Thank you, Andrew, for remaining true to the standards which you set out for the project and allowing critique, as well as involvement..

The most important distinctives, defining emphases, of a renewed theology

For me, renewed theology means freshly considered theology, which does use time-honoured ingredients, yet which makes subtle changes to the recipe; the “meal” is then served up, freshly cooked and brought to the table with generous hospitality.

Wesley insisted upon four cornerstones in the construction of his theology, a “methodological quadrangle” of: Scripture (trustworthy on all matters that it intends to teach), reason (which Scriptural revelation goes beyond, but never against),  experience (unless we have irrefutable evidence for thinking otherwise, we should accept that things are the way they appear); tradition (church tradition has a critical place in theological and philosophical dialogue.) I think this sort of lucid, practical thinking has an essential place in working out a renewed theology.

Meanwhile, to answer Andrew according to the question posed:

CONTENT / how would we characterize the distinctive beliefs, ideas, doctrines, of a renewed theology

1. A renewed theology should present God’s eternal purpose: a renewal of creation through an infusion of eternal life. (I reject the post-modern assumption that meta-narratives are out-moded. I am confident that people are willing to consider meta-narratives, so long as they are offered as a choice; the Messianic meta-narrative is extremely attractive.)
2. It should be re-considered and re-presented within a Hebraic worldview, rather than the Platonic worldview out of which the Renaissance and the Enlightenment projects grew. This automatically places the Messiah and the (Earthy) Creation for Whom, through Whom and by Whom it was made at the centre of the renewed theology.
3. From this centrality of the Messiah and Creation, the centrality of the Messianic Community, the human seed of new creation, should spring  dignifying and beautifying the struggle of humanity to emerge out of chaos and malevolence, including religious struggles – and incorporating, in particular, the provision of an appropriate identity to the Jewish people and allowing for a continued messianic purpose for them – whilst engaging in the nitty-gritty reality that this human emergence will always seem incomplete… until a time of “consummation of all things.”
4. The theology itself should essentially be constructed around a Covenantal framework - and primarily and particularly the Abrahamic covenantal exclamation regarding the blessing of all families / nations – which I suggest relates to God’s absolute commitment to fulfil his eternal purpose – to bring many “sons” to glory in a renewed creation.
5. A practical theology of engagement must incorporate both suffering and success; of pain and glory; of humility and leadership; of poverty and (godly) prosperity; of partnership and conflict; of friendship and of confrontation; of giving and receiving; of rest and of sacrifice.

PURPOSE / what are our overriding objectives? what motivates us?

1. to preserve and present the narrative of God’s eternal purpose: to fulfil the trust entrusted to us, in a manner that all nations, all ethnic peoples can engage with;
2. to  particularly engage with the poor of the world, for whom the Good News exists first of all; this implies an absolute dedication to the task of enabling all people of all cultures to hear the Good News, in a language and a cultural expression that will enable them to receive the Incarnation of the Messiah into their midst;
3. to resist the power and principalities which resist the knowledge of God which exists in the revelation of the Messiah; to engage in the conflict, both philosophical and political, which arises from faithfulness to the Messianic tradition, never militaristically, but through suffering; pursuing victory in life; victory in suffering and defeat for arguments and pretensions set against God
4. to ultimately demonstrate an authentically Christian / Messianic character in the manner that this renewed theology is done within and presented beyond the site itself, without which, we are just clanging symbols, are we not?  (By all accounts, I believe site contributors score very well in this regard).

METHOD / theological method: how do we go about constructing such a theology; how do we communicate it?

Andrew himself, through the title of the site and in this and this post, in particular, has set forth a practical model for theological method: based upon open source software. (I am unsure whether Andrew sees this outworking in the ost project thus far, or not) I think this is an excellent model, with real potential for community-based theology.

How might this be extended (or made more clear), more effective, or more practical?

1. The debate aspect of OST undoubtedly works well, emulating the traditional Jewish rabbinical bet hamidrash method in some ways. It is important that aspect not be lost with any changes made. This aspect can afford the fuzziest of edges.
2. I wonder whether there is not an opportunity to more overtly explore and eventually express the modular approach that Andrew originally intended to be a part and parcel of OST to be more obvious? Whether, now the community of OST has grown, their is sufficient energy / personell / interest for theological modules to be divested into separate areas of discussion, with the hope of producing a renewed theology with some real boundaries, something people can really get a handle on and begin to put into practice, before, hopefully, sending in their “bug reports” and “feature requests” for the development of the theological module…
3. Suggested modular categories could, in a radical, post-modern attempt at renewed theology, spring from a Hebraic creation-centred notion of worship. Building upon James Thwaites tri-partite spheres, I would suggest three interfaces / spheres of worship within which theology could be applied and worked out:

•  family
•  work
•  community

As I said, a radical approach, changing the roots of our theology from a Scriptural jargon-based approach (systematic theology) to a worship-centred approach, which easily coincides with those spheres of life within which Christians have to interface most closely with those who do not necessarily share their faith.

Running out of time to proof-read this, hope it communicates something of value…

Shalom!
John