145 - The Ambiguous Legacy of Modernism

The Ambiguous Legacy of Modernism
By James H. Moorhead

"Critical modernism has not yielded unified convictions but rather a host of alternative theologies and hermeneuticala strategies. To make this observation is not to suggest that the clergy should hide all confusions from the laity. Candor is required, but honesty is not likely to be edifying unless pastors and educators stand ready to offer something more than a catalogue of competing views or questions. Here again one faces the need for constructive theological affirmations without which critical modernism will serve to dethrone idols but not to build faith. "

Just as politicians now shun the dreaded "L-word," Presbyterians and other mainline Protestants may be tempted to flee the term "modernism." It conjures up memories of painful battles during the 1920s and '30s. It also suggests a theological stance seemingly out of step in an era when religious conservatism is resurgent, when mainline churches are losing members, and when many are announcing a postmodern age. While recognizing the limitations of the word, Edward Farleya, in the previous article, makes a strong case for the centrality of the modernist legacy. Critical modernism-"the refusal," as he succinctly defines it, "to make anything human and historical a timeless absolute"-has indeed become a central part of the mainline heritage. It would be a tragedy if Presbyterians, for example, trimming their sails to conservative breezes, played down their commitment to the historical study of Scripture, promoted a particular theology as final and unrevisable, or dismissed secular wisdom as irrelevant to the gospel. As Farelya hints, such a course would probably also be unsuccessful. Persons who wish pre-critical absolutes are likely to turn to groups that have far more practice in this art than twentieth-century Presbyterians. Thus, for reasons of principle and practicality, Farley is right: Presbyterian destiny, as with other mainline churches, does not lie along the path of retreat from modernism nor in attempts to hug the right side of the theological road.

James H. Moorhead is Professor of American Church History, Princeton Theological Seminary. He received his doctorate from Yale University in religious studies and has taught at North Carolina State University. He is the author of American Apocalypse: Yankee Protestants and the Civil War, 1860-1869 (1978).

146 - The Ambiguous Legacy of Modernism

I

Yet critical modernism alone has never been-nor can it ever be-a sufficient rallying point. It is a necessary tool for unmasking parochialisms and smashing idols; but it is less effective in providing a positive basis for religious affirmation. Farley recognizes that one must go beyond the negative critical principle to affirm something positive namely, that "God redeems, transforms, and empowers in and through the earthen vessels of the creaturely, the cultural, the historical." In the present essay, however, he offers little of a specific nature to flesh out that statement, and such specifics are badly needed. If critical modernism is to offer a credible faith, it must do more than assert the relativity and time-conditioned character of every creed or confession. It must also proclaim with some degree of conviction what persons can believe at the present moment. Although true faith does not possess a comprehensive set of timeless truths, neither does it consist of a list of critical questions to which only tentative answers are given. If the mainline churches fail to recognize this fact, they will (to change the metaphor) offer a thin, unsatisfying meal of negations; and many people will choose to dine at another table.

Farley acknowledges that something is awry in the way that critical modernism is presented within the mainline churches; but he locates only part of the problem. For him, the central dilemma lies in the "clericalism in which the clergy are the bearers of the modernist legacy and the laity are on the outside." The clergy, for example, are trained in seminaries to appreciate the historical character of Scripture; but they seldom give evidence of that fact in the pulpit, nor do curricular materials do the job in the church-school. Thus, the young encounter critical modernism not "as a set of deep convictions," but "ambiguously, as a sort of mood." The result is that "there is no position held strongly enough to attract them-or repel them-so they simply wander away."

The call for a more rigorous education of the laity is laudable and probably several generations overdue. But will a thorough education in the principles of critical modernism necessarily produce "a set of deep convictions" or "a position held strongly"? Does critical modernism even have it in its power to generate such convictions? Once an affirmative answer seemed plausible. Around the turn of the century, during the heyday of modernist theology, persons such as Charles A. Briggs of New York's Union Theological Seminary and William Rainey Harper of the University of Chicago sought to rally the masses in the pews behind a single set of "assured results" of modern critical scholarship. Today that confidence seems quaint, a relic of an outdated modernist triumphalism. Critical modernism has not yielded unified convictions but rather a host of alternative theologies and hermeneutical strategies. To make this observation is not to suggest that the clergy should hide all confusions from the laity. Candor is required, but honesty is not likely to be edifying unless pastors and educators stand ready to offer something more than a

147 - The Ambiguous Legacy of Modernism

catalogue of competing views or questions. Here again one faces the need for constructive theological affirmations without which critical modernism will serve to dethrone idols but not to build faith.

II

Positive theological affirmation is also necessary if the mainline churches are to possess the gift of discernment, rightly dividing what Farley calls cultural (or secular) modernism from critical modernism. He describes the former as the translation of the Christian faith into the categories of secular wisdom. Viewing that trend as baleful, he finds examples in the churches' acceptance of the managerial, therapeutic, and professional ethos of the world. By contrast, critical modernism-a "good" modernism, according to Farley-entails a willingness to use the discoveries of secular wisdom to interpret and understand the gospel. While one may heartily agree that some such theological distinction needs to be made, the line between the translation of the gospel into the categories of the modern world, and openness to the use of those categories, is a very thin one. How does one know when the line has been crossed? Or to paraphrase the psalmist, how does one know whether one is singing the Lord's song in a foreign land or perhaps a foreign song in the Lord's land? To make these distinctions, one needs theological principles, symbols, and vocabulary other than the austere "refusal to make anything human and historical a timeless absolute."

The problem is further complicated by the fact that the two modernisms cannot be neatly separated. They arose as part of a package and remain intimately connected. Critical modernism has flourished in large measure because of secular modernism. For example, the critical principle has won its greatest victories in those places-the university, the divinity school, and the seminary-where professionalism has also triumphed. Without the professionalization of higher education, it is dubious that the critical principle Farley extols would have found the necessary social "space" in which to make its discoveries and contributions. Yet, because critical modernism has taken root within specialized professional enclaves, it has also tended to spawn theories of extraordinary complexity and to speak in arcane jargon-consider, for example, many contemporary discussions of hermeneutics. Thus, theological discourse remains virtually impenetrable to the laity and tends to resist the translation from academe to pew that Farley so devoutly wishes.

In view of these complexities, Farley's paean to critical modernism evokes ambivalence. He is surely correct that the mainline churches have an obligation to affirm the legacy of critical modernism. For Presbyterians and other major denominations to waffle on their commitment to the historical study of Scripture, to the possibility of theological advance, or to the necessity of bringing secular wisdom into dialogue with theology, would represent an intellectual betrayal. Critical modernism is a crucial part of the Protestant mainline heritage, and it even

148 - The Ambiguous Legacy of Modernism

partakes of the "radical prophetism" central to biblical faith. Especially in today's conservative environment, one hesitates to express reservations about these statements lest the demurral be read as a call to turn back the theological clock. Yet, it will be difficult for some to share Farley's unalloyed enthusiasm for critical modernism. Standing alone, the principle is a solvent to faith. Or to return to the biblical metaphor, the prophet finds a proper place within a community in which a core of common beliefs, symbols, and rituals are taken for granted and affirmed.