the struggle of discussion
Posted by Dan on 17 Sep 2004 at 02:47 pm | Tagged as: Uncategorized
So the last couple days have been thought provoking and tiring. As I’ve been discussing (agreeing, disagreing,and considering new thoughts) on the eriv.net message boards, I’ve realized that I can’t help but say what I think on some issues. I guess I often feel like I need to somehow bridge some understanding between two worlds of thought. Those two worlds for the sake of brevity being Moderns and Postmoderns. And I feel that I am such a mixture of both worlds. But here are many problems with me wanting to do this (even though I still think it worthy to take part in). There is the problem of a lack of understanding of history. Many modern evangelicals don’t have much of a grasp on recent(I’m talking 200years) of philosophy, which IS very important in this discussion. And many postmoderns seem to have a “lower” view of the scriptures, and not much understanding of the humility that many modern leaders have (not saying that they themselves aren’t humble people). So at the outset the core values on each side are not well understood (or accepted) by the other side. (note, I am making huge generalizations, I know. And I’m sorry.) Then there is the issue of authority and differing views of that, which could definitly be a roadblock to discussion bythe very nature of the views. I could go on and on…but, like I said. I’m tired.
So how do you question both sides in a loving way? I don’t know. I don’t always do that very well. I guess it just takes a whole lot of humility on all sides. I’m reading a book right now that posits a certian hermenutic. To some people it would be pretty controversial, but the best thing about the book is that he treats the opposing views with much respect and undrestanding of where they are coming from. He even titled his last chapter “What If I Am Wrong?”
So what do you guys think? Is there hope that people from totally different philisophical worldviews and different interpretations of the Bible can go as far as working with each other in their church communities? Is this even a good thing to want?
make sure to put “http://” in front of the link address, or else it won’t work.
(http://www.tlblog.com, instead of just www.tlblog.com)
SEAN
What’s the book? i am pretty sure that i read something recently where that was the title of the lat chapter, but i can’t seem to remember what book that was…
without hope…what else is there? There is always hope my friend. God can do all things…
Dan,
I know what you mean, yesterday I was flipping through the forum about the election. And I had a hard time resisting tossing a post in there. I did not because the people who had already posted where not playing very nicely with the other, and were mostly interested in gassing those they viewed as their opponents… But I mainly did not post because my post would have been out of discust for one particular person, which obviously I would be reacting and atacking them, which is inherently NOT GOOD (especially on the church’s forum).
I agree that there is a huge inproportion on how people side themselves on issues, its mostly on feeling instead of understanding. In saying this I may very well land myself on different sides than you, but even in my short couple years at LCC I have learned enough in Economics that only someone who actually trusts the news would just might believe this is REALLY Bush’s fault. The inherent lack of understanding is absolutely historical, dating back to the creation of Man, specific case was the Tower of Babel.
But as I found myself getting angery and upset with these people who just don’t get it (
Dan-
What if this generation’s role in stepping into a ‘postmodern’ era was to solely discuss it? Wouldn’t that be somewhat disappointing, but at the same time be tremendously rewarding? To know that we won’t see the fruit of a new era, but to know that we are trailblazers for those to follow in our footsteps is a powerful ideal.
Back in the good ole days, the priests and religious leaders would regularly meet together for a ‘midrash’. This was a time that they would discuss a wide array of topics. There was the understanding that before AND after the midrash, these men would covenant to be friends and live in harmony, regardless of the outcome of their conversations or their differences.
Think of how ridiculous the conversations were with Jesus and the religious leaders!! They hated him b/c he was bringing a new way of thinking and a new hermeneutic, a new philosophy of living or a new ‘yoke’, if you will.
Not that I view our olders through the same lens as Jesus viewed the religious leaders, but even Jesus wasn’t able to ‘get through’ to them. He sent Paul to the Greeks or unchurched to begin His movement. Should we be following this example???
thoughts???
JR