The label "evangelicalism" might have seemed really odd last night if someone noticed. It's because I forgot to give this link in Modern Reformation, an interview with Donald Dayton, a Wesleyan, entitled:
Are Charismatic-Inclined Pietists the True Evangelicals? And Have the Reformed Tried to Highjack Their Movement?
It will be very interesting to Wesleyans. I consider Dayton a real genius in the history of the Wesleyan Church. Unfortunately, there haven't been many and we've never done anything like start a movement. Alas.
Today was okay. I gave another paper. Yesterday's I think was well received. Today's was received like many that make me think are a waste of time. But I liked it :-)
There is so much reading you need to do to really be excellent here. And so much of it is ultimately meaningless. Alas.
Spent a good deal of time today, morning coffee and evening dinner, with old seminary friends, Pete Dongell, Bill and Jenifer Patrick. Someone out there in blogland may know them.
I had a couple of really nice meetings with scholars I deeply respect. Met Jared Calaway in the halls. He is super bright--expect to see him do great things in the future. I missed the bibliobloggers dinner because of Hebrews and because I had to have some carbonara before I left Boston. I don't think it exists in Indiana.
So now I'm in jeans and planning to hit the book display tomorrow (and Philo). I haven't bought a single book yet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Ken, What you do is important. I had always believed that what Christians did, we did because of what theology understood...that was what motivated me, not out of fear, but out of love, being a part of a "family". But, I now understand that my naivete was an emotional need based response for the family I never had...
I recognize that you do admire science and think that science's pragmatic gifts to mankind are more beneficial in the long run...and I am coming to agree.
But what of ethics? If we base ethics on evolution then, we are bound to take advantage of others for our own purposes. I'd much rather people own up to their self-interest and negotiate, and not spiritualize doing something...to me that is using "God's name in vain" because it is saying with one hand that someone should do something for "god", while they are really not doing anything for "god" but for expediencey, greed, common good (science's advancement, i.e. "self"), or some other reason or purpose...It is not "immoral" to do something for "self", if someone is upfront in doing so. I am through with "self abnegation". I have died too many times to continue to abuse myself in the name of "god".
Perhaps, it is just where I am personally, but I am facing life with much more realism, accepting that life is "what it is" and there are no "promises", life is what you make it...
Chariasmatic-inclined pietists, hijacked by the Reformed? Does this mean that Aristotle's "habit formation" is useful for bringing together those who believe in the supernatural or the natural as the "real reality"? Theology has died, by this claim, for it is what you do (piestism) rather than what you believe...
I have to strongly disagree that just "doing right" can be required without understaning ethics. "Doing right" is defined by someone/group. And one must concur with that definition in volitional terms, so that there is an ethical commitment to values that one wants to uphold. Because of the difference in defining values and what values are most important to uphold, there is not going to be a "universal" understanding in theological reflection. People do theology within contexts of experience, history tradition, etc....therefore, even piestic understanding has to have a reason to do so...at least I would have to have a reason...What I think is important today is to widen the arena so that there are more vaiables considered; culture, anthropology, tradition, psyhcological studies, as well as textual studies...Global ethics is really what should be the arena of theology, not "God", but man and man's responsiblity, convictions, and commitments. These areas are of importance for the continuation of human flourishing on a broad scale, but we cannot leave behind understandings of "god" when we do so, otherwise, we have no reason to not impinge on another's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...but, we must also affirm that there is no absolute when we go about defining values outside of these natural gifts...life, liberty...and any other natural rights need definition.
Thanks for your kind comment, Ken. I'll be sure to send you the copy of my Hebrews paper...hopefully I'll remember. I probably should take it out of outline form and put it in narrative form for you.
Ken, I just read your earlier posts...or skimmed them...on heaven as the true tent. We overlap too much in our current interests (although our interests in this imagery seems to be to different ends) for me not to send you some stuff of mine (and perhaps vice versa) quite soon. I'm going to try to get my stuff to you sometime this weekend.
Post a Comment