continuing revelation. So long as we give primacy and normativity to original revelation in Jesus Christ and Scripture, there is no great danger … in acknowledging a certain kind of continuing revelation. (88)

An unsurprising contribution of the book (in light of his other work in historical theology) is the historical content of the book. While the book is largely lacking in exegesis, the focus upon what various groups have believed throughout church history organized according to subject is a welcome addition to the field of systematic theology.

The book is filled with little jewels of information and historical observations that I had never known before. Here are a few examples.

·        “Even such a seemingly innocent and positive movement as wearing wristbands with the letters W.W.J.D (What Would Jesus Do?) can manifest a Pelagian attitude Christianity” (215).

·        “The great hymn ‘When I Survey the Wondrous Cross’ lyrically expresses Abelard’s atonement model” (259).

·        C.S. Lewis advocated a perfect vicarious penitent theory (261).

·        The Salvation Army does not celebrate the two ordinances (294).

·        Johnny Appleseed Chapman helped to spread the Swedenborgian churches (318).

            “That message is, in a nutshell, God wins in the end” (356, italics original).

While the book as a whole is very helpful, it is to be expected that each reader will disagree with certain decisions Olson makes. While Olson does not speculate and hence create a large number of uncertain answers like the average systematic theology, he does make the equally difficult decisions of determining whether a particular view is within the bounds of consensual tradition or an alternative to it. It is to be expected that each reader will disagree at some point.

Overall, I think that Olson is modestly overgenerous. I am influenced by my fundamentalist background and I am far more charitable than I was in past times, but it still seems to me that Olson gives too much credence to those with aberrant beliefs. For example, he seems to view Barth and Brunner as in the line of the orthodox church.  

The Swiss theologians Barth and Brunner vehemently disagreed about the possibility of natural knowledge of God and possibly even about general revelation itself. And yet they agreed about the major doctrines of Christianity such as the deity and humanity of Christ and salvation by grace alone (86).

            Olson’s attitude toward the WCC is another example of being overly generous. He views the decision made by the WCC as identical with authentic Christianity. “But the WCC held to its decision and to this day belief in Jesus Christ as both God and Savior (and one may safely assume this includes his being human) is the sole, necessary affirmation for authentic Christianity” (224). Olson later recognizes that many conservatives accuse the WCC of being too liberal (245), but it is unclear whether he agrees with this assessment.

One last category where I disagree with Olson, is the question of the place of the Catholic Church. Olson, along with ECT, puts Catholic soteriology within the Great Tradition (282). Purgatory is recognized as a valid belief and described as only a “quibble” (325). Olson largely puts the Catholic Church within the line of orthodoxy. I have not done enough reading of modern post-Vatican II Catholic writers, but it seems to me that official Catholic soteriology should be placed outside the bounds of orthodoxy and several other Catholic beliefs (such as purgatory, papal authority, and the Immaculate Conception) should be viewed with more suspicion.

On the other hand, there are some places where I would be more generous than Olson has been. He has some strong words for a dictation theory of inspiration, placing it outside the Great Tradition and not simply another option for Christians (98). While I utterly despise the dictation theory of inspiration, I am not convinced it should be placed outside the bounds of orthodoxy, especially since it has been fairly widespread throughout church history. This is one of the few places where Olson goes against his desire to side with a large chunk of history, and I think it would have been better to make it a variety of standard Christian belief.

            One further major problem relates to his methodology, particularly         the subject matter of the chapters. Most of the chapters are set up to show that true belief needs to balance two ends of a spectrum, which is a helpful endeavor. However, some of the chapters are set up to contrast not two ends of the spectrum which must be held together, but two different options which cannot be held at the same time. The clearest example of this is the Calvinist – Arminian debate. While discussing three views of divine providence, he says that “while not all three can be equally true, all three are possibly valid views or models of divine providence and should be allowed to coexist within the community of Christians—even if some specific denominations choose to embrace one of them to the exclusion of the others” (190).

            Another problem with the subject matter is that some topics are left entirely out. Some of these omissions surely relate to his desire to be nonspeculative, but if the work is to be useful as a work on systematic theology, there should be a few more topics added. One major omission is any discussion of angels, demons and Satan. While there is much that is speculative about this topic, there are many facts about them that can be known. Also missing is an extended discussion of the Holy Spirit. Why does the third person of the Trinity not get a chapter?

There are also various other small quibbles with the book. Olson claims that 2 Timothy 3:16 could refer to either the text or the authors being inspired, but it is unclear to me how the verse could refer to anything except the text (102). He also claims that Paul had bad grammar, including unfinished sentences, a claim which he uses to buttress his belief in a dynamic model of inspiration (104). However, I think that this is not so much bad grammar as Paul using various rhetorical and discourse methods to make his point. This is the way language works, it is not an error or bad form.

            Olson shies away from inerrancy and almost goes to the point of denying inerrancy (108-109). While I also dislike a strong focus upon inerrancy that disregards the point of the text in order to make sure the text is not in error, I do think that it is a correct way to express belief about the Bible. It seems to me that Olson is reacting too much against the criticisms that have been laid against inerrancy.

Olson’s Arminianism comes out at various points through his wording, such as calling limited atonement a “peculiar view” (279) and saying it is fortunate that Augustine’s view of the relation of original sin and babies did not become a necessary part of the Great Tradition (209). However, Olson does place Finney’s Pelagianism outside the pale of Christian belief (274-275).

Overall, I think that is an excellent contribution from a great writer. The most valuable aspect of the book is the methodology, which can help us reevaluate our beliefs and, more importantly, how tightly we hold them. Some should be held very strongly, while others are only peripheral.

Login to add comments