The Truth Conference is now over. I think the positive of the conference might be a little different for each individual.
If I leave aside the selfish enjoyment of being allowed to talk, the most beneficial thing about the conference to me was getting better acquainted with my brothers and sisters at other Wesleyan colleges and in church leadership here and there. I was impressed by various individuals from every Wesleyan college.
Just to mention a couple, I would of course have expected a Houghton philosophy professor to be impressive, but I really enjoyed Carlton Fisher's paper, which (at least in my mind) flowed like butter into mine. It is always nice to find that people whose knowledge you respect are thinking in similar ways to you and even nicer to find out they're Wesleyan!
Similarly, I have known Ken Gavel since seminary, but I was really impressed not only by his knowledge of theology, but by his careful, exacting scholarship. Here is a scholar in the classic tradition! He teaches theology at Bethany, and disabuses anyone of the idea that professors at Bible colleges are inferior to liberal arts teachers. I might say that Bethany seems to be a really neat place, perhaps an unsung hero among our colleges.
In my "marketing stereotypes," Bethany to me is the "emergent" college, Houghton is the "academic" college, IWU is the "ministerial training" college, SWU is the "Southern" college (with all the appertinences pertaining thereto), and OWU is the conservative college (not meaning Wesleyan conservative as in legalistic but leaning a bit toward the fundamentalist).
If you were to ask for consensus conclusions, I would say that all agreed we needed to minister to the postmodern, next generation. While that's obvious, the second half of the conference seemed to gravitate to the question of how our ministries and teachings will need to change. It seemed generally agreed that we would need to be more positive, authentic, and loving than divisive, authoritarian, and exclusive.
On the other hand, the lead off to the conference seemed to take a more confrontative, combative approach. So there was some diversity of sentiment.
So the second half tended to focus more on postmodernism as a culture. The first half focused more on postmodernism as an (anti) ideology. The first two presentations (both by the same individual, associated with OWU) tended to see postmodernism strictly as something to fight against, while most of the papers that followed agreed that there was truth to be reckoned with in postmodern (anti) thought, not least that we will need to be much more humble in our pretensions to having everything figured out.
So I suspect the benefit of the conference will vary from individual to individual. Some will continue to treat postmodernism strictly as the enemy. Most will see it as a force to be reckoned with. Some will see it as a helpful corrective as long as room is allowed for faith and a truth that is ultimately beyond our full comprehension.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hi, Dr. Schenck,
As a recent graduate of Bethany, I was quite surprised to read that you perceive BBC to be emergent. I am curious as to how you came to that conclusion. ?
Also, I'm glad you've discovered the wonderful-ness of Dr.Gavel. He is one of the top three out of ten on the "people who have most influenced my life" list.
Maybe it's my way of combining "youth pastor" with Dave Medders. Dave just seems like a really open-minded, let's change however we need to change to win this world type guy. Would you think it more accurate to call it the "youth pastor" college? Probably none of the colleges would like my stereotypes?
Ken
Ha ha. Yes, stereotypes are unlikely to be embraced by any of the colleges.
I think your "youth pastor" college label is probably more accurate at the moment. But, there are usually a few students (and sometimes profs) who dare to emerge out of the old molds. I'm sure this could be said at every college though.
In my opinion, there are three "types" in which students/administrative staff/faculty fall into.
Type 1) Inside the box thinkers. These are unwilling to tread off the already beaten path of thought/method into areas uncharted. I think 65% of BBC is currently this way.
Type 2) Outside the box thinkers. These believe that it is important to be innovative in thought and method, but do so always in relation to the location of the cherished box. In otherwords, how far they are from the edge of the box is still noted and marked and one can only go so far away from the box and still be politically correct. Thus, the box is still the starting point. 20% of BBC is this way.
Type 3) "There is no box at all" thinkers. These believe that God never made any "proper" box at all; therefore reigning in thoughts and methods to be located in the box or demarcating them in relation to how far they are from the box, is in fact atheistic to these people. 15% of BBC is this way.
I believe that in a truly emergent environment, differing views will be hospitably embraced, welcomed, and carefully considered by the larger college social/political culture.
Hope that helps you to know BBC better (at least from one graduate's perspective).
Peace.
Jo Hanson
Thanks for a real run down! Others unhappy with my labels, jump in!
By the way, my stereotypes sometimes are hopeful (not so much these), visions of what I would like to be even though they aren't necessarily quite there. It's my way of inviting others to "make it so." So when I say that the Wesleyan Church is not fundamentalist, I'm okay with the general leaders, okay with its educators, but no doubt doing some wishful thinking and attempts to get others to embrace it on the grass roots level...
Ken - I agree and appreciated the papers which sought opportunities with those in the culture of postmodernism (which does not seem to be just a generational phenomenon). However, I also kept wondering if the purpose of the conference was to DO anything with this new understanding? Sure is fun to just be academics and discuss it, though ;-)
BTW, by "do" I meant collaboratively as Wesleyan institutions. Individually, however, the conference will influence working with the postmodern culture.
Some of the most exciting suggestions at the end of the conference had to do with the colleges cooperating more intentionally (which admittedly wasn't the topic of the conference). I like the idea of having a seminary that treated all the colleges as branch campuses. Regardless of my current station, I think for any number of reasons IWU would be the best home base (not least because our accrediting agency is more flexible).
In terms of the truth conference, I think it would be well for us to make some sort of a statement, perhaps in book form, that challenged the Wesleyan Church to rise to the postmodern occasion. Here I don't mean some fluffy emptiness on postmodernism (yawn), but something that was hard hitting and challenging.
For example, some of the Wesleyan Church seems to be mindlessly drifting into a kind of fundamentalism in all sorts of areas: theology, understanding of inerrancy (which I don't think has really been fundamentalist in the past), women, politics. I think it would do well to shock the pool with some loving, challenging, thoughtful, and readable chapters to put in the hands of pastors.
Or maybe that's too old school. OK--I'll have it all ready in a podcast version by next weekend :-)
P.S. That was a joke...
Post a Comment