Why Process Theology is NOT an Evangelical Post-Conservative Theology

amazon link

Postconservative theology may be said to parallel with “postliberal theology” at its best. Orthodox, biblical, but open to new insights about how to interpret Scripture. But the new insights must be faithful as well as fresh. Postconservative theology is not the same as "progressive theology,” which tends to lean toward indeterminant faith expressions, whereas “postconservative” allows for particular faith commitments and expressions but understands that the constructive task of theology is never finished. Authors emphasize various interpretive theological lenses used for doing theology among various postconservative theologians, rather than emphasizing the philosophical background to hermeneutical theory present in other works, such as past influential thinkers (including Gadamer, Grondin, Ricoeur, Heidegger, etc.). This resource could also function as a companion to Evangelical Theological Method: Five Views (2018). This emphasis of the chapters will not be on the nuts and bolts of “how to” interpret, but rather on the theological impulses that govern various lenses (Bible, cultural context, etc.) for doing theology and the way Scripture functions with respect to the practice of interpretation.

CONTENTS

My response: R.E. Slater

A cursory view of the above book seems to say this is a handbook on evangelicalism from a continental view (or more broadly, a global view) claiming it is postconservative in a postmodern sense. Which is all well and good but process-based philosophical theology cannot be said to be a real participant in evangelical post-conservatism. Moreover, Process is also the truer heritage of Open and Relational Theology (ORT) though Thomas Oord has been paring it down to be more palatable for evangelics to accept.

Secondly, the three titles mentioned in the last photo above (Cambridge, Blackwell, Routledge) may hold some interest for those like myself who wish to branch out away from evangelicalism's acclaimed post-conservative look.

And thirdly, I dearly appreciate Roger Olson as he was my way out of Calvinism in the early years of leaving evangelicalism however, Roger stopped short of Whitehead's process-based implications for Christianity back between 2014-2017 when I was following him. Thus my inclusion of Roger's Fall 2018 article further below on "What Is a Post-Conservative Evangelical?" 

* * * * * * *

Why Process Theology is NOT an

Evangelical Post-Conservative Theology

 

by R.E. Slater

The simple answer is that process theology is altogether different from traditional Christianity. It's philosophical basis is different. It's emphasis is different. It's gospel is different. And it's God is different. Let me introduce what I mean in rather ineloquent, if not crude illustrations:

Process' Philosophical Basis

Process philosophy, otherwise described by Whitehead as a "Philosophy of Organism," is organic, relational, experiential, and spiritual. It is more related to the Eastern philosophies than it is to the Western philosophies wherein Christianity was birthed and described by Hellenised Jews.

Alfred North Whitehead was a British scholar who late in life felt Einstein's physics needed a more sufficient basis metaphysically than what he was hearing from the scientists of his day. So he picked up where Hegel had left off a hundred-plus years ago and described cosmology in terms of a living, sentient-like, organism which can only be described in the momentary present. Years later, today's quantum physicists are describing a universe very much like Whitehead was in the early 1900s.

Then theologians like John Cobb came along, picked up Whitehead's metaphysic, and fleshed it out in Christian terms such that there is a God which "organized" the universe into a "becoming" essence from the "static" hot mess that it was; Cobb declared this Creator-God to be "ever-present" in the moment at all times with creation.

And should we go back into antiquity to explore the Semitic cultures such as the Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Jewish Israelites we will find many, many, many ancient mystics and religious view expressing something similar about God's creation (the universe) as a living, evolving, hot mess that yearns for freedom, connection, and meaning. In short, this is process philosophy and theology.

Processual Emphasis

We live in a universe which isn't "living" unless it is connected to other processes. As "no man is an island" so too "no man or woman can have any sense of being without finding connection with something." Thus, a process-based cosmogeny is one that is relational. And with relationality comes experiential reaction.

For example, even as an atom or a quark responds to another atom or quark they do so because of their relation to that atom or quark and their consequential act of experience resulting from that relationship. Nothing in the universe can be described without these two metaphysical building blocks... that of relationality and a resulting experience from a relationship.

In Christian terms, God's eternal nature is one that reaches out for connection (relationship), responds to that connection (experience), which then creates new connections for God and for that thing (or soul) interacting with the divine. In Whiteheadian terms, God is the Primary Cause to all Secondary casual effects.

Further, as God is related to all things so all things are related to God. There are two things here:

One, God's Image is not only a part of everything, but deeply integrated, or embedded, into the fabric of creation. I commonly think of this as a panentheistic (not pantheistic) relationship between God and creation where God is God and creation is something other than God.... However, because God is the Primary Cause God's Image or God's DNA is an integral part of creation wherever it is and whatever it is.

In practical terms, tather than describing man theologically as being a sinner born with a sin nature, man was - and is - made in the Image of God wherein there is no sin or sin nature in creation nor humanity. So the question must be ask, "How does sin result?" In process terms, NOT from our presumed "sin nature" (which is a Greek philosophical idea) but from our freewill choices, otherwise known as creaturely "agency".

This "sin nature" then is part of evangelicalism's Western assumptions about man's creation when reading the bible and building a "biblical systematic theology." But there is nothing "biblical" about it... the ancient Semitics didn't posit this but the Greek's did. Process theology therefore is more Semitic than it is Greek. (As an aside, the bible was collected from oral traditions but it's collection was occurring during the Hellenistic Age, hence the Jewish scribes were already being influence by Greek thought even as the NT disciples were many years later. One further observation, Jews don't believe in original sin... so a study of earlier semitic religions might help distinguish this idea a bit further).

Two, evangelicalism teaches that in Jesus the idea of redemption became "fully understood" as it was related to the Old Testament's evolving teaching on the motif of atonement. Examples: God was Abraham's own atonement when walking between the sacrifices indicating covenant. Moses rehearsed atonement time-and-again throughout Israel's Wilderness experience. The Kingdom Era gave solidarity to the Atoning/Redeeming God by purity of worship to the one-and-only God. And the New Testament book of Hebrews proclaimed Jesus as Israel's High Priest and Redeeming Lamb of the world.

Process theology agrees with these observations but goes many more steps farther when asserting that these mercy-based forgiveness-and-rectifying events were every bit as personal as they are today in Jesus (my old teacher Leon Wood had said that once). Moreover, the history of the earth is rife with everyday cruciform events from Eden-like respites to salvation from evil.

Each-and-all of these cruciform events find there fulfillment in Jesus... however, in process theology Jesus can also be said to be illustrating the Image of God which is birth throughout all processes of the universe... that is, until creational agency disrupt's God's generosity, benevolence, protection, and generally divine activity of redeeming all things to himself. Point being, Jesus's atonement was part-and-parcel of creation's essence in God; Jesus may have been the signifier but he wasn't the only cruciform event in the universe's history. I like to think of Jesus' atonement as being birthed "from the ground up" in affiliation with, and reconcilement to, creation's own "becoming."

The Gospel is Different

God is not to be feared because of God's anger and wrath... no, the medieval idea of "fear" is that of respect and honor, as one would a "king or potentate". Process theology's central core is that God is love above all other divine attributes. Moreover, those attributes of holiness, mercy, caring, justice, etc, all have their basis in divine love.

That is to say, evangelicalism states - even as traditional Christianity had previously taught in centuries past - that the basis for human interaction with the Creator God was a relationship built on fear of the divine because of God's perchant to judge sinful lives with all kinds of "reaped" terrors and horrors ("...as ye sow so shall ye reap"). Example: the story of Job.

In comparison, process theology declares that God is never evil but at all times loving. That God's love is "an always condition" and how God's relationship to creation acts... this also includes all of mankind.

But, this doesn't mean that our sinful acts don't processually evolve over time into horrible things... it simply means that our sin is on us... including what may evolve from our sinful actions. Hence, as God is love let us love. Not to avoid harm and tragedy... but as being faithful to whom God created us to be as loving creatures willing to love and forgive.

So then, the good news (or gospel) of Christ is that God loves and loving forgives and redeems at all times in our lives. Every horrible situation can be redeemed in some way... even if it can't be stayed from it's culmination... even so, a gospel shoot of redeeming love can be planted for some future day. Thus and thus, the evangelical idea of "propitiation" or "expiation" for our sin is both true and untrue. True in that it declares what was said in the first sentence of this paragraph -  God loves and forgives. But untrue in that we are sinners born with a sin nature... rather, we are sinner's who bear God's Image who can be redeemed.

And, this God is Different

Lastly, traditional Christianity likes to emphasize God's power, dominian, and presence - and yet, God's power isn't immediately obvious, nor his godly dominian, nor God's presence. God , like Santa Clause, is here when we are good, and not here when we are bad.  Yet Process theology says God's power is mitigated upon our circumstances - a tornado cannot necessarily be diverted nor a hungry bear from it's prey.

That is, God helps as God can but creation must lean into God's activity to assist as well. Which places the onus on us. For instance, we might learn how to protect wives and children from abusive husbands but this is more of a process-event thing than a one-time act. Ditto with migrants and refugees fleeing terror.

So we must ask, "What is our responsibility for earthly terror and what can we now do to alleviate it?" We must ask this as politicians and generals... as business and church leaders... as civil servants and environmentalists... what positive roles can we better inhabit than we have done over the years past?

Similarly, process theology states that NO future is ever determined but all futures are open and pregnant with possibility, opportunity, hope, and forgiveness. God has given to us and the universe evolving futures with infinite possibilities from one moment to the next. And because God's Image is embedded in creation we have the additional hope that every event may bear goodness rather than evil.

In Conclusion

In the above paragraphs and illustrations I have shown how process theology differs from Westernized Christian philosophy - however "post-conservative" they wish to describe themselves. Over the years I have elucidated these process motifs by explaining and demonstrating how process can work in social, scientific, political, and ecological situations. It is why I far prefer process-based Christianity over any past traditional Christianities. And it is my hope to take the good of the Christian past and heighten it through process thought. Ditto with all human endeavors in life.

Lastly, I describe my site as being "post-evangelical" and not simply "post-conservative"... I do not wish to any longer build upon any forms of traditional, denominational or evangelical theology. Nor is progressive evangelicalism the same this as progressive process-based Christianity. Rather, I wish to take these past forms of Christianity and fill it with a better language... a (metamodern) processual language.

Peace and Blessings,

R.E. Slater

October 29, 2024

Edited: October 30, 2024

* * * * * * *

amazon link

* * * * * * *

What Is a Postconservative Evangelical?

by Roger E. Olson

October 22, 2018

This is how I describe myself and many others who think in a way similar to my way—about being “evangelical.” For a fuller explanation see my books Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology (BakerAcademic) and How to Be Evangelical Without Being Conservative (Zondervan).

Not many theologians I know want this label slapped on them. However, N. T. Wright accepted it and named me in his book Justification. I thought I coined the label back in the 1990s in an article for Christian Century entitled “Postconservative Evangelicals Greet the Postmodern Age.” Then I found out Fuller Seminary Professor Jack Rogers actually wanted his book Confessions of a Consevative Evangelical titled Confessions of a Postconservative Evangelical. That would have fit the book better. Also, Clark Pinnock used the word “postconservative” in his book Tracking the Maze, but his use and mine are not identical.

I coined the term (or thought I did) to describe a new breed of evangelicals who do not privilege “the received evangelical tradition” over fresh and faithful biblical scholarship (such as is being done by N. T. Wright and others). The “foil” for postconservative evangelical theology is evangelical theology deeply influenced by Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, and the whole Old School Princeton Theology following them (e.g., David Wells, Roger Nicole, Millard Erickson, et al.)

Postconservative evangelical theology is evangelical theology that does not consider the constructive task of theology finished. Conservative evangelical theology is evangelical theology that considers the constructive task of theology finished. These theologians are primarily interested in the critical task of theology—discovering heresy and exposing it. They are also interested, of course, in translating older versions of “the received evangelical tradition” (e.g., Hodge) into contemporary idiom.

Postconservative evangelical theology does not elevate “biblical inerrancy” to the status of an evangelical dogma or (to borrow Carl Henry’s term) the “super badge of evangelicalism.” Postconservative evangelical theology does not privilege epistemological foundationalism and finds some ideas of postmodern epistemology helpful.

Postconservative evangelicals like: Lesslie Newbigin, N. T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, James McClendon and Nancey Murphy, Stanley Grenz, Clark Pinnock, et al. We mostly stay apart from the Evangelical Theological Society and attend events of the Missio Alliance and Ekklesia Network.

But the main difference between postconservative and conservative evangelicals in theology is attitudes towards the constructive task of theology. For postconservative evangelicals every doctrine is subject to revision in light of fresh and faithful biblical interpretation (not cultural accommodation). The Bible absorbs the world and is our authoritative narrative (but not a “not-yet-systematized systematic theology). Doctrine is important but secondary to Scripture.

The manifesto of postconservative evangelicalism is the late Stanley Grenz’s book Revisioning Evangelical Theology (IVP).

* * * * * * *

The article below is from the conservative evangelical viewpoint

which refuses Dr. Olsen's wisdom for it's own... - R.E. Slater

Reformed and Always Reforming:

The Postconservative Approach

to Evangelical Theology

article link

Written by Roger E. Olson

Reviewed By Adonis Vidu

There seems to be a growing recognition that the evangelical world is deeply fragmented. Some have even gone as far as to say that the word “evangelical” has lost any discriminating force, that it no longer identifies a homogenous movement. Olson agrees with the diagnosis of the fragmentation, but argues that the movement has in fact always been inherently at conflict with itself. The historical root of this specific make-up is the twin inheritance of Puritanism, with its accent on right belief, and Pietism, stressing spiritual experience. The present outgrowth of that tension is reflected in the intense and sometimes unfair debates between conservative and postconservative evangelicals. This book sets out to chart that tension, from the perspective of a postconservative.

Olson’s thesis is that “it is possible to be more evangelical by being less conservative” (p. 7). He does not believe that conservative evangelicals have a monopoly on the essence of evangelical Christianity. In fact, their own manner of asserting a certain cognitive component of Christianity is tributary to a modernistic epistemology. On the other hand, postconservatives, without denying the importance of the cognitive, tend to see the enduring essence of evangelicalism, its contribution to world Christianity in its transformational vision. The latter see Christianity first and foremost as a religion of transformation. If doctrines are important, they are always secondary to the ongoing work of the Spirit, transforming the lives of people into the divine likeness.

The itching point in this conflict is how one conceives of the authority of the Word of God in relation to Scripture and whether theological revision is consistent with being an evangelical. Olson argues that conservatives are actually betraying the authority of Scripture when in practice they hang on to certain “classic” doctrines just because they are part of the “established evangelical position.” Although sometimes they confess that their ultimate authority is Scripture, in practice they show almost no willingness to revise a theological position in light of what might be “fresh” understanding of Scripture, as Olson likes to describe it. On the other hand, postconservatives locate ultimate theological authority in God and the Holy Spirit, who speaks through the Scriptures. Olson is ambiguous on this score, since on the one hand he claims that he is ascribing more authority to Scripture than conservatives, but on the other hand he rejects an “unnuanced equation of Scripture with God’s Word” (p. 108) and prefers to locate authority directly in the continuing work of the Spirit in the contemporary church through Scripture. As a result, the past is binding, but not in the sense that it has to be repeated. Rather, theological construction is free to be creative, to draw on the truth that is found in culture, to use its imagination in order to re-perform (Vanhoozer) the script that is found in Scripture. However, the bottom line for Olson, as for many postconservatives, is that if Scripture is authoritative, it is only by its being included in an ongoing drama of redemption, which began at creation and is presently unfolding towards its eschatological consummation.

Although the essence of evangelicalism is experience rather than right doctrine, orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy, Olson insists against popular misconception that doctrine remains important for postconservatives. But doctrine is a second-order reflection upon the experience of the church. Of course, once one puts it like that one must also be ready to explain why this is not Schleiermacherian liberalism. It is common place that Schleiermacher made the starting point of theology a universal human experience. The difference, Olson contends, is that postconservative theology appeals to a particular and supernatural, rather than a universal and natural, experience of being saved and being constituted into a redeemed community by the Holy Spirit.

The reason that it is possible, therefore, to be more evangelical by being less conservative lies precisely in the second-order nature of theology. If theology is subservient to an experience, then what is primary is the authenticity of that experience. What distinguishes evangelicals is not primarily right doctrine, but having one’s life centered on Jesus Christ, experiencing spiritual transformation after his own image through the power of the Spirit. Olson explains this by arguing that evangelicalism is a centered set rather than a bounded set. What defines it is its experience of the risen Christ, rather than boundary-setting right doctrines.

It is hard to do justice to such a wide-ranging book in such a short space. It is even more difficult to properly critique it, since restraint due to space might be mistaken for hurried dismissals. It is rather clear that American evangelicalism is facing years, possibly decades of intense theological debate and perhaps confrontation. This is what I believe will, or should, set the agenda of those conversations.

First, Olson makes a compelling point about the inherently unstable nature of evangelicalism. I am not sure that can be resolved short of a magisterium that legislates what belongs and what does not. I think more work needs to be done on the understanding of the cohesion between Puritanism and Pietism, as well as other influences that have contributed to the development of modern evangelicalism, including modernity and postmodernity. But sociological designators are themselves inherently unstable. There are no universal encyclopedias to tell us what the essence of an evangelical is. At the same time, I found Olson’s identification of the essence of evangelicalism with an experience to be only a partial description of its contribution, as long as no mention was made of justification by faith. If one were to use a classic pair of concepts, Olson does tend to place the emphasis more on sanctification than on justification, when in fact a creative dialectic should be preserved between them.

A second issue that Olson leaves pretty much hanging is the relation between the cognitive-propositional and the transformational aspects of revelation. Although he does acknowledge that there are propositional aspects to revelation, he does not seem willing to allow them to carry through into doctrine so that there might be certain doctrines which are epistemically primary, so to speak. This becomes even more important given his acceptance of holism (not a very nuanced one, for that matter), which in its more extreme forms holds that any belief whatsoever can be abandoned in the face of compelling evidence or for the pragmatic purpose of keeping the balance of the system. But if any belief can be relinquished, in what sense does it continue to speak of the authority of the Holy Spirit that speaks through the Scriptures? Moreover, and this pertains to his set analogy, how is it possible to even identify the center apart from some description of circumference? Unless we speak of circumference, even if we allow variation in distance from the center, what we will have identified is not a center, but simply a dot, a point in space. However, it is analytic to a point being a center that it is in some relation to circumferences.

Finally, Olson’s understanding of the role of tradition is somewhat self-contradictory. On the one hand he does relocate theological authority from the past (Scripture) into the present (continuing work of the Spirit), by circumventing tradition, but he seems not to realize that this present is precisely tomorrow’s tradition! He forgets that Eastern Orthodox Christianity views tradition as precisely the life of the Spirit in the church. So the direction in which I can see more research being done is the relationship between Scripture, the Great Tradition, and the epistemic relevance of the continuing work of the Holy Spirit. Admittedly, much evangelical theology is pneumatologically underdeveloped, but it remains to be seen whether compensating for that weakness should lead precisely in the revisionist direction favored by Olson.

Stanley Hawerwas - On Retirement, Citizenship, and the Church of the Future

Learning to Love the Enemy [Stanley Hauerwas]

Published on Jun 7, 2016. Jesus' teaching in Matthew 18 is central for Christians coming

to love the enemy. Particularly important is that we never forget that God is the enemy

we most fear. To be confronted and to confront those that we have wronged and have

wronged us one of the central practices for Christians to practice neighbor love.

Nothing to lose: YDS alum Stanley Hauerwas on retirement, citizenship, and the church of the future

http://divinity.yale.edu/news/nothing-lose-yds-alum-stanley-hauerwas-retirement-citizenship-and-church-future

by Ray Waddle

January 6, 2015

“The work of theology is never done. That is very good news. The work of theology can never be done alone. That is even better news.” - Stanley Hauerwas

Now that Stanley Hauerwas ’65 B.D., ’67 M.A., ’68 M.Phil., ’68 Ph.D. has reached emeritus status at Duke Divinity School, his idea of retirement is to work on three books, preach regularly, and take up a (part-time) post as chair of theological ethics with the School of Divinity, History and Philosophy at University of Aberdeen in Scotland.

Stanley Hauerwas“I can’t figure out how to be retired,” says Hauerwas, who officially retired at Duke in 2013 after 29 years of teaching there. “If I’m retired, why do I have so many deadlines? The reason is, I can’t say no to people. I need to learn to say no!”

At age 74, Hauerwas is still writing and speaking, still thinking about the meaning of church in contemporary times—still doing the work of a theologian and public intellectual known for far-ranging ideas and a mischievous spirit. One of his forthcoming books, The Work of Theology (Eerdmans), explores matters such as “how to write a theological sentence” and “how to be theologically ironic.” Another is The Difference Christ Makes (Cascade Books), which includes lectures delivered on the occasion of Hauerwas’s 2013 retirement, and his response. The lecturers included YDS’s Gilbert L. Stark professor of Christian Ethics and academic dean, Jennifer Herdt.

The trouble with modern education

“Being a Christian has not, and does not, come naturally or easy for me,” he once wrote in an essay posted at ABC’s Religion and Ethics website. “I take that to be a good thing because I am sure that to be a Christian requires training that lasts a lifetime.”

His thoughts about the state of the faith today continue undeterred. In today’s intellectual and economic climate, it becomes clearer to him that churchgoing and Christian identity are getting harder for millions to sustain. The daily habits of postmodern experience make it more challenging to fit the Christian story into one’s life.

“The growth of churches in the 1950s and 60s looks now like a kind of mirage,” he says. “People thought we were doing OK. Because of the momentum of the civil rights movement, people thought church was providing a good witness here or there. Now people are increasingly aware that we’re in trouble. Charles Taylor had it right in The Secular Age: In earlier times it was virtually impossible for people in the West not to believe in God, but now many find it easy or unavoidable.”

One of the problems is the nature of modern education, he says. In The State of the University (Blackwell, 2007) and elsewhere, Hauerwas has argued that the sidelining of theology in a liberal arts education degrades the liberal arts’ contribution to public life. The pursuit of the knowledge of God should be part of the overall academic pursuit of knowledge. Theological inquiry should take its place as a vital tool in the aims of education—the formation of individuals who bring imagination, skepticism, perspective, humility, and critical thinking to the work of citizenship, democratic reform, and economic justice.

He says the marginalized place of theology in turn domesticates theological conversation, damaging the confidence of educated churchgoers, who now often lack a vigorous idea of why they believe or how their belief can speak to the times.

“It’s not clear to me these days, for instance, what it means to be a citizen,” he says. “It would be helpful to the discussion if Christians worried more about it. I think citizenship ought to be about the obligations we have to each other here in this historical, geographic setting.”

An alternative to our unfaithfulness

Hauerwas believes the church of the future will be a leaner, smaller, but more committed “colony,” and that will be no bad thing. The much-reported decline of Christian influence and power should give churches a new liberation from culture captivity, a freedom to speak the truth.

“Once you’ve got nothing to lose, hell, you’re free! You no longer have to keep your language hidden in your back pocket. I think God is giving us the next step, helping us discover that the secular way isn’t enough. It won’t sustain life.”

The church’s witness and practices remain central. The discipline of prayer, the love of the poor, and the gospel power of friendship with God and others are direct challenges to the spirit of the age, including rationalistic abstractions that lead to violence.

He offered this definition of church in a 2014 interview with “Thinking in Public”: 

“That through Jesus Christ, very God and very man, we gentiles have been made part of the promise to Israel, that we will be witnesses to God’s good care of God’s creation through the creation of a people who once were no people, that the world can see there is an alternative to our violence. There is an alternative to our deceptions. There is an alternative to our unfaithfulness to one another through the creation of something called church. That’s salvation.”

Theology moves in many directions

Retirement finds him reading a customary range of authors and subjects—novelists David Foster Wallace and Marilynn Robinson, theologian Herbert McCabe, a recent book by Timothy Chappell called Knowing What To Do: Imagination, Virtue, and Platonism in Ethics.

“My reading has always been gregarious and unplanned – I read what people tell me to read,” he says.

Amazon link

Asked about his YDS days, Hauerwas says he retains a lasting image of professor Robert L. Calhoun standing in class lecturing about the history of doctrine, shortly before Calhoun’s retirement. A much-beloved teacher of historical theology, Calhoun (1896-1983) taught at Yale from 1923 to 1965. Hauerwas has great enthusiasm for Scripture, Creed, Theology: Lectures on the History of Christian Doctrine in the First Centuries (Cascade, 2011), the book that gathers Calhoun’s lectures on the subject.

“George Lindbeck dedicated much energy to compiling his lectures and editing the book, and he wrote a terrific introduction. I think every YDS student should read it,” he says.

Even a brief chat with Stanley Hauerwas on the subject of theology moves in many directions – economics, citizenship, friendship, fiction, imperialism, and the elusive nature of God.

Amazon link

“I love the quote from theologian Robert Jensen: ‘God is whoever raised Jesus from the dead, having before raised Israel from Egypt.’ The critical word is ‘whoever.’ The identity of God is something we don’t know and can’t know. It’s exciting to me that we can’t know all the things God does or is capable of doing or even what God is. It’s idolatry to think we do know. A lot of people think they do know and a lot of the time the result is violence.”

The author of more than 40 books, Hauerwas addresses his restlessly diverse interests in an essay he wrote for YDS’s Reflections journal in 2013, the Fall issue. Titled, How to (Not) Retire Theologically, the essay won the Associated Church Press’s Award of Excellence for best theological article that year. It will appear in his new book The Work of Theology.

Book Description

A "how-to" book on theology from a world-renowned theologian.

In this book Stanley Hauerwas returns to the basics of "doing" theology. Revisiting some of his earliest philosophical and theological views to better understand and clarify what he has said before, Hauerwas explores how theological reflection can be understood as an exercise in practical reason.

Hauerwas includes chapters on a wide array of topics, including "How I Think I Learned to Think Theologically," "How the Holy Spirit Works," "How to Write a Theological Sentence," and "How to Be Theologically Funny." In a postscript he responds to Nicholas Healy's recent book Hauerwas: A (Very) Critical Introduction.

"What we believe as Christians," says Hauerwas, "is quite basic and even simple. But because it is so basic, we can lose any sense of the extraordinary nature of Christian beliefs and practices." In discussing the work of theology, Hauerwas seeks to recover that "sense of the oddness of what we believe as Christians."

In the essay he writes: “That I cannot stop doing theology given the way I have done it also accounts for the range of my work. I confess when I think about the diverse topics I have addressed it not only makes me tired but it elicits in me a sense of embarrassment. I am not smart enough to know what needs to be known in order to address questions that range from the nature of personal identity to the ethics of war. But I have a stake in both of those topics, and many more, if I am to do the work I take to be the work of theology.”

He concludes: “The work of theology is never done. That is very good news. The work of theology can never be done alone. That is even better news.”

Carl Lentz - "This is What Church Should Look Like. It's Jesus First, Last, and Always."

Hillsong Church Pastors Won't Speak Out On Gays Because Jesus Didn't Either

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/17/hillsong-church-gays_n_6002762.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000051

The Huffington Post | By Antonia Blumberg

Posted: 10/17/2014 2:48 pm EDT Updated: 10/17/2014 2:59 pm EDT

Hillsong Church's New York location reportedly draws "a lot of gay men and women" among the thousands who flock there every weekend, according to head pastor Carl Lentz.

"Jesus was in the thick of an era where homosexuality, just like it is today, was widely prevalent," Lentz told CNN in a June interview (above). "And I'm still waiting for someone to show me the quote where Jesus addressed it on the record in front of people. You won't find it because he never did."

Lentz's wife, Laura, added: "It's not our place to tell anyone how they should live. That's their journey."

Lentz's sentiments appear to be indicative of an overarching stance on gay issues set forth by Hillsong head pastor Brian Houston. At a press conference for the Hillsong Conference held in New York City Thursday, New York Times' Michael Paulson asked Houston directly about his stance on same-sex marriage. In an unofficial transcriptprovided by Jonathan Merritt, Houston responded:

It can be challenging for churches to stay relevant. Because many mainstream churches upheld what they would believe is the long established view of what the Bible says about homosexuality. But the world has changed around and about them. On the subject, I always feel like there’s three things. There’s the world we live in, there’s the weight we live with, and there’s the word we live by. The world, the weight, and the word.

Blogger Ben Gresham, who identifies as a "25-year-old gay Christian" from Sidney, Australia, grew up attending Hillsong Church and often uses his website to write about the church's stance on gay issues. In an August 2013 post Gresham wrote about a message Houston recorded at Hillsong London and broadcast to all the church campuses entitled "Scandal of Grace," which touched on the topic and echoed the pastor's comments on Thursday. The blogger transcribed a portion of the message, in which Houston said:

The one elephant in the room for churches around the world at the moment is the gay situation. What would Jesus do? What would Jesus do?

There's lots of hatred out there but in the middle of it all you know there are three things: the world of the times we live in; the weight we live with; and the word we live by.

Houston added that "the world has changed quickly" and said "the weight we live with" includes "the weight when a young person growing up in a church feels like they are confused in their sexuality." This disconnect, the pastor said, can lead to hate, rejection and, in worst cases, suicide.

There's the world we live in. There's the weight we live with, and there's the word we live by. And they don't all necessary align. With the word we live by, many people have various convictions. In the middle of it all know that Jesus when it comes to people would let nothing stop Him from breaking through a divide to help hurting, broken, everyday normal people like you and I.

In March 2014 Pastor Danny Cortez of New Heart Community Church, a small Southern Baptist congregation in Southern California, delivered a sermon explaining that he no longer believed homosexuality to be a sin. His church struggled with the decision of whether to dismiss him and ultimately decided not to but instead become a "Third Way church" -- based on Vineyard Church pastor Ken Wilson’s book, “A Letter to my Congregation” which puts forth the notion that churches could agree to disagree on the subject and refrain from judgement.

But as the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting approached in June, Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, published an article denouncing the "third way":

There is no third way. A church will either believe and teach that same-sex behaviors and relationships are sinful, or it will affirm them. Eventually, every congregation in America will make a public declaration of its position on this issue. It is just a matter of time (and for most churches, not much time) before every congregation in the nation faces this test.

When faced with "this test," though, Religion News Service blogger Jonathan Merritt says that Hillsong's Lentz and Houston appear to adopt a similar "third way" by keeping definitive opinions to themselves and instead noting the complexity of the issue and the need for compassion. In the press conference Thursday, Houston said:

The real issues in people’s lives are too important for us to just reduce it down to a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer in a media outlet."

h/t Jonathan Merrit

D. Oiver Herbel - "Turning to Tradition": Why American Evangelicals Turn to Eastern Orthodoxy or Catholicism

Evangelicals Turning to Eastern Orthodoxy

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/01/13/evangelicals-turning-to-eastern-orthodoxy/

by Scot McKnight

Jan 13, 2014

Comments

It can shock the socks off some ordinary evangelicals when they hear that one of their children or someone they know well decides to jump ship to become Eastern Orthodox. (The same goes for evangelicals who turn to Roman Catholicism, and I have written about this in Finding Faith, Losing Faith, along with Hauna Ondrey.) But it happens — sometimes good Biola kids go Eastern, and good Wheaton kids go Catholic. The bigger fact, of course, is that far more Easterns and Catholics become evangelicals than the reverse (but that’s another story, and that’s in Finding Faith, Losing Faith too).

What happens when someone turns Eastern Orthodox? In Turning to Tradition: Converts and the Making of an American Orthodox Church, D. Oliver Herbel proposes what I think is both a convincing theory but one that could be sharpened. In his book, Herbel examines four paradigmatic converts to Eastern Orthodoxy, only one name will be known to many readers of this blog. The four are St. Alexis Toth, Fr. Raphael Morgan — both of whose stories take us back a century or more — and then Fr. Moses Berry, in Missouri, and the recently deceased Peter Gillquist.

The known figure is Gillquist, who was a leader in Campus Crusade, went on a mission to find the NT church, thought he and others had found it in a kind of Americanized, evangelicalized, Gillquist-ized version of Orthodoxy, then they got some recognition and eventually they moved all the way into the Eastern Orthodox Church. The stories of Toth, Morgan and Berry were just not that interesting to me, though Herbel’s research is careful and judicious. Gillquist’s story, again carefully studied, reveals too much authoritarianism but he and his numerous companions seemed to have submitted more than adequately in the end to the Eastern leaders.

Here is the convincing and compelling thesis of Herbel: American religion fosters individuality, creativity, and newness. Hence, the splits of splits of splits in American denominational bodies. At the heart of many of these splits is restorationism, the attempt to get back to the original way of doing things in the New Testament era.

In addition, at the heart of American religion is an incurable anti-tradition tradition. That is, we Americans by and large oppose a religion that is too old and ancient. We like the new. Our “tradition” is anti-tradition.

So, Herbel now: the stories he focuses on (Toth, Morgan, Berry, Gillquist) are examples of (1) the spirit of restorationism, (2) caught up in the all-too-American anti-traditionalism, which (3) manifests itself in being anti-traditional by being traditional (Eastern Orthodoxy then appeals to both the anti-tradition of American newness while moving into a tradition that is old). He overuses the word “irony” here but it’s a fair and accurate use.

So, let me put this together again: these converts search for the original-est NT church by riding the American encouragement to be anti-traditional. Yet, their restoration spirit encounters the Great Tradition of the Orthodox church as the best form of restoring the NT church so they end up being anti-traditional by being un-Americanly traditional. Clever, and right?

I wish Herbel had compared why the restorationism of the evangelical converts is not on par with the traditionalism of the Orthodox when their theological orientation is more or less the same (and frankly the evangelical-rooted Orthodox converts are some of the best witnesses today for Orthodoxy). The tension appears to be over what one thinks is restoration while the others see it as a millennia long living tradition — rather than (just?) the original faith.

Herbel’s work lacked nuanced analysis of the crises at work in the conversion of his subjects. Rambo and I have both explored this in our books (mine in both Turning to Jesus and in Finding Faith, Losing Faith) while Herbel stuck with little more than general (if accurate) orientations. There are a variety of crises at work when one converts and these could have been explored.

Finally, this book, especially the endnotes, was riddled with typos. I found enough that I got irritated and stopped marking them. OUP ought to be embarrassed with its copyeditors.

- Scott

* * * * * * * * 

A short note here.

To Herbel and McKnight's observations I would like to add my own observation that for some Evangelicals, having become exasperated with the state of affairs of evangelicalism, may also turn to "safe" groups that are perceived as remaining in the older Protestant tradition but differ by degree by practice or worship. Hence, groups like the neo-Anabaptists, or even re-invigorated mainline denominational churches such as the UMC United Methodists, would serve as examples of evangelicals moving left of right (but not too far left) while remaining snug within Protestantism's older traditions. However, I would not include Christian groups such as the Charismatic, Emergent, or non-denominational Bible-fellowships, in this category as they are simply variants of a wider, older, Evangelical tradition, which some may transition into, or out of, for one reason or another over their lifetimes.

R.E. Slater

January 13, 2013

Trick-or-Treat? What Does It Mean to be Unified in Christ?

 

Frankly, I don't follow Christianity Today (CT) any more. I use to care greatly about what they thought and published but since my "rebirth" from my evangelical stupor over the past dozen years and more I have found CT, its contributors, and its selective readings of today's theological issues, topics, and ideas, naïve at best, and dissembling at worst. 

dis·sem·ble

 

/dɪˈsɛm bəl/  verb, dis·sem·bled, dis·sem·bling.

verb (used with object)
 

1. to give a false or misleading appearance to; conceal the truth or real nature of: to dissemble one's incompetence in business.

2. to put on the appearance of; feign: to dissemble innocence.

3. Obsolete . to let pass unnoticed; ignore.

 

Today's article from October 22nd more than proves my point. Here, Christena Cleveland gives an agreeable argument for the necessity of embracing Christian unity in its diversity of cultural ideas, theology, and adaptation of Christianity, uplifting difference and dissimilarity as admiral marks of any mature organization, religion, or faith. And in reply comes CT's officious proclamation under an amanuensis (sic, a person employed to write what another dictates, or to copy what has been written by another; a secretary.) that these ideas are agreeable to a point before marking off uncrossable sanctioned barriers. Barriers which, if crossed, makes a Christian anathema to their (evangelical) faith, to be described in whispered tones of being (or becoming) a false prophet carrying an unchristian gospel only worthy of biblical rebuke, reproof, condemnation, judgment and wrath. Where such a one is to be abandoned from the hallowed halls of the body of Christ unless an acceptable level of "homogeneity" is restored in balance with the general beliefs and tenets of evangelicalism's main ideas and message.

 

Hence, while Cleveland argues for the idea of unity within an enlarged Christian fellowship beyond the more restrictive definitions of its borders and boundaries, CT's reviewer rejects this auspicious idea by warning that it is a ruse, or a trick, to get Christians to betray their faith:

 

"While I find this "trick" beneficial, it does not fit every scenario. As an evangelical theologian committed to ecumenical unity framed by grace and truth, I wish Cleveland would have helped distinguish more clearly between areas where theological reconciliation is possible and areas where it is not." - CT

 

In effect, to bear the attitude of a general Christian acceptance of a (non-evangelic) brother or sister falls under the Halloween-like guise of conveying a godly "love and unity" which is basically a slick authorial "trick" or rubric that would open up any culpable reader to the dangers of moving away from the bastions of evangelical Christendom. The reviewer goes on to suggest that to take the author's attitudinal perspective would be like departing from the "narrow road" cautiously travelled unto an exiting off-ramp leading to a "larger road" of certain spiritual death, misleading ideas, and a disingenuous Gospel. Though the idea is good, it is not good enough when it leads to unsanctioned biblical ideas and teachings.

 

"Take, for example, 1 John 4:18 ("There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear"), to which Cleveland refers briefly in her treatment of the culture wars. The epistle's emphasis on love in chapter 4 appears only after a renunciation of teachers who deny the Incarnation. While doctrinal differences can be used to humble, strengthen, and enhance our perspectives, they often convey unbridgeable boundaries. "Perfect love" insists on certain rightful boundaries between truth and falsehood. This is not because we "fear" those on the other side, but because out of love we don't want them to be deceived." - CT

 

In sanctimonious unction the reviewer than proclaims the preferred "contextual" reading of 1 John 4 by qualifying Jesus' admonition to love one another with the apostle John's further admonition to hold to Jesus' incarnation (v.15)... or, in modern evangelical parlance, to only love those who are of the same doctrinal "brotherhood." Suggesting that all other Jesus-followers are not of God, but false and untrue. To this arena of demarcation we then get the unstated rubric of the three kinds of biblical "love" in the Bible - eros, phileo, and agape (translated: deeply passionate love; brotherly love within the church's fellowship; and godly love for those outside the church; as it is normally described).

 

The idea being here of carefully qualifying who is "in" or "not in" the true church's fellowship. And in this sense, to beware of deceptive ruses suggesting indiscriminately love in Christ as a binding blinder so that its participants become unaware of the false gospel that it conveys. A gospel bourne of false prophets and teachers. Not that this reviewer suggests that Cleveland is a charlatan, just that her idea contributes to the unqualified idea of an indiscriminate love that can be hazardous to evangelicalism's stricter theological walls of "biblical truth." Choosing always for truth over love, rather than love over truth. For those who wish this latter course, beware the larger consequences of becoming proselytized to a more worldly, less "Christianized" ideas beyond one's current fellowship. It is a message of fear. And unduly so as I will explain.

 

For the "trick" here is actually a "treat" not cooked in a witch's brew of discord and canker, but in the delights of discovering a newer, unbounded land of freedom shed of its religious blinders and deceptions. Which brings me to my reasons for leaving the attitudinal boundaries of my more restrictive evangelicalism, to a broader definition of what my Christian faith should bear. Yes, I believe in an incarnate Christ. It is one of the bedrocks of my faith. But I no longer qualify my faith by an adherence to evangelicalism's ideas of strict inerrancy, spontaneous creation, a dipolar God, a gospel of wrath, judgment, and exclusivity, nor any other dozens of qualifiers.

 

I have decided to "progress" beyond my formerly closed theological boundaries to a more open center-set nexus of a Jesus-centered faith. That is, a faith in which Jesus is first, and not my beliefs about my Christian religion first. To be marked as a Jesus follower rather than a follower of my temple, my church, my dogma, doctrine, or religious tribe. It is less rigid, more reflective, more open and accepting of postmodernism, and of science in general. It grants to biblical studies a historical, narrative theology and multi-vocal biblical hermeneutic, that leads out in unconditional, non-qualifying love that is inclusive and not exclusive. That serves others and not itself. And does not lead out in judgment and condemnation, or by denominational drivers or doctrinal barriers.

 

It is postmodern, emergent, and progressive in traditional Christian orthodoxies by updating one-and-all with today's newer research and biblical discoveries. Importantly, it is willing to critique its former idea of itself by deconstructive and reconstructive philosophical elements. Is unafraid of its doubts about God, His Word, or of the church in general. Does not have the incessant demand of needing answers and solutions to every event or mystery uncovered in the Bible or within our lives (that is, it tries to be non-apologetic realizing that all apologies but support their own narrower epistemologies even as I am doing now in this apology for my faith :/ ). Is critical of itself, its epistemologies, and its pride, and is properly confessional where, and when, this is possible. It is active in Christian love and reclamation of people in humanitarian projects; this Earth in ecological restoration; and in philosophic discussions. At the last, it is an apocalyptic Christian faith that doesn't wait for Jesus to come, but to become in our midst."

 

Though CT's reviewer likes the idea of unity within the Church it must be a unified church around his own ideas of what the Christian faith is - as set out in its dogmas and doctrines. By this admission, unity is a good thing, but it can also be a lamentable thing should it disrupt and destroy the fabric of evangelicalism as it is presently understood by its official organs of media dissemination (churches, schools, seminaries, and so forth).In the process, it refuses genuine discussion and openness to biblical movement and sway, preaching fear instead of hope; blind allegiance to its binding agencies; and exclusion to any unlike itself. It has become its own templed bastion similar to the Pharisaical Jewish laws and teachings in Jesus' day needing its pillars broken, and dividing curtain ripped in twain, that the Word of God's good news can be released to all of mankind, and not to the elected few.

 

So then, what does it mean to be unified in Christ? Is it a trick, or is it a treat? For many Christians they see it as a trick. But for some, they have unexpectedly discovered it to be a great, sumptuous treat that will last far beyond the sugar-rush of evangelical doctrine. It is become a hollowed celebration of freedom and not a Halloween of dungeons and dragons, if I may misuse the adage. To those few adventurers, be worthy of your exploration to God's unknown lands of bounty awaiting you. As Joshua's spies soon discovered, they dwelt in a land of "milk and honey," though they rightfully feared the "giants" of their day. For such explorers our giants have become bound Christian tradition against a rampant atheism set abroad and about. It will take the wisdom of God to search out and reclaim by the power of His Spirit in loving proclaim.

 

R.E. Slater

October 31, 2013

 

* * * * * * * * * * *

 

Disunity in Christ: Uncovering the Hidden
Forces that Keep Us Apart

 

 

 

Why Don't We Recognize God's Gift of Diversity?http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/channel/comments/allreviews.html?id=112413&type=article

 

by Paul Louis Metzger

October 22, 2013

Comments

 

Christena Cleveland examines the cultural differences

that frustrate the quest for Christian unity.

 

Christians value Jesus' prayer that they—his followers—may be as one (John 17:22–23). But valuing Christian unity is not the same as realizing it. Sometimes we settle for bland homogeneity rather than delighting in the church's mix of cultures, ethnicities, and social backgrounds. Those like me who work deliberately to cultivate Christian unity face trials and failures along the way. Despite our good intentions, we end up getting mean and nasty, or just plain weary, hurt, and discouraged. Why?

 

Individual personalities, faults, and sins are not the only factors. Group dynamics also make a difference. "Sometimes," according to social psychologist Christena Cleveland, "we are affected in hidden ways by those around us. The values and perceptions of the groups with which we identify can have a covert effect on us."

 

Where can we turn for assistance? In Disunity in Christ: Uncovering the Hidden Forces That Keep Us Apart (InterVarsity Press), Cleveland helps readers view people of diverse cultural backgrounds as God's gifts, not thorns in the flesh. She provides invaluable insights, practical recommendations, and tools to help the Christian community identify and address the dynamics that fracture Christ's body.

 

Cleveland's analysis tackles difficult questions about the social forces that frustrate our quest for unity. What leads people to associate with those who are similar, while distancing themselves from diverse others? What causes us to categorize other groups in distorted ways? How do social identity and self-esteem play into group perceptions of others? How do "cultural threats" lead us to approach other groups with hostility? And how do cultural influences shape beliefs and practices in limiting and divisive ways?

 

Cleveland does not discount substantive ideological and cultural differences or deny how hard it is to discard our various "labels." She agrees that principles and theological convictions are important. But "the trick is to wisely use our Christian friends' ideology to humble us, strengthen us, and enhance our understanding of God and the role we're called to play in his kingdom."

 

While I find this "trick" beneficial, it does not fit every scenario. As an evangelical theologian committed to ecumenical unity framed by grace and truth, I wish Cleveland would have helped distinguish more clearly between areas where theological reconciliation is possible and areas where it is not.

 

Take, for example, 1 John 4:18 ("There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear"), to which Cleveland refers briefly in her treatment of the culture wars. The epistle's emphasis on love in chapter 4 appears only after a renunciation of teachers who deny the Incarnation. While doctrinal differences can be used to humble, strengthen, and enhance our perspectives, they often convey unbridgeable boundaries. "Perfect love" insists on certain rightful boundaries between truth and falsehood. This is not because we "fear" those on the other side, but because out of love we don't want them to be deceived.

 

My hope, ultimately, is that Disunity in Christ will create new momentum toward fulfilling Jesus' prayer for unity amongst his followers. Those involved in building and supporting multiethnic Christian communities will be moved by Cleveland's stories, perspectives, and gracious spirit. Her book will, I hope, help us resolve generational, economic, political, and theological differences—and teach us to see that, truly, we are better off together.

 

Paul Louis Metzger is professor of theology at Multnomah Biblical Seminary. He is the author of Consuming Jesus: Beyond Race and Class Divisions in a Consumer Church (Eerdmans) and coauthor of Exploring Ecclesiology: An Evangelical and Ecumenical Introduction (Brazos).

 

 

Continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "An Emerging Theology"

 

Continue to -

Index to past articles on "An Open Faith and Open Theology"