3 comments

• 

  R. Michael

  1 year ago

  Drew,
  
  I agree it is encouraging to read about groups such as this. It is hard to imagine this happening within the larger context of the church which by definition has creeds that exclude as well as include. This is why I hold little hope for the evangelical church as it currently exists. I hope I am wrong on this but my gut tells me that I am right. Have you thought of a model where this might have an effect on the church? Might we be able to take baby steps toward this in a church model? Would be interested to know your thoughts.
  reply
• 

  Drew Tatusko

  1 year ago

  I capitulate to Kierkegaards' sense of God's ultimate otherness here. If God is so other from our conditions, then nothing in our conditions can come that close to God except for what is revealed in Christ.
  
  But unlike relying on individual choice in the face of this otherness (to choose God when our rationality cannot justify such a choice except to describe it as something fundamentally absurd)we also need to recognize the social structures that condition and limit the coloring of how we render that choice. In other words, every choice, including God, is socially conditioned and we do not make that choice "alone". I think recognizing that all of our experiences of God (including those in the witness of Scripture) are and must be socially mediated is the best ground to construct the dialogue. Our social structures are tentative, weak, and impermanent before God. This reveals the very otherness of God as well as our need for God to make us whole. But it also means that we cannot subvert the otherness that is God's very lordship with our own mental and social structures. Our knowledge of God and of Scriptures is theory-laden, and our theories, no matter what they are in our doctrine, are always tentative and demand our critical analysis.
  
  So critically engaging our beliefs whether we are liberal or conservative is how we can develop our dialogue and our theology. The task before us is to critically engage those doctrines in the midst of and in reference to our lived experience.
  
  So that's why with these two dimensions theology to be that of an existential pragmatist. The question I ask to test doctrine is this: How may we live this in order that the good may flourish? And I mean flourish if we look to the entire human race and its place on this planet. That means that if this doctrine helps my clarity and the clarity of those who think like me, but can be considered harmful to someone else, it's time to keep working and to continue to revise.
  
  The thing is, that with this approach we will always be working. We can stand on convictions, but just as a scientist stands on hypotheses and theories. The method becomes the foundation, not the doctrines arrived at through the method.
  reply
• 

  R. Michael

  1 year ago

  had to read this few a couple of times to get it...OK, OK many times....but understand your point that the goal is never really achieved if the goal is a perfect doctrine. Seems like the human condition is that no matter what conviction we pursue there is potential harm to others.
  reply