Theology of the Word and the Postmodern Context: #1
The following thoughts have been milling around in my head for months now. My most recent thoughts have been sparked by an article by Jonny Baker that my co-worker, BJ, asked me to read. The article is great. Suposedly it was written for a book on preaching with many different UK voices, but his article was rejected. Read it and you'll understand why. Jonny Baker and many in the emerging church, including Doug Pagitt who has a new book on preaching, are calling for major changes in the way we think about and do preaching. Some have said that the emerging churches are strong in their anthropological understandings of what postmodern people want and can learn through, but not so strong in theology. I agree that the emerging church voices I often hear are not very strong theologically, not because their wrong, but because they speak mainly in anthropologic terms instead of theologic. I beleive the changes that the emerging church leaders are calling for in preaching can be supported theologically. In fact, at least in our context, this developing theology of the Word is stronger than what we have inherited from the modern church.
First of all, my theology of the Word has to be explained very quickly. Barth has helped me here. Barth says the Word of God is both scripture and more importantly Jesus. The Word of God is Jesus Christ. Barthian thinkers beleive transformation comes through the proclamation of the Word. That proclamation is the action of Jesus through the proclamation of the truth of scripture. Scripture is the conduit, but it is not the object of our worship. Our worship is of Jesus, not scripture. Of course scripture is beleived to be inspired by The Word and so it is held very high as the main way Jesus speaks to his church. But Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are all held far above scripture. Barth's theology, which I only understand in it's simplest forms, does not necesitate scripture to be inerrant, but it does hold it to be God's written Word and fully inspired by God. My thoughts over the next few days are built upon this kind of theology of the Word. A theology that places the greatest importance on what Jesus is presently doing through the activity of the Word.
Comments
"what is needed today is a Scriptural setting forth of the character of God-His absolute sovereignty, His ineffable holiness, His Inflexible justice, His unchanging veracity. What Is needed today Is a Scriptural setting forth of the condition of the natural man-his total depravity, his spiritual insensibility, his inveterate hostility to God, the fact that he is "condemned already" and that the wrath of a sin-hating God is even now abiding upon him. What is needed today is a Scriptural setting forth of the alarming danger in which sinners are-the Indescribably awful doom which awaits them, the fact that if they follow only a little further their present course they shall most certainly suffer the due reward of their iniquities. What is needed today is a Scriptural setting forth of the nature of that punishment which awaits the lost-the awfulness of it, the hopelessness of it, the unendurableness of it, the endlessness of it. It is because of these convictions that by pen as well as by voice we are seeking to sound the alarm."
see anything missing here?
I am a Christian. I worship God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I do my best to follow the commands of Jesus, who is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being. I do not worship scripture, but the fact of the matter is that all I know about Father, Son and Holy Spirit I have learned from scripture. (I have also learned it from the examples and teachings of other believers, but they learned it from scripture, either directly or indirectly.) I believe scripture to be a family photograph album of sorts, where we see God as He truly is and where we stand in relation to Him.
I'm not defending the use of the A.W. Pink quote by the anti-emergent people. I have read the Jonny Baker article and believe it to be a good one. I guess what I'm saying is that it's absolutely ridiculous for the two sides to be using ancient quotes completely out of context as weapons against the beliefs of the "other side." When we do this, we spend all of our time shooting down the ineffective weapons of each others offensive rather than engaging in diplomatic talks. It's a waste of time and no one on either side is convinced of any truth in the other's stance. That's what I love about the emergent conventions. The problem is that it's really hard to get the majority of people to come because they're called "Emergent" conventions. Anti-emnergent people will not necessarily want to go to an "Emergent" convention.
What can be done about this?
-Ross Donaldson
- Ross
As Ross stated the argument within the church is somewhat unimportant. The importance from my perspective is to get the Word out (by all means necessary) to the least, the last and the lost. Some of this will require proclamation in the traditional sense of pedagogy and some of this will require missiological and pedagogical imaginiantion to bring into the light the truths of the Gospel that are lying dorment with the postmodern culture.
Gotta go!
As Ross stated the argument within the church is somewhat unimportant. The importance from my perspective is to get the Word out (by all means necessary) to the least, the last and the lost. Some of this will require proclamation in the traditional sense of pedagogy and some of this will require missiological and pedagogical imaginiantion to bring into the light the truths of the Gospel that are lying dorment with the postmodern culture.
Gotta go!
As Ross stated the argument within the church is somewhat unimportant. The importance from my perspective is to get the Word out (by all means necessary) to the least, the last and the lost. Some of this will require proclamation in the traditional sense of pedagogy and some of this will require missiological and pedagogical imaginiantion to bring into the light the truths of the Gospel that are lying dorment with the postmodern culture.
Gotta go!
Missiologically speaking (look at me, usin' all these seminary words!), the argument for meeting people where they are has often been made by using Acts 17 as the example. This is where Paul uses the culture and "religious" beliefs of the Greeks to get the Word out, to make Jesus known. But, this is only one example of God's doing so. In this example, He used a human to do so. But, what about the first instance of getting the Word out?
A couple of years after Christ was born, there came from the east wise men according to Matthew, chapter 2. Now, the Greek word translated as wise men is Magi, who were a priestly line Medes who practiced astrology and divination, things expressly forbidden by the Bible. These men practiced another religion.
Bearing that in mind, we see in Matthew 2 that they go to Herod and they ask, "Where is the child who has been born? For we have observed his star at its rising and have come to pay him homage." (Matthew 2:2 NRSV) In other words, the Magi used astrology and divination to find out that Jesus was to be born and, through this, God led them to the one true God in human form. The Word become flesh was revealed to them and they were changed.
So, did God in fact use another religion to bring people to Himself? Some may call that heresy, but that is certainly what it seems like to me. Perhaps I don't understand the full implications. Perhaps this story was just a foreshadowing of God calling gentiles to Himself, but I do believe that we have a God that meets us where we are and it isn't as though He didn't lay groundwork for this event centuries earlier in having Daniel among the Magi (See http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg2182.htm).
So, yes, I agree that God is unlimited in His reach and that we need to meet people on their turf, as He did with all humankind. However, I still believe the scripture is indespensible and that it has been given to us as a safeguard because our experiences as broken people being sought after as a lion's prey can be deceptive. If you look a bit further in Matthew, chapter 2, you will see that the experience of these astrologers and diviners was backed up by scripture, which they used as additional evidence to the truth of their claim. It is the main evidence, I would argue.
- Ross