Baptists and Unity
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 51, No. 1 – Fall 2008
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
Edited by D.H. Williams. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. 192 pages. Softcover, $19.99.
In the second volume to be released in the Evangelical Ressourcement series, D.H. Williams introduces selections of primary texts from the first through the sixth centuries of the church. Williams, professor of religion in patristics and historical theology at Baylor University, is also the editor of the series which aims to promote a rethinking of the belief and practice of the churches in the twenty-first century and beyond by arguing for the relevancy of texts from the period of the early church.
As the title suggests, the book seeks to give the reader insight as to how the early church theologians viewed the relationship between tradition and scripture, and how the interaction of the two influenced apostolic doctrine. The primary source selections in the book are organized under nine headings which make up the nine chapters of the book. Williams’ introduction provides a foundation for the patristic selections and introduces the themes in the chapters to follow. Of the many concerns of the work three are primary: the doctrine of sola scriptura, the canon, and an allegorical or spiritual interpretation of scripture.
In the introduction, Williams argues that a study of the patristic au- thors would conclude that the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura would neither be accepted nor understood during the patristic period (16–17). While in current Protestant thought the ideas of tradition and Scripture are much aligned, the early church saw them as attestations to one truth. The tradition, located in the ancient rule of faith, baptismal confessions, both local and conciliar creeds, even poetry and hymns, served to guard against unorthodox interpretations from groups who professed to use Scripture alone in its interpretations (17).
The second area of interest in the book has to do with the canon. Beginning with the early concepts of the word “canon,” Williams argues that the thought of the canon as an authorized list of books is one that was not on the minds of the early believers (21–28). The process of agreeing on which books are Scripture was established over some time as agreement set in among the Christian community as to which books were thought to be inspired. Williams’ primary concern is that there is a false assumption that the early church was highly concerned with establishing an authorized list of books.
The last emphasis of the book has to do with the patristic use of the Bible, especially in the area of allegorical and spiritual interpretation. While Williams admits that for Protestants the tendency to allegorize Scripture is the most problematic aspect of patristic interpretation, he defends the motivation and grounds behind the approach as being driven by “an entire theological vision (summarized in the Rule or creed)” (126). This vision was based upon different senses, or divisions, of interpretation which were built into the text by God for the purpose of growth and sanctification among the saints (35, 126).
Many Protestants will feel uncomfortable about Williams’ deep ap- preciation for the role that tradition played in the formation of the canon of Scripture. To value Williams’ opinion, the reader must place himself outside of his own bias’ toward those traditions in the church that have contradicted Scripture, especially the church traditions so vigorously fought against during the Protestant Reformation. Williams’ conclusion that the early church thinkers would not use tradition to usurp the author- ity of Scripture is a historical assertion, and may be a valid one. However, a better understanding of the views and motivations of the church fathers should not lead us to minimize the value and necessity of the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura and the completeness of the canon.
Those new to the study of the fathers need be aware that there are problems with much of the allegorical interpretation that was done during the patristic era, as in this work Williams seems to dismiss the mistakes of allegorizing in his appreciation of their work. Also, Williams avoids addressing the danger of a hermeneutic that is dogmatic about seeking multiple levels of interpretations in Scripture. Still, the point is well taken that modern biblical criticism may concentrate too much on the literal/ historical reading of Scripture at the expense of seeing Scripture as “unified and interrelated composition, fitting together as a complementary whole” (35).
Williams’ work is recommended for both the student and the church leader. The comments following the selections are especially helpful for the novice and Williams includes a brief bibliography at the end of the work to facilitate further study of the early fathers. The book serves as a good introduction to the primary source texts on the topic and the brevity of the work is refreshing since the beginner can easily become overwhelmed at the amount of primary texts available from the period of the early church.
