New Shack topic: Telling our Stories about God, or "What is truth?"
Bct...@aol.com
Jane (and Chris(t)?),
We have been moving topically inside the Shack (as in institutions,
doctrine of the church). Will we be doing soon a next section of
pages?
--Gabe
Gabe
Thanks for getting us onto next steps.
Let me play the contrarian, a role usually self-assigned by Willis,
albeit with a tongue in cheek in order to raise some pertinent
questions.
"Story-telling" is in. Whether it's in the New York Times Book Review
section or in theological hermeneutics or church practice. Wonderful.
Long overdue because the Bible is a macrostory and its heart for
Christians is the microstory of Jesus. Of course, the popularity of
the Shack as such and the tales within in are testimony to the same.
What is the story we have to tell as believers? Hymnody often reminds
us. We've a story to tell to the nations. I love to tell the story,
Crown thine ancient church's story... OK. Then the question is how do
we do we relate to the context we live in (this a story-telling ethos)
and not capitulate to it. More than ethos, we have a "testimony"
tradition that has made, in evangelism, for instance, as well as the
prayer meeting of believers, central, as in some kinds of evangelical
piety. (As a one-time Baptist, I was immersed in it.) I hear you,
Jane, trying to do this when you speak about the experience of the
resurrection vis a vis our personal narratives. But the resurrection
story(so too the entire thread of the biblical story) is sui generis,
with no parallel to our "experiences." Here George Lindbeck is helpful
in not erasing the role of our experience but cautioning us about
"experiential-expressivism," and calling us to attend in the Big
Story, first and foremost.
How this plays out in a Guide, I'm not sure at the moment, except to
ask , ever and again, the reader to remember, to learn, to immerse
themselves in, to share, to testify, to the greatest Tale of all. Then
to connect to that the "pro me," our personal stories in the setting
of the Big One. And to evaluate what we are reading in the Shack in
the light of such.
Incidentally, the current issue of Christianity Today features
something parallel to (though not the same as) this with the cover
reading "Light for the Soul: Why a heady dose of doctrine is crucial
to spiritual formation." And, as I remember the current issue of The
Christian Ccentury has a piece in which Will Willimon makes a similar
point.
Oh well, grist for the mill.
--Gabe
On Mar 9, 8:22 am, Bctj...@aol.com wrote:
> Dear Shack readers and others who have been participating in the recent
> dialogue about evangelism,
>
> I have attached a document with a new topic in it. This topic was
> inspired both byThe Shackand by the recent flurry of postings in this Open Forum
> about evangelism. Again, I figure I've put in the "soft" stuff, and now
> you all can jump in with the heavy duty stuff.
>
> I called this one "Telling Our Stories about God," but it could just as
> easily have been called "'What is truth?'" (John 18:38). And I do believe
> with extra insights and inputs from many of you, we can develop the "what is
> truth?" angle further.
>
> Also, I put some background about the book in this one, so that those of
> you who have jumped into the evangelism discussion can jump into this one,
> even if you have not been readingThe Shack with us all along. I did this
> because I think that this discussion can also be about the question of
> evangelism.
>
> Blessings,
> Jane
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> ________
>
> In a message dated 3/8/2010 1:54:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>
> gfac...@comcast.net writes:
>
> Jane (and Chris(t)?),
>
> We have been moving topically insidethe Shack(as in institutions,
> doctrine of the church). Will we be doing soon a next section of
> pages?
> --Gabe
>
> Shack-Belief.doc
> 42KViewDownload
Jean Easland
"Narrative" theology----------does he us your Narrative theology Gabe of his
own version??? Any one out there using his stuff in teaching settings???
Roger
herb.davis
John Cedarleaf
Thanks for your comments. I've read the Shack, led a discussion group on it, heard William Paul Young speak to a gathering. According to what he said, he is Mack. You are right, it speaks to religious experience, or have born again experiences. Like you, I haven't had such an experience.There have been times when I've felt God closer than other times, but no mind blowing, gate crashing, light in the night experiences. I'm reminded of a neighbor pastor, now part of the church triumphant, who used to muse on the stories that some pastors always were telling. They would always have the perfect story for their sermons, because just that week, someone had walked into their study and told them about this or that experience,and it always connected with what they were going to preach on. He said: 'That never happens to me." It doesn't happen to me either. Maybe I'm not open to experiences, who knows? The other thing that gnaws at me is the feeling that a lot of "new evangelical" literature is about me,my needs etc. I'm uncomfortable with it. Who knows,maybe I'm just not comfortable with all the individualism around me.
John
fcba%40comcast.net
Dear Herb,
I have a few moments so I want to explore your consistant Barthian (?) theme of "I have never had an experience of God."
As you know I come from a very extensive and largely Christian background that includes Roman Catholicism, hippiedom, Jesus Movement, fundamentalism, various and sundry pentecostalisms (including AG, Italian, Puerto Rican, Black etc), the Catholic charismatic movement, other charismatic groups, pietistic groups, Finneyites, YWAM, house churches, the former UPC, CMA, Inter Varasity Fellowship etc until I got to GCTS where I joined the UCC and have been a member for 33 years!
I understand your worry and the dangers of having the Christian faith be 100% experienctially based. I saw pschyzophrenic people fit in really well (for a period of time) with some of the crazy groups that I joined because they always had great visions. I had my growth periods when I got a hold of ENTHUSIASM by Ronald Knox, PERFECTIONISM by Warfield and Schaff's great Volume 7 of The Hisotyr of the Christian Church on THE SWISS REFORMATION. These books (and others) helped me be critical of too much dependence on "experience" in the Christian faith.
BUT how can you say that you have "never had an experience with God?"
- You share your faith in Christ here and that faith is a gift from God.
- You share your testimony of about your being a sinner and that too is a gift from God.
- You share your wonderful insights into the scriptures and they also come from God.
I hate to ruin your anti-pietistic rhetoric but all of these are experiences of God. I say that you have experienced God otherwise you would not have faith, not realize that you are a sinner and not have such a wonderful grasp on the word of God.
Chris Anderson
PS Barth had some great respect for various Pietists.
God Is Still Laughing
http://home.comcast.net/~fcba
Jean Easland
----- Original Message -----From: herb.davisSent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 7:36 AMSubject: RE: New Shack topic: Telling our Stories about God, or "What is truth?"
Jean Easland
Wanda Lester
- You share your faith in Christ here and that faith is a gift from God.
- You share your testimony of about your being a sinner and that too is a gift from God.
- You share your wonderful insights into the scriptures and they also come from God.
Right on Chris!
Wanda Lester
herb.davis
herb.davis
fcba%40comcast.net
Herb,
As is often the case with me I got interested in your one comment (that you do not experience God) and did not take the time to state that your basic comparison between Young and Robinson was wonderful. I sometimes do not think that you realize what an amazing gift you are to the church. But even if you do not see it we do. Thanks.
Chris Anderson
God Is Still Laughing
http://home.comcast.net/~fcba
----- Original Message -----
From: "herb.davis" <herb....@mindspring.com>
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:27:23 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: New Shack topic: Telling our Stories about God, or "What is truth?"
Jean Easland
Willis E. Elliott
Gabe
I don't know the Rob Bell DVD, so can't say.
"Narrative theology" has had a variety of usages ( personal stories,
biblical stories, the over-arching narrative of Scripture and
Tradition....) The latter emerged as the dominant usage, largely due
to the "Yale school" (Frei, Lindbeck et al.) and others like N.T.
Wright. My treatment would also fall in the last type. If you can
track down (on the Internet?) the October 1983 issue of the journal,
INTERPRETATION, the whole issue is on "narrative theology" including
an important piece by Amos Wilder. I did the opener, "Narrative
Theology: An Overview," and, if I can find it, will be glad to e-mail
you an attachment with it.
--Gabe
On Mar 9, 5:00 pm, "Jean Easland" <jeasl...@pie.midco.net> wrote:
> Gabe: Our son is teaching SS using Rob Bell's DVDs. Wic says Bell draws from
> "Narrative" theology----------does he us your Narrative theology Gabe of his
> own version??? Any one out there using his stuff in teaching settings???
> Roger
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gabe" <gfac...@comcast.net>
> To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <confessi...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 2:45 PM
> Subject: Re: New Shack topic: Telling our Stories about God, or "What is
> truth?"
>
> Jane,
>
> Thanks for getting us onto next steps.
>
> Let me play the contrarian, a role usually self-assigned by Willis,
> albeit with a tongue in cheek in order to raise some pertinent
> questions.
>
> "Story-telling" is in. Whether it's in the New York Times Book Review
> section or in theological hermeneutics or church practice. Wonderful.
> Long overdue because the Bible is a macrostory and its heart for
> Christians is the microstory of Jesus. Of course, the popularity ofthe Shackas such and the tales within in are testimony to the same.
George Demetrion
Both Gabe and Walter Brueggemann are narrative theologians; perhaps more precisely on WB a narrative Biblical exegete/expositor. Both have been highly influenced by the Yale School as Gabe indicates on himself in his note, though have taken narrative theology in intriguingly different directions even as there are important similarities between the two.
Best,
George Demetrion
> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:30:18 -0800
> Subject: Re: New Shack topic: Telling our Stories about God, or "What is truth?"
Matt
locate Missy’s body? On the other hand, Mack’s story doesn’t conform
to our understanding of space and time: what seemed to Mack like a
three-day experience occurred in a much shorter period of time
(perhaps instantaneously), and certain remembered, physical elements
of that experience (e.g., Missy’s burial) did not happen. So, Mack’s
account is “true” in one sense, but some details can’t be
reconciled.
I think the ambiguity of Mack’s story is an apt metaphor for biblical
faith. For instance, I confess the truth of the Resurrection, even as
I acknowledge the contradictory nature of the Gospel accounts and the
improbability of the story of Joseph of Arimathea. The nagging
details don’t weaken my faith in the core of the story. Perhaps Young
is saying something similar with the details of Mack’s experience (or
vision, or whatever you want to call it).
Jane asks good questions about our willingness to share our
experiences with God—particularly those that seem, for lack of a
better word, supernatural. I have shared my experiences here, but I
don’t readily tell people I encounter in daily life about those
experiences. Come to think of it, I’m not sure I told my wife about
them. On one level, these experiences are personal to me, and I don’t
want to open myself to ridicule if others will think I’m a fool for
believing in such things. On another level, however, these
experiences of closeness to God are gifts of the Spirit; as such, they
are meant to build up the Church (e.g., 1 Cor 14). Am I being selfish
by not sharing? Am I hiding my light under a bushel basket? Do I
prefer the so-called wisdom of the world to the so-called foolishness
of Christ? Lord, have mercy.
On the other hand, reading Willis’s last post, perhaps my experience
(and the experience of others) has little value. Maybe I do well to
keep my mouth shut. Maybe, but this seems incongruent with the story
of the early Church. From Paul’s writings, although worship in the
early Church centered on the Lord’s Supper, testimonies from the
faithful also played an important role. Paul recognized the potential
for testimonies to lead people astray, and so he established a litmus
test: testimonies (and all spiritual gifts) must be offered with the
motivation of love (1 Cor 13). Many testimonies are not so motivated,
but those that are build up the Church in unique ways, and deserve
their rightful place alongside Scripture, tradition and reason as
pillars of our Church.
Peace.
Willis E. Elliott
Willis E. Elliott
Gabe
may have missed,
Check out current issue of Christianity Today cover story--"The Jesus
We Never Knew: Why scholarly attempts to discover the "real" Jesus
have failed and why that is as good thing"by North Park [John note]
University's Scot McKnight
with responses by N.T. Wright and Craig Keener. A series of telling
questions by McKnight: "We must be willing to ask, Whose Jesus will we
trust? Will it be the evangelists and the apostles? Will it be the
church's orthodox Jesus? Or will it be the latest proposal from a
brilliant historian?" (Crossan, Borg, , Sanders, N.T. Wright...) And
the author(s) of The Shack?
Interesting that McKnight puts Wright in this list, but as Willis
notes he works with the Anglican trilateral, and "reason" here
translates as a very big place for historical critical scholarship.
He makes his counter--points to McKnight in the response. I would
locate his reason as one of 3 forms of "'human experience/
world" (rational, moral, affective) in an authority structure, and be
wary of its moving to a normative location.
--Gabe
Richard Floyd
I don't see the Century anymore, but I like McKnight's idea here; hardly a new one, that we should trust the canonical Christ rather than the Christ of scholarship.
Forsyth said a century ago that historical criticism “is a good servant, but a dangerous master.” And Brevard Child made a canonical approach his life's work.
As you know, I studied with Tom Wright way back in 1989, and to be fair, he should not be lumped in with the rest of this suspect crowd.
It is true that he is a historian, and has been at work for decades at a process of scholarly retrieval often lumped in with the “third questers.,” which I myself find very helpful. although often not entirely convincing.
Still, to be fair to Wright, when he climbs in a pulpit, it is the canonical Christ who is preached, although the historical material may appear in support of a point.
A guy not on the star circuit, but every bit as good, is another Anglican, Richard Bauckham, with whom I studied in 1995 in St Andrews. He, too, is a theologian with a historical bent.
He has retired from teaching, and moved back to Cambridge to write. I am eager to see what comes next, but if “God Crucified” and “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” are any indication, we will be blessed with more of his rigor and insight.
Which is to say there are options to the Borgs and Crossans, who I think have become fringe figures to the church's basic theological enterprise, although they are still popular, especially in our latitudinarian UCC, which thinks that “chasing every wind of doctrine” is a virtue rather than a sin.
The revisers have given us little; they explain away so much there is hardly enough left to make one want to worship. How we long for new authorities, when the canon has all we need and then some.
Peace and Easter blessings,
Rick
> --
> To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
Jean Easland
NOW work of the Hound of Heaven, God the Holy Spirit who does not wait
around for the next twist from the human heart and mind of any one, but
brings to full fruit that which he calls into being.
Blessings from the prairie where the culture of death is overwhelmed by
the force of life bursting into existence more each day as the sun and the
Son shines on what and who He loves! Easter; YES-----------Roger
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Floyd" <rfl...@berkshire.rr.com>
To: <confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: New Shack topic: Telling our Stories about God, or "What is
truth?"
Gabe,
I don't see the Century anymore, but I like McKnight's idea here; hardly a
new one, that we should trust the canonical Christ rather than the Christ of
scholarship.
Forsyth said a century ago that historical criticism �is a good servant, but
a dangerous master.� And Brevard Child made a canonical approach his life's
work.
As you know, I studied with Tom Wright way back in 1989, and to be fair, he
should not be lumped in with the rest of this suspect crowd.
It is true that he is a historian, and has been at work for decades at a
process of scholarly retrieval often lumped in with the �third questers.,�
which I myself find very helpful. although often not entirely convincing.
Still, to be fair to Wright, when he climbs in a pulpit, it is the canonical
Christ who is preached, although the historical material may appear in
support of a point.
A guy not on the star circuit, but every bit as good, is another Anglican,
Richard Bauckham, with whom I studied in 1995 in St Andrews. He, too, is a
theologian with a historical bent.
He has retired from teaching, and moved back to Cambridge to write. I am
eager to see what comes next, but if �God Crucified� and �Jesus and the
Eyewitnesses� are any indication, we will be blessed with more of his rigor
and insight.
Which is to say there are options to the Borgs and Crossans, who I think
have become fringe figures to the church's basic theological enterprise,
although they are still popular, especially in our latitudinarian UCC, which
thinks that �chasing every wind of doctrine� is a virtue rather than a sin.
Gabe
Well said. Yes on Bauckham. You were privileged to study with him. The
magazine is Christianity Today not Christian Century. The former takes
new and interesting turns of late, more ecumenical than heretofore as
with this article and responses by Wright (who makes your point in an
interesting way, although I am almost, but not quite entirely
persuaded by this and also his take on justification. I sent him the
Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Agreement on the Doctrine of
Justification which is an ecclesial landmark, but a somewhat different
view of the matter) and Keener. I find the Century pretty good too
with David Heim at the functional helm these days.
Praise the Lord for Forsyth.
--Gabe
Richard Floyd
fcba%40comcast.net
Chris Anderson
(And I will stop sending notes today no matter how hard it is to shut up!)
George Demetrion
This is an important issue in light of a vast corpus of holiness literature grounded not only in the Puritans, but in a fair amount of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox literature. Holiness is not my single sermon, but it's an important one even in the acknowledgement that it's an aspiration with very serious intent, rather than an attainment.
Currently reading J.C. Ryle's classic book on Holiness. There's a great deal here http://www.amazon.com/Holiness-Nature-Hindrances-Difficulties-Roots/dp/1598562223/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270327315&sr=8-1. Check out the reviews. 21 5 stars out of 23 reviews. The book includes an incisive discussion between the differences and correspondence between justification and sanctification.
Perhaps we're always justified and always sinful and always called to holiness, despite of and because of ourselves--thus, dialectical devotional theology. There's just too much Scripture to the contrary, including the book Luther wanted to oust from the canon, James not to give a most serious aspiration to holiness (which was, I believe, Finney's intent) a serious place
Perhaps after Easter. I'm more than certain this list can handle several threads.
Beautiful Easter to all,
George Demetrion
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 17:41:14 +0000
From: fc...@comcast.net
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: A Discussion on the Joint Declaration & "Simul justus et peccator"