Iβm afraid too many teaching opportunities are lost online as so-called academic theologians fail to engage with popular theological discourses, for fear of legitimizing such discourses, or for fear of being too associated with such discourses, thus making themselves incredible among the peers who inhabit the critical waters of the deeper and more well-formed discourses.
But I think I will mostly reject the aforementioned attitude insofar that I believe the popular discourses need precisely what the higher discourses have to offer. People stuck in the chambers of the lower discourses need to know that there are heights of libertas above and beyond the vicious circles of theological rigmarole they are currently ensnared by. When you think of this type of engagement it is possible to see a type of the analogy of the incarnation at play.
That said: the lines between higher and lower are always at vanishing points, insofar that our perceptions of the discourses are always on a sliding continuum of growth and real understanding. And so, there is no real way to absolutize who is in the higher and lower discourses except by continuously being in the praxis of testing whether things actually be so by the Word of God (and the interior logic that is present with the Word of Godselfβs economy in and for the world).
Emetβ¦ βAnd his God instructs him about the miΕ‘Β·pΔαΉ; he teaches him.βΒ (Isaiah 28:26)
Yes, the lines are thin indeed, inasmuch as educated Roman disregards educated Reformed, and educated Reformed disregards Roman and even Reformed not in their classic Reformed camp, etc. There is little communication, even though a Reformed will occasionally defect to the Roman camp and visa versa. I would expect if there was any real discourse between the doctors, one would see real migration toward a real center , that center being our Lord, a consequence of which being a Spirit prompted move to engage the “hoi polloi”.
Thanks Bobby!
@Richard, there ya are! Amen.
@Duane, yeah, discourse and attitude is very important. Part of the problem with digital theological discourse, is of course, that it is basically anonymous and purely voluntary. So, the good faith efforts in that area depend on the person behind the keyboard as they live a life coram Deo.