Revelation, Tradition, and

Epistemological Flux — A Response to

Peter Leithart’s "Who’s got the gateway
drug?"
June 29, 2012 · Robert Arakaki

In a stunning turn of events, Jason Stellman resigned from the

Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and is expected to convert to
Roman Catholicism. Many know Mr. Stellman from his leading role
in bringing charges against Pastor Peter Leithart before the Pacific
Northwest Presbytery of the PCA . Soon after the news broke,
Leithart wrote a blog posting: “Who’s got the gateway drug?” The
term “gateway drug” is a reference to criticism that Leithart’s high
church Calvinism has predisposed people to convert to
Catholicism. Leithart counters that it was “some of the theological
assumptions and ecclesial instincts of Protestant Confessionalists
provide a smooth on-ramp to Catholicism or an off-ramp from
Protestantism.”

As I read through Pastor Leithart’s apologia I found myself disturbed

by certain philosophical assumptions in Leithart’s apologia. At times
I wondered if there was not a postmodern fluidity in Leithart’s
theological method that is at odds with historic Christianity. What I
intend in this blog posting is describe the contours of Pastor
Leithart’s epistemological framework, and then describe the
Orthodox approach to the Christian Faith.

The Contours of Peter Leithart’s Epistemology

The following statements are taken from Pastor Leithart’s “Who’s got
the gateway drug?” posted 4 June 2012.

1. Leithart assumes that the Christian faith itself evolves (improves)

over time.
 The golden age is not lost in the unrecoverable past
but ahead of us in an eschatological future.

2. Leithart assigns priority to the future over the past. He rejects the
priority of Tradition over contemporary theologizing:

…what I have critiqued elsewhere as “tragic metaphysics,” the

notion that the original and old is necessarily preferable to the
derived and the new.

Still, essential as the past is, for Protestants the past ought
never become an ultimate standard.

3. Theology for Leithart is fluid and negotiable. Even the classic

Christological and Trinitarian dogmas can undergo further revision.

Even the fixed points can be freshly formulated (cf. recent

developments in Trinitarian theology and in Pauline
studies). Beyond those few fixed points, much remains up
in the air (for Catholics and Orthodox too), and will for
centuries to come, as Christians continue to pore over the
Scriptures and seek unity of mind concerning what they teach.

Its Trinitarian theology and eschatology give Christian faith

an open-endedness that can be unsettling.

4. Leithart vigorously affirms sola scriptura, albeit in a manner that

may surprise some.

Scripture remains fixed and immovable, the test and

touchstone always of everything. Our understanding
doesn’t stay fixed. Protestants should be perfectly
comfortable with that.

No tradition can keep God from acting in new ways

and saying new things in His world; God is Word, and
therefore His voice is not simply identified with the voice of
the church or the voice of the past.

Gateway to Liberal Theology?

As I read Pastor Leithart’s blog posting memories of my time in the

United Church of Christ (UCC) come back to me. I once took part in a
UCC forum where the Evangelicals and the Liberals presented their
viewpoints. We closed the meeting singing the hymn: “We limit not
the truth of God.” At the end of each stanza was the refrain:
The Lord hath yet more light and truth

To break forth from His Word.

There seems to some overlap in hymn and Pastor Leithart’s blog

posting. While the United Church of Christ seems worlds removed
from the PCA, it is important to keep in mind that this denomination
has historic roots in New England Puritanism. Before Leithart and
his supporters voice their objections, I invite them to compare his
statements against the UCC’s new slogan: “God is still speaking to us”
and the Comma logo.

The United Church of Christ’s official site explains the meaning of

the Comma logo:

The comma was inspired by the Gracie Allen quote, “Never

place a period where God has placed a comma.”

For the UCC the Comma is a new way to proclaim “Our

Faith is 2,000 years old, our thinking is not.”

The UCC does not overtly repudiate Scripture. What it has done is to
combine its reading of Scripture with the experience and concerns of
contemporary culture. Absent in both Leithart and the UCC is any
notion of an authoritative and binding magisterium. It seems that the
only binding authority is that of one’s conscience and Scripture.

The Comma invites us to believe that God speaks through

other people, nature, music, art, a theorem, the Bible, and in
so many other ways.

The Comma pin reminds us of the unusual religious freedom

and responsibility to engage the Bible with our own unique
experiences, questions, and ideas.

Like Leithart, the UCC does not repudiate the past but seeks to
integrate the best from the past with the best of the present. It is
open to change and adaptation.
 The Comma reminds us to balance our rich religious past
with openness to the new ideas, new people, and new
possibilities of the future.

I found the similarities in the philosophical assumptions between

Pastor Leithart’s “Gateway Drug” posting and the UCC’s God is still
speaking slogan unsettling and a little unnerving. I am not saying
that Leithart’s theological views are liberal. Pastor Leithart and his
colleagues in the Presbyterian Church in America and the
Confederation of Reformed and Evangelical Churches have a history
of anathematizing theological liberalism. It is highly unlikely that
Pastor Leithart and his contemporaries will ever embrace theological
liberalism.

Perhaps most of his students/disciples won’t either. My concern is

more with his theological method. What will Pastor Leithart’s
grandchildren do with his theological methods? What distinctives
will be up for grabs with them? What new progressive innovations
will they discover? With what kind of church doctrine and liturgy will
his grandchildren (natural and spiritual) grow up in? I raise these
questions because at one time the theology of the United Church of
Christ wasn’t all that different from Evangelicals, but over time there
took place a drift towards more radical positions.

Leithart versus the Confessionalists

As a good Calvinist Pastor Leithart affirms Scripture as the absolute

norm for faith and practice. But he relativizes secondary authorities
like the Westminster Confession. Relegating creeds to a secondary
status is nothing new to Reformed Christianity, but the novelty lies
with the extent to which Leithart is willing to go. While upholding the
Westminster Confession’s authority for his denomination, Leithart
views it as a human document, historically conditioned, that falls far
short of the absolute authority of Scripture.

Confessionalists, after all, place a great deal of emphasis on

the tradition of Reformed theology, embodied especially in
Reformed confessions. Throughout the debates of the past
few years, I have presented mainly biblical arguments for my
positions, and kept historical concerns
 subordinate. My opponents have typically been much more
interested in testing my views by the Westminster
Confession. The touchstone of their theology is a piece of the
Reformed tradition as much as, and in some cases more
than, Scripture. Confessionalists claim that the Confession
provides standard exegesis of Scripture, to which Reformed
theologians have to submit. Confessional Reformed theology
thus has a natural affinity for Rome that biblicists like me
don’t share.

Leithart’s disagreement with the Confessionalists is rooted not so

much in doctrine as in epistemology. The Confessionalist theological
method rests on the assumption that the meaning of Scripture is clear
and obvious and that confessional statements like the Westminster
Confession rests on the clear and obvious meaning of Scripture. This
is based on the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, one of the
corollaries to sola scriptura. The Confessionalist epistemology
assumes a close correlation or congruence between the meaning of
Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture. This particular
approach to Christian truth leads to the belief that confessional
statements like the Westminster Confession are objectively true in
their reading of Scripture and universally valid; not historically
conditioned and contingent as some would have it. It also assumes
certain stability to the Christological and Trinitarian dogmas. Thus,
the Confessionalist epistemology gives rise to stability and certitude
to the way they do theology and organize church life. Leithart chafes
at this epistemology preferring one that is more open ended and
critically informed.

Leithart’s criticism of the Confessionalists seems to be informed by

postmodern approach to truth which rejects the foundationalist
notion of truth. The foundationalist understanding of truth has come
under strong criticism, especially by the postmodernists who insist
that our understanding of truth is historically conditioned,
contingent, and at best incomplete.

For Pastor Leithart, Christian theology (Christian Truth) exists in a

sort of neo-Hegelian epistemology of flux. Pastor Leithart seems to
hold his Christian heritage at arm’s length, distance as theorems and
hypotheses to be tested continuously in light of our study of
Scripture. Theology for Leithart is more a journey than a
destination. Thus, a confessional statement like the Westminster
Confession is not so much a “binding address” for the faith
community, but a signpost on the road we travel. Truth is not
something clearly delivered once and for all time via the Holy Spirit to
the Church. In Leithart’s understanding Truth is something that is
approximated at best, and always unreached “out there” in the
future. I want to make clear that for Leithart Truth is not denied; it is
just embedded in epistemological flux. We may not have the Truth
but we can nibble at it from a distance. Pastor Leithart insists that
Protestants should be comfortable with this understanding of Truth.

What Scripture Teaches on Epistemology

Orthodoxy rejects the notion of an open-ended and evolutionary

understanding of the Christian Faith because this not is what
Scripture teaches. Scripture warns against private interpretation. We
read in II Peter 1:20: “knowing this first, that no prophecy of
Scripture is of any private interpretation.” In the early
Church, it was the bishops, the Apostles’ disciples, who were given the
responsibility and the authority to teach the Faith (II Timothy 4:1-
5). Is it not significant that the Apostles did not create for their well
trained and proven disciples, soon to be bishops (II Timothy 2:2) a
compilation of essential doctrines as well as a canon of New
Testament Scriptures? Is it also not significant that the Apostles
devoted much of the early years of ministry in the proclamation of the
Gospel and oral instruction in the Christian Faith, rather than
compiling systematic treatises on the Apostolic teachings? Instead
the Apostles exhorted their spiritual children to hold fast to the
Apostolic teachings and trusted the Holy Spirit to guide future
generations into all truth.

Eastern Orthodoxy emphasizes a distinct foundation for Apostolic

Tradition. In Jude 3 we read about “the faith that was once for all
entrusted to the saints.” In this short verse we learn four important
lessons: (1) the definite article in “the faith” indicate that Jude is
thinking about a specific body of teaching, (2) “once for all” (hapax)
points to a unique onetime event like Christ’s atoning death on the
Cross (cf. Hebrews 9:28), (3) “once for all” points to a unique event
not a series of events, and (4) “entrusted” (paradidomi) refers to a
traditioning process in which the Faith is handed on from one person
to another. Doctrinal stability is seen in II Thessalonians 2:15:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which
you were taught, whether by word or our epistles.” (NKJV) “Stand
fast” implies fixity and stability, as opposed to the fluid progression
implied in Leithart’s epistemology.

From the standpoint of the sociology of knowledge, the Orthodox and

Reformed tradition have quite different approaches to doing
theology. Orthodoxy functions as a “community of memory”
when it seeks hold on to the Apostolic tradition without
change. Orthodoxy also follows the principle of conciliarity, that is,
theological differences are resolved through the collective action of
the bishops, the designated successors to the Apostles. For the most
part, Protestant theology seems to deny or overlook the church as a
“community of memory” preferring to stress the individual reading of
Scripture and the willingness of the brave individual to challenge
church authority on the basis of sola scriptura. Protestant
epistemology is based on a contestable and negotiable understanding
of truth. In light of the fact that there is no received Tradition,
Protestants must earnestly read Scripture, collect theological data
from Scripture, then weigh the merits of competing theological
positions in light of Scripture. This explains why biblical studies and
exegesis are given such prominence among Protestants. Lacking the
principle of conciliarity, Protestantism has suffered the misfortune of
theological differences becoming entrenched in a plethora
denominations and aberrant sects.

The Church the Pillar of Truth

But if the Church is indeed the pillar and ground of Truth (I Timothy
3:15), and if Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the
Church into all Truth holds true then there is no reason to believe that
Truth is in an evolutionary flux. Christian Truth is not a set of
intellectual constructs; Christian Truth is embodied in the Church
which was founded on the authority of Jesus Christ and guided by the
Holy Spirit. This capital “T” Tradition is not so much a set of beliefs
but rather the life of Church indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Apostle
Paul in Ephesians described the Church in static terms, e.g., being
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets and whose
cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and in dynamic terms, e.g., growing into
a temple (Ephesians 3:20-22).

Protestant theology has long relied upon an incredible historical

trope: (1) Apostolic Beginning, (2) Apostasy (soon after the apostles
died), (3) Spiritual Darkness for over a thousand years, (4)
Reformation and the Return of the Light. This particular trope has
even been described by a Protestant writer as a de facto denial of
Pentecost, where the Holy Spirit Blinks On and Blinks Offat
different times in church history. This view of church history fosters
a survivalist mentality that views the outside world as hostile and
dangerous.

In the Orthodox epistemology the meaning of Scripture and the

exegesis of Scripture are inseparable in the context of Holy
Tradition. Where Leithart sees core doctrines like Trinity and
Christology as contingent on the ongoing study and interpretation of
Scripture, Orthodoxy believes that through the Ecumenical Councils
the exegetical debates underlying the Christological and Trinitarian
controversies were definitively and authoritatively settled.

This is based on the belief that Christ’s promise of Pentecost is real -–

that the Ecumenical Councils were indeed truly guided by the Holy
Spirit and that the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are infallible
and binding upon all Christians. This belief in Pentecost as an
ongoing reality gives Orthodox epistemology a mystical dimension
that is very different from the rationalism so characteristic of Western
theology. In other words the Nicene Creed and the Ecumenical
Councils function more as a “binding address” for all Christians, not
as theological resources to be used as one sees fit. Leithart’s open
ended and progressive hermeneutics to Scripture alienates him from
the underlying assumptions of the Ecumenical Councils.

Leithart upends this historical trope by using an optimistic

evolutionary perspective to church history. This optimistic view of
church history reminds me of Philip Schaff’s The Principle of
Protestantism. However, attempts to liken Leithart’s optimistic
historical vision to classic Liberalism and the Social Gospel
movement, while understandable, are mistaken. Leithart’s optimistic
historiography is rooted in the post-millennial reading of biblical
eschatology. This particular eschatology has roots in the theology of
major Reformed theologians like John Calvin and Abraham
Kuyper. This view sees in Scripture the promise of Christ to be with
the Church as the nations are disciples along other Scripture passages
that point a Christianized world filled with the knowledge of God as
the waters cover the sea, and the promise that the Gates of Hell shall
not prevail against the Church.

If Orthodoxy has a particular historical trope, it would be that of the

early martyrs who held to the Apostolic Faith even in the point of
dying for Truth. It recognizes that society can be hostile to the
Christian message but Christ has promised that Peter’s confession –
the Gospel of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God — would prevail
against the gates of Hell and that the Holy Spirit would guide his
Church into all truth. Orthodoxy despite being hidden from the West
because of the Great Schism, living under Muslim rule and Soviet
persecution amazingly safeguarded (some might even say
supernaturally!) the Apostolic Tradition against external pressures
like violent persecution and internal threats like innovation and
heresy. Orthodoxy’s ecclesial approach to Christian Truth offers
stability and solidity not found in the authoritarianism of the Roman
Papacy and Protestantism’s ahistorical sola scriptura.
Epistemological Strategies

There are at least four epistemological stances one can take in the face
of Pastor Leithart’s response to the collapse of Jason Stellman’s
Protestant theology:

1. The eclectic Reformed catholicism taken by Peter Leithart who

affirm the primacy of Scripture while taking an inclusive and eclectic
approach to secondary sources, e.g., creeds, vestments, liturgy,
critical scholarship.

2. The naive foundationalism of Protestant fundamentalism that

ignores the dynamic fluidity of Protestant theology and shies away
from critical thinking. The Confessionalist stance that Stellman once
identified with seems to reflect this particular epistemology.

3. The monarchy of the Roman Papacy. This is for those who seek to
find stability in the infallible magisterium of Rome. In this solution
the chaos that arises from the postmodern reading of Scripture is
corralled by the infallible magisterium of the Papacy.

4. The Apostolic Tradition safeguarded by Eastern Orthodoxy for the

past 2000 years. This view rests upon the assumption that Christ
gave the Holy Spirit to his Church and that under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit the Church has preserved that Tradition against
innovation and heresy.

I am not familiar with Mr. Stellman’s reasons for renouncing his

Reformed views but I would like to suggest what may have motivated
him was: (1) a reaction against the epistemological flux in Leithart’s
approach to doing theology (Option 1), and (2) a preference for a
more classic epistemology that views truth as accessible and Christian
doctrine as possessing a stability that endures over time (Options 3 or
4).

Leithart is under the impression that Jason Stellman is heading to

Rome because of a “postmodern recognition of the historical
embeddedness and contextuality of all human knowledge.” This leads
me to suspect that exposure to postmodern thought has closed off the
path of naive foundationalism that underlies the Confessionalist
position (Option 2). I suspect that Stellman’s preference for
epistemological stability is much closer to the historic Christian Faith
than Leithart’s more open ended quest version of Christian truth.

Despite their fundamental differences, Roman Catholicism and

Protestantism share one important trait that makes them two peas in
a pod – a developmental approach to faith and practice. The
development of doctrine in the Christian West stands in sharp
contrast with Orthodoxy’s determination to protect the Apostolic
Tradition from innovation and heresy. While the monarchy of the
Papacy may offer the promise of doctrinal stability, it should be kept
in mind that it has unilaterally introduced doctrinal innovations that
the Orthodox find objectionable: the Filioque clause, Papal
infallibility, Papal supremacy over all Christianity, purgatory etc.

Like Leithart I find the foundationalist assumptions of the

Confessionalists wanting but I have grave reservations about Dr.
Leithart’s proposed remedy. (He holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge
University.) He may well assert: “What I and my friends offer is the
antidote to and not the cause of Roman fever.” It should be kept in
mind that one of the serious side effects of Dr. Leithart’s medicine is
epistemological vertigo. That is enough for many to decline and go
elsewhere. And as mentioned before, we need to take into
consideration the possible long term consequences of Leithart’s
epistemological stance.

Climate Change for Protestantism?

If Jason Stellman’s crosses the Tiber, it is sure to cause consternation

within Reformed circles. But what should be even more alarming is
the fact that Stellman’s defection is part of a larger trend. Just a few
days earlier on 27 May 2012, Joshua Lim, a brand new graduate from
Westminster Seminary (Escondido) posted his conversion to Roman
Catholicism. Similar conversions are happening elsewhere. Converts
also include Gordon-Conwell graduates like Scott Hahn and Gerry
Matatics. And then there is the resignation of the president of the
 Evangelical Theological Society, Francis Beckwith. All this raises the
question: Why are so many of the best and the brightest
leaving Protestant Christianity? It appears that Protestant
Christianity is undergoing a “climate change,” i.e., a fundamental
shift in the intellectual atmosphere, as Protestant theologians,
pastors, and seminarians question the basis for sola fide and sola
scriptura.

As Protestantism undergoes an unprecedented climate change, once

solid ice shelves have melted away leaving many floundering on what
was once solid ground. Mainline Reformed denominations like the
PCUSA and the UCC have already been heavily influenced by secular
culture. Pastor Leithart and his colleagues may be able to hold the
line of theological orthodoxy for this generation and the next, but how
certain can they be that the generations after that will not succumb to
theological liberalism? Protestants who are seeking a more stable and
historic form of Christianity are faced with two choices: the monarchy
of Roman Catholicism or the conciliarity of Eastern Orthodoxy.

The foundations beneath the house of Protestantism have other

structural problems that we have highlighted elsewhere in this
blog. Like a weakened body losing blood, Protestant Christianity is
suffering a slow death by thousand cuts as new interpretations of
Scriptures are propagated, church splits occur over doctrinal
differences, and new denominations founded all the time. The
promise of Pentecost is understood primarily in terms of personal
experience, not within and for the entire Church. This has resulted
in a widespread historical amnesia where Protestant Christians live
their lives as if two thousand years of their Christian heritage never
happened! It has also resulted in belief in an invisible “Church” and
disbelief in a tangible visible Church. We invite Protestants to take
seriously the Apostle Paul’s descriptiion of the Church as the “pillar
and ground of truth” (I Timothy 3:15) and to consider whether that
verse might be a fitting description of the Orthodox Church.
Robert Arakaki