Here is a forum that may be of interest to the readers of the site. The Westminster Theological Seminary Student Association is hosting an emerging church forum from Oct 26-28 discussion on this topic. Speakers will include Scot McKnight (who is a visiting prof at Biblical Theological Seminary) and John Franke (prof at Biblical Theological Seminary).
For info about the seminar, see http://wts.edu/life/emergingChurch.html
Teaching reformed theology in a PoMo world
Especially at a seminary level I would like to see a serious discussion of what in PoMo thinking is and isn’t biblical. What can be accepted as informative? How do the main insights of the leading secular PoMo thinkers contribute not just to culture at large but specifically to the christian who finds some or all of their ideas interesting?
Where if at all do we draw lines?
In the context of a reformed seminary, some thoughts on how PoMo thinking has tied in more with Libertarian roots (melded with some modern pragmatism) may be really helpful in laying a foundation for thought on questions like free will and predestination and how these have/are changing…
If they aren’t going to talk about it perhaps we should!
Live to serve : Serve to live
This forum at Westminster is first of its kind
I was surprised when I heard this forum would take place at Westmin. One of the sessions of this forum will be an inter-seminary dialogue on the emerging church and postmodernity (and its influence on theology). As you may know, Westmin is all about pre-suppositionalism while the theology profs at Biblical are more sympathetic to PoMo epistemology but not the negative aspects of it, that is, radical relativism (I know this because I go to Biblical). The bottom line is whether one recognizes that everyone come to the table with a perspective, and the discussion must begin there before the very meat of the discussion can begin.
It’s interesting to note that this forum at Westmin is sponsored by the student association. Westmin at large is still uncomfortable with the missional approach to theology.
biblical?
hello theophilus - are you talking about the biblical theological seminary in hatfield PA? i used to live down the street when my father was the director of development there. i had many a geeky semiary student over for thanksgiving as a teen in the 70s. are they really open to postmodern thought? they were always fairly cool. - although i think the macraes beat the artist out of my mother. i used to love to go to chapel and hear the men sing in that beautifully acoustic room. is dr vannoy still there? of course i am all embarassment if the seminary you speak of is some big imporatant place that i know nothing about…
www.theartofstory.blogspot.com
By the way...
At Biblical Seminary, there is serious discussion on what aspects of PoMo isn’t biblical. Being sympathetic to PoMo doesn’t mean one accepts all of that framework, but there are aspects of PoMo that does inform the way we talk and think. Accepting PoMo means you accept the fact that we live in an increasingly post-Christian/modern culture and Truth is not just accepted by people with a simple affirmation of a set of doctrines or presuppositions. If people are to be won over, Truth needs to be embodied. Accepting PoMo doesn’t mean that one have to jettison Truth altogether.
acknowledging truth
Theophilus, I’m sorry if what I said came over as negative. It is exciting and surprising to see that a conservative seminary is acknowledging the need to engage with current cultural trends.
What worries me is a tendency to accomodate a ‘token’ PoMo speaker on the agenda of conferences where the impression is given of honestly listening to those dangerously radical “other side’s views” while what is really happening is something like “see, we aren’t afraid of these guys” we let them have their say, and keep doing what we have been doing quite successfully, thank you, for the last 50 odd years.
I hope you get to attend and I do hope and pray that a lot of useful and eye-opening interaction does in fact take place!
Live to serve : Serve to live
PoMo
samlcarr, I didn’t read your post as a negative comment. I was just commenting on the trajectory of theological thought that’s taking place. Usually when the word “postmodernism” is used, people always view it as a negative. I was just clarifying some terms for the sake of other readers who may not be tracking with the current discussion.
PoMo and the bible
Postmodernism offers a way for people to connect with the stories and truth of the bible even when they are unable, because of intellectual skepticism, modern scholarship (biblical as well as scientific, etc) to accept a literal, top down interpretation of some aspects of scripture. When propositional truths and creeds cannot be believed wholeheartedly, stories can be entered into, bringing alive in our hearts the Jesus we all long for somewhere in our souls.
Story-telling communities
I think that in practice this is certainly the case, but I would suggest a couple of further thoughts, both having to do with how these uncertainties work themselves out in community.
First, within communities (such as this one) the truth nature of biblical stories and statements may remain under negotiation - I think we owe it to each other, wherever we locate ourselves on the belief scale, to keep the conversation going, asking questions, testing answers which may be either disturbingly literal or disconcertingly demythicizing. The sceptics should search much harder for a literal truth (‘literal truth’ is a far too simplistic expression), and the die-hard literalists of whatever complexion should loosen their collars and breathe a bit more slowly (I have this conversation in mind).
Secondly, there has been some great discussion in recent days about story-telling, and I would like to explore the implications of seeing the church as a story-telling community - groups of people who have come together specifically for the purpose of telling or enacting a story about a God who loves his creation, or something like that. If it is primarily the community that tells the story, if it is the collective voice that matters, it doesn’t matter so much whether all those who make up the community see it in quite the same way. The point is that they have agreed to be part of a community that tells this particular story rather than some other. It is the story that makes sense of things, holds it all together.
a story-telling community
i tell you i would dig the church as a storytelling community. especially if the leadership then was like a great facilitator rather than a mini-god, portioned out with the power to instruct us all on how we ought to think.
leadership is needed in any group setting - but as a servant of the commune, not as its head. the best writing groups (made of people who are dedicated to the reading, writing and telling of stories) are ones in which the facilitator protects the offerings of each member - encouraging each storyteller forward no matter how new or accomplished in the craft - and holds at bay the pride that comes with skill. i have encountered very few writing groups like this and even fewer christian communities.
truth in faith - like actually writing good stories - requires some knowledge, some skill and some dedication to craft -and so the communities that engage in these matters have a real goal in mind, not just some sort of “oh whatever you think.” ive been to horrid writers groups where nothing was empowered to grow nor was anything cast aside as unfruitful in the name of “acceptance.”
yet even in the shared press to excellent stories, there is style and tone and taste to take into account - just see the large number of novels in circulation at any given time. but even though there are as many opinions as… well you know how it goes, if you are attending a writer’s group, you must in some way, desire to write. in this way you have a shared intention with the community. if only we could approach church as this - that we each, in some way, desire god. then the focus will be on what we have in common - be it stories or faith - rather than what we differ on - flash fiction, novels, memoirs or catholic, reformed, emerged.
carry on andrew. i’m in.
www.theartofstory.blogspot.com
disconnect
Andrew, the apparently complete disconnect in conversations that we are seeing in the blogworld, especially with our more conservative American Evangelical brothers and sisters can be disheartening. A valliant attempt to break through nonetheless. It must also feel strange to have ec generally labeled as on the slippery outer fringes of evangelicalism…
Live to serve : Serve to live
disconnect: part two
from the bard: “the lady doth protest too much methinks.” it seems those with self-proclaimed infallible certianty would have the least to lose in a conversation about what and how we think. what’s all the fuss?
i dislike clinging to the old because it has always been, as much as i dislike doing something new just to be nouveau. neither serves the community. but i am puzzled by how a conversation about god and faith and scripture and story and culture could be bad.
but may we refrain from the poison of making fun of the theology or practice of others - this would most certainly destroy denmark.
concern and/or fear
A quick look at the last couple of centuries in theology does give conservatives the goosebumps. The slide into liberalism, existentialism and finally scepticism has done a lot of damage to the witness of the church.
I would hope that the evangelical community is more worried about a similar slide taking place once the edges get blurry. One would hope that concern for their fellow believers’ souls is what predominates.
For some of our interlocutors, there is also a (perhaps healthy) fear of the unknown. There is a sense that they feel that God (and more particularly the bible) may be denigrated by our questioning of things that God has already made plain. That concern is exacerbated by the idea that the questioners (we) may try to make the God of the bible equal to any other god, in a silly attempt at fairness and openmindedness.
But, if all of that were so, one would expect that they would be eager for dialogue, eager to talk, share and advise rather than standing back and acting as though the faintest whiff could contaminate.
For evangelicals there are only two real options. Either we are all one in one body and so fellowship is mandatory, or some of us have slid right out, in which case we (the slidden) should be a part of the mission field. In either case one would expect that engaging in conversation would be one of the fundamental necessities!
Live to serve : Serve to live
emerging INTO what?
and too…i can recall a day when i myself felt the need to “protect” god and scripture from scrutiny, false teaching and the manipulation of men. i just didnt realize how much of that had already gone on - while god and scripture had managed just fine!
for as much as i doubt - i am grateful for this grand (inborn?) capacity to comprehend god as (in the words of will ferrell in “elf”) GINORMOUS! if he is the god we say he is - creator, redeemer, king - then must we really worry? is there real concern that god himself might become irrelevant, obscured, forgotten? and by the very ones desiring to make sure we see god and not our image of him?
what do i want to emerge into? far less heady than many of the needed conversations on this site i am sure - but at the moment these spring to mind:
1) a people of god who value search and doubt as part of the practice of faith
2) a climate of conversation where leaders work as facilitator/servants rather than kings
3) stories - yours, mine those from other times and across the globe - to capture my heart and remind me of miraculous things unseen, stories that offer hope, reveal love, and spur me on to beautiful action outside my natural inclination
danger! doubts ahead
The tone in conservative responses is often both abrupt and patronising. I have been trying to figure that one out. One possibility is the very nature of the blogosphere where censorship is difficult and where whatever is expressed is open to all.
One possible assumption behind it (I may be dead wrong here) is that ordinary believers are thought of as sheep. They must be fed only the undoubtable truth. They need to be led to the pasture and then back into the fold. To leave them unattended can be dangerous because they have insufficient knowledge, or wisdom, or faith, to handle whatever that nasty world and its master satan may throw at them.
witness this edited snippet* from Theoblogy (Tony Jones)
I said…First, thanks Tony for an insightful post. The less engagement there is between the conservatives and the moderates, the worse for all. Secondly, I for one, would welcome conversations with anyone in the body, Arminian, Calvinist, emerging, Charismatic, Catholic, conservative, liberal or undecided…The diversity in the ecclesia has always been there. Let’s work together to build fellowship and be missional and witness together in obedience to our Lord
Andy said…Fellowship as defined in Scripture is relationship(s) with others who are one in faith. That is they are born again. There is no other form of biblical fellowship found in the Word. Conversations for the sake of having conversations are dead-end streets unless those conversations are with individuals regenerated by the Holy Spirit who are obedient to Jesus Christ and His teachings.
I said…Thanks Andy, guess I’ll be talking to you soon! Since you don’t know whether God has saved me and vice versa, your qualification makes no sense (as in non sense) of the word fellowship and without having a conversation how would you know? Conversation is the beginning of fellowship…
Richard said…Amen Sam! I’m all for conversations and fellowship but not with the followers of the Emergent Church of the Great Deception…(my emphasis)
And that’s mild compared to what Andrew participated in!
So, how do we break through these sorts of barriers? One thing that may help is if forums and seminars such as the one at Westminster became much more common. I think, though, that given that the evangelicals as individuals prefer to be led, if there is to be a real thaw it has to first come visibly from the leadership.
*
I actually forgot to ask Tony’s permission, and got round to it only after posting. Thankfully, he was gracious enough to grant the request!Live to serve : Serve to live
Relationships as the foundation for dialogue with conservatives
Many of us have heard of “relational evangelism,” and while I object to the term because I think it has connotations of turning people into projects, we can find some lessons from this concept for interacting with more conservative brothers and sisters. Now matter how afraid or entrenched a person is in their position, at some level they are a human being like you. Like me. Because really conservative people tend to see different viewpoints as “of the devil,” they tend to demonize they messenger. But it’s harder to demonize someone you know and love. The blogosphere is a fairly inflammatory environment when it comes to interchanges between opposing viewpoints, and may not be the best context for engaging people who normally think in terms of us versus them diatribes. But building a relationship with the guy at work who goes to a conservative church and his two kids and a wife who’s putting on the pressure to make more money and spend more time at home — this is a person, someone you can build a relationship based on being human beings. You can offer to pray for the guy, without getting into theology. And maybe later, when there’s a foundation of friendship, the guard will come down enough to allow for respectful sharing and the ability to “agree to disagree” on some things while building common ground and maintaining the human connection.
hard and harsh
You may be right QuirkyGrace, certainly one-on-one and in-person is the best way to build relationships!
I am not yet willing to give up on the blogosphere though. The medium has severe limitations. The sense that an audience is watching can make us more apt to talk/act smart and be stubborn, but that is a two-edged sword. There comes a time in a discussion when graceful surrender is the only option to looking surly!
Yet, winning arguements would be the easy and more unproductive approach. It is also not the way of the kingdom.
Loving, consistent, personal commenting may work.
During that exchange, I wondered, too late, whether I should not have repeatedly said “I believe in Jesus. Jesus is my Lord and Saviour!”. I will definitely try the confessional route the next time around as there is an assumption that being emerging means denying the scriptures, denying God’s sovereignty, denying the atonement etc.
There may just be a lesson in there somewhere, that I should never assume that the other person is giving me the benefit of the doubt.
Live to serve : Serve to live