 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > A New Kind of Christian | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/2/2005 10:24 AM (GMT -6) |   |
sparknheart said...
Laika said...
TGB said...Let's PARTY! Tom
The first thing you should load on the truck should be the beer, thus it will be the LAST thing we unload.
A word to the wise is sufficient. 
Next, load the chairs. 
LOL, and any fragile objects he may just want to leave behind.
 
 | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/3/2005 4:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey: So back to Jeff's question to me to articulate my understanding of "modernism". After reflecting a while, here's my distillation (speaking of beer  ): modernism is a bias against bias. It holds objectivity and certainty as an ideal attainable by rational means. It's sharpest contrast with medievalism is in it's view of tradition (which it views as bias), especially traditions of authority.
By way of analogy, it's as if the dependant and submissive child of earlier years now undergoes a sort of rebellious adolescence and naively feels quite competent to take on the world on its own.
Jeff: I would think Christians should oppose bias also. But it is truly naive to think that we can gain all the answers overnight, even when pursuing with as little bias as we can. That's why I think the point about resistance to rash systematization is on the money. I haven't had a chance to read the link you posted last. I'll try to get to it this weekend.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/4/2005 9:15 PM (GMT -6) | | | From what I've read on McLaren's site (can't remember what it is), he is very community-faith oriented. Jettisoned are the biblical concepts of sin, damnation, hell and traditional—read, perhaps as old fashioned or out of style—conservative closed-quartered salvific doctrine. In place of these are loving community-action and community-respect.
This trend of Christianity has risen among many in concomittance with—if not as a result, and because, of—postmodernism. It isn't that McLaren is postmodern, rather, his theology is post conservative. He lives his Christianity not by concentrating on absolute and/or objective truth, of sin, of eternal loss or traditional "orthodox" Christian doctrine, but by centering his thinking on and living within the sphere of loving and community unity. It is felt that this approach offers, for both Christian and community, what the old school cannot offer; a contextualized gospel for the postemodern mind.
The driving force behind McLaren's theology is postmodernism. Again, not that McLaren is a postmodern, but his theology is formed in this context and is, thus, a contextualization for postmodernism. For example, the milue today is that there is no objective, absolute truth to be found (not, anyway, that can determine one's spirituality). Hence, we are all able to find peace. People not only need freedom of religion but respect for their beliefs as being equally valid as the next person's. They need respect and consideration, because it is evident people generally want the same thing: peace, love, and harmony. They all just go about obtaining it differently from another. Instead of preaching the "full gospel," as a conservative would call it (Ray Comfort style, say, for example), McLaren would much rather let the fullness of community action and love lead the way. In this thinking,the concentration is on loving and being of community-actioned people that defines the gospel. The gospel, it is believed, is best seen in the eyes of the postmodern by those who both jettison the old and live out the new.
McLaren has not adopted this (postmodernism), but he has contexualized his theology within it, and done so in a manner that has become the theological trend among many who are not liberal in the modernistic sense, but liberal in the evangelical sense...post-conservativism. Many theologins today adopt a contextualized postmodern theology because they see no fruit from the old (hard)-line ways in a world that seems no longer convicted by the preaching and teaching of the old teachers. So the post-conservativist theologin jettisons the style and manner, though he may still hold in his heart the beliefs of the old way. He, however, lives out his theology in a postmodern community context: he preaches and teaches the love of God, the love of Christ, the freedom from oppression found in God, the opportunity to be at peace with one's self and with others. There is no need (indeed it is unproductive) to consider issues such as the inerrancy and veracity of the Bible, to determine absolute and/or objective truth, to sustain a systematized theology, to hold to the doctrine of eternal loss and torment of the soul, to follow in the practicum of old-line traditional conservative "religiosity," to emphasis living holy (not that immorality is acceptable) or to concern one's self about the issue of homosexuality as being a sin (rather, just love these folk and let God take care of them).
The climate today is that truth is not jettisoned for the postmodern (as it is often said it is), but that it is not seen as tightly packed, as certain and as clear cut as the conservative evangelical has, for many years, said it is. In the earlier days of this board, the conversations flamed over these issues between the conservatives and the post-conservatives, precisly because the post-conservatives feel that the presentation of the answers to man's dilemmas are best contextualized in demonstration of what I've descrived above. Truth isn't so clear cut, particularly in the Bible, so why force a plastic apodictic boxed up and tightly wrapped answer-to-everything gospel upon both the Christian and non-Christian?
Personally, I have come to respect to the need for a bigger and broader perspective of scripture than what the traditional evangelical has delievered. The truths of the Bible are not truths that are always clear cut, settled or as plain and simple as we might like them to be. I think a more opened mind is critical, not just for contextualizing the gospel to today's postmodern, but to draw closer to the very thing the conservative evangelical has tried to offer: truth. For instance, I have found that I can no longer hold to the concept of biblical inerrancy. Neither can I find any sense anymore in a literal six-day creation. But in letting go of these theologies in the context of traditional orthodoxy, I have only done so in order to draw closer to what the Bible is really all about, as I see it; not to be a book that has absolute sound and modern scientific knowledge in all areas of the scientific, but a book that is theologically inerrant. I have, in other words, found what sharpens my understaning of what God's word is: inerrant it its theology, as much as the God who gave it is inerrant, and not inerrancy in the process of how we obtained the theology. What the post-conservative has to be careful of, however, is to not let go of the baby when the bathwater drains. There is still a holy God behind the scenes. There is still a Holy Spirit who is easily offended. There is still a purpose for systematic theology, for tradition, for eschewing evil. If the post-conservative can maintain a level of respect for the valuable assets of the old line while not being held in bondage to its rigidity, there is much to be gained for the Christian.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/4/2005 10:08 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Keith: But in letting go of these theologies in the context of traditional orthodoxy, I have only done so in order to draw closer to what the Bible is really all about, as I see it
Jeff: As I understand the article I read, post-modernists are troubled by certainty about normative issues because of the tendency of that certainty to result in abuse. Unless the bible is really about a way of life that gives no offence to anyone at anytime, I don't see how you or any other christian can meet the demands of post-modernism. For then, there is no reason for anyone to change, including ourselves - we can all just be ourselves. As you said: "People not only need freedom of religion but respect for their beliefs as being equally valid as the next person's."
I don't believe in a God who punishes people whose beliefs and practices are as valid as the next person's. And I think it's wrong to pretend that I do. And unless I want to deny any future punishment at all, that's what I would have to do to accomodate the consistent post-modernists, as I understand them. Am I missing something? Do you believe the conservative biblical view is equally valid as your view? If so, what's the fuss about?
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 6/4/2005 10:17:26 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/5/2005 12:16 PM (GMT -6) | | |
per Brian McLaren:
5. Moral or ethical judgments – The situation becomes even more complex when our statements are judgments about moral or ethical behavior. Even for those of use who claim to know God and have faith in the Bible: we need to look back over our own history and realize that just as there are disastrous consequences to claiming there is no such thing as legitimate moral judgment, there are also disastrous consequences to claiming that we have unquestionably legitimate moral judgment. Our ancestors judged slavery as morally justified, and brought in scripture to enforce their point; we now judge slavery wrong, also using scripture. Are we so naïve to think that all our judgments are finally right, just because we quote the Bible?
Jeff: So how does a post-conservative Christian think about Lincoln's war? Do they say it was morally just to kill a hundred or more thousand people, many of whom professed belief in Christ, since most slavery ended up being voted down by Southerners in the 13th amendment? Or do they say that we should not be so dogmatic in our judgements as to think we should kill people over such issues as slavery since slavery is not unequivocally condemned in script ure? If the latter, would they deem that mass killing as mass murder by those Christians of the North that fought against the South?
wjs Post Edited (jefscott) : 6/5/2005 12:19:43 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/5/2005 9:44 PM (GMT -6) | |
Jeff: As I understand the article I read, post-modernists are troubled by certainty about normative issues because of the tendency of that certainty to result in abuse. Unless the bible is really about a way of life that gives no offence to anyone at anytime, I don't see how you or any other christian can meet the demands of post-modernism. For then, there is no reason for anyone to change, including ourselves - we can all just be ourselves. As you said: "People not only need freedom of religion but respect for their beliefs as being equally valid as the next person's."
I don't believe in a God who punishes people whose beliefs and practices are as valid as the next person's. And I think it's wrong to pretend that I do. And unless I want to deny any future punishment at all, that's what I would have to do to accomodate the consistent post-modernists, as I understand them. Am I missing something? Do you believe the conservative biblical view is equally valid as your view? If so, what's the fuss about?
Hey Jeff,
Let me more clear here about my own position. I am post-conservate in many issues within my Christian theology; however, what I have tried not to do is become traditionally liberal at the same time. As I noted in my examples in my previous post, I no longer hold to the six-day creation theory. What I still believe, however, is that God created the world. I hold the account of creation to be something far more theological than scientific information. Put simply, I do not feel that God was saying, "Ok, here's how I did it. Pay close attention, and never mind all the scientific and geological evidence that will surface to seemingly contradict what I'm about to tell you." I think, were we to sit down with God and talk with Him about the creation account, we would find that the issue was really one of critical theological importance, not scientific information.
I believe in the Bible as the inspired word of God, but I do not hold to this in the typical (traditional) conservative evangelical sense. I feel that God inspired His word and did so through the use of humans, and that He was far more interested in the theology than the concept of a perfect, non-cultural consideration of the times in which it was written. In other words, every word of the autographs simply does not have to be perfect in every way in order for divine inspiration to have directed the composition.
Further, I hold to the Bible as inerrant, but, again, not in its traditionally accepted view. God's word is, by all means, inerrant; not in it's grammatical and scientific areas, but in its theology. Again, simply put, God did not have to have "perfect" autographs to get the point across.
I still hold to a God who calls sin for what it is, who judges sin, who expects holiness from His children, who will judge all mankind one day, who has given us truth; absolute in some cases, objective in others and subjective in the rest. This means not everything is worked out and clear cut, but we have enough to work with and live holy and righteously before all men.
Finally, I do not cater my theology for post-moderns, neither do I believe pluralistically in order to accomdate everyone's veiws. That's relativism, and that doesn't work, simply because God has spoken. My point of my first post was that I am somewhat post-conservative in my theology, but I am not post-modern. McLaren, however (from what I can remember of my readings of his works) is too close to edge for me. He has tossed out too much of the baby with the bathwater and consequently ends up with a gospel that is only half what it should be. But, I confess, I am unable, without going back to his site and re-reading, to give specific details. My apologies.
As to issues such as slavery, I, personally, hardly believe that were Jesus to take a walk with us down the streets of a place where slavery is practiced (not bondservancy, but slavery), He'd condone it. One doesn't need a scriptural passage to believe this. It is never God's final intentions to condone slavery as an indigenous attribute of humanitarian living. It's almost ludicrous, in my opinion, to counter in defense of an argument from silence; because the scriptures don't come out and say "Slavery is wrong," we should, therefore, think that it just might be ok. That is where we toss the baby out with the bathwater. Well, that's another subject, isn't it.
Anyway, I hope that clears up a bit of the mud I left in my last post.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us?Post Edited (Starkman) : 6/6/2005 6:59:01 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/6/2005 5:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Keith: As to issues such as slavery, I, personally, hardly believe that were Jesus to take a walk with us down the streets of a place where slavery is practiced (not bondservancy, but slavery), He'd condone it. One doesn't need a scriptural passage to believe this. It is never God's final intentions to condone slavery as an indigenous attribute of humanitarian living.
Jeff: Yes, it is true that it is not God's FINAL intention for people to be slaves in any form or fashion. For it was not God's FINAL intention that there be a Fall in the first place. But given the Fall, there are all kinds of things that ARE God's intent (like the government bearing the sword) that are not His FINAL intent, wouldn't you say. For it is not God's intent that people commit capital crimes in the first place.
Keith: It's almost ludicrous, in my opinion, to counter in defense of an argument from silence; because the scriptures don't come out and say "Slavery is wrong," we should, therefore, think that it just might be ok. That is where we toss the baby out with the bathwater.
Jeff: But scripture isn't silent on slavery. It tells how to do it appropriately, even in the NT. That seems like the opposite of absolute condemnation. Moreover, Moses' Law explicitly allowed the Israelites to have gentile slaves unto perpetuity. I.e., they could give them to their children as inheritance. I have no reason to believe off the top of my head that the Roman empire of NT times was any different. So unless there is something in the original languages that clarifies the issue of bond-servant vs. what you call indigenous slaves, I could see how the Southerners could think there was nothing intrinsically immoral about slavery as they practiced it. (Note, I personally would not own a slave unless I thought by doing so I was saving him/her from an even less desirable fate. But that doesn't prove that slavery is intrinsically wrong. That's just me being me. Who am I to judge another man's servant unless that man [i.e., Christ] has spoken clear enough on the matter [Rom. 14].)
So back to the original question. If post-modernists are concerned with absolute certainty because of it's tendency to lead to atrocities, what would a guy like McLaren make of Lincoln's war. That war was bloody beyond belief, and it is justified to this day because it at least facilitated the end of slavery. Would the post-conservative christian, McLaren, who so identifies with the post-modern concern, sanction that horrific war because it facilitated the end of slavery? And if so, how, as a christian, can he have such a degree of certainty about the supposed utter depravity of slavery to justify the killing of hundreds of thousands with all of the rape and plunder that went along with it? It is questions like these that I would like answered by these guys. It is cases like these where their epistemology confronts the real world.
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 6/6/2005 9:22:58 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/6/2005 11:51 PM (GMT -6) | | | Hey Corey,
COREY: I'd really like to understand specifically what you have in mind when you say, "He has tossed out too much of the baby with the bathwater and consequently ends up with a gospel that is only half what it should be."
STARKMAN: Well, I suppose I should have been a bit more careful in my wording. It isn't so much a half-gospel with which McLaren leaves us, it is more indirect lipservice to orthodox Christianity but with little of it lived out in this very context. It'd be one thing if working out his salvation left a different flavor in his theology than the next guy (that's normal), but he never seems to get there. Go read his descriptions about postmodernism, about theology and about what the traditional conservative considers orthodox Christianity. There's hardly any substance with regard to these issues in his works or in the works he sites i agreement with him.
Ok, for instance, I just re-read Dr. David Mills's rebuttal to D.A. Carson's book about the emerging church. I finished and said to myself, "What the hek has Dr. Mills accomplished? He's accused Carson of all kinds of fallacies and misrepresentations, but he hardly ever even engaged the issues Carson addresses. It's that same, "What do you mean? We don't believe that, and we certainly DO believe what you say we do not." Yet...what the hek is it that they (these emerging church theologins believe?) There's no taste, texture or substance to their bread. It's just not there. It's a lot of Mr.-Nice-Guy, loving community, people helping people, sharing the gospel (whatever the gosple is to them) and yet saying really...nothing. It's like they aren't saying that traditional conservativism is wrong, but neither are they adhering to it. I mean, what ARE they adhering to? Tell us what you do believe.
McLaren rebutted Chuck Colson's claims about post-modernists. McLaren says that no postmodern he knows denies absolute truth, this, that and the other claims that Chuck Colson said post-moderns believe. What McLaren fails to realize is that the general joe post-modern isn't an intellect. He/She (from now on "he") hasn't thought it through philosophically to come up with a declaration about absolute truth. But how they live screams it out that there are few absolute truths. If they DID believe there were absolutes, we wouldn't see the tremendous jettison of ethics, morality and judgement (ability to judge) in the words and lifestyles of so many people. People would care about being moral, about defining right from wrong. Oh, you here, "That's not right" a lot of times from these folk, but you don't hear it in the context of absolute truth or morality. It's simply someone's opinion.
For instance, a twenty-one year old gal I work with feels that homosexuality is not a sin and that there is nothing wrong with it. She has friends who are homosexuals (though she is not herself one), and she can't see how on earth anyone could tell these nice people that they are living a lifestyle that is wrong. She doesn't hold to a lot of ethical values as either absolutes or as morals. Yet, she's a loving mother to her very young children and a committed wife to her husband. Does she believe in being faithful to him? Of course she does. Has she thought this through as to it being an objective or absolute truth that one should do as a married woman? No. And neither has she thought about much else she believes. When I questioned her about her beliefs about homosexual, she got immediately defensive when I asked, "Well, who's morals are we to live by if we can't come to some agreement about what is right and wrong?" "You believe the way you do, and I believe the way I do," she said to me. THAT is experiential relativism; she doesn't know why she believes what she does, but this is what her experience tells her is true. THAT is where one heads toward when there is no sense of, or seeking for, absolute truth or moral as a guidance for living. The postmodern intellectual, who has given thought to these things and has decidedly jettisoned modernism, would come to the table with a much more refined relativistic explanation as to why homosexuality is ok. It's the same thing, though, as what my co-worker believes. She just couldn't articulate it. That's all. Read Greg Koukl's stuff at Stand To Reason. His radio shows are also filled with people calling in who are postmodern and relativist to the tee. They just don't know it as that because they haven't thought through what they believe.)
Postmodernism, when all is said and done, is the living out of the belief that the world (or many parts of it, at least) has come into a climate that feels there is a better way to live in peace and harmony with each than by propositional, absolute, objective or moral truths. Most post-moderns do not deny there is truth; they just deny, in their lifestyles and in their beliefs (particularly the intellectuals) that these are criteria for finding the meaning of life. Reading McLaren's stuff leaves me asking "Ok, so what are you saying?" He stripps the fulness of traditional conservative Christianity to a skeleton and fails to put any other flesh and blood on it, at the same time denying that much of what the evangelical Christian sees as postmodernism is wrongly misrepresented. Well, dude, then spill it out and get to the point. What the hek is it and how are you contextualizing the gospel in order to engage it?
Read McLaren's letter to Colson. It says nothing. Only things like, "Well, shouldn't you apply the same logic to your thinking," etc. I mean, that gets old. Engage the issues and make something of a biblical case for your purpose. But he doesn't.
Finally, I want to stress that it isn't that the everyday joe postmodern or relativist knows what the hek he's doing. He doesn't. All he knows is a world where it seems to be more and more a free-for-all. Every man for himself. What preserves this attitude from going into full-blown barbarianism is that there is still the image of God in man, thank God. There is still the conscience and the residual of morality and ethics that lay subjacent to the relativistic surface. It isn't that McLaren is wrong, it is that he is only half way there. scripture is very solid about sin, about man's opposition against God, about man being rebellious, blashphemous and being an enemy of God. scripture is clear that the wrath of God abides on the one who will not repent. scripture is also clear that God so anxiously desires for all men to repent and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Further, scripture is clear that God has love the world so much that He has sent us a Savior. These things are important, but I see very little, if any of this, in McLaren's works. What else is there if this gospel message is left out? Love? Hope? Community action? Well, I guess that's the idea, but there's already a lot of good people out there doing good things for others and living very community-oriented lives. What's McLaren got that they don't have?
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us?Post Edited (Starkman) : 6/7/2005 12:10:19 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/6/2005 11:52 PM (GMT -6) | | | Jeff: But scripture isn't silent on slavery. It tells how to do it appropriately, even in the NT.
Where's this in the N.T? The last thing I think God was interested in doing in N.T times was to require that Christians everywhere demand that slavery end. Can you imagine the war and endless lives that would have cost? Rather, God used time, good judgment and certain influentials to eventually bring about the demise of slavery as the noble or humanitarian thing to do to others. But I can't think of anything in the N.T. that either condones or teaches an appropriate manner of slavery.
Jeff: Would the post-conservative christian, McLaren, who so identifies with the post-modern concern, sanction that horrific war because it facilitated the end of slavery? And if so, how, as a christian, can he have such a degree of certainty about the supposed utter depravity of slavery to justify the killing of hundreds of thousands with all of the rape and plunder that went along with it? It is questions like these that I would like answered by these guys. It is cases like these where their epistemology confronts the real world.
Here, here! The gospel in McLaren's court is so liquidated (despite all the attempts to defend claims against what postmodernism is) that the substance spongy (spongie, spongee...however you spell it) rubber.
Starkma
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us?Post Edited (Starkman) : 6/6/2005 11:58:58 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/7/2005 5:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Keith: Where's this in the N.T? The last thing I think God was interested in doing in N.T times was to require that Christians everywhere demand that slavery end.
Jeff: In Ephesians and Colossians, Paul tells masters what to do and not to do with their slaves. Colossians 4:1 even uses the word "just." Now granted, this might imply a kind of servant different than the slaves of perpetuity in the OT, but I don't know how to prove that. And I'm curious as to whether McLaren can prove it with any degree of certitude.
Keith: Can you imagine the war and endless lives that would have cost?
Jeff: Yeah, like Lincoln's war!
Keith: Rather, God used time, good judgment and certain influentials to eventually bring about the demise of slavery as the noble or humanitarian thing to do to others.
Jeff: I think the Southerners of the 19th century would have talked of the "faith once and for all delivered to the saints" and "the whole counsel of God" and what not. That's why the certitude idea is relevant.
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 6/7/2005 6:12:29 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 6/8/2005 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman said...
...but (McClaren) never seems to get there. Go read his descriptions about postmodernism, about theology and about what the traditional conservative considers orthodox Christianity. There's hardly any substance with regard to these issues in his works or in the works he sites in agreement with him...
...Yet...what the hek is it that they (these emerging church theologins believe?) There's no taste, texture or substance to their bread. It's just not there. It's a lot of Mr.-Nice-Guy, loving community, people helping people, sharing the gospel (whatever the gosple is to them) and yet saying really...nothing. It's like they aren't saying that traditional conservativism is wrong, but neither are they adhering to it. I mean, what ARE they adhering to? Tell us what you do believe...
...Reading McLaren's stuff leaves me asking "Ok, so what are you saying?"...
...Further, scripture is clear that God has love the world so much that He has sent us a Savior. These things are important, but I see very little, if any of this, in McLaren's works. What else is there if this gospel message is left out? Love? Hope? Community action? Well, I guess that's the idea, but there's already a lot of good people out there doing good things for others and living very community-oriented lives. What's McLaren got that they don't have?...
I haven't read much of McClaren yet (just a couple of articles by him), but this is precisely the same sense I came away with after reading Leonard Sweet's books. Lots of rhetoric and hype, but in the end not really making any particularly relevant point. But maybe it's precisely the postmodern's point to not make one.
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 6/8/2005 10:53 AM (GMT -6) | | | I just received another 3 McLaren books yesterday from Amazon, so I'll definitely be keeping the comments and questions you've brought to the table in mind as I read through them. It could take me a while to finish all this reading, but I do want to continue this dialog at some point.
I, like you, have a strong reaction against relativism or attempts in that direction. If that's what McLaren is about , I'm going to have a hard time with it. To this point in my own reading, I've not been seeing it, but maybe that because I've been giving him the benefit of the doubt or seeing it through a certain set of lenses. I guess I'm suspecting that he's probably holding a position similar to SK's "Truth is Subjectivity"... which I believe is often misconstrued to be advocating relativism or fideism. Post Edited (Corey) : 6/8/2005 10:59:03 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/8/2005 8:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey: I'm quite interested in how you're thinking about this. Are you envisioning some scenario where you wouldn't be able to follow as God leads? I can't imagine that could/would happen.
Jeff: I'm not sure what you're asking. I follow what I think God leads me to do. But I think God leads me to not judge another man's servant but by that man's rules (Rom. 14). The same Paul that says the Spirit leads us wrote Rom. 14. When Christ said "why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not what I SAY," was he not suggesting that it was his WORDS that determined what we are to do and not do? And did he not say he would send prophets and apostles? And were not Paul, Peter, etal some of those apostles and prophets? Why, then, would trying to understand those prophets be contrary to Christ's leading?
Let me ask you this. How much credence do you give to the judgement of those who disagree with you when it contradicts your own subjective sense of truth and/or the plain reading of scriptural text? And if you consider it seriously anyway, is it because of the messenger, or because God supernaturally CONFIRMS that message to you, like signs and wonders did previously?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 6/8/2005 10:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Oops... I think I miscommunicated. I'm not in any way intending to suggest that we don't "be diligent to present [ourselves] approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." If we knew each other better, you'd know that I take this very seriously.
I understood from your post that you were concerned that you would not be able to admonish, warn or correct another person. If that is something God is leading you to do, then by all means do it! I'm confident that God adequately provides whatever we need to obey his leading. Wouldn't this provision be available to us regardless if we had an ancient mindset, a medieval one, a modernist one, etc.? I'm just trying to understand specifically what you are concerned about when you think of a postmodernist admonishing someone else as the Lord leads.
I try to take seriously any correction that comes my way. God has used many different means to get my attention in the past, and I don't want to miss that. If it's from God, it will become clear as I humble myself and seek him in prayer, the Word, wise counsel. Always has in the past.
I don't see a postmodern mindset as an obstacle to this way of relating to God. Apparently you do, and I'm honestly trying to see if I'm missing something here.
Post Edited (Corey) : 6/9/2005 12:10:42 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/9/2005 6:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey: I'm just trying to understand specifically what you are concerned about when you think of a postmodernist admonishing someone else as the Lord leads.
...I don't see a postmodern mindset as an obstacle to this way of relating to God. Apparently you do, and I'm honestly trying to see if I'm missing something here.
Jeff: I think I'm in agreement with the rest of your post. But with respect to the above, let me clarify. My approach to admonishing and rebuking, etc. is to appeal to the natural intellect of a person. It seems to me that God does just that. When you read the 1st of Acts, we see Peter appealing to arguments from scripture, eye-witness, and public signs and wonders. All of these had convincing powers to a normal, natural, honest intellect (at least a Jewish intellect). That's not to say that the Spirit did not ALSO work. But it is to say that God appealed to their NATURAL intelligence as well. The two are not at odds with one another, seemingly.
And that witness was for the purpose of getting them to repent of CRUCIFYING THEIR OWN MESSIAH! Now, if God appeals to the natural human intellect to convict of such a crime as that, I'm thinking the same would be true for trying to convict a slave-holder. In the absence of signs, wonders, and eye witness, we pretty much have scripture. But scripture does not unequivocally condemn slavery. It even says to treat slaves justly.
Don't give up on me, I'm gonna bring this around to postmodernism. But first, look at what Colson said to McLaren in his reply:
One of the areas in which we differ is the change that post-modern people resent Christians because we are trying to impose some morality on them. They are misguided. Remember that Lincoln in the 1860 campaign was bitterly attacked for attempting to “impose morality.” This is an old canard, probably in one way, going back to the Garden, God was imposing His morality. The serpent’s temptation was that we could figure this out for ourselves and didn’t need it imposed. I take this argument by postmodernists as spurious. (Whoever “wins” in a free political system “imposes” his will. Laws impose on people.)
And, ...
And as for being willing to not only die but kill for our belief system, if Lincoln, who was deeply motivated by his strong faith (informed admittedly by a confused theology) did not pursue the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of the slaves, we might still live under slavery today. Yes, hundreds of thousands died, but it was tragically necessary to end evil.
And, ...
Your point five is whether moral truths change over the years. No they do not. It has always been true that murder is considered evil. We may gain a more advanced understanding of the truth as we seek to discover it and our moral consensus or moral understanding may change, we may become better informed about what is moral with respect to particular issues as the slavery example you use demonstrates. But that doesn’t mean that the underlying truth about human dignity, for example, is changed. On this point, note that in the NIV, in 1 Timothy, Paul describes slave traders in the category with murderers and adulterers and perverts. He also set slaves free. Christians were in the vanguard of that movement. What we were doing was conforming society in a fallen world more closely to what are enduring, unchanging truths.
Note first, that Colson apparently thinks he's convincing McLaren of the error of his view, since McLaren is opposed to slavery, also. Colson even talks of KILLING for his beliefs to stop slavery.
My question about postmodernism is this: Would they, too, justify Lincoln's war since the end of slavery was facilitated, thereby? If so, it would seem that all their concern about certainty leading to atrocities would be undermined. For, then, in that one case (Lincoln's war), they would be no different in principle from Colson, who justifies mass KILLING (non-defensive!!) to accomplish a desired result. (It is important to remember, in this regard, that there was no law against slavery at the time. Indeed, the fugitive slave provision in the Constitution proved that slavery was legally a state issue until the 13th amendment, after the war.)
So I'm interested in how McLaren will respond. I hope he disappoints Colson. For as a Christian, I think we should have WAY more scriptural support than we do to even THINK about killing anyone over slavery, much less do it - even if the state implements a draft, as Lincoln did. As for treating slaves abusively, there is CLEAR scriptural condemnation of that. And there were laws against it in the South, also.
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 6/9/2005 8:24:34 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 6/10/2005 9:39 AM (GMT -6) | |
jefscott said...
My approach to admonishing and rebuking, etc. is to appeal to the natural intellect of a person. It seems to me that God does just that. When you read the 1st of Acts, we see Peter appealing to arguments from scripture, eye-witness, and public signs and wonders. All of these had convincing powers to a normal, natural, honest intellect (at least a Jewish intellect). That's not to say that the Spirit did not ALSO work. But it is to say that God appealed to their NATURAL intelligence as well. The two are not at odds with one another, seemingly. I'll respond to the stuff about Lincoln in another post when I have more time.
You may be modelling postmodernism differently than I am. Your response suggests to me that your concern is to avoid anti-intellectualism; you want to be sure that we appeal to the intellect of a person as we admonish them, as well as depend on the work of the Spirit. I'd agree with this, but I don't see that postmodernism would pose a problem here.
Do you roughly equate postmodernism with anti-intellectualism? Or does your model allow that a person could be both postmodern and anti-anti-intellectual (say that 3 times fast!). Post Edited (Corey) : 6/10/2005 10:47:28 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 54 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:24 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|