Jollyblogger on the Trajectory of Ideas

Here’s an excellent post from Jollyblogger on the trajectory of ideas. He shows the fundamental weakness of the seeker-sensitive and post-modern/emergent church movement.

Here’s a key quote:

It seems to me that the old idea was that the church sets the agenda for the world and the church has centuries of Biblical exegesis and theology to build on as it faces the challenges of a new generation. The new idea which I am speaking of is the idea that the world sets the agenda for the church. This began in classical liberalism, and that set a trajectory which has carried the idea into the World Council of Churches, the seeker sensitive movement and now the postmodern/emergent movement. That which was rejected by the evangelical church when it came to them in the guise of liberalism and the WCC has now been accepted under the headings of the seeker sensitive movement and the postmodern/emergent movement.

In other words, an old idea in new clothes.

Jollyblogger on the Trajectory of Ideas

Theological Gurus

Now here is a speculative thought that has been bumping around my mind the last couple of days. I do not appeal to Scripture, nor to any studies on the matter – just my speculation.

I have been thinking about my bloggy excursion last week. One of the phenomena I noted was the tendency for a theological argument to fizzle out, not because one person had clearly won the argument, but because one side got cold feet, realising they were out of their depth. Such a person tries to end the discussion with “we’ll just have to agree to differ”. I have noticed this not only on blogs now but on email discussion groups.

What I think is at work here is the reaction of pride, when it is challenged, to retreat into tribalism. I know about this because I have noticed it in myself.

Here’s how it works, I think:

1) I have a particular theological view point, formed by adopting the views of others I respect. It makes sense to me, though because of the immaturity of the thought, it is vulnerable in a way that I don’t yet understand.

2) The view is challenged, perhaps in a way that I can handle and a riposte is given. However, it may be challenged in a way that is not easy to riposte. So there are two possible responses:

3a) I do some thinking and more research, this time at a deeper level which either solidifies my view, modifies it a little, or changes it completely. It is likely that this still rests upon the authority of others whom I respect. Nevertheless, the view is now more robust. Some learning has been achieved.

3b) I say, “we must agree to differ”. Either I will not look into the issue any deeper, or am not able to. Besides it threatens the place that my guru has in my thinking, or that of the tribe that I belong to. I like the tribe, it gives me a sense of identity, so I will not probe the argument any deeper. Thus in the last resort, the appeal is made to the authority of the guru.

It is because of this tendency that I believe that one must go as far as one can in understanding the biblical languages. Arguments over exegesis sit right at the root of theological formulations. A facility with the languages leaves one less beholdent to gurus and more dependent on the Word of God Himself.

Am I on the right track?

Theological Gurus

Back Blogging

Back from weekend with folks in Ayrshire. Weather was great. Here are some pics:

Mum & Dad’s garden – lovely…

Messing about on Maybole beach, near Culzean Castle…

Climbing up to the Castle…

Ayrshire is nice this time of year.

Back Blogging