Knowing Jesus Through the OT Class Responses
Bradford McCall writes:
Differing from most theologians of this postmodern age, I appreciate Wright once more, regarding his assertion that God is a covenant God.
Bradford, very nicely done. I'm happy to see you found the book helpful. This is a little bit off the beaten path, but your comment above caught my attention. Do you see a correlation between "postmodernism" and a widespread denial of a covenantal view of God? This is not a correlation that I have noticed (but perhaps should have?). Would you mind explaining a little bit? Thanks.
Woody
____________________________________________________________________
Garwood P. Anderson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Biblical Studies
Asbury Theological Seminary - Florida
8401 Valencia College Lane
Orlando, FL 32825
(407) 482-7645
Bradford McCall writes:
>Knowing Jesus Through the OT Reflection
>Bradford McCall
>NT520
>9/21/04
>I detest strongly the apathy >that modern Christendom expresses in their “Christianity”. This apathy,note, is expressly revealed in the postmodern pursuit of knowledge, or
>rather, the lack thereof. It is both comical and saddening at once the
>marked ignorance that we modern people of God possess regarding our
>supposed God. We claim to know God, but then deny Him by our actions,
>because we know not how to act in the proper manner.
Missy comments: Bradford I think you make a good point here that our actions do not often match our faith. Is it solely knowledge that will help us in this aspect? I was wondering if community also plays a role in helping shape proper responses to God's grace in our lives. How is our obedient response shaped by the Gospel?
Re postmodernism: I find that many books that I read today dismiss postmodernism without properly defining it. As a postmodernist (and Democrat- I wonder if a modernist statician has researched the correlation?) I love knowledge and think it plays a huge role in the Gospel message. (Although I can't speak for all postmodernists-it is against our club rules :)). However, I do see that the power of knowledge only goes so far in communicating about our faith. Therefore, I am always looking to come into relationship with people to discuss their traditions, experiences and rationales and then try to dialogue about the gospel. That gospel message is primarily shaped by Scripture. I actually think that postmodernism looks very much like Wesleyan theology! Also because relationship is so important, the covenant message of Scripture is one of my key hermeneutics. I hope this helps.
Bradford writes: Jesus was not white, and Wright rightfully
>acknowledges this fact. He was a Jew, and to properly understand Him, we
>must recreate Him in the light of His Jewish-ness, and abolish the
>Anglo-Saxon idol.
Missy comments: Bradford I really like that you make this point. What do you think it says about the human condition that we need to make God into our own image? Do you find that we also tend to worship with people that think and look like us? I wonder if our images of God would change if we worshiped with people that come from different backgrounds?
>Bradford writes: America is not the new Israel, no matter how much to the contrary
>it may be thought. However, we who do believe in His Son do become a part
>of the Israel of God by being grafted into the root (cf. Romans 11), but
>we must not become haughty in our position in Christ.
Missy writes: Bradford I like your points here as well, thank you for sharing.
Missy Hart writes:
I find that many books that I read today dismiss postmodernism without properly defining it.
Missy, I think you are quite right here. I also think the opposite happens as well, embracing "postmodernism" without defining it. Christians who reject postmodernism tend either (a) to be reactionary but have minimal first-hand engagement with the topic or (b) are deeply aware of the issues but define postmodernism by reference to its secular prophets: Lyotard, Foucault, Derrida, Rorty, Fish, etc. If these latter define postmodernism, there would be good reason to reject it, and Christians who embrace postmodernism proudly seem to be surprisingly unaware of the heritage of the ideas. My struggle with the term is that I never know what people using the term mean and don't mean by it. Does that ring a bell at all?
Woody
____________________________________________________________________
Garwood P. Anderson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Biblical Studies
Asbury Theological Seminary - Florida
8401 Valencia College Lane
Orlando, FL 32825
(407) 482-7645
Garwood Anderson writes:
Do you see a correlation between "postmodernism" and a widespread denial of a covenantal view of God? This is not a correlation that I have noticed (but perhaps should have?). Would you mind explaining a little bit? Thanks.
I do see a correlation. In my interpretation of postmodernism (stress on the my aspect, as postmodernism defies true definition), the past is reduced to an ancillary, or even non-important position to what is presently at hand. The past is inconsequential to the reality of the day at hand. Thus, history is irrelelavant and rendered impotent in explanatory power.
In contrast, covenental theology stresses the historic aspect of God's actions with His people, and promises that His relationship with them shall not be denied, which necessarily involves a historical aspect. Because history is dismissed readily in postmodernism, the very foundation of a covenant is belied, and by extension covenantal theology is also. If not totallt dismissed, note, the idea of a covenanet is nonetheless weakened. But thats just my peonic thoughts.
Garwood Anderson writes:
>Missy Hart writes:
> I find that many books that I read today dismiss postmodernism without
>properly defining it.
>
>Missy, I think you are quite right here. I also think the opposite
>happens as well, embracing "postmodernism" without defining it.
>Christians who reject postmodernism tend either (a) to be reactionary but
>have minimal first-hand engagement with the topic or (b) are deeply aware
>of the issues but define postmodernism by reference to its secular
>prophets: Lyotard, Foucault, Derrida, Rorty, Fish, etc. If these latter
>define postmodernism, there would be good reason to reject it, and
>Christians who embrace postmodernism proudly seem to be surprisingly
>unaware of the heritage of the ideas. My struggle with the term is that
>I never know what people using the term mean and don't mean by it. Does
>that ring a bell at all?
>
>Woody
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Garwood P. Anderson, Ph.D.
>Assistant Professor, Biblical Studies
>Asbury Theological Seminary - Florida
>8401 Valencia College Lane
>Orlando, FL 32825
>(407) 482-7645
>
>Garwood Anderson writes:
>Missy Hart writes:
> I find that many books that I read today dismiss postmodernism without
>properly defining it.
>
>Missy, I think you are quite right here. I also think the opposite
>happens as well, embracing "postmodernism" without defining it.
>Christians who reject postmodernism tend either (a) to be reactionary but
>have minimal first-hand engagement with the topic or (b) are deeply aware
>of the issues but define postmodernism by reference to its secular
>prophets: Lyotard, Foucault, Derrida, Rorty, Fish, etc. If these latter
>define postmodernism, there would be good reason to reject it, and
>Christians who embrace postmodernism proudly seem to be surprisingly
>unaware of the heritage of the ideas. My struggle with the term is that
>I never know what people using the term mean and don't mean by it. Does
>that ring a bell at all?
>
>Woody
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Garwood P. Anderson, Ph.D.
>Assistant Professor, Biblical Studies
>Asbury Theological Seminary - Florida
>8401 Valencia College Lane
>Orlando, FL 32825
>(407) 482-7645
Woody,
Okay, you had to go and make me think! I am going to be up late finishing my readings for the class because I reflected on this for quite a while this afternoon. I do appreciate the inquiry and the chance to dialogue; and your concerns do ring a bell.
Post modernism in general rejects a singular worldview and relies on interpretation that is based on tradition, experience and rationale to help express different worldviews. I think Christian postmodernism holds Scripture primary with more of an emphasis on a metanarrative that God has come into human stories and what that looks like to different people.
I think however that the problem is more than a definition, and is rooted in our use of labels. Often labels are meant to help define groups of ideas/thoughts. What frequently happens is that people use labels because it helps define themselves and others as insiders/outsiders. Labeling also gives power and allows for people not to have to think about their position or others as individuals. People can be dismissed, as postmodernist, modernist, Christian, Muslim, Democrat, or Republican. When we spend our time trying to determine who is Christian and not Christian rather than learning what it means to be a Christian we run into the same problem as who is modernist and postmodernist. And we can stop thinking about what we believe, because we allow the label to do the thinking for us.
Within any labeled groups there are extremists and people with views that are on the edge. I think this is true with post modernism as well as modernism. I am not overly familiar with the historical Jesus movement, but I consider this to be an extreme edge of modernism, or modernism taken too far. I would welcome your insight on this. So with post modernism I do believe that contained in its origins and within the movement today there are extremists. What is interesting to me, is that we continue to dialogue about modernism so that extremist issues are dealt with and either incorporated or rejected. With postmodernism, there is often a rejection of the movement of the whole because there is no dialogue, just a dismissal. I would be interested in your concerns about the origins of the postmodern movement because in essence we would then be dialoguing about the merits and weaknesses of postmodernism.
Perhaps the answer is to avoid labels and stop trying to place concepts into categories. For instance, I am debating with Bradford that postmodernism does embrace knowledge and history, which he disagrees that this falls under the domain of modernism. If we move beyond the labels, would Bradford and I be able to dialogue and reach a consensus that knowledge and history are important but not primary over Scripture?
Normally in conversations I do not bring up that I am post modernist. My recent two postings on TT as well as some of my other reflection papers, I think revealed a postmodernist outlook, but I purposefully avoided the word, because I knew the dialogue would get stuck. In this case, when postmodernism was outright rejected, I felt a need to defend it. However, in retrospect, I think that to model postmodernism with the questions that I like to ask allows for a better dialogue on the issues.
Does any of this make sense?---- Missy
Missy Hart writes:
If we move beyond the labels, would Bradford and I be able to dialogue and reach a consensus that knowledge and history are important but not primary over Scripture?
If these three are not held in tension with one another, you reduce your Biblical interpretation to mere "reader-response", meaning that the Bible means what YOU want it to mean, which is heretical.
Bradford McCall writes:
I do see a correlation. In my interpretation of postmodernism (stress on the my aspect, as postmodernism defies true definition), the past is reduced to an ancillary, or even non-important position to what is presently at hand. The past is inconsequential to the reality of the day at hand. Thus, history is irrelelavant and rendered impotent in explanatory power.
In contrast, covenental theology stresses the historic aspect of God's actions with His people, and promises that His relationship with them shall not be denied, which necessarily involves a historical aspect. Because history is dismissed readily in postmodernism, the very foundation of a covenant is belied, and by extension covenantal theology is also. If not totallt dismissed, note, the idea of a covenanet is nonetheless weakened. But thats just my peonic thoughts.
Bradford, this did help me see where you are coming from. I would say that not all "postmodernism" is anti- or a-historical, though some strands are. Generally speaking, pomo emphasizes the significance of the historical traditions of communities while it is skeptical about our ability to give objective accounts of that history. So I don't think in principle that pomo is antithetical to covenant theology, though in practice it may be. Thanks for taking time to explain yourself.
Woody
Missy Hart writes:
Woody,
Okay, you had to go and make me think! I am going to be up late finishing my readings for the class because I reflected on this for quite a while this afternoon. I do appreciate the inquiry and the chance to dialogue; and your concerns do ring a bell.
Post modernism in general rejects a singular worldview and relies on interpretation that is based on tradition, experience and rationale to help express different worldviews. I think Christian postmodernism holds Scripture primary with more of an emphasis on a metanarrative that God has come into human stories and what that looks like to different people.
I think however that the problem is more than a definition, and is rooted in our use of labels. Often labels are meant to help define groups of ideas/thoughts. What frequently happens is that people use labels because it helps define themselves and others as insiders/outsiders. Labeling also gives power and allows for people not to have to think about their position or others as individuals. People can be dismissed, as postmodernist, modernist, Christian, Muslim, Democrat, or Republican. When we spend our time trying to determine who is Christian and not Christian rather than learning what it means to be a Christian we run into the same problem as who is modernist and postmodernist. And we can stop thinking about what we believe, because we allow the label to do the thinking for us.
Within any labeled groups there are extremists and people with views that are on the edge. I think this is true with post modernism as well as modernism. I am not overly familiar with the historical Jesus movement, but I consider this to be an extreme edge of modernism, or modernism taken too far. I would welcome your insight on this. So with post modernism I do believe that contained in its origins and within the movement today there are extremists. What is interesting to me, is that we continue to dialogue about modernism so that extremist issues are dealt with and either incorporated or rejected. With postmodernism, there is often a rejection of the movement of the whole because there is no dialogue, just a dismissal. I would be interested in your concerns about the origins of the postmodern movement because in essence we would then be dialoguing about the merits and weaknesses of postmodernism.
Perhaps the answer is to avoid labels and stop trying to place concepts into categories. For instance, I am debating with Bradford that postmodernism does embrace knowledge and history, which he disagrees that this falls under the domain of modernism. If we move beyond the labels, would Bradford and I be able to dialogue and reach a consensus that knowledge and history are important but not primary over Scripture?
Normally in conversations I do not bring up that I am post modernist. My recent two postings on TT as well as some of my other reflection papers, I think revealed a postmodernist outlook, but I purposefully avoided the word, because I knew the dialogue would get stuck. In this case, when postmodernism was outright rejected, I felt a need to defend it. However, in retrospect, I think that to model postmodernism with the questions that I like to ask allows for a better dialogue on the issues.
Does any of this make sense?
Nice stuff, Missy. Especially what you say about labeling taking the place listening and discussion. Sorry for keeping you up late!! I'm in strong agreement in general. Two little caveats: I would say there is a difference between "shared vocabulary" --necessary for communication! -- and "labels" -- usually imposed upon others for rhetorical purposes. So my point was that the word "postmodernism" actually functions in both ways, but it is not always clear when it is doing which :-)
Second, it is a little ironic that postmodern Christians tend to latch on to the notion of the biblical/Christian "meta-narrative" when the very definition of postmodernism is the eschewal of all such "totalizing" explanations of reality. Normally, of course, Christian postmodernism will then say, "well, this is just our metanarrative." Fair enough, except that the metanarrative itself does not make such modest claims for itself !! :-)
You will see in this class that a good bit of what I have to say could be called "postmodern" (e.g., with respect to the historical Jesus) but that I am not very fond of the label. I prefer "postliberal" in the very narrow theological sense associated with Hans Frei, George Lindbeck (and S. Hauerwas to some extent), though I have difference with these as well.
Thanks for conversing so thoughtfully. I'll let you get back to your other tasks.
Woody
Garwood Anderson writes:
>Missy Hart writes:
>Woody,
>
>Okay, you had to go and make me think! I am going to be up late
>finishing my readings for the class because I reflected on this for quite
>a while this afternoon. I do appreciate the inquiry and the chance to
>dialogue; and your concerns do ring a bell.
>
>Post modernism in general rejects a singular worldview and relies on
>interpretation that is based on tradition, experience and rationale to
>help express different worldviews. I think Christian postmodernism holds
>Scripture primary with more of an emphasis on a metanarrative that God
>has come into human stories and what that looks like to different people.
>
>
>
>I think however that the problem is more than a definition, and is rooted
>in our use of labels. Often labels are meant to help define groups of
>ideas/thoughts. What frequently happens is that people use labels
>because it helps define themselves and others as insiders/outsiders.
>Labeling also gives power and allows for people not to have to think
>about their position or others as individuals. People can be dismissed,
>as postmodernist, modernist, Christian, Muslim, Democrat, or Republican.
>When we spend our time trying to determine who is Christian and not
>Christian rather than learning what it means to be a Christian we run
>into the same problem as who is modernist and postmodernist. And we can
>stop thinking about what we believe, because we allow the label to do the
>thinking for us.
>
>Within any labeled groups there are extremists and people with views that
>are on the edge. I think this is true with post modernism as well as
>modernism. I am not overly familiar with the historical Jesus movement,
>but I consider this to be an extreme edge of modernism, or modernism
>taken too far. I would welcome your insight on this. So with post
>modernism I do believe that contained in its origins and within the
>movement today there are extremists. What is interesting to me, is that
>we continue to dialogue about modernism so that extremist issues are
>dealt with and either incorporated or rejected. With postmodernism,
>there is often a rejection of the movement of the whole because there is
>no dialogue, just a dismissal. I would be interested in your concerns
>about the origins of the postmodern movement because in essence we would
>then be dialoguing about the merits and weaknesses of postmodernism.
>
>Perhaps the answer is to avoid labels and stop trying to place concepts
>into categories. For instance, I am debating with Bradford that
>postmodernism does embrace knowledge and history, which he disagrees that
>this falls under the domain of modernism. If we move beyond the labels,
>would Bradford and I be able to dialogue and reach a consensus that
>knowledge and history are important but not primary over Scripture?
>
>Normally in conversations I do not bring up that I am post modernist. My
>recent two postings on TT as well as some of my other reflection papers,
>I think revealed a postmodernist outlook, but I purposefully avoided the
>word, because I knew the dialogue would get stuck. In this case, when
>postmodernism was outright rejected, I felt a need to defend it.
>However, in retrospect, I think that to model postmodernism with the
>questions that I like to ask allows for a better dialogue on the issues.
>
>Does any of this make sense?
>
>Nice stuff, Missy. Especially what you say about labeling taking the
>place listening and discussion. Sorry for keeping you up late!! I'm in
>strong agreement in general. Two little caveats: I would say there is a
>difference between "shared vocabulary" --necessary for communication! --
>and "labels" -- usually imposed upon others for rhetorical purposes. So
>my point was that the word "postmodernism" actually functions in both
>ways, but it is not always clear when it is doing which :-)
>
>Second, it is a little ironic that postmodern Christians tend to latch on
>to the notion of the biblical/Christian "meta-narrative" when the very
>definition of postmodernism is the eschewal of all such "totalizing"
>explanations of reality. Normally, of course, Christian postmodernism
>will then say, "well, this is just our metanarrative." Fair enough,
>except that the metanarrative itself does not make such modest claims for
>itself !! :-)
>
>You will see in this class that a good bit of what I have to say could be
>called "postmodern" (e.g., with respect to the historical Jesus) but that
>I am not very fond of the label. I prefer "postliberal" in the very
>narrow theological sense associated with Hans Frei, George Lindbeck (and
>S. Hauerwas to some extent), though I have difference with these as well.
>
>
>Thanks for conversing so thoughtfully. I'll let you get back to your
>other tasks.
>
>Woody
Woody,
Thank you for your willingness to dialogue on this issue. I have learned a lot.
One last question: Do you see any parallels between the Diaspora Jews and Philo's positions in the Second Temple period and postmodernism of today? Is there a concern that a postmodernist position leaves Christianity vulnerable to being absorbed by current cultural powers (ie consumerism, nationalism, etc)?
With that question, I will rest my side of the conversation on this issue so that it does not dominate the teams' correspondence, and save it for a different venue.
Thanks!
Missy
Bradford McCall writes:
If these three are not held in tension with one another, you reduce your Biblical interpretation to mere "reader-response", meaning that the Bible means what YOU want it to mean, which is heretical.
I guess that is a firm "no" to my invitation to dialogue. :)
I am thankful that you are my brother in Christ and that you are passionate about the God you serve.
My prayer is that when we come together to discuss God that the grace of Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit can guide the conversation and reveal new and wonderful truths.
I am hopeful that your use of capital letters and the word “heretical” in your email were a condemnation of my position and not my person. I am wondering if there is another way to help people to see the error of their ways without such radical measures?
I welcome conversation with you at anytime and look forward to our journey in the NT together in class.
Missy
Missy Hart writes:
Thank you for your willingness to dialogue on this issue. I have learned a lot.
One last question: Do you see any parallels between the Diaspora Jews and Philo's positions in the Second Temple period and postmodernism of today? Is there a concern that a postmodernist position leaves Christianity vulnerable to being absorbed by current cultural powers (ie consumerism, nationalism, etc)?
Short answer? Yes. But I think that actually the modernist wing of Christianity has been more susceptible to this because (unlike postmodernism in theory) modernist Christianity conducts its business self-consciously in dialogue with and by reference to the reigning plausibility structures of the culture. In principle, postmodernism ought to resist this tendency. In practice, I am not confident that this will be the case.
With that question, I will rest my side of the conversation on this issue so that it does not dominate the teams' correspondence, and save it for a different venue.
Probably a good idea for both of us. :-)
Woody
Bradford McCall writes:
If these three are not held in tension with one another, you reduce your Biblical interpretation to mere "reader-response", meaning that the Bible means what YOU want it to mean, which is heretical.
Bradford,
By "YOU" here do you mean Missy, or is this just a generalizing statement (="the Bible means what one wants it to mean")? Secondly, I would reserve the word "heretical" to describe positions which deviate decisively from classic orthodoxy as expressed in the Church's creeds. Since methods of reading the Bible have never been "creedalized" but have always been diverse (cf., e.g., Alexandria to Antioch), I don't think the word "heresy" can be used. Having said that, I also tend to be suspicious of "reader-response" hermeneutics for precisely the reason you mention. Then again, there is more than one version of "reader-response," and some versions of it do not think that the reader has the right to create meaning that is not there in the text but only to actualize that which is there. In the end, reason, tradition, and experience will of necessity be involved in our Bible reading, but the text itself needs to sit at the head of the table in that conversation!
Woody