"Post-…" Jargon.

Ordinarily I am not in favor of compound adjectives although there are times when such adjectives are almost inescapable without using either a concise but obscure adjective or many words which mean the same as a shorter compound adjective. My writing is already too convoluted to make me feels easy using the latter option (though it is a preference – being simpler). Of the compound adjectives the ones which I feel are the most annoying are those formed by adding the prefix post- to another adjective.

There are many terms which have some use and so are acceptable on utilitarian grounds. Post-natal and post meridian are so much a part of the language we hardly notice them and, besides, medical terms are also well accepted. It is the rash of jargon “post-…” adjectives which seem to have sprouted like Topsy of which I speak. We do live in a post-Reformation and post-Enlightenment era. The “post” means after and the rest of the adjective defines what has passed. We could also use post-Apostolic and post-Nicene (though to be honest post-Chalcedon might be more useful. The last two terms mean we interpret doctrine with the understanding and insights which were defined in the creeds of Nicea and Chalcedon.

That being said we should no longer expect to find lack of clarity over the Trinity or the person of Christ (his divinity and humanity). Being post-Reformation should mean we interpret soteriology, ecclesiology and several other theological disciplines with the insights gained from the 16th Century debates (whether continental or British – Catholic or Protestant). And post-Enlightenment allows us to acknowledge some insights gained by recent archeological excavations and of some literary criticism – such as the role of suzereignity treaties of the ancient Hittites in understanding aspects of Biblical interpretation.

There are, however, two terms I am less happy about. The first “post-modern” implies we are no longer living in the modern era. It is too general to make any real sense and should be replaced by some other “post-…” term like post-ArtDeco or post-BigBand, if you will, where it is clear the fashion concerned has actually past. Modern means present day so post-modern implies the present day has past – obviously incorrect. If you are wanting to say future-oriented don’t use a “post-…” term.

The other term I am opposed for the same sort of reason. It is the term “post-Christian.” In the first place it implies that there was a time which we could call the Christian era – where the whole world was Christian. Such has never been the case so to imply that such an era has past is ludicrous.
In the second place our calendars have not changed if we are to say that we are past the “Christian Era” (assuming that it is possible to think of a way the term is appropriate). We are (so I am assured) still in the year AD2010. AD means Anno Domini (“the year of our Lord”) and is a reference to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. So, unless our calendar has changed we are obviously still in the era in which Christ is Lord.
Thirdly, as a Christian, I object to Christians using this term because the Bible teaches that Jesus has ascended on high where he lives and reigns forever … theologically speaking, then, it is impossible for us ever to get to a post-Christian era unless it is possible to throw him off his throne. Since we are talking about the one “… through whom all things were made and by whom was everything made which was made,” such an event is so unlikely as to be impossible.
And finally, can you imagine trying to convince a post-modern, post-Christian inhabitant of one of our larger post-colonial cities that his post-educational interpretation of the universe was (being post-Edenic and post-diluvian sinful) that he needed to be saved so that he could, post-regeneration, become more Christlike? If he didn’t get swamped by the adjectives he would certainly wonder why we were stuck in a former era.

Historical Pastoral Theology

By the above term I am not referring to a discipline of theology which looks at pastoral theology in the light of history. I want to draw our attention to the fact that, so often, we become used to the distinctions made in systematic theology because of the debates of the past. Then we tend to use these distinctions when it comes to dealing with people in the real world. This has an unfortunate side effect. The Bible authors do not actually always follow the same distinctions we use. If we want to pattern our pastoral theology on the example (say) of the Lord or even the Apostles we need to decide how, if at all, we are going to use historically conditioned distinctions.
It has become common to think, in Reformed circles, of describing the members in the Church as either members of the visible or members of the invisible Church. The distinction is useful for understanding why some who appear to have never been “born again” should be accepted as a part of the congregation. It is based on the division Paul makes in Romans, for example, between those who are physically of Israel but not Israel according to the Promise. He gives a number of examples – Esau and Ishmael among them. In Paul’s day there were also Ananaius and Sophyra and certainly others.
But, useful though the distinction may be, when it comes to dealing with individual members of the congregation, is it necessary for us always to be checking to see if other members (or even we ourselves) are actually members of the invisible Church? Does it not, at the least, make us less concerned to have those we consider lost do what they ought to be doing about living holy lives?
In a significant passage in I Corinthians 1:2 Paul calls the members of the Church he is writing to “saints.” And, in chapter 6:9-11 of the same letter Paul shows that, though they had been sinners of many sorts, they had all been washed, sanctified and justified. They had, in short, become members of the body of Christ. And, if we accept that the “washing” refers to their baptism, that happened when they were baptized. They had, according to Paul, been baptized, sanctified (set aside for God’s use) and justified (declared free from sin’s dominion) and should now live out that reality.
This is significant when we consider what was going on in Corinth at the time. If we had to deal with members of the congregation who despised one another because of “spiritual gifts;” who claimed that one preacher was better than another and he should be followed so the Church was divided; who claimed they were holier than others because they lived a more “Biblical” life; or who were so incensed with another member they took that person to court, we might be tempted to class the whole lot as members of the visible Church but certainly not of the invisible one. Yet Paul makes no such distinction – he treats them all as truly members of the body of Christ, though sinful members.
Evangelism might seem to be the best solution to such problems. Call upon the sinful ones to repent and believe so that they might be saved and not suffer the condemnation due to them because they (obviously) were not believers. But Paul treats them as already believers and exhorts them to change lest they lose the blessings they already have in Christ. This would tend to make us look at evangelism and the Church differently. It should also have an effect on how we see the task of missions. More on these subjects later.
What has this to do with history and pastoral theology? I would contend that, occasionally, we need to re-examine our theological tools and decide if they are actually able to be used as the Bible indicates we should. That there are some who are members of the visible Church and will not make it to heaven is a reality. The reality on which the visible/invisible distinction is made. Yet, when it comes to reacting to sin in the congregation pastorally we need to treat all as equally responsible members of the congregation – we do not (after all) know for certain who is, or is not, a member of the invisible Church. The trouble is that attempting to discern who is actually born again leads to a form of legalism that was common in the Church and has its roots firmly embedded in the Judaism of Paul’s day.
I recently read a book called The Baptized Body which makes a slightly different distinction. That between the historical and eschatological body of Christ. The historical body of Christ is the Church as she appears in history and the eschatological body is that form she will have at the end of time. The writer, Peter J Leithart, makes the point that the Apostles dealt with Church members as truly a part of the body of Christ because they were made a part of him by their baptism. While not agreeing with everything in the book the point is well made. We need to treat all members of the Church as truly members of Christ by their incorporation (in baptism).
To use a different metaphor there are no second class citizens in the Kingdom of Heaven. You are either a member or you are not. You can be a faithful member or a sinful one. Either way, you are answerable to the King of the realm for the way you behave. It seems that, in this case, perhaps we should be setting aside some historical distinctions in order to be more effective in our pastoral work. After all, it is possible to see that the Reformers did the same with medieval scholarship in some areas so that a clearer grasp of the Gospel could be recovered.