Theoblogian excerpts and comments

I have elected to comment here on my site as opposed to the original,
>theoblogy,
because the discussion there is of a very technical nature, where, rather than big words being used and misused it is the names of authors, ancient and modern, being flaunted about as if they were common household cleansers, so I will finish what I began earlier, to whit:

What can I say that better serves to confuse the issue than these excerpts from the poster and commenters

I. Tony Jones states: options available to Christians in a globalized/pluralistic/postmodern society: liberal accomodationism, conservative retreatism, Hauerwasian sectarianism, and the newcomer: Milbankian (Radical Orthodoxy) withdrawal into the liturgy.

These all seem at once the same option, and as if I am a bit and piece of each one of the differences attempted. Yet again the redundancy!

II. Again Tony Jones: the ability to maintain a "robust doctrine of God" (Steve's words) and a robust understanding of pluralism...is there a way to negotiate a healthy, dialectical relationship with culture and maintain an orthodox doctrine of God?
!st Peter indicates that there is a correct way, but perhaps the best way to consider health is in eternal terms, though striving to maintain the best lifestyle as we can, re Daniel in Babylon.

III. And Tony Jones again: Among practical theologians, there have been a couple major avenues for navigating these waters. Among the University of Chicago theologians (Tillich, Tracy, Browning), there has been an evolving "correlational" model in which theology and culture stand in a dialectical relationship. Tillich said that culture asks the questions and theology provides the answers; Tracy and Browning amended this by saying that each asks questions and each provides answers -- i.e., theology and culture stand in a mutually critical relationship.

I know that I may be a bit sophomoric or worse here but people ask questions and apply disciplines and populate culture. I especailly love it when people ask ‘what is your point?’, to what degree are theology and religion interchangeable?


IV. Tony Jones then states: theology trumps all other disciplines when it comes to issues on which theology is uniquely articulate.

Sorry Tony, and I don’t think that this changes much of the rest of your essay, but idiocy trumps all other disciplines when it is uniquely articulate.

V. Steve B. posits a spirit of fallibilism as necessary to a relationship with others when corresponding upon a subject, in case his box has been incorrectly built by himself.
As humans we will have blind spots and weaknesses but God’s revelation needs only our flexibility in view of others hardness of conviction in order to draw as God himself did the outsiders in through compassion. Flexibility more than fallibility would seem to be a better ideal for me now if it is yo perhaps you are right in using the word fallible. Wink wink nod nod


VI. And Steve b. again: I know what is at stake when I surrender (explicitly or implicitly) my theological convictions on ultimate matters to another discipline
Sounds like you think you have peered through the gates of Hell into the Dark abyss of an unHoly Ghost!

VII. Dlw writes: do both biblical and practical theology.

If it is not Biblical how can it have anything but temporal practicality, and thus no real pracicality?

VIII. An anonymous commenter, Tim Keller, I believe said: the way to a post-modern, post-secular theology

unless any ole who ‘ll do ya, isn’t that through Jesus Christ?

IX. Steve B then wites: The believer, in evaluating state and society, employs a standard of common grace to which she holds others...accountable

This works to place man in control of God’s gift to others, which grace as with any grace elicits only one of two reactions that being acceptance or refusal. God made grace common.