Is Objectivity Merely a Cultural Invention?

How does one reason with someone who does not believe in reason?

Rationality is facing some hard times these days.  Postmodern thought has relegated truth to subjective cultural bias and not surprisingly, we now are told objectivity itself is a racist construct of the white European culture.   

One sophomore level course will have students “explore how systematic logics that position ‘the West’ and ‘whiteness’ as the ideal manifest through such social constructions as objectivity, meritocracy, and race.”

At Redstate, an essay titled "Towards a truer multicultural science education: how whiteness impacts science education" is quoted in reference to the destruction of objectivity.

While “the [science] culture attempts to be unbiased through peer reviewing and consistent methods and methodologies,” this interpretation “falsely makes us believe that science is an objective enterprise and transcends culture. 

“For many scientists, we are convinced that objectivity prevents an oppressive culture because discoveries are independent of identity... Consequently, we unknowingly spread whiteness ideology.

What Color is Your Heresy?

In postmodern approaches to theology, context determines everything.  Since interpretations of reality are social constructs, and the subjective context from which one does theology determines the meaning of just about everything, postmodern theologies can be exceedingly relativistic, destructively creative, and aggressively subversive.

This Jesus Creed post from November 5, 2015 is titled "White Heresy, Black Heresy" was written by Austin Fischer, author of "Young Restless and no Longer Reformed" who blogs at Purple Theology.  The question Fischer frames is one of orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy as relates to race and justice, but the “context” of American race struggles takes the whole premise in a dangerous direction.   In short, it implicitly celebrates “contextualization” with a vengeance while hiding a great deal from unsuspecting readers about the source material.  More

Language Games

One of the tenets of the postmodern drift is that "language is a mask to power".   I've been chewing on a brief post at Powerline for a few days that tersely dismisses that postmodern credo as a failed canard.

Basically, the claim of the secular progressive academia has often been that truth is determined by cultural consensus.  Different cultures make different truth claims.  Since ultimate truths are beyond the reach of reason, if they exist at all, we are left with the uncomfortable suggestion that whoever has power gets to control the language, and as a result gets to impose its version of truth on everyone else.  So the "rich" usually have the most power, thus they are usually the oppressors who control the language, creating words and destroying un-words according to their whim.

What they don't tell folks until they have been indoctrinated, is that their remedy to this injustice is for someone else to control the language.  (More)

Tony Jones Slays a Unicorn (Updated)

Tony Jones posted last week on the question of whether Christian progressives have a moral foundation.  The discussion  was raised with a question from Steven Kurtz

Johathan Haidt’s new book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. He says that research has shown that Western and Educated people from Industrialized, Rich, Democratic countries (or WEIRD people) who self-identify as “progressive” (socially) use, almost exclusively two moral “foundations” as criteria for making moral judgments: Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity. We progressive WEIRD people do not use the remaining 3 foundations: Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, or Purity/sanctity – the 3 that conservatives do use, in addition to, and in a higher priority manner than Harm and Fairness.

But progressives then have a problem with the God of most traditional and especially Christian formulations – especially with retribution, punishments, curses, condemnations, as well as problems with the unfairness of the treatment of women, slaves, and other outsiders. This gives us a huge problem with the bible and the god it describes, which forces us to re-think everything. Thus our problem speaking much, or coherently about God. Where do we go for information? Obviously from the comments I’ve read, anywhere available to our tastes.

(More)

Trust Your Feelings - Steve Chalke on Inclusion

This  issue will not go away because the gay rights advocates will not let it.

Prominent British Evangelical Steve Chalke has come out in support of gay inclusion.  Of course this follows a predictable trajectory that has been documented on this blog for a number of years, not only in my short-lived experiment with Anglicanism, but also in the steady drift to the theological left of figures such as Brian McLaren and Tony Jones.  More

The Second Punch Always Draws the Flag

We've seen it countless times in sports. Player 1 provokes player 2, probably several times during the course of a game with verbal jabs or some illegal form of holding, punching, grabbing, all just out of the sight of the official. Then player 2 in frustration retaliates with a push or a punch and the whistle blows. Player 2 is penalized, ejected, suspended while player 1 gets away with no penalty. We all agree player 2 should have kept his cool. But we wish player 1 would be held accountable.

I wonder if we don't see a similar scenario in the theological debates between the "conservatives" and the "progressives" that keep bubbling to the surface in news reports, the latest being the flap over Rob Bell's new book "Love Wins".

Wisdom from Down Under

Being a devotee of Francis Schaeffer, for whom the "propositional truth" of the scriptures was the cornerstone of all knowledge, I've always bristled at the contention, quite common these days among emergents and post-conservatives, that propositional truth is a false hope of the enlightenment. Always struck me as odd - isn't the statement "propositional truth is false" itself a proposition?

Many - I think most are well meaning - will say that revelation is not found in propositional statements about God, but in God's saving acts in history, that it is the Acts that are revelatory and not the verbal descriptions of them.

So I was tickled, when googling a different topic, to find this article by Evangelical Anglican Canon D.B. Knox, who I don't know much about, save that he was Principal of Moore Theological College, Sydney, Australia, from 1959-1985. The article is titled "PROPOSITIONAL REVELATION, THE ONLY REVELATION".

Rethinking Robert Webber - Part 4

Robert Webber grounds authority in the apostolic teaching, and most Christians would of course agree. The apostles were given authority by Christ, and all other authority derives from that. Here Webber veers ever so slightly into the “tradition is equal to written scripture” view.

"Authority in the early medieval era, like in the ancient church, was rooted in the apostolic tradition and succession….while the apostles were the original authority in the church, a writing of Augustine or another Father of the church, or a creed or council that extended or expounded an idea in keeping with apostolic teaching enjoyed a kind of apostolic authority." P177

I do not mean to read too much into that. His view is likely not equivalent to what Catholicism is often accused of by Protestants. One has to nuance one’s objections in this regard. The problem with tradition is not that it exists, but centers around the question of when it begins to bend the scripture, when it begins to add to or take away from what the apostles clearly wrote. And Augustine was one who indicated quite strongly his own writingw were not as authoritative as scripture.

Webber makes much of tradition though, and finds the horrible culprit to be convicted in recent evangelical thought to be reason.

Rethinking Robert Webber - Part 3

I don't know how to reiterate enough that I really liked the writings of the late Robert Webber, his irenic tone, his gentle and calm voice. How I hate to critique him for that reason, but precisely because I was rather fond of his "ancient-future" approach, I feel I need to point out what seems to me a significant problem. Webber's epistemology leans just a bit too far toward the postmodern for my comfort, and in that I am genuinely disappointed.

Turns out that in Ancient Future Faith Webber also had a modified evangelical stance on scripture. He says scripture is inspired. He says it is authoritative. He does not like the notion of inerrancy. But most troubling to me is that he concluded scripture is ultimately not foundational, restating a common distinction that the true source of authority for faith is a person, not a book.

"I have not started where evangelicals usually start-with the scriptures. Rather, I begin with the work of Jesus Christ, the primordial event of the living, dying, rising, and coming again. I have attempted to unfold the Christian faith in a phenomenological manner…. Not starting with the Bible does not represent a lower view of Scripture than that which is generally held among evangelicals,. Instead, Christocentric method acknowledges the place of the scriptures in early Christian tradition." P31

Of couse it sounds very good to insist that Christ is the ultimate reality and that the book that contains teachings by Him and about Him is not, ultimately, God. Still, I can only think that this distinction between the “person” of Christ and the scriptures is a false dichotomy. I’ve been hearing that one for three decades. It is nothing new to me. It usually came from the mouths of those who wanted a tie to a domesticated Christ without much commitment to his moral teachings. I'm sure that is not the case with Webber, but I have to ask, how do we know the person of Christ apart from the testimony of those who walked with him? How do we know Christ apart from the gospels? Ultimately, the answer is experience.

I would object that my own faith is not in “scripture” as an inanimate object that somehow has a magical power. It is not in rationalistic axioms or systematic theology. Of course my faith is in a person, but that faith could not exist apart from content about that person, content that has its roots in scripture. Jesus was Jewish. He was born in Bethlehem. He preached in Jerusalem and Samaria. He was crucified under an historical figure named Pilate. He claimed to be one with the father. He claimed authority to forgive sins. We know this from a book that contains writings claimed to be "God-breathed". One cannot know Christ truly apart from scripture.

But Webber unfortunately sees an overdependence on scripture as a problem to be solved. “The primary problem we evangelicals have inherited from the enlightenment is its emphasis on the foundational nature of Scripture.” P45

What Webber will ultimately argue is that the foundation for Christianity is the "rule of faith" forged by the church and that scripture is a part of the "handed down" teaching of the apostles. It is a milder version of what the Catholics and Orthodox argue. So he is not without company. But I have to disagree with his suggestion that seeing scripture as foundational is a "problem" inherited from the 17th Century Enlightenment. I can quote plenty of 16th century figures about the foundational nature of scripture. I can quote several early church fathers about the foundational nature of scripture. No doubt Webber meant something more subtle:

“The book-oriented approach to the Christian faith, which dominated during the Enlightenment, makes several presuppositions: (1) the Bible is the mind of God written; (2) the mind is the highest faculty of our creation in the image of God (3) truth is known as the human mind meets the mind of God in the study of Scripture. The Bible as observable data is an exact science that leads to rational answers. These answers are objective propositional truths." P 45

He sees this a problematic. But I think he knocks down a straw man. Exact science? Do most evangelicals really believe that? Is there no nuance, no room for humility in typical evangelical theology?

“Catechetical training from the Reformation to the present has been based on the notions of reading, writing, linear sequence, analysis and memory…a shift occurred away from a mystical view of the Christian faith experienced in the liturgy to an intellectual understanding of the faith."

Here is a truly false dichotomy. It is so common these days to read of two alternatives, the first negative one being a wooden, rationalistic and ultimately naturalistic approach to the text and the second positive one an experiential, mystical, communitarian approach. But it is not so cut and dried. Do all "rational" approaches to scripture rule out experience? Did the early church never read scripture rationally?

Clearly, according to the last statement above, he favors a “mystical” view over a “propositional” view. This is because he sees truth a a "communitarian" construct. The truth value of the faith is determined not by correspondence to reality but by the fidelity to a way of life, an embodied reality. He makes a bold claim.

"… In the postmodern world, education will shift from the passing down of information to the passing down of wisdom through experience. Christian truth, which was regarded as propositional, intellectual and rational, will be experienced as an embodied reality. Faith will be communicated through immersion into a community of people who truly live the Christian faith.”155

So the truth of the faith is not made clear by rational argument, but by allowing a seeker to "experience" the life of Christ in a community. I think most Christians would agree with that up to a point. People do want to see righteousness, to feel love and compassion, to experience forgiveness in tangible ways. I'm not sure secular non-believers will universally sense the presence of God in liturgy, but his point is well taken.

If he means that post-moderns who don't listen to rational arguments need to be reached by other approaches, I'll agree. But if he means that rational arguments are no longer valid at all, then I have a problem. If he means that the concept of "objective truth" can no longer be applied to the claims of Christianity, then I have a problem.

And here is the crux of it. Muslims live their faith, much more so than most Christians. Is Islam therefore the truth? Mormons likewise live their faith. Shall we prefer Mormonism to Christianity with no regard for the historical verifiability of Joseph Smith’s audacious claims? In separating Christianity from history, rationality, from correspondence to reality, Webber unwittingly makes Christianity nothing more than another option on the smorgasbord of ideas. Without a rational (as opposed rationalist) tie to objective truth, why should Christianity be seen as in any way more inviting or true than any other notion?”

I'm don't believe Webber went all the way through that door of runaway subjectivity and mysticism, but he cracked that door open. Once the objective historical content of faith is lost, there is no longer an anchor to hold faith in place, and it inevitably will drift. Webber believed that the consensus of the history of the church would be a sufficient anchor, but even consensus needs a cornerstone. He believes authority lies not in the text of scripture, but in something else, in the community. To his view of authority we will turn last.

Rethinking Robert Webber - Part 2

I wrote in the last post that I was a fan of Bob Webber. However, his underlying assumptions begin to come out in Ancient Future Faith in a way I hadn't seen. One of Webber's suggested methods for dealing in a postmodern world incorporated the ideas of George Lindbeck. This means, unfortunately, that Webber is hinting he agrees with the rejection of the very notion of "propositional truth", that rejection being the hallmark of postmodern thought. It involves the rejection of the idea that there is an objective reality that can be known and described and replaces that with the idea that truth is formed by a community. That community's unique set of beliefs become truth in that context.

According to Webber, Lindbeck “…posits the ‘cultural-linguistic’ concept of conceptualizing the significance of classical theology for the postmodern world. This approach to theology is an alternative to the modern conservative insistence on propositional truth and the liberal view of doctrines as expressive symbols. Lindbeck regards both conservative and liberal constructs of truth as ‘extratextual’ because they search for the ‘religious meaning outside the text or semiotic system either in the objective realities to which it refers or in the experience it symbolizes. The propositionalists insist the language of doctrine corresponds with an exact objective truth while the expressionists locate the value of the truth of the doctrine in the subjective experience of the believers without any need to correspond to an external objective truth. Rejecting both of these concepts, Lindbeck describes the ‘cultural-linguistic’ view of doctrine as ‘intratextual’. That is, the meaning is constituted by the uses of a specific language rather than being distinguishable from it. In other words, its truth value is determined by how it ‘fits into systems of communication or purposeful action, not by reference to outside facts” p30

I am curious here. Lindbeck seems to be saying that "liberal" and "conservative" are equally misguided in terms of epistemology. They are one and the same, in fact. They formulate different conclusions, but begin with the same misunderstanding of reality. I find that a bit disconcerting and I think, inaccurate.

But the last pharase, that meaning is "constituted" by how it fits into a system of communication "not by reference to outside facts" raises an eyebrow. Is Lindbeck saying, and is Webber agreeing, that a "fact" such as the empty tomb in the first century is not something on which meaning can be built? If the empty tomb were not a fact, would it still provide genuine meaning for the community? Is meaning completely divorced from objective reality?

This is the problem that seems to be creeping into theological thought in almost every tradition, mainline, evangelical, emergent. It is the idea that meaning is a sort of corporately held subjective social contract. All "facts" are "interpreted", so it is not the facts that really matter, only the interpretation. Webber applies this kind of thought to the Creed:

“For example, the truth value of the Nicene Creed is not to be found in words that correspond with an exact reality, but in words that truthfully signify the religious reality of the Trinity in the system of thought…in which it is articulated.” P30

I have an immediate problem with the term "exact reality". I doubt any traditional conservative believes words correspond exactly to reality, that "Trinity" adequately describes the nature of God. But most people, (I think it safe to say, for most of human history) work from the assumption that there is a measure of reasonable correspondence between language and an external something that is real. When I say "tree", nobody who heard my voice will likely conjure in their minds an image of "rock". Words do not convey exact reality, but neither do they convey nothing at all about reality. There has to be a connection.

Webber seems to buy into Lindbeck's distinction between that which is "extratextual" or objective and that which is "intratextual", or consistent within the inner logic of the community.

“In modernity, we always sought for truth that could be somehow verified outside the community of faith. Lindbeck refers to this quest as 'extratextual’. That is, using reason and logic, we expected to prove that the framework of faith could be demonstrated to be true through historical or scientific research. Both liberals and conservatives wanted statements of faith to have a proven correspondence with reality.” P185

I think he misses a mark with this connection of "objectivity" to liberalism: “This led liberals to the process of demythologizing Christian doctrine and relegating doctrines to pious experiential expressions of faith” p185

Come now. It was reason that "led" liberals to deny the supernatural in scripture? Could there not have been something more involved? Unbelief? Negative moral influences? Faulty logic? Naturalistic assumptions?

At any rate, for Webber, what ultimately matters is not the Scripture as a historical record of Apostolic teaching that can be objectively grasped, what matters is the community which defined the "rule of faith" which the scripture supports and serves. As long as that rule is consistent and has a history of guiding the community, we do not need, nor should we desire, evidence. Truth is found not in objective reality, but in the shared heritage of the community of faith.

"Lindbeck identifies the ancient regula fidei as ‘intratextual’. That is, it makes sense within its own story. Its sense is not determined by outside factors, but by the system of thought it intends to communicate. The point is that Christianity is not provable outside itself through the scientific method. One must come to the Christian faith believing that it is true and embrace it as such without any dependence on data outside the faith. Christianity requires trust, a believing embrace, a willingness to step inside its story apart from any dependence on historical, scientific, or rational persuasion. Once a person steps into the stream of faith, the community introduces that person to the rules of discussion." P185

This is precisely why I cringe a bit whenever I hear Christian leaders speak of scripture as a “narrative” these days. Of course scripture is a narrative. Of course it tells the story of salvation. But I always fear they mean that Christianity is “story” only, and has no tether to history.

To say Christianity “makes sense within its own story” is to say nothing that would require any concept of faith that I have ever understood. Internal consistency is not necessarily related to truth. Humpty Dumpty is internally consistent, but not true, not historical, nor salvific.

Faith, as Webber seems to be describing it, is not a "conviction of the truthfulness" of something as suggested in my lexicon, and understanding is not a prerequisite for faith. Rather one "just believes" by being immersed in a community, being exposed to its symbols and traditions, and understanding comes later after that non-rational "faith" is rooted. It is this subtle severing of the connection between faith and reason that I have, in my own small way, battled against for 25 years. And now it seems to be overtaking the Western Evangelical church. I did not see that strain in Webber earlier, now it greatly troubles me.

Rethinking Robert Webber - Part 1

I started down a path a few years ago, based in Tom Oden's urging to follow Vincent of Lerins' dictum, "always, everywhere and by all". It seemed to me a path that would mitigate some of the fragmentation that exists in Protestantism. A healthy respect for the past, for the consensus of what Christians have believed in every culture and century might help us overcome our blind spots and pet divisive doctrines.

About the same time, I discovered the late Robert Webber. His seminal book, The Younger Evangelicals highlighted, I believed, some of what Oden was saying. We live in a post-modern culture. Webber, I believed, was not one to embrace postmodernism uncritically, but was able to acknowledge its influence. He seemed to suggest many things that would help evangelicals navigate the postmodern era without buying its assumptions lock, stock and barrel.

I also read his Worship Old and New which I really thought would be helpful to evangelicals and would narrow some of the unnecessary gaps between free church evangelicals and traditional Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans and Anglicans. He defined and explained worship based on Vincent's dictum - always, everywhere and by all.

So I was a fan of Robert Webber. He passed away not long ago and I still want to respect and honor his gentle, irenic and useful work. I believe he was a genuine, orthodox and brilliant guy. But as I read more of his writings, I have to pause and step back.

Is Evidential Apologetics Dead? - Part 3

If it is true that Christianity doesn't fit into the cateories of mathematical or scientific "bomb-proof certainty", then what kind of proof can we speak of for basic tenets of Christianity?

We have, in this country, a longstanding legal tradition that says that cases can be settled on the principle of proof "beyond reasonable doubt". We do not require that matters be settled with absolute certainty, which is not humanly possible for your average court case. What we require is that a case be made which establishes something in such a way that to doubt a particular conclusion would be unreasonable.

Is Evidential Apologetics Dead? - Part 2

In all the conversations I have seen regarding whether evidential apologetics are no longer useful, something strikes me as odd. One reason evidential apologetics seems under attack is because the notion of "bomb-proof certainty" has been abandoned. It is often stated that certainty is one of those enlightenment ideas that should be given up in favor of epistemological modesty and an embrace of mystery and ambiguity.

Part of the reason for this is criticism from skeptics who insist many of the traditional "proofs" of this or that are not adequate. But I tend to think there is a bit of category confusion going on here. There is a lack of definition of what is meant by the term "proof".

I tend to think of proof in terms of three types - mathematical, scientific and legal.

Is Evedential Apologetics Dead? Part 1

The late Robert Webber coined a phrase in "The Younger Evangelicals" which has caught on in Emerging Church circles - "embodied apologetics". He means, if I read him correctly, that because we live in a postmodern age where young people are skeptical about the triumph of the scientific method, they are not receptive to the old apologetics approach of "evidence that demands a verdict", but do respond to a "proof is in the pudding" approach where seeing Christianity lived well is compelling.

I generally have liked Robert Webber. He does not seem to travel the path of others who are sensitive to postmodern cultural shifts - that is, though he recognizes that many enlightenment ideas art now seen as discredited in the culture at large and are considered naive by postmoderns, he does not seem to buy all of the tenets of the postmodern epistemology uncritically. Webber tends to speak in measured tones - not overstating his case, not trashing all things modern, not treating postmodern notions as the latest and greatest thing. He seems a bit more cautious than others in this regard.

So when Webber says "embodied apologetic", guys like me tend to listen and not react like we do when hearing the more provocative spokesmen of EC make their pronouncements. He seems to be saying "we need to understand the culture without succumbing to it." We don't have to accept everything in PoMo epistemology, but we do need to deal with it. If the folks we are trying to convince of the truth of Christianity don't warm to rational proofs, then we are foolish to take rational proofs as a starting point. If they do respond to genuine community, then by all means, having goals of establishing and maintaining communities that are genuine makes sense. One does not have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Can Faith be Rooted in the Symbolic?

Chuck Colson has an interesting little bit today about how the emphasis on symbols may be contributing to overall illiteracy. The example he focuses on is how automobile dashboards are increasingly covered with symbols, pictures and no words describing the function of this or that button or switch. As someone who currently works in education I find that a point of interest - how kids who do not read well have difficulty in every other area of education and how well meaning educators from time to time have emphasized other ways of learning to accommodate those kids, only to find that they sacrifice long-term essentials for short term gain.

But this is the quote that really struck me...

As the late Neil Postman wrote in his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, the medium of communication actually helps shape the way people think. The printed word requires sustained attention, logical analysis, and an active imagination. But television and video games, with their fast-moving images, encourage a short attention span, disjointed thinking, and purely emotional responses.

Deconstructing Tony Jones - Part 4 - The Silenced Voices

I really have no desire to be mean or nasty or attack Tony Jones personally. I hope my rather miniscule readership will recognize that my admittedly polemic prose is directed at ideas, not personalities. Tony, if you are reading, my tone reflects the seriousness of the topic, not a desire to call names and assault your person. Perhaps my problem is with the imprecision of language, but it would seem in Theology, precision matters, and implications of ideas matter.

Having said that, in this last post I have to take issue with the insertion of power politics into Jones’ reading of history. Of course human beings tend to assert themselves in any and every meeting. Yes, politics happen. But does it necessarily follow that one must “deconstruct” every decision and conclude that power politics played a central role in the outcome? Perhaps he was merely being hyperbolic, but Jones claims:

"The Chalcedonian creed of the two natures-one person of Jesus Christ, as well as every other theological construction from every other council, has human fingerprints all over it. These were messy meetings, rife with power and politics."

Notice the “totalizing metanarrative” Jones suggests. “Every” theological construction is “rife” with power politics. In reference to the debates regarding this or that doctrinal development, he notes that disagreements were sometimes heated – but takes it one step further…

Deconstructing Tony Jones - Part 3 - Tepid Liberalism

Tony Jones claims that EC is a great way to navigate between the “cocksure certainties of conservatism and the perceived tepidness of liberalism.” Odd, he seems pretty cocksure that consensus is a misguided notion. And in the place of “cocksure certainties of conservatism”, Jones inserts what can only be described as, well, tepid.

Jones quotes from a book, “The Weakness of God: A Theology of the Event”, by one Jack Caputo:

"To think theologically is to make the mind’s ascent toward God, which means toward whatever event is astir in the name of God, where the name of God is not a linguistic object that can be stretched out on the table for analysis. To use the name of God is an unstable, destabilizing act that exposes us to whatever event is transpiring in that name, to whatever chain of events this name provokes."
Hmm. “Whatever chain of events this name provokes”. In the place of a rule book, be it rules about strike zones or foul balls, we now have the theology of “whatever”. I am looking in vain for what are the precise or even imprecise limits of “whatever”? How do we know if a “chain of events” leads us heavenward or toward the pits of hell? In the absence of definitions, propositions, truth statements, what is the means of discerning the difference between ascent and descent?

Now I’m sure Jones will protest he is not advocating an “anything goes” viewpoint. He writes:


"To look at it from the side of our weakness, orthodoxy is an event and not a statement because, to put it colloquially, not one of us will score a perfect 100 on the Big Theology Exam in the Sky. We’ve all got a little heterodoxy mixed in with all the orthodoxy, and most of us will admit that. I’m wrong about some things; the problem, of course, is knowing what parts I’m wrong about. “O my fellow orthodox theologians, there are no orthodox theologians”.
While admitting that we all have a mixture of orthodox and heterodox ideas rattling about in our limited brains, he again throws down the “provocative” gauntlet, “there are no orthodox theologians”. None. Wonder why so many who might consider themselves to be orthodox theologians were upset with him.

Deconstructing Tony Jones - Part 2 - Vincent of Lerins

Back to Tony Jones' paper and it's rejection for publication in a book detailing the conference at Wheaton in which it was presented.
My quibble with Tony Jones' use of the strike zone as an analogy to the task of theology is pretty much just that, a mere quibble. When Jones takes on Vincent of Lerins and the very definition of orthodoxy, I believe he goes way over the edge and “disaster”, a word used by his critics at the Wheaton Conference, seems an accurate description of his position.

The title of his paper is “Whence Hermeneutic Authority?“ so he has declared a purpose. He also clearly identifies himself as “Tony Jones, National Coordinator of Emergent Village”, so we should all agree that Tony Jones claims to be a leader in the emerging church movement. His positions cannot be dismissed as just a singular tentative opinion in a large “conversation”, but are instead positions that carry a certain amount of weight and influence. That is why they are troubling.

Jones begins with a quote: “Tipp O.Neill famously quipped that .All politics are local.. Maybe so, but the postmodernists have argued that all hermeneutics are local. It is our local communities that shape how we see the world”. This quote is critical to understanding emerging church viewpoints. The postmodern epistemology that flows through the veins of key EC thinkers colors everything. The disdain for “metanarratives” can only lead, in their view, to one conclusion, that “micronarratives” are the logical replacement.

Deconstructing Tony Jones - Part 1 - The Strike Zone

Tony Jones is miffed that the paper he presented at Wheaton has been rejected for publication in a book that includes the papers presented by others. On his blog he expressed a bit of frustration that some theologians characterized his paper as a “disaster” and a couple of others wrote him detailed responses, critiquing specifics. Of course the several students who approached him later saying they appreciated his talk, in Jones’ estimation were sufficient counterbalance to the concerns of the theologians for him to characterize the response as “mixed”. Hmm.

The assignment, apparently, was for Jones to give some perspective on how the emerging church includes the patristic fathers in their “conversation”. Wheaton apparently told him that his talk was “off message” and “provocative but less than helpful”. Having read the entire paper now more than once, I have to say Wheaton could have been less gracious.

Since Jones chose to “deconstruct” Vincent of Lerins’, a rather important figure in the “new ecumenism” espoused by Thomas Oden and others, to refer to Vincent’s famous charge to seek what has been believed “always, everywhere and by all” as “hollow”, perhaps a bit of deconstructing of Tony Jones will be both “provocative” and “helpful”.

Dennis Prager on the Authority of The Book

I listen to Dennis Prager when I get the chance. He is a Jewish Conservative talk show host who is calm, articulate and gracious. He column today in Jewish World Review speaks to the issue of the culture wars and does the best job I have seen in quite some time in defining what the culture wars actually are.

I have grown a bit weary of the secular press characterizing the culture wars as an attempt for a few narrow, fundamentalist, right-wing zealots to impose a theocracy on the rest of the culture, a culture which we are told has been secular since the days of Thomas Jefferson. I am growing more weary of the tendency of many evangelical Christian authors and bloggers to essentially say the same thing, that Christian involvement in politics (read conservative Republicanism) is unbiblical and damages the church. More on that in a later post.

Prager does a great service by providing a bit of clarity. What the culture wars are about is not religion per se, but morality based on a text that is shared across many very different viewpoints: