tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post309122764061600929..comments2024-03-28T09:52:15.415-04:00Comments on Common Denominator: What is the Quadrilateral to...Ken Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-53772243090164244752010-02-08T13:22:22.112-05:002010-02-08T13:22:22.112-05:00Great post!
Your next one needs to be dedicated t...Great post!<br /><br />Your next one needs to be dedicated to how those of us who are more in the "pneumatic to postmodern" camp can facilitate the reading and hearing of Scripture in a more "fundamentalist to evangelical" setting.<br /><br />Or do we just start planting churches, as some of my peers seem to think?Mike Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08968049104737268713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-8424201617366594552010-02-05T23:55:04.684-05:002010-02-05T23:55:04.684-05:00If by anti-modern you mean anti-liberal, I think w...If by anti-modern you mean anti-liberal, I think we agree. However, if by anti-modern you mean anti-modernist, I would have to disagree since I consider both liberalism and fundamentalism to be two sides of the modernist coin (with that third group, in spite of its lack of context, decidedly modernist, though uncritically so).<br /><br />I think it'd be really tough to argue that old-Princeton and Scottish "Common Sense" epistemologies aren't uniquely modern answers to the questions raised.<br /><br />As for myself, I think the "questions raised" are fundamentally flawed. But that is another matter. In short, I think it a grave error to conflate pre-critical/critical/post-critical with pre-modern/modern/post-modern. This is nothing more than the myth (which CS Lewis called "chronological snobbery") undergirding new-atheism . It is this myth which demands the neo-evangelical synthesis (any such necessity in this "synthesis" is generated by the myth itself).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00463464834576379106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-68322658512109207842010-02-05T13:58:07.427-05:002010-02-05T13:58:07.427-05:00Thanks Nate. I didn't mean "pre-modern&q...Thanks Nate. I didn't mean "pre-modern" epexegetically. I meant it as an alternative, with fundamentalist being more anti-modern (that is, consciously opposed) and pre-modern being unaware of context.Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-48628643382460749582010-02-05T10:14:07.178-05:002010-02-05T10:14:07.178-05:00"Most Wesleyans in our small churches (about ..."Most Wesleyans in our small churches (about half our membership) are basically fundamentalist or pre-modern in their use of the Bible--little sense of any role for tradition (although it's always there whether we realize it or not)."<br /><br />It seems odd to me to equate a pre-modern reading of scripture with the rejection of tradition. Perhaps that is not what you intend here. However, it is the rejection of tradition/history which is precisely one of the modernist hallmarks. In fact, all the reformers are quite clear: their dispute with the Catholic Church is the result of the Catholic Church *departing* from the Christian tradition.<br /><br />For instance, Wesley says: "But whatever doctrine is new must be wrong; for the old religion is the only true one; and no doctrine can be right, unless it is the very same 'which was from the beginning.'" -- On Sin in Believers III.9<br /><br />It is precisely this fact which makes such a "fundamentalist" reading (and indeed all of the old Princeton school and its ideological progeny) so distinctly modern and, to wax Hegelian for a moment, why the liberal thesis and fundamentalist thesis are culminating in the synthesis of "New Orthodoxy" in Protestantism (of the McLaren, Cizik, Warren ilk).<br /><br />If I were to describe the average Wesleyan reader, I would say: they are generally uncritically accepting of the Lutheran/Calvanist/Wesleyan/Revivalist/Evangelical tradition(s), yet, also being uncritically modernist, they do not recognize their tradition as such and instead see the consequences of that tradition as being the only "sensible" reading. Further, this tradition is unevenly applied. It holds fairly strong weight in terms of scriptural interpretation, but almost none as regards liturgics.<br /><br />Well, those are my $0.02...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00463464834576379106noreply@blogger.com