This post is a response to and reflection on C. Michael Patton’s recent post: A Short Defense Of The Christianity (To Myself). He summarizes the gist of his post in his concluding remarks when he writes this:
β¦ this is my trek when I have my doubts. They stabilize me. I am not saying they are going to stabilize you in the same way. It is these four points that keep my faith anchored. There is a God. He has communicated. Jesus rose from the dead demonstrating the truthfulness of his claims. And Jesus is God incarnate (βin the fleshβ) who lived a perfect life, making life with God possible to all who put their trust in him. I could believe more. My faith is not perfect. However, when my faith is challenged, these intellectual benchmarks serve as a powerful Β immunity to doubt and disbelief.
I could believe more. I hope each day that I believe more. Only in eternity will I have my faith fully vindicated. Only in eternity will my faith be perfect. But until then, these four points are sufficient for me not only to be a Christian, but to sacrifice every moment in service to Jesus.
My response and reflection to this, is this; ultimately, this modus operandi and mode of being somewhat disheartens me. To be clear, like Patton, for years upon years I struggled with deep existential doubt; the kind that can make dark nights of the soul more like black periods of existence. Nevertheless, it was (and sometimes is) this kind of doubt that pushed me to read and study and think in ways that I would not have; lest doubt. So I don’t want the impression to come across that I am coldly dismissing Patton’s honest reflection on his own spiritual plight; instead, the rest of what I am going to say is meant to push Patton (and myself), and other Evangelicals (especially) to move on to an existence and Christian spirituality that is itself, Christian.
To be Christian—to think Christianly—moves beyond Apologetics101. And yet for many, if not all, evangelical Christians, apologetics of a kind that serves to provide a rational defense and basis for one’s faith continues to be the raison d’Γͺtre (reason for existence) and mode through which people like Patton find their continued coherence for life and purpose. In other words, everything is riding on Patton’s capacity to defend his faith to himself; if for some reason he no longer is able to sustain a virulent labyrinth of responses to the unbelieving self, it seems his life and faith are in jeopardy of at least becoming a simple Theist.
Ultimately, my problem with this is that the anthropology that is funding Patton’s ongoing trial of existence is grounded in an intellectualist one; an anthropology that sees humanities’ mind/intellect/rationality as the defining feature of what it means to be human. This kind of existence and anthropology takes seriously Descartes’ cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am), and majors on the premise that in order for my existence to be meaningful I must be in a constant state of flux and thought; continuously ensuring the purpose of my own existence. Ultimately, Patton’s mode is anthropocentric; because it disjoints humanity from humanities’ ground of real existence in the humanity of Jesus Christ ‘for us’. Patton has to somehow conceive of a way, that is abstracted from Christ, to once again join himself with Christ. Patton’s method for doing this is not rooted in what has already taken place in the hypostatic union of God and man in the person of Christ; instead, Patton is, as a pilgrim, seeking a route that will enable him to join his humanity with the humanity of Christ. But where is the Spirit in Patton’s account? Patton is in need of a robust Christological theological anthropology.
Bobby,
This is rather funny, for just what are “you” doing here, but sort of the same? To somehow call the act of reason, a thing outside or apart from Christianity, a logical error, or a mere “intellectual” thing, is certainly fallacy. Is that what you are pressing? I know you think your “anthropology” (ontology) is superior! But it is not! In fact we need both the presuppositional and evidential. As in fact we can perhaps see both in St. Paul. Sorry mate, you have missed the mark here in my opinion!
Fr Robert,
That’s fine; but if you read carefully I didn’t say anything negative against thinking. Instead, my point was that Patton’s error is a christological one. Adoptionistic. My point has to do with Patton’s “method.” Which part of that is false? The gist of Patton’s post points man back to himself instead of Christ by making faith contingent upon intellectual prowess and argument (but this is not a sound dogmatic account of faith); it places a wedge, through abstraction, maybe better, a foundation that is not founded ‘in Christ’. You can certainly disagree with that, but you haven’t shown how that isn’t the case with Patton.
I am following Torrance’s epistemological inversion.
Bobby,
We must always go back into “ourselves” that’s the only place we meet Christ! This is the whole depth of what even Barth measures in his dialectic and existential theology. Not to mention any doctrine of theosis, etc. And I think you have really mis-read Patton, or at least overstated his so-called method. Btw, this is the beauty of the approach of Voluntarism, indeed the ground of our reality is in the will, and only then to the intellect. But they are both closely related.
I am somewhat baffled why you have even chosen this point? Really seems over-pressed to me at least. π
Fr Robert,
It’s because of the lack of attention given to the informing theo-anthropology that is usually attendant in Evangelical thinking; and Patton’s post illustrates this point in spades.
I reject voluntarism, as you know, and so I don’t know why you think that would have any purchase with me. Barth certainly does not follow an anthropology that has any voluntarism at play; instead he sees the ground of human reality actualised and only realized in the humanity of Christ; ontologically. So indeed we meet Christ there, in his humanity for us; and yet this humanity is not simply an external criterion for knowledge of our existence in him (epistemologically), but again his humanity (in Barth) precedes ours as the archetype and ontological ground of what it means to be human simpliciter. It is this kind of dualism (the kind that Patton’s post presupposes) that Barth and Torrance critique and repudiate through a robust christological anthropology that doesn’t place “my faith” prior to the faith of Christ, but that it flows from it as the faith of Christ, ontologically, grounds this reality in his faith for us. In other words, for Barth/TFT there is no way to abstract “my faith” out of Christ’s faith for us as an epistmeologically reality. In short, Patton is operating from a naked foundationalism that both TFT and Barth rebuke. And since I live and move in that realm it should make sense that I would write a post like this contra a post from Patton that is at odds with my own theological existence.
I might be recontextualizing Patton’s post, and reading between the lines; but I think Patton’s post asked for that, at least it asked for that from “me.”
Bobby,
Yeah, I think your just out for a “theological” dual, and that you over press the so-called Humanity of Christ in a theological method! This often appears to be a problem with someone who is pressing their theological position, against an other position. As I have stated we need both a presuppositional and evidential place, and even within ourselves at times! Btw, you might want to read some existential theology, have you read any of Bultmann, or some of his students, like Gunther Bornkamm?
And this is “theological” difference, and not personal! π Somewhat like what you and others have noted with McCormack.
PS..I noted the Voluntarism because of Calvin! Perhaps you might need to consider re-naming your moniker to Evangelical Torrance? π
“To be Christianβto think Christianlyβmoves beyond Apologetics 101. And yet for many, if not all, evangelical Christians, apologetics of a kind that serves to provide a rational defense and basis for oneβs faith continues to be the raison dβΓͺtre (reason for existence) and mode through which people like Patton find their continued coherence for life and purpose. In other words, everything is riding on Pattonβs capacity to defend his faith to himself…”
There is a problem here — and it’s that Christian thought, the faithful thought of a person of this God, should never live in apologetics at all! Apologetics is for those outside. It’s not a viable replacement for faith. It is the negotiation of the boundary between inside and outside. And when you so bisect yourself, I don’t see how the center can hold!
A quote from Michael that bothers me in this respect is this: “I often envy those who just believe. Sometimes I wish that I could flip a switch and turn the critical part of my brain off.” There’s a whole bullshit position he’s been forced into, and it involves faith being opposed to doubt, doubt negating faith, and the “sacrificium intellectus.” He describes a combative approach to beliefs, and a body of faith which on the Lutheran side we call the “fides quae creditur,” the faith of what is believed. I see him compelled to conquer and hold territory by sheer act of will. I see him compelled to a rational faith in a rational deity, and then by steps to this one in particular, as the only universal deity. And all that is bloody thin gruel! If any part of the edifice fails, or if anything else is true, the result is unthinkable.
What is missing is a basic posture of intellectual humility. What’s missing is the intellect pursuing understanding of faith as the “fides qua creditur,” the faith that trusts. He does not play the creature before the Creator — he has been compelled to grasp. He has been compelled to negotiate the faith from outside.
@Matt: Intellectual humility, or the lack of is a common problem with many theolog’s! And I have found CMP to have a good handle on theological humility in general, myself!
@Matt,
Great points; spot on! And yes, that point bothered me too; the one Patton highlights on simply being able to live “just believe.” The implication of course, as you eloquently describe, is that if someone wants to actually be a modern or “critical” thinking person (who happens to be Christian) then “just believing” won’t work.
This is the most poignant of what you said “He has been compelled to negotiate the faith from outside.” And it is this that my post was trying to highlight. Thanks for your good analysis.
@Fr Robert,
I don’t think I wrote in a theological “dual” tone or way; I could have done that, and have done that quite often in the past, but I intentionally sought the higher road (and am trying to do so with all of my posts) in my tone with this post.
You never really dealt with what I wrote in re. to my basic critique (and now Matt’s) of Patton’s approach. What I’ve tried to do with my post is identify a hole in Patton’s thinking about the relation between faith and Christ. At what point do you think that what I have written is aloof in re. to this point?
I don’t see any of this as theological gamesmanship, but instead as a real life (serious) issue that has real life consequences for people’s daily Christian spirituality.
Bobby: Again, it is at times like this, that I think some Christian theolog’s & bloggers need to shut down the computer, and have a beer! π
@Fr. Robert, I don’t mean that he himself lacks intellectual humility — he qualifies his struggle of doubt in such a way as to leave me no doubt of how humbling his struggle for the faith is.
What I do mean is that I see him stuck in a position that cannot logically permit God to be other than understood. It’s standard Enlightenment polemic and standard failure to escape the trap in response. He isn’t doing dogmatics — he’s doing apologetics *instead*. Apologetics replace dogmatics — which is standard for the conservative traditions that insist on a propositional “faith” defined in terms of a restricted set of content. “Simple faith” becomes assent to doctrine — and he can’t do it. I hear every square inch of the content of his faith as a battleground. And he’s been taught that posture — it’s very common. But the posture is precisely where I see the conflict with his internal humility! It is a posture of achieving the faith. It has been for centuries.
Fr Robert: I don’t drink π … I’m a theological Rechabite. And do take note of what Matt just said, it is, once again, spot on!
@Bobby, you picked out the key. I agree with you wholeheartedly — but then the problem isn’t with Patton himself. I have had to learn over the years not to fight the man when the tradition is the problem!
The problem is always that we are compelled (by Lessing himself and no other!) to *try* to jump Lessing’s ditch. To try to prove the faith from external grounds, precisely the prolegomena Barth rejects — and Torrance follows him in setting apologetics on the right footing with respect to science. Because what Lessing challenges us to do cannot be done — which is why he picked that ground for the fight in the first place! Pick a spot to fight where your opponent can only ever lose, and convince them they must ever *try* to win *precisely there*.
@Matt,
Tis is true. And you are right about Lessing’s ditch. Patton is not the problem, it is my own Evangelical pedigree; I could have just as easily lifted up myself as the illustration. It is the program itself. But given the occasional nature of blogging, Patton’s post prompted my post; but, yes, I could have framed it more broadly.
It seems that Lessing simply followed Euthyprho’s lead.
@Matt: We all have “theological” bagage, your a “Lutheran” and expressed Barthian, so you too have yours! π This whole point of seeking some ground and logic of theological purity and method, is itself very problematic! Thankfully, Luther early understood this whole reality and sought a Theology of the Cross! It is here I will say I love Luther, but Lutheranism? Not so much! I should note I did my D. Phil. years ago now, on Luther;s Ontology of the Cross. And even in my 20’s (I am 62) I was an English Benedictine for a few years. Now there’s some depth, i.e. Benedict himself, and the spirituality of the Christ-Mysticism within. We could even call Paul’s theology as just that, a Christ-Mysticism! “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” (Phil. 1:21) I wonder how many of us could say such, that we are really ready to die, and call it gain?
Bobby: You should have done just that, and lifted up yourself! And I am myself, not a Lessing fan! And again, Matt is just seeking “theological” argument like yourself! I am wary of it! And we cannot divide “apologetics” and “dogmatics”, sometimes, as we can see in both Paul and Peter themselves, (1 Peter 3:15-16)! In reality doctrine should attract and even persuade, and as Bulgakv said, it should “charm”! π I’m done here mates!
PAX
Pere Robert, neither of us, far as I’m aware, has ever claimed to lack a standpoint. Please quit beating us about the head with “you have presuppositions, too!” as though it meant something. We are, in fact, both quite up front about our presuppositions as people who blog about them.
The problem is uncovered in the analysis of *particular sets* of presuppositions. “Seeking some ground and logic of theological purity and method” is not the game. Consistency of thought, especially in systems, and appropriateness of theological systems to the object of their study — these are fair game and we play.
And if you’ve worked on Luther’s theologia crucis, you will know that it belongs to disputation, that it is intentional provocation in both the Heidelberg theses and De servo arbitrio. What Luther sought, he sought against the problems of what he found in the theology around him, as a well-trained theologian, preacher and exegete. And he sought it in the scriptures — Paul especially. It is not a theologia perennis, let alone a developed theology in itself — even if modern Lutherans have made one out of it since WWII. What it is is a hermeneutic, a direction to be preferred in thinking after Christ in order to find a gracious God. Luther used it to play the game. And he played it well, whatever Lutheran orthodoxy has done with it afterward.
Enjoying this. Bobby, I got a sense of your bone with CMP. I have certainly used his weapons often, and find them weak armor, but you grasp with whatever is at hand, especially in those dark nights, and if you’re classicly conditioned to rationalize, then that’s what you grasp at. This is less athletic, and probably more life giving:
Jesus said “All things are possible if you can believe.”
and the desparate father cried out with tears “Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief”, or with Peter, we could just cry out “Lord, Help!”
I guess I’m saying, the strength of our armor, our armor Is Jesus.
Duane,
To be clear, I am not endorsing an unqualified fideism (just a qualified one π ). But I don’t have any problem with “evidences” (historical, manuscriptual etc); my only beef with such things is when they become the ground and/or foundation for someone’s faith. I don’t think faith from and in Christ need such accretions, and I also don’t think that such “evidences” are significant w/o the Holy Spirit’s presence in someone’s life (so fides quarens intellectum). I like historical studies, etc.; I just think they are “used” and even sometimes motivated by the wrong a priori commitments. I think we ought to focus, as Christians, on understanding and articulating a robust dogmatic foundation (self critical) prior to going straight to the evidences (so called). In the end and beginning sola fide, solus Christus!
A little more gymnastics here, because it is written that “in the last days the hearts of men will grow cold…”
What if “they” found an ancient household of the “Son of Joseph”, all of the familiar names were the same, written records were found, a bone ossuary engraved “Jesus of Nazareth” which dated to the 1st c., even records of a “passover plot”. In other words they had incontrovertable evidence of Jesus living and dying a natural death, would that torpedo your faith?
People faced this kind of opposition to their faith for some 60-70 years
behind the Iron Curtain, and it continues to this day in China, North Korea, and in Islamic countries, where no intelligent, sane person could possilby believe in the “myth of Christ”. I believe we discount the Spirit of God when we think think that contrary evidence has power to destroy our faith.
I love evidence. I love history, but the Spirit through Paul, and Luke and the others has given us a “great cloud of witnesses”, that we believed. Now being sealed by the Spirit of God, if we now trust in gymnastics to keep us in the faith, rather than trusting in the Spirit of God, then we frustrate that Spirit, I’m preaching into the mirror, I’m a squid under pressure.
Neither am I arguing against educating oneself: “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word Of God” right?
I’m just arguing that our faith is in the Person of Christ, not in our ability to believe in that Person of the Son of God. If we begin to lose our faith: Say for example we were bi-polar, and beyond, and one side of our personallity could not believe, and we got stuck there. We can in such a situation, “let go, and let God”. Our Lord is capable of defending Himself against such onslaughts, and can even hold onto us in the struggle and does in fact embrace us in the struggle.
Drifting off here myself. Goodnight.
Duane,
Again, I am not against being intelligible or rational; but I am against rationalism, and that is really what I am after in this post. If it could be proven, and it can’t!, that Jesus was not an actual person; then, yeah, that would be pretty devastating to the Christian faith. But what is really of concern, I think, is hermeneutics and the noetic effects of the Fall on the capacity for humanity to accurately interpret theological and Christian reality. The very fact that we are Christian gives us a corner on Christian truth; as we submit ourselves to the object and subject of our faith, Jesus Christ. This is our starting point. Anyone not for Christ (but against Him) have already lost the battle because they are already committed to a mode of inquiry that is driven by “other” points of departure and study (namely creation) that can never get them to the high-water level of God’s throne-room. Or like Paul said “they worship the creation rather than the Creator.”
Perhaps I could come at this from another angle – or at least using different terminology – not having read CMP’s post, but getting the gist from yours…
My own experience has been that I, too, struggled for years with the crushing burden of proof. I still haven’t quite figured out how it all transpired, but my figuring at this stage is this:
I was striving to live within a Christian worldview, trying to bolster my belief in that worldview with Modernist arguments but unconsciously judging everything from a Postmodern worldview. I got to the point where I felt I had two “streams” of understanding – one that believed the Bible and Christian doctrine, and another that just didn’t. I discovered that if I didn’t surround myself with Christians, my faith flickered and died down very dangerously.
The solution has been 1) moving back to an understanding that God’s primary motivation is love, even toward the non-and-never-will-be-Christian and 2) listening to Tim Keller sermons which speak about faith in postmodern categories to those who swim in a postmodern world.
So, I’m guessing that CMP’s main struggle is not at an intellectual level, but one at a worldview level. (I understand “worldview” is not in vogue anymore, but you know what I mean).
It just trips that a persons validation of their faith (to themselves) is subject to anyone’s critique. It seems we have various methods in scripture for why people trusted God and what “method” validated it within them. It seems that if Faith is present the “method” seems quite redundant. I thought the important thing was the Object of ones faith, not how the object was mediated. I think the rocks could have cried out about the object of faith – Christ!
I’m with Bobby mostly here though, since Christ did cry out to the world and us in particular, our validation need not appeal to anything other than Christ as the foundation to all christian epistemology.
* it should have read “It trips me out”
Bobby,
Right. Unless you can incontrovertably prove to the contrary π I’m in agreement with you, without trying at all (honest). But if you can find a point above where I’m disagreeing with you, I’ll happily agree to be disagreeable :p.
Oh, yes, and if Kenny is saying that all roads that lead to Christ, lead to Christ, I’ll agree with him too :p
@Ali,
I think the love of God is always the best place to start; and of course God’s love is demonstrated and realized in Christ (Rom 5.8)—so we agree π .
I’m curious what you mean by thinking through postmodern catgories; I know what pomo categories are, but I’m wondering if you’d be willing to flesh out what “you” mean by that?
@Kenny,
My post was not intended as a critique of Patton; I was thinking of it as more of this “So I donβt want the impression to come across that I am coldly dismissing Pattonβs honest reflection on his own spiritual plight; instead, the rest of what I am going to say is meant to push Patton (and myself), and other Evangelicals (especially) to move on to an existence and Christian spirituality that is itself, Christian.” What I said in the body of the post. More of a Hebrews 5 to 6 transition; a challenge to move beyond the elementary things; which is what I take apologetics to entail. And I don’t think that CMP was just giving insight into how he alone comforts himself in his faith; but he is commending this for all of his readers and students. So in the sense that it is public and open, it seems open for at least some reflection by others—which is what my post is.
@Duane,
Good, it’s good to be agreeable. I was just clarifying to you what the intention of my post was/is π .
@ Duane – obviously all roads that lead to Christ, do indeed, lead to Christ. My point was that we should not posit a theory of human nature, human psychology, or epistemic justification which we then use to measure a persons faith. Scripture has many teachings on what proofs are the measure, e.g. fruit, love, obedience, Spirit’s witness etc. These are the subjective and objective measure, these are the proofs of christian faith. Tentative theories of human anthropology and how it’s belief formation and justification work shouldn’t be.
@ Bobby – I think it is ok to critique, I just said it trips me out. I’m in total agreement on being against any natural theology, which seems to be what this is about – right?
@Kenny,
Yes, ultimately it is against a natural theology; but it is also more than that, it is against the foundationalism that funds the kind of thinking that Patton has apparently built his house. I’m surprised that you are against any natural theology though; is this a change for you?
Bobby: I find it interesting that you attack CMP’s “foundationalism”, I suppose it might be because he is something of a dispensationalist though a PD, and also evidentialist? Or is it because you too were once in this fold?
Btw, just a question, but do you consider Barth and too Torrance any kind of an Augustinian?
Fr Robert,
I would say “attack” is way to hard of a word; I don’t want what I’ve written here to be misconstrued (even for rhetorical purposes) that way. What I have written above is not an attack in the least; at the most it is simple disagreement. I’m sure that is still allowed nowadays. It has nothing to do with him being a dispy or evidentialist; those would be “symptoms” I guess of a latent foundationalism, but that has nothing to do, really, with anything.
Unfortunately, I think Augustine isn’t appreciated enough by Barth or Torrance; as you know they are both Athanasian. I think Augustine could complement some of Barth and TFT in constructive ways. That is something I am considering for my own research on the doctrine of vicariousness vis-a-vis Torrance.
Bobby: I must confess that I just don’t “get” where you are going, or really your “disagreement” in many of your theological ideas, as you know I have never been convinced of just what is an “Evangelical Calvinist”? Our theological verbiage simply must take us into that place of what I see in people like an Augustine, which is a practical place of Divinity, but indeed always into biblical and theological mystery! We simply must always allow that place that an Augustine, and too a Calvin and Luther saw, that in God, HE is always the GOD that is immutable, and never changing or with variation. (James 1: 17-18)
Fr Robert,
Then why comment? If after all this time you don’t “get” what EC is about, and you don’t understand what I am about; then it seems futile (at least for you) to try and engage me. Why not just not?
Bobby: Why then the attack or “disagreement” with CMP? No mate, sometimes I think your just a High Tower theolog, who just likes a debate! Just get on with it and write that damn book! π I am fresh today, but we should not engage, for the peace of God.
I do wish you the best! π
Fr Robert,
Because I disagree with Patton; it’s simple. The book is written, at the publisher, were almost at the point of final proof and will be out in March (it has been written!). I’m more like Pelagius than a high tower theolog.
@ Bobby
Yeah, I have changed my mind on Natural theology. Barth via McCormack has become of interest.
@Kenny,
Sweet! What has changed your mind? There is a book I really want to read on this by Keith Johnson: Karl Barth and the Analogia Entis. It’s just spendy.
http://www.amazon.com/Barth-Analogia-Studies-Systematic-Theology/dp/0567344630/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325281826&sr=1-1
Bobby: Pelagius? Wow! And yet your moniker is ‘Evangelical Calvinist’? Hmm’ Now I really am confused? Btw, just what is the big error in CMP’s theology? I mean simply, so even my wife can understand it!
@Fr Robert,
I said Pelagius, not because of doctrine, but because of my usual mode of life. In other words, I rub shoulders with bluecollar folk (like Pelagius) on a daily basis V. so called high-brow theological types.
I didn’t say there was a big error in CMP’s theology in this post. But I think it does come down to a point of theological method. CMP, conscious or not, would come from an analytic approach and I come from a so called dialectic. So, yes, I do see error there; primarily flowing from, on the theological front, on the doctrine of God and the metaphysics that funds that. He is an uncritical (from what I’ve gathered) classic (5 point) Calvinist; and so based on that alone, you should understand why I disagree with CMP in general, by now. But this post had more to do with how one exists as a Christian. It was in response to the methods that CMP commends to those who read him, by using his own apologetic approach as the example to follow. He is uncritically arguing for a classical theistic understanding of God; and I am part of a large crowd who opposes that conception of God. That does not mean I don’t appreciate the history of Chrisitianity and those who could fit into this construct (classical theism), but it does mean that ultimately I reject this approach because I see it reinforcing a Christian spirituality that is deleterious to the soul and the body of Christ at large. I actually believe this, Fr Robert. It’s not a game to me. I wouldn’t take a stand like I do if it was just for petty blogging antics.
Fr Robert,
Whatever my friend. I think you ought to bow out now.
G’day Bobby,
Absolutely agree re. the love of God in the cross of Christ, yet it was my understanding that God’s love was temporally existant before Christ came in history (i.e. the love was before Christ’s death – even if fully revealed in Christ’s death) that helped me most.
As for what I mean by postmodern categories…well, they are postmodern, so it does all depend on what I mean, doesn’t it? π
Let’s see. Modernists tend to see a overarching, authoritative, always true metanarrative within which all truth can be searched and reasoned out. It is true always and everywhere. Therefore, Modernists are unable to think outside their worldview, and so concentrate on “facts” and external standards of right and wrong, and true and false as determined by that unacknowledged worldview.
The Christianity I grew up developed apologetic arguments within this worldview and therefore offered them to me. However, I was raised in New Zealand, which has a far more secular mindset that the US, and swims in what is called, erroneously or not, a postmodern culture.
The Postmodernist is far more individualistic. They have an overarching metanarrative that allows each person to have their own worldview, as long as it doesn’t impinge on others. They have some (unacknowledged) external standards, but instead of those standards being “right” and “wrong”, it’s “individual freedom” and “individual oppression”. And instead of “true” and “false”, it’s “workable” and “unworkable”. If you do not adhere to those standards, then your worldview is seen as invalid.
The Christian worldview I was working with emphasised the authority and moral absolutes of the Bible, but I have been brought up to question authority and rules and, like most postmoderns, consider any absolute authority to be oppressive. Therefore, to say, “You have to believe and obey the Bible” without actually explaining why or how that leads to freedom in a compelling way, was seen as oppressive. And so on, and so on.
In CMP’s case, I see a man who tries to justify his Christian belief in Modernist categories (again, not having read his post, but only gleaning from yours). It’s interesting, however, that the four points that he rests his faith on can be interpreted very relationally (another post-modern category), so maybe, just maybe, CMP uses Modernist worldview to fight through to truths acceptable to a Post-modern worldview so that he can once more live in his Christian worldview.
BTW, an example of how the different categories mentioned above (without resorting to passe labels such as Modern and Postmodern) can be seen in the debate over homosexual marriage. If you’re interested, take a look at this post of mine, under the subheading “Retool”.
Ali, I’ll respond tomorrow. Good night.
@ Bobby,
To answer your question about what changed with my view of natural theology, I have come to believe that we shouldn’t think/speak of God by created things. Metaphysics first posited then used as a measuring stick of God is wrong headed (it would seem from scripture). Starting with creation will always lead back to creation and never to God. Natural theology is this in hopes that the creation can lead one to the God behind the creation, but it seems we just end up with constant negation (and ultimately mystery being what we worship) and not God. The being of God is the act, the incarnation is the speech of God and it is how we should learn to speak of God and think about him and ourselves in relation to him. Natural theology seems to be misplaced in order of knowing, I think it should be reversed Theology natural, for it is christ which should interpret the natural.
@Kenny,
Sweet, that’s awesome! You know I agree π … Happy New Year, in Christ!
@Ali,
Thanks for explaining how you understand PoMo; that’s pretty spot on to the way that I understand it as well. i.e. Lyotard’s an ‘incredulity to metanarratives’. One thing about PoMo, though, that I think is a misnomer is that it really is only the logical conclusion to modernist suppositions; i.e. where all the weight of reality and knowing is placed on the individual (or collective) knower[s]. PoMo just takes that to it’s furthest level (with Nietzsche), and questions someone like Descartes with “why should I even trust the knower?” So there is a mood of suspicion that entangles the PoMo epistemology. The good part of PoMo, as you seem to be noting (implicitly), is that it has thrown off the confidence in humanities’ ability to know on their own; of course the bad thing about PoMo is that it is still rooted in an anthropology that makes humanities’ rationality the final court of arbitration—or that it really hasn’t escaped the modernist rationalist that it thinks it has. BUT, I do see some value with PoMo; maybe the greatest value is its journey to deconstruct things that need deconstructing; of course I’d like to go full way with that and deconstruct PoMo epistemology too—and replace that with an Christoepistemology!
I don’t think Patton, and most Evangelicals spend that much time getting behind what informs their respective approaches to things; and again, that is really what my post was intending to push—i.e. to push folks like Patton (myself and all of us) to go further.
Hmm, have you looked at Van Til’s presuppositionalism? It works in well with all this.
I don’t like Van Til or presuppositionalism, Ali. Van Til is one of the champions of Federal Calvinism whom I reject. Although, I still need to read more of Van Til. I have read Gordon Clark’s presuppositionalism; but no, I am uninterested in presuppositionalism as a methodology.
It’s actually, as far as I understand, a precursor of the postmodern insight of competing worldviews. Basically, he’s saying that you can’t begin to prove Christianity by assuming a secular worldview.
I wouldn’t have a clue what his Federal Calvinism looks like, I am getting his stuff via John Frame, who is not uncritical in what he takes from Van Til. But, see, I don’t have this strong aversion to Federal Calvinism that you do, and seem to come to very similar conclusions as you in many areas following that system as opposed to Evangelical Calvinism. So, I guess I don’t see his Federal Calvinism as a problem for me, or for you.
But I don’t know huge amounts about Van Til, either. (Gordon Clark was a little different to Van Til).
Ali,
I do know about Van Til, and have read a little of him; he’s not for me, nor is Frame for that matter. I don’t think his thought could be linked to PoMo; and I know his followers would not like that at all.
I’d be curious to know what your similar conclusions to mine are. His Federal Calvinism is most certainly a problem for me! As is his presuppositionalism which flows from the kind of rationalism that I am not interested in, epistemologically.
Ali, I follow an approach to theology that is rooted in the analogy of faith; while folks like Van Til follow the analogy of being. These are diametrically opposed to each other, and this is why I reject Van Til, Clark, Frame et al.; and I mean their approach not their person.
Hmm, what similar conclusions…
These are just things that I’ve picked up here and there:
1) The Son would have experienced the incarnation whether humans had fallen or not.
2) God’s motivation is love – in every instance.
3) The Trinitarian basis for salvation.
4) Thesis #2 βThe Primacy of Godβs Triune Life is Grounded in Love, for βGod is Loveβ
How these fit into the whole of your theological emphasis, I can never figure out. In fact, perhaps I misread you on some points. But I still stand by my belief that very rarely are theological approaches diametrically opposed.
Ali,
I’m glad that you have p/u on some of the contours of EC. Btw, EC is a mood not a distinct movement per se. Nevertheless, there are indeed certain contours that make EC, EC; at least according to me and Myk Habets (which is what our 15 Theses for our book represent). But, with due respect, you aren’t fully grasping the methodological distinctions that are present between say our EC Theses and Federal Calvinism’s methodological approach. They are Analytic in approach we are primarily Dialectic; that is substantial, and mutually excluding one from the other approach. I understand that “you” very rarely find theological approaches diametrically opposed; but that is not to say that they aren’t. The analogy of being V. the so called analogy of faith are worlds apart. The former follows Natural Theology, the latter does not! I think you need to come to terms with this, Ali; it is not helpful to “paper” over such substantial distinctions (it is to think from the argument of the beard, and fail to make distinctions upon a continuum of method or belief).
Peace, brother.