Roger Olson on Nominalism

Don't have time today to develop a deep subject, but enjoyed Roger Olson's post yesterday on the "catastrophe of nominalism." Here's a memorable quote: "Nominalism is the ultimate poison of Western civilization that corrodes and erodes it. It lies at the top of the slippery slope down which we have slid into modern and now, increasingly, postmodern oblivion."

I hear what he's saying. If you deny that there is truth "in" the world or deny that the world in some way embodies a transcendent truth, then it is a short step to concluding finally that truth is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

This is a fairly common perspective. However, IMO, this same nominalist moment also stands at the root of the rise of modern science, economics, the rise of historical consciousness and the quest for objectivity, not to mention the Protestant Reformation. I think it would be a mistake to go back more or less to a choice between some form of Platonism or some form of Aristotelianism.

I hesitate to call myself a nominalist because I do believe in universals after my own idiom and I do believe in transcendentals after my own idiom. Yet, the situation of our human finitude and locatedness I think push us toward what I might call a "pragmatist nominalism" of sorts as a method of knowing. Most of what people see "in" things, whether beauty or whatever, is at least expressed through the eye of the beholder. And I more or less define pre-modernism as seeing things that aren't there but are really constructs of your own mind, without being able to tell the difference.

Time's up.

Roger Olson on distinctions that aren't different

I enjoyed reading Roger Olson's post on distinctions without differences, mainly because his examples are mainly Calvinist. :-)

I agree that there is really no substantial difference between these distinctions:

• single and double predestination
• hard and soft determinism

Post-Conservative, Post-Liberal...

I had an interesting call from a new friend out there in blogland. He was interested in how I would categorize myself and mentioned some fairly recent terms, "post-liberal" and "post-conservative." Both of the terms tend toward each other somewhat in the middle, the biggest difference being the direction from which they're coming.

"Post-liberal" is a term whose origins trace quite a bit back to Yale in the 80s (e.g., Lindbeck, Frei).  A lot of people at Duke and Princeton have some of that influence.  These are people who've come from a more or less liberal background who have rejected the faithlessness of former liberalism. They are "unapologetic" about faith (versus apologetics). Think radical orthodoxy. This sort of person seems to really like Barth.

"Post-conservative" is more appropriate for people who don't like the way previous generations of conservatives have framed a lot of issues.  Roger Olson favorably quoted this description from Steven Sherman:

"Basically, they [postconservative evangelicals] compose a loose coalition of thinkers who are seeking to facilitate a number of ‘beyond’ moves, theologically: beyond the agenda of the modernist/fundamentalist dichotomy toward what they see as a more holistic theology... beyond concentration on rationalism toward incorporating additional ways of knowing; beyond inerrancy debates and concerns toward an instrumental use of scripture; beyond academy-centered theologizing toward ecclesial and community-oriented thinking; beyond gatekeeping on boundary-setting doctrinalism toward a generous orthodoxy with pietistic emphasis; and finally, beyond what they view as a fixation on the concerns of modernity often motivated by a fear of liberalism, toward a more positive view and selective appropriation of postmodern insights."

To me, that really sums up Wesleyan well, by which I mean the spirit of Wesley across Wesleyan denominations like the Wesleyans, Nazarenes, and Free Methodists.  It is an excellent description of the thought ethos of the religion division at IWU in the 00's.  I am convinced that the previous paragraph will describe the broader Wesleyan thought-leaders of the days to come.

Roger Olson on true Arminianism

Roger Olson is a Baptist at Baylor who has written a number of things, but the most significant for those in my circles is Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.  He has been debating over another new book by Allen and Lemke called, Whosoever Wills, a book claiming to be a middle way between Arminianism and Calvinism.  Both books have the current forcefulness of 5 point Calvinism in their cross-hairs.

However, as you might expect, Olson is quite concerned that Lemke is mis-defining Arminianism in terms of those edges of Arminianism that do not represent all Arminians.  For example, most open theists are Arminian, but it would not be true to say that most Arminians are open theists.

I suppose at this point most of you get a little frustrated with all the labels and fighting over terms.  Believe it or not, I really don't care much for these labels on this level either.  They are just tools to discuss things, not ends in themselves.

• So I'm Wesleyan, but I don't think Wesley was right on everything.
• I'm Arminian, but all this really means to me is that I believe anyone could in theory be saved.
• I'm Evangelical because the denomination to which I belong signed up, but my tradition really doesn't get worked up about the things most in this post WW2 movement get worked up about (penal substitution, a particular kind of use of the Bible, whether God judges us according to the light we have, a particular kind of social activism).
• I'm Protestant, but through the Anglican-Methodist stream, which doesn't get as worked up as Luther did on a number of issues, can be considered somewhat of a mediating tradition with catholicism, and is often accused of not being solidly Protestant enough.
• I'm Pietist, but at least believe I can articulate a coherent and systematic theology.

So here's to labels... ;-)