Hat tip to my critics: why as Christians I think we need to welcome/offer critique

I said in my post yesterday on the march on mars hill that I would look at the whole topic of critique/criticism further, so here are my musings...

Why the emerging church needs critique and so do I

Jason Clark posted a powerful critique of the emergent church, which as thinker and leader of emergent UK carries a lot of weight as well as common sense to it.  I think one of his strongest points for me was the need for us as Christians (of whatever stripe) but here in the context of emergent to both be open and respond to critique from within and without.  To me the most constructive form of critique is a conversation and the most destructive a rant of generalisations from a position of assumed superiority.

I’d like to reflect on a couple of recent examples of critique from with Christian circles (voices from within) and from outside (voices from without) and consider some possible responses in the face of these critiques.

Voices from within…critiquing christians and being critiqued by them

One of the recent storms in a tea cup that continues to rumble on in some parts is that of Mark Driscoll’s comments in the wake of the Ted Haggard affair and indeed some of his critics would say comments that he has been making for awhile now that seem critical of those who not share his complimentarian reading of the bible (to put his words into context it was a conversation that was primarily aimed at those who share his position rather which anyone is welcome to read if they so choose).

For a range of his critics you may wish to read the following posts/discussions in the comments: Andrew's commentary; Rose's open letter; coveration on the edge's critique on Mark and women and Blog against fundamentalism (who have chosen Mark as their first 'fundamentalist to march on...'

I find Mark’s response to his critics, entitled ‘thank you critics’ to a very encouraging one.  In his concluding paragraph he writes:

“Lastly, I want to thank my critics, especially the most vocal. They have helped me to understand that more than just pastors are following what I am saying. Subsequently, they are helping me to learn how to more clearly articulate what I am trying to communicate. In that way, they have been of great assistance to me as I seek to pastor most effectively for Jesus. I have waited some time to post this clarification because in times past I have gotten angry and responded with a tone that was defensive, prideful, and not helpful. I am learning that critics in some ways are also friends because there is often some truth in what they are pointing out. Subsequently, God is using my critics to teach me and is asking me to be willing to listen.”

I think Mark articulates a powerful sentiment that critics can be friends but that often are reaction is to feel got at rather than to listen.  I also find it interesting what the response of the critics are, some that I have read see Mark’s words as unacceptable as he did not apologise and want to continue to push for this outcome whereas others I think welcome the door opening on constructive dialogue and would rather be invited in then risk hammering on it in case it slams shut. 

I think this also highlights something about us as critics – are we being critical or are we instead asking someone to simply agree with our view instead?  As those who receive criticism are we teachable and able to appreciate the feedback loop from what people hear/perceive?  I think as critics we need to realise that our main role is to offer helpful encouragement and suggestions for change, tone, content that are offered up in the spirit of mutuality and love. 

In its most constructive sense that offers up the possibility of conversation where we do not agree but at least we engage rather than a conflict where no one is prepared to accept they might be wrong.  To give you an example from my own life, when Debs offers me some constructive criticism my first response is to say ‘well you do it too’ or ‘well you do this’ and turn it around – I am not prepared to change unless she changes/acknowledges the need for change.  Constructive criticism then I think should be a mutually vulnerable, humbling experience – if it is not and is just something to appease our hurt, to claim another notch on the think my way bedpost, to feel big correcting someone else’s faulty thinking whilst keeping our own protected – is conquest not criticism.

Constructiveor destructive voices?

Can we find a shared common ground? can we look and see how much we agree on rather than how much we differ?  Can we allow diverse voices even when we don’t agree with them?  Can we offer up encouragement and engagement?  Can we model our alternative views and celebrate them together?  Can we focus on ideas rather than personalities?  Can we look at our own faults and think I am likely to be wrong rather than I am likely to be right?  Ultimately as people who are meant to be marked by love can we love someone who we don’t agree with – can we include them rather than seek to exclude, draw them within rather than choose to push them without?  Can we model a generous orthodoxy of many colours, flavours or do we need to have one mono-coloured one?  As I think Nouwen suggested ‘a people who gather together and agree on everything is not a community – it is a clique.’

Voices from without - critique by the world

Jason has been doing a series of critiques under the title ‘is Christianity irredeemably…’ so far he has opened up with sexist and speciest and I hope he will also include homophobic and militaristic (any more suggestions??).  I’ve included the latter topics as I think that Jason has covered in his posts two of the biggest movements of the world in recent years – feminism and animal rights/environmentalism and the other 2 are the anti-war (Iraq and CND before that) movement and gay rights.  I think all four of these movements provide a welcome critique that Christians need to consider, particularly aspects of justice. 

God’s Spirit can speak to us from without but I also I think the Christians as a community of faith filled with the spirit from within and as people of the book can critique the culture of world  e.g. consumerism (e.g. here and here).

The points that I made about constructive criticism in the voices within section apply here – even more so with I think we as Christians needing to demonstrate that we have applied our own critique to ourselves and that we actively welcome the critique of the world – it’s not world bad/Christian good but spirit of God good and speaking to us from the world in ways that are consistent with the Word of God (Jesus) and the words of God that we have in the bible.

A case study – the critique by new atheism

As a recent example of one way of engaging in constructive criticism with the world I would like to highlight the critique being provided by ‘new atheism.’  As John explains in his post on new flavours of fundamentalism…

"Article author Gary Wolf says, "The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking."

The most prominent evangelist of New Atheism is Richard Dawkins. In the article he says, "I'm quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism." He continues elsewhere, "Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists."

Here are some Qs and my thoughts on my resposne...

Do I/we as Christians (and other faiths) reject this critique out of hand…?

Ok, this is just me but I'd like to hold my hand up and say that there have been a lot of evil done in the name of God by the people who claim to represent him - I don't think we can whitewash that out of our history so I for one hold up my hand and apologise - heck I've been a fundamentalist and bashed people around and taken bashings myself so i might not have done massive evil but I have certainly done a lot of things that were evil in miniature and also provoked reactions which could be considered evil.

I might well have missed the point back then, love was the velvet glove that I wrapped the iron bar of truth in to give people a good verbal bashing to - love my enemies oh yes in a kapow! sense...

Thanking, thinking and being challenged by the critics…?

I welcome this critique, instead of reacting against Mr Dawkins I should be thanking him. He rightly says is religion making the world a better place - ok what evidence have I got to contradict him? How is me following Christ allaying his concerns and not encouraging them? If anything his words make me start back at home base and make me look at all the blessing I want for myself and the very little blessing I want to give to anyone else - seriously i love the idea of it but do I actually deliver?

Finding common ground/perspective with my critics…?

I actually view Mr Dawkins as someone who actually I have a lot of common with - we are both people who have a position of faith - I can't prove ultimately there is a God; I need to make a step of faith, altho not a blind one I like to think. Likewise, Mr Dawkins cannot prove that there is no God and therefore chooses to make a step of faith albeit not a blind one (unless it’s a watchmaker) he likes to think.

So here we are both people of faith, both asking do our respective beliefs make the world a better place? In my case I admit I should be doing a lot more than just asking the question...

Questing after God…a response to critique

I think it is vital that criticism sends us not into a defensive reactionary spin or denial but on a quest to seek after God – as Jason has done in his irredeemable series to go back to the bible and the traditions of the church and seek to critique ourselves.  To open ourselves up to the possibility that we have got it wrong and to seek after God to inform and transform us, ultimately if we are to transform the world we need to be in the process of being transformed ourselves and one of the key shaping is our understanding and application of the teachings/interactions of the God of the bible and the work of his Spirit in our lives.   I think that our questing should therefore involve:

• confession – Scott McKnight posts here on a call for a confessional church and  I think it is a call that applies in response to critique – we need to listen to the voice of the Spirit from within and without, be honest rather than right, to admit where we have sinned in thought/word/action, to seek God and how his Kingdom is being shaped by this critique, rethink and if necessary move to where Jesus is rather than staying where we have been entrenched…
• authenticity: Jason has a recent great post here on this - to be authentic I think is not just transmitting/admitting our faults but also about telling the ongoing and enfolding story of our transforming as part of the community of God and the community of his people.  I think being authentic involves actions – its not enough to just having right ethics/morals but to actually embody/live those ethics/morals.  If I am honest that is not something I can do alone but in the community of God and his people I do not have to – I am a growing person who is being transformed – it is the story of my life and my experience and the more open I am, the more critique I have the more I can see where I need help to grow…

• growth: I think this is an organic not linear process, a lumpy process, a dirty/messy process, it involves achy knees, sore backs, long hours, mystery, prayer, hope, listening to advice and a dependence both within and without for the help I need – it is not just a solo experience, if it was I would still be trying to invent the wheel let alone the wheelbarrow…

Well that's me done... in the spirit of constructive criticism and conversation, what do you think?

Comments

[dh]

At what point is our generosity a disservice to the Faith we possess? I think some times we by our Faith DO need to reject outright or disagree strongly views that are exact opposites of our Faith, aka Dawkins. Idon't feel this is blind because our Faith is in God that I feel can be proved and if people who don't have Faith say it can't they might not be honest with themselves. Maybe they don't want to deal with the conviction that Faith in Christ and His Word requires or is put onto a person wiothout Faith? I feel generosity is great but if it diminshes the conviction or the required response that god desires of people then it promotes an attitude of those without Faith to not make a change and be stuck "dead in their tresspass of sins" (for believers stuck in wrong doctrine even though they still might be Believers)Does that make sense? If you need clarification or explainations I will be gladto give it, Paul.

[Paul]

Thanks DH, I think people like Dawkins would take an opposite view to you and say that faith can not be proved to certainty - hence it's called faith and not certainty ;).

I see your point and I am not saying we as christians have to agree only accept that there is a valid criticism which is our we making the world a better place, if so great...let's continue, if not let's start...

[dh]

But do we need to think that Dawkins view as being valid? Can't we look at it as certainity and Faith at the same time and look at Dawkins as being a lack of Faith? Isn't it making the worlda better place to point out that Dawkins criticizm is not valid and to show that one needs Faith and the certainity therein for true lifechanging? To me the only way to makeaworld a better place is by putting our trust in Christ and the works therein.

[molly]

Great post, Paul.

It is so true that in getting caught into our pet issues, we make actual dialogue almost impossible---and this is a trap that all sides are easily caught in. Driscoll really bothers me, but like you, I found his apology to be not only satisfactory, but commendable. If a true apology consists of conforming to the other side's opinion, then apologies from me will grow pretty rare, as will apologies from everyone else in the world.

It's easy to get frustrated at those on "the other side" of a favorite issue, but it is DIFFICULT to Love them despite disagreement---difficult to engage in open honest RESPECTFUL dialogue, and even, sometimes, protest that is done with a spirit of respect and love.

It is also easy to surround oneself with "yes men," people who agree with you and don't offer any difficult questions or poignant observations/critique. I think it is fairly common among humans to seek for peace--to seek for comfort, a place of safety...and this is probably why we don't care for constructive criticism.

If our highest goal is personal peace and comfort, then we will deflect or attack any critique, if not find ways to avoid it altogether. But if our highest goal is to be those who express Christ, who bring Him glory, then it is in our best interest to listen to constructive criticism.

Not all the time, but at the right times, it is good to be wounded by a faithful friend. No one likes being cut, but when that cut is a surgeon's scalpel, removing a cancerous growth, then it is a blessing. It's time for us to recognize that not all sharp cuts are the same. Some will save our lives.

Warmly,
Molly

[dh]

Molly, I really enjoyed this response by you and I totally agree with everything you said. However, I would say our goal in discussion is for both sides to "give a little" meaning have some change whether it be attitude form the disagreement in such a way that both sides agree with at least 90-95%. Will we agree 100%? probably not but 90-95% is close enough and I feel that should be our goal. However, when we react or overreact and reject outright or on the otherside phrase things in a harsh or ambiguos way both are wrong and need correcting. Many times I find myself correcting my attitude and heart to match the post-moderns and on the other end rephrasing modern Christians statement as to not change the foundation of the message but change the words to be less hostile (hense stating my view of women preachers which is exactly between you and Mark). Also, I find myself helping post-moderns who happen to agree with moderns on a particular view, rephrasing the message to help moderns agree with post-moderns on a particular view. So you can see I used to get "caught in the middle" but now God is helping me realize that I'm starting to see my calling as peacemaker without any change of the modern message. As I have stated in the past, I believe that the conclusion of these things will be post-post modern thought. What do you think Molly and Paul? Molly it is great to see you come on board. :)

[molly]

Good points, dh---finding the things that we DO agree on really helps with maintaining an atmosphere of respectful dialogue.

When it comes to moderns and postmoderns, I feel very in the middle...I graduated right when the (long-coming) shift took place...I feel like I've got a foot in both worlds.

My own outlook is one of emerging from fundamentalism. When I first came to Jesus as a college student, I was radical...but an experience with a "radical" group made me run for safety into the arms of fundamentalism, where everything is nice and neat and feels very SAFE. I gave it my all...I really did...and I think it's fairly safe to say it about killed me in the process *sad laugh*. Somewhere, I lost Jesus in the midst of all the right/wrong Things.

I believe the Apostles/Nicene creeds without hesitation...it's everything else that I am questioning and looking at. And the more I question, the more I question. lol...

I don't feel that's because I'm postmodern or because I'm modern---just that I want to be very careful that what I *think* is following Jesus, is actually following Him (if that makes any sense). I don't really care if something is modern or postmodern---I just care about what/who/where He is, and that's where I want to be, in a general sense, as well as in the uniquely specific sense as pertaining to my own individual calling.

I was completely opposed to the emerging movement at one time, becuase it appeared to be anti-creedal, anti-theology, anti-absolute truth...at least that's what the (anti-emergent) articles I read said.

It wasn't until I realized the huge diversity of the emerging movement, that there are a BUNCH of people who hold to the basic creeds, yes, but who are questioning how that is supposed to *look,* questioning what emphasis is supposed to go where (do we spend all our time and resources writing systematic theology while the world is suffering and starving around us---is THAT what Jesus meant when He told us to "go ye into all the world?"), questioning if the highest goal of the Christian is to be *right* or is what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13? Etc, etc, etc...

It was when I found THAT whole side of the emerging movement that I happily jumped onboard. No, actually, I didn't jump, persay. I just realized that I was already there, already in the conversation, already asking the same questions. It was just nice to realize that I wasn't all alone.

Warmly,
Molly

[Paul]

DH you asked whether we need to think that Dawkins view is valid - I would say that we should accept it as valid in terms of his own view and possibly those of others - in that sense his view is valid and we may indeed find across the range of his views many points where we would have common ground. That does not mean that we need to agree in part/entirely but I think it is worth me at least approaching his view point with the attitude that I might learn/hear the holy spirit speak rather than I am right he is wrong...

I think we need a critical engagement though so yes I do agree with your comments.

[Paul]

I think that there is a lot more that we agree on, whether modern/post moderen, fundamental or maybe something a little less heavy - seriously if we agree on creedal beliefs than we pretty much agree on a deeper church and are all part of the body of Christ, so are inter connected.

DH, I love your peacemaker point, i certainly love and appreciate your view points and I think being in dialogue is so much better than not - even if it involves a lot of translating

[Paul]

Molls, such wise words, thank you, I am honoured to hear them and challenged how to apply them with the grace they deserve into my life...

[dh]

Thanks for the comforting words. To go back to Dawkins. I feel that we can see it is a view but I don't feel we need to consider it a valid view. His view is the antithesis of what Scripture says thus making it invalid. After reading his view I honestly see absolutly no common ground.

Molly, my support for modern Christianity is not just the creeds or whatever else you were thinking. For me being modern I believe strongly there is absolute truth or emphesis. I see many post-modern react negatively to Evangelism and in fact react negatively to the term or say "we need to feed the poor instead". I Believe that the emphesis of feeding the poor AND Evangelism are equally important. I believe strongly that missional AND individuals putting themselves under the Lordship of Christ by accepting Christ as Savior for Salvation are equally important. It seems the emphesis to the detrimate of the other as opposed to doing multiple things 100% is lost within post-modern Christianity. I have strong Faith in the Body of Christ that we can focus 100% on ALL of the things that God calls us to do whether sharing our Faith and leading people into Salvation, Discipleship for Sanctification, missional, feeding the poor, putting aside or helping people away from false doctrine or whatever else Scripture shows us we need to do as the Body. However, when we focus on one of these or a few of these and put down or deemphesize the others on this list we do a disservice to people in their walk or lead people into disillusionment against Christ. To me following Him means doing what He says AND Believing what He says in His Word. Faith is beyond mere action and beyond mere Belief it must include both. I see modern focus on belief and post-modern focus on action and both are equally important. However, I'm seeing changes within both circles I see James Robison doing all he can to help the poor and sick people and I see Michael Ramsden, a post-modern apologist who welcomes auestions but give absolute truth answers from God's Word to post-modern people with questions where the people he discusses with find definitive answers and come to Christ without adhering to false doctrine. (not that questioning is wrong I couldn't come up with better words than that, hopefully you guys can read between the lines on that one. The statement on Ramsden seems deficient but it was thebest I could come up with.)

[molly]

"I have strong Faith in the Body of Christ that we can focus 100% on ALL of the things that God calls us to do whether sharing our Faith and leading people into Salvation, Discipleship for Sanctification, missional, feeding the poor, putting aside or helping people away from false doctrine or whatever else Scripture shows us we need to do as the Body. However, when we focus on one of these or a few of these and put down or deemphesize the others on this list we do a disservice to people in their walk or lead people into disillusionment against Christ."
__________________________________

I agree that the Body is to be the fullness of Him who is all in all... that the many facets of Who Christ Is can and will come from her.

But you might be confusing questioning with stopping...meaning, for example, questioning the *way* we *do* Evangelism, perhaps. If a person is questioning the currently accepted definition of Evangelism (handing out tracts, trying to get a non-saved person to come to our church, etc), then he may stop practicing those forms of evangelism for a while, while he's searching the Scriptures about it and trying to get his head free (from the old definitions) to think.

This does not mean he's left evangelism behind. It just means he's re-examining it...what is it---what did the NT mean by evangelism as compared to what the current tradition view says it is. If evangelism is simply reaching those outside the Body, then what might that look like in our current post-modern world? Etc... Again, he's NOT left evangelism---he's simply trying to rightly understand what it is.

With Dawkins, for example: interestingly, to refuse to listen to his view, or to openly scorn it, is a shot in the foot of evangelism to a post-modern culture.

If no one is going to listen to Dawkins, if no one is going to at least offer him that much respect to be able to listen to him (and respectfully disagree), then those watching certainly aren't going to listen to US.

Dawkins wants a fight---"christianity is for the weak-minded," he thinks and says. Fine. Whatever. But if we react in kind, as I believe we usually do, then the fight just goes on...boring same-o same-o...

When somebody responds in Love and takes the punch without punching back, then the bored bystanders are going to stand up straight, in shock, and start paying attention.

Battling back and forth, "Mine's better." "No, mine's better," or just plugging our ears because, "Your view is stupid and I'm not listening to this drivel," is easy and very very human. It takes nothing supernatural to do that. But taking the punch and offering Love instead of a return punch? (without denying truth, mind you, but simply saying that one can die being right and completely miss the heart of God-1 Cor. 13).

THAT--that fine art of taking the punch and refusing to give one back even though you *could*, is something the world rarely sees. And that's about as evangelistic as you can get... :)

[dh]

Molly, I wasn't focusing on only Evangelism. I was just saying that we need to respect ALL of what God requires which includes all aspects of Evangelism, Sanctification, Discipleship, missional, etc. When I read from Scripture what Jesus says, "How can they hear in whom they haven't heard and how can they hear without a preacher?" I tend to believe that that includes ALL sharing of the Gospel of Christ (obviously as long as it doesn't go against Scripture or promotes false doctrine).

With regard to Dawkins and assume I was at restaurant having dinner with him and I accepted, I personally would be the person to gauge Dawkins to see how open his heart is before I would respond. If I see by the Holy Spirit an incredibly hard heart ("by their fruit you shall know them.") I probably wouldn't "cast my pearls before swine". At the same time if by the Holy Spirit I see or find out why he is so harsh toward christians then my response would be with more care. To me though his statements seperate from this indicate someone with the heart of Pharoah but I pray that there is some level of softness because "with God all things are possible." I think the main reason people "openly scorn" or whatever you say is because of the concern I and others have of people being "led astry by those who tickle the ears" toward false teaching. Dawkins is in a position of leadership in the scientific community and is doing a disservice to people who might be open but become hard after listening to Dawkins. When I read "be ready to give an answer of the hope of our calling" it includes helping people from being deceived (obviously by the power of the Holy Spirit). If we always have an attitude of acceptance of people who are the antithesis of what Scripture says is Truth then what we are doing is giving credence to something that is false. Does it deserve to have the time of day? It does say hold every thought captive?

Did you read ALL of my previous post? Michael Ramsden IS post-modern in that he is open to all questions but he always give kind considerate but definitive answers and many of these post-modern people become Christians and many of the post-modern Christians become modern Christians based on the Spirit and answers God gives him. At the same time James Robison a strong Modern Christian is living out his Faith by helping people with sickness, feeding the poor, etc. in Africa but he hasnever changed is modern Christianity in any way. What is your take on these Spirit filled people? Is it the problem modern Christianity or is it the ALL incompassing nature of what it means to be a modern Christian? I say it is the people not the theology of where Christ actually is which is absolute and definitive. Should post-moderns be stuck in their questions when the answers from God and His Word are definitive and absolute anddoes that mean it contradicts the praxis that post-modern Christians are so clear to point out? I say weneedto live out the praxis but not contradict the definitive nature of God and the theology of where God's Spirit is as opposed to the theology itself. I see the problem with the people living out than the theology that post-modern Christians are so quick to point out as wrong when in fact it is correct. Foundationalism is not wrong theologically but it is the attitude of the people within the theology belief that is wrong. post-moderns point to the theology I point to the people within the theology. We see problems andare so quickto change what is believed rather than help people discipleship, etc. without changing the theology of what is believed. That is why I so reject Brian MacLarens books and beliefs. He focus on the lack of works and makes statements like "rethinking theology" when it doesn't need to be rethought but whatis done from the correct theology that is already there within modern. Does that make sense?

[molly]

"foundationalism is not wrong theologically..."

Hm. I'm not sure about that. I think parts of Found/Fund are right, parts are misguided, and parts are absolutely wrong. But that's just my personal take. I'm reading about 5 scholarly works on Found/Fund right now, actually, 4 of which are written *by* Found/Fundies...so this conversation is interesting to me. :) (I love college libraries and the interlibrary loan program!)...

Also, Foundationalism/Fundamentalism is a reaction *against* modernity. It is only NOW that we can look and say that Found/Fund is most assuredly a child of modernism, as it is based upon many of modernism's key principles (it just goes a different direction with it's conclusions than other modern movements).

However, Found/Fund's have been QUICK to say that they are NOT modern... They felt they were fighting modernity, and accused liberal protestants of being modern.

As for the Found/Fund theology, if it's all correct, then what is the problem? If the theology is right, where is this disconnect between faith and practice coming from?
From belief comes practice, right? So it would be my educated guess that something, somewhere, is way off in order to produce what we now see. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

(Btw, I'm not opposed to groups who reach out to moderns, just as I'm not opposed to groups who reach out to postmoderns. There is a crying need for BOTH. What I want, though, is, "that in all things, He might have the pre-eminence." He is the point...so it makes sense to go to Him and find out what He's all about, as opposed to going to a huge group of theologians/preachers who, well-intentioned as they may be, have produced a distinctly Christian-flavored mess.

I'm not advocating throwing out all tradition, by any means...but I am suggesting that at a certain point, wisdom necessitates asking a few key questions. And when the answers are less than satisfactory, a few more... And when those answers are even worse, etc...one starts wondering if this machine we've created is even what God had in mind?

[Paul]

And here I was thinking this would be a lil light reading before bed - Molls, DH thank you for your thoughts and engagement, I think we might need to go back and work out to talk to each other in terms of DH's translation service and indeed the struggle we have to understand each other, whether modern/postmodern or any other permuation of one part of the churc to another...

In fact the more I think about it the more I think we need both the historical perspective and the language to try and understand theology - for instance what if we define it as faith thinking - does that mean thinking stops no I think on the contrary we face new cultural environments and questions and therefore have to think... do we just focus on the new at the expense of the old, no again I think that is not helpful, we need the traditions of the past, we need a location and a reference - i for one think there is a lot to take from modernity and much that has been left behind as well - but that goes back to me not being anti modern just moving beyond it.

Where you are DH what you believe is so right and I love your embracing and understanding of it... but then again even my classical evangelical modern conservative friends have shifted in their thinking - HS working, maybe... woment preaching, maybe... shopping on a sunday...maybe... watching the simpsons... of course, lol. So I think that perhaps we should recognise that we do not remain static even within a traditon/faith community...

As for Mr Dawkins, I see we are both people of faith, he in no God and me in one. Whether that makes him brighter than me is his own opinion :)

[dh]

Molly, I too don't see the "practice" on the post-modern side. It advocates works but doesn't focus on proper doctrine that Epistles advocate. I see a growing number not willing to work with moderns against sin.

We here "new Perspective of Paul", changing foundations of theology, etc. I advocate being against these things not because they are tradition but because they are what God's Word says.

What "practice" do you feel is off? I see the moderns taking on what hollowood stands for, post-moderns would never do that. I see standing up for things that are absolute truth, post-moderns wouldn't do that. We need a combination but we shouldn't change the theology. My modern theology shows importance for the poor, hurting, sick, not advocating any sin, Salvation of souls for eternal life and thus escape judgement, etc. I feel we can pursue all of the post-modern christian concerns without changing any of the modern Christianity concerns whatsoever. We need to add to the emphesis. To me it is a matter of emphesis within a theology rather than the theology itself. These things "HS working, maybe... woment preaching, maybe... shopping on a sunday...maybe... watching the simpsons... of course" are not in the same category as what I have read from McLaren, NT Wright and others. They advocate changing the theology to something other than what God's Word says. I have read their view of Paul, heaven/hell, homosexuality views, etc. At the same time I also understnad the importance of environment, poor, etc. Modern Christianity has always taught helping the poor and the environment. It may not have as much an emphesis but that is different. To me the modern christianity doesn't go against the concerns of post-modern Christianity thus I advocate no change in modern Christianity with an addition of post-modern Christainity concerns.

On Mr. Dawkins, I somewhat agree we all have faith but we have Faith while his faith according God's Word becaomes nothing without Faith in Christ alone. So I guess you are partly correct.