I haven’t read John Franke’s The Character of Theology. Clearly, in this day and age, a book on theology could contain almost anything bad. The publisher, Baker Book House, might limit that a bit, but I wouldn’t trust such a publisher to protect us from error. I know nothing about Franke so it is completely possible, from my point of view, that he could teach almost anything.
Still, even as a stranger, I can glean from the publisher and some other sources that he names the name of Christ. And even if that were not the case, the fact remains that I am not supposed to go around making railing accusations against the man based on my lack of knowledge.
Blogger, Kyle Newcomer directed my attention to this book review by Paul Helm. Please take some time right now (or before you read further) read it.
Helm may be entirely correct. This response may be entirely wrong. I don’t know. I haven’t read the book and in this hour that means I have no way of knowing anything about it.
And this is the point. What gives Helm the right to simply tell us that Franke is guilty of rejecting objectivity and truth and a myriad of other crimes without even attempting to provide us with any evidence whatsoever? In fact, most of what we find quoted from Franke are statements that admit to things which Dr. Helm assures us that Franke denies so that Helm can conveniently condemn Franke for inconsistency. But, in point of fact, this is exactly how things would seem if Helm was completely wrong about what Franke believes in the first place.
In the entire review there is one and only one substantial quotation:
As concluded in the previous chapter, the unending task of theology is to find ways of expressing and communicating the biblical story in terms that make use of the intellectual and conceptual tools of a particular culture without being controlled by them. This suggests the need for both critical and constructive reflection on the beliefs and practices of the church in order to scrutinize continuously the life of the church by the standard of the biblical witness and to envision all of life in relationship to God and the mission of God in the world (p.119).
Now, readers might know that I would quibble with this statement (since it comes to me without any context) because it seems to posit the theologian as someone who stands outside his culture. But that would be a quibble. What is amazing about this is that, for Helm, this is his “smoking gun.” First of all, in a review where he blasts away and this is the only substantial quotation, it has to be his justification. Second of all, his following analysis treats this statement as some sort of proof of unrighteousness–or rather, as proof of unrighteousness once we discount the words within the quotation which Helm assures us don’t really count. “To be sure, there is the warning about not allowing the intellectual and conceptual tools of a particular culture to control theology, though no suggestions as to how this might be achieved.” (Wright is right: if you don’t say everything every time you will be accused of denying it.)
When you attack someone, you are supposed to provide an argument and, preferably, proof. Without such hard work, “defending” orthodoxy, simply becomes a series of assertions based on human authority. Is that all we have to offer?
Mark-
As one who has read “The Character of Theology” I can assure you that Franke does not, in any way, say that the theologian stands outside of culture. He in fact argues the exact opposite – that the theologian stands within the culture. His line about making use of the intellectual and conceptual tools without being controlled by them basically says two things. 1) There are certian things in culture that the Christian theologian cannot use, hence we cannot be controlled by culture 2) But we are helpless but to recognize that we write in a certain time and place and are shaped by that experience indelibly. What Franke is arguing against are those who believe they can glean objective knowledge from the bible. We are all shaped by our cultural context and we need to recognize that.
I found Helm’s review to be poor, because I don’t think he understands Franke correctly. I thought the response posted on the Generous Orthodoxy Think Tank (Which you linked to) was quite accurate. I would encourage you to pick the book up, its well written and concise.
– Brian
Hello Mark,
I thought about a long reply but Brian did an excellent job with his comments. I simply wanted to let you know I have read Franke. What’s more, I know Franke personally. Your final,
When you attack someone, you are supposed to provide an argument and, preferably, proof. Without such hard work, “defending” orthodoxy, simply becomes a series of assertions based on human authority. Is that all we have to offer?
gets at the heart of my critique of the lack of dialogue that goes on. We live in a day where communication is much simpler and can be done very quickly. Rather than talk around someone, sometimes it is better to talk to someone. This talking around someone goes on all the time and in all quarters and may be a holdover from the days of the pen and press. But in an electronic culture there must be a better way.
I trust you and the family are doing well. We do miss you around here. Be safe.
Blessings.
I’m smelling a trend here. This same thing happened to my friend and teacher Pete Enns of Westminster Seminary. His book Inspiration and Incarnation was “reviewed” by a pastor in a denominational magazine. The “review” simply dismissed Pete’s book as “outside the confessional Reformed faith.” Proof offered? Several statements that Pete specifically says in the book he does not support! Pete told me that Reformation 21 is going to review his book as well, and after Helm’s poor job, we are not counting on anything fair.