It was recently revealed in a Christianity Today article that Philip Yancey is “retiring from writing, speaking, and social media,” after having “disqualified [him]self from Christian ministry” on account of an eight-year extra-marital affair. As is the case with the exposure of any moral failures from a Christian, we should mourn the sin, seek justice and accountability, and pray for the transgressors and victims alike. In this case, we must pray for Philip Yancey, Janet Yancey, the woman in whom he engaged in this affair with, and the many who are impacted by this sin.
In the wake of moral failure for theologians and writers in particular, a natural question may arise: how are we to think about their body of work now? Should we avoid it, as if it is all tainted by sin? Or continue to use it as if nothing has happened? In particular, are these works problematic to begin with, if their author has committed grave sin? In sum, we need to contemplate the nature of theology and its relationship to sinful writers.
Gregory of Nazianzus on the Prerequisites to Writing Theology
In some ways, writing theology is like writing in any other discipline; one gathers knowledge, employs evidence, and makes arguments in defense of a thesis. In this, the merit of a work is in its cogency and insights into the subject, with little relationship to an author’s wrongdoing outside of research. Few, for example, would question the veracity of a historian’s research on medieval China, even if they have several DUI convictions. In this light, we might think there is nothing wrong with Yancey’s writings, even if he was engaged in severe sin. But in other ways, theology is unique, especially if we use a historical understanding of its nature.
We might glean insights from Gregory of Nazianzus, here, the fourth century bishop and theologian from Cappadocia. His most direct discussion of the nature of theology is in his Oration 27, the first of his famous five theological Orations (though, he wrote many more than 5!). These polemical homilies were delivered in Constantinople amidst the controversy with Eunomius and his followers over trinitarian theology, likely in the time leading up to the ecumenical council of Constantinople in 381. Gregory critiques Eunomius’ theological framework in Oration 28-31 (for discussion of Eunomius theology, see: Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution; Eunomius: The Extant Works), but devotes Oration 27 to his opponents’ poor employment of theology. Apparently, Eunomius and his followers are obsessed with “setting and solving conundrums” (Gregory, Oration 27.2), rather than gazing at the mystery of God. Further, they seek their own glory and thus discuss theology all the time, regardless of context: “Every square in the city has to buzz their arguments, every party must be made tedious by their boring nonsense. No feast, no funeral is free from them” (Gregory, Oration 27.2). Finally, they are quick to employ the uninitiated to their cause, “to mold other people into holiness overnight, appoint them theologians, and as it were, breathe learning into them, and thus produce ready-made any number of Councils of ignorant intellectuals” (Gregory, Oration 27.9). In sum, it is not that they are making poor arguments or do not know the content of dogmatics, but they have a poor understanding of the task before them.
According to Gregory, proper theology requires both knowledge of the subject and purification. Theology is for “those who have been tested and have found a sound footing in study, and, more importantly, have undergone, or at the very least are undergoing, purification of body and soul” (Gregory, Oration 27.3). There is an acknowledgment, here, that one must learn a particular body of knowledge to read and write theology well—that ‘is a sound footing in study’. However, while one can learn the intellectual content and arguments of theology like other disciplines, true contemplation of God requires something unique: regeneration. Sin mars the mind and distorts proper understanding of God, and thus no person can come to true knowledge of God without grace. As Christopher Beeley notes, “The knowledge of God is therefore not something that can be acquired or taught irrespective of one’s moral and spiritual condition; it belongs only to those who have undergone the costly process of transformation that Gregory calls purification” (Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and Knowledge of God, 68).
In this, the prerequisite to dogmatics is the revelation of Christ extended through salvation, effected in the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer, and worked out in spiritual discipline. As theology is inquiry into God himself and “no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matthew 11:27), theological knowledge requires the gift of grace and the cooperation of the believer. The contemporary dogmatic theologian, John Webster, encapsulates this idea: “Christian theology is a work of created intelligence in the domain of the abundant grace of Christ; under the impress of divine instruction, chastening and sanctification,” and thus, “theological intelligence is inseparable from ascetic and moral formation” (Webster, God Without Measure: Vol II, 159, 161). Consequently, if theology requires moral formation and sanctification, a life of sin problematizes the merit of a theologian’s work. According to Gregory, Yancey’s writings surely miss the truth in light of his transgression.
Sanctification and Sin
There is a potential complication with Gregory’s argument though, in that no human being is free from sin: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). If theology is to contemplate God, we will all do so inadequately and incompletely, even if the Holy Spirit is working in us in sanctification. So, can anyone do theology properly? For Gregory, at least, theology can still be done well, though with much fear and humility. In particular, the role of virtue is central here:
Do we commend hospitality? Do we admire brotherly love, wifely affection, virginity, feeding the poor, singing psalms, nightlong vigils, penitence? Do we mortify the body with fasting? Do we through prayer, take up our abode with God? Do we subordinate the inferior element in us to the better—I mean, the dust to the spirit, as we should if we have returned the right verdict on the alloy of the two which is our nature? (Gregory, Oration 27.7)
In asking these questions, Gregory is encouraging the theologian to probe into their desires and their actions. In this, a theologian is foremost marked by the activities associated with the fruits of the Spirit, rather than their writing. To “to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.” (Ephesians 4:22-24). Theology is not to write about God perfectly, but to pursue and contemplate God in humility and love. One does not have to be sinless to do theology well– but one must be growing in humility and love, displaying virtue rather than vice.
What’s So Amazing About Grace?
I cannot claim to know Yancey personally or be overly acquainted with his work or theology. I do know that many people have found comfort, clarity, and spiritual edification in his writings. So, what do we do with them now? I do not have any easy answers. Importantly, sin certainly distorts the truth in his writings. Even if some readers have found his writings provide helpful categories and conceptions in our understanding of God, faith, and the Christian walk, theological writings coming out of vice rather than virtue cannot help but be marked by sin. And this is not a single bump in the road: eight years is a long time to be involved in this sort of grievous sin—his last five books were published while he was having an affair. Certainly, for these last five books, if not for all his work, readers should use caution and discernment if they choose to engage.
But as Gregory of Nazianzus reminds us, the work of all theologians should be approached with caution and discernment, especially as all theology is incomplete and to some degree distorted.
“But of God himself the knowledge we shall have in this life will be little, though soon after it will perhaps be more perfect, in the same Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen” (Gregory, Oration 27.10).
Ultimately, God can teach in any way He chooses, but he certainly invites that we listen to teachers who know and follow his heart rather than live a vicious life. Just because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) does not mean that we should promote the worst sinners to our greatest spiritual authorities! Yancey has, indeed, disqualified himself from Christian ministry, as is consistent with biblical and early Christian church discipline (which I have written about previously), and his works should be viewed accordingly. But finally, it’s worth noting here that while the past 8 years have been a failure in virtue, Yancey seems to be choosing virtue now in a way that others in his position have sometimes not: he has willingly stepped away from ministry and writing. He has, at least as of now, seemed to be pursue repentance and seek rehabilitation. And while we have no clear answer as to how to read Yancey’s works, we do know this: God’s grace provides forgiveness to those who repent and turn to Him.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In