Okay, here is my response. I will largely assume Wenkel is correct on Dickie.
he careful reader will note that Revelation 4-5 includes golden bowls full of incense. But Dickie doesn’t find the use of incense to be normative for today. Ultimately it isn’t clear which elements he views as normative for throne-room worship and which he does not
In my Bahnsen days I would win the debate around statements like this. I would question Dickie on "why not?" If you say that Revelation 4-5 is "throne room" worship and normative for today, then incense and at least icons of angels and saints are permitted (if not demanded). Wenkel is more merciful than I am.
First, ancient-future worship holds to a cloudy position on the authority of Scripture. The ancient church from which Webber draws many of his ideas dates to about AD 600.
Does he mean that Webber's ancient model begins in 600 AD (which would lessen much of its authority) or does he say that Webber's model begins in the first century and ends at 600 AD (which is Webber's actual position)?
But no clear and distinct doctrine of sola Scriptura drives Webber’s desire for reformation...Yet the question remains: is unity and reformation to take place on the basis of Scripture alone or on the basis of Scripture plus ancient tradition?
Webber is simply pointing out two things: 1) nobody interprets Scripture in a vacuum. Someone's tradition is always operating. 2) there's no such thing as a Platonic "the bible's view" interpretation. Every appeal to the bible is
already an appeal to someone's interpretation of the Bible (cf. James K. A. Smith).
But to be fair to Wenkel, he raises a good question. Why are some traditions more worthy than others? Ultimately, I don't know. But what Webber, James Smith, and David Bentley Hart are pointing out is that postmodernity has more in common with the early church and the early church already has the liturgical resources to deal with it.
Another area that lacks clarity in Webber’s book is the role of sola fide. Appropriation of the ancient worship traditions hailing from Eastern Orthodox is very important to Webber’s proposals. He argues that the solution to the worship problems of the western church can be found in the ancient eastern church and its emphasis on the narrative of creation, incarnation, and re-creation (p. 76). However, in his zeal to develop a narratological approach Webber becomes almost cavalier about the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
On a surface level this bodes ill for the apostle James. But I know what Wenkel is talking about. My first question, what is wrong with the model of "Creation, Incarnation, and Re-creation?" The reality of sin is not downplayed. It is assumed as a reality (otherwise why would you recreate anything?)
The other warnings about EO are..well..anyway. I am reading Gregory of Nyssa's defense of the Trinity. Of what should I be cautious?
One wonders how worship can truly be reformed if it lacks a foundation in the righteousness of God that comes to a person by being united to Christ through faith alone.
Given these standards, one wonders how anybody worshipped correctly until the Reformation? These kind of statements give Roman Catholics legitimate ammo to pound us with.
I am not saying Webber is above criticism. I am working on a thorough critique of Ancient-Future. I think the Constantian charge that AFW bandies about is silly (and almost always undefined).
Home
