There is a lengthy and largely hostile discussion of Open Source Theology and the theological aberrations of some its contributors taking place at Grace-Centred Forums. I was tempted as I read to point out that the opinions expressed sometimes fell short of the site’s name, but fortunately someone has already done that for me. Anyway, I’m sure they have some legitimate gripes.
One of the interesting questions that is raised has to do with the extent to which OST is expected to represent a coherent theological position. The grace-centred people have highlighted posts that suggest a radical departure from orthodoxy and in their selective wisdom have assumed that they reflect the general standpoint of an emerging theology. It seems to me to be much nearer the truth to say that OST is a challenging conversation between sometimes quite disparate viewpoints and that it is bound to be misleading to identify anything like a definitive theological stance. But I also feel that it represents an underlying drive to articulate a theology that can claim at least to be genuinely and honestly biblical even if it doesn’t always sound like historic orthodoxy. Or is that just me reading too much of myself into the process?
Re: The grace-centred approach to Open Source Theology
I get your meaning me thinks but is that really what OST is after? a more honestly biblical theology? I guess thats another thread which I am sure some diligent OST’s have allready covered, but does emergent need a primary source as it where. Are we trying understand the bible better than others before us or is there more to it than that?
Sorry more questions rather than answers! I wonder if they make sense and if anyone has any thoughts?
Re: The grace-centred approach to Open Source Theology
Jana, I am basically a ‘biblical’ theologian - I am much more comfortable working from texts than from more abstract or theoretical premises - so to some extent the emphasis on the Bible is a personal preference.
However, I do feel strongly that both modern and postmodern forms of Christianity have not really given the Bible a chance to explain itself properly. Modern approaches tend to impose alien systems of thought on it; postmodern approaches rightly highlight inconsistences, etc., but are too quick to dismiss it. I think we still need to work a lot harder to understand it properly - not to the exclusion of other ways of doing theology, but there are good ways and bad ways of integrating divergent ways of thinking.
The other point I would make is simply vthat we are never going to get away from the Bible as long as we profess some sort of allegiance to Jesus of Nazareth. It is a given and inescapable reference point. We can do all sorts of things with it, but the text remains with us in a pretty much immutable form, the one tangible thing we have by which we define ourselves. In that sense, at least, I think the Bible will remain a ‘primary source’.
Feel free to disagree.
Open Source Theology- I like it
Andrew
I had a look at Grace-Centred Forums and the discussion about OST; as well as some of the other threads on the site. Beyond noting a zeal for Evangelical orthodoxy I am not able to form any overall impression of the site- so I will desist from any general comment based on the narky discussion of OST.
However I would like to say something about OST, to which I have been contributing for a couple of years. As a preliminary, I should add that I am a bit of an outsider: my Christian background is not evangelical and I am gay.
I have participated in a range of sites which discuss the weightier questions of existence. Some standard deficiencies are triviality, abuse of other contributors, narrowmindedness and a lack of openess to new ideas, obsessional pursuit of personal preoccupations.
In each of these ways OST, in my opinion, scores highly. The quality of the discussion is on the whole very high and it is invariably conducted with decorum, even on hot topics like homosexuality. I have received some personal messages from contributors which have shown me that the spirit of Christ lives on this site.
I am also impressed by the openmindedness of contributors and the genuine attempts to engage with the views of others even though that often leads them into difficult places as regards orthodoxy.
The real test of a discussion site such as this one is whether it enlarges the mind and nurtures the spirit. In my view OST does both.
Re: The grace-centred approach to Open Source Theology
I would also like to add my appreciation of OST, though I may well be it’s newest participant. What attracted me was the thoughtfulness and quality of the posts on display. I am not part of an emergent “congregation”, but am highly interested in both exploring/developing my own theology, and better understanding that of the emergent movements.
Discovering a theological discussion environment where heretics from traditional thinking aren’t immediately burnt at the verbal stake, yet where there is an honest seeking to better understand and follow He who is Truth, seems a bit like winning lotto.
Re: The grace-centred approach to Open Source Theology
There is hope for the body. I have been impressed by many emerging sites precisely because of the attempt to listen. Discussions do get hot but generally there is at least an agreement to disagree. OST embodies the best that I have seen and indeed both the sincerity and the biblical exegesis are always interesting.
It has been both enlightening and fun to be a part of OST, a latecomer though i be.
There are some really nasty sites in the blogworld and compared to those, grace centred is very mild. There is the real rub, how to have better (or any) dialogue with folks that are scared that conversing with you is definitely dangerous and possibly sinful!
Live to serve : Serve to live
Re: The grace-centred approach to Open Source Theology
Andrew,
even though I havn’t contributed in a while I am very greatful OST exists. Since questions and doubts belong to my life; they belong also to my faith. In so many churches, circles and apparantly websites to ask a simple question of faith or to voice doubts is just not possible if you do not want to run into the risk of being portrayed as an outsider or a non christian or what not. Where I come from it is / was not important to understand the trinity. it is just important to say you believe in it. it is not important to know about the tension in Jesus statements distinguishing himself from the only God that is good - it is just important to say he is God. it is not as important to consider how to follow Christ today but it is crucial to know on which day in the past I had a conversion experience. it is not important to try and struggle to find answers. it is important to pretend we have the answers. Thank you, Andrew, for creating space to be different. Mathias
Re: The grace-centred approach to Open Source Theology
Having just heard N.T. Wright speak twice in Grand Rapids, MI, I can’t take credit for these thoughts. In fact, it may be that I do them an injustice. That’s probably the case, but I think they apply to the question even in my incomplete form.
So, to borrow from Wright, I would imagine the task of OST is not to develop an coherent, emerging theology. It’s task is to place theology in it’s proper narrative. One can’t simply tick off Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection, Second Coming and call it good. If these abstrat theologies are placed within a narrative that reads, “A distant god has sent a super spaceman into the world to receive some redemptive violence and passify the wrath of said distant god. Those of us in the world have to pledge allegience to this super spaceman so that when the distant god decides to do away with our world we can find our way into the next.”
No theology set within that narrative does justice to the biblical message. If, on the other hand, your narrative says that God, in Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit, is setting the world to right and bringing about a new creation, then even orthodox theology takes on new meaning. Trinity might mean something different, but there’s still Trinity. Incarnation might mean something different, but there is still incarnation. Etc.
I imagine one could very well hold to orthodox propositions, but be opened up by a faithful expression of the narrative.
It may very well be that Grace-Centered Forum’s theology is this very kind of thing, I haven’t look. But, to restate, I imagine OST’s “job” is to articulate the right narrative into which we will place our theological propositions. A narrative which may challenge our propositions, but won’t erase them.
I’m not sure how well I articulated that, but I do wonder what you all think.
Re: The grace-centred approach to Open Source Theology
After reading Grace-Centered I only have two things to say. One, it seems that only one person made an attempt at serious engagement. Two, not very grace centered.
Re: The grace-centred approach to Open Source Theology
I haven’ t been reading here that long (about 6 months) and it was my first time to the grace forums. I looked around it, read the discussion on OST and I thought they had some valid concerns (as do you with them). I guess the questions that need to be asked are,
Is there a line to be drawn in our open questioning (as Christians) of ‘standard’ doctrine (such as trinity, deity of Christ etc.)?
If so where do we draw the line? if not, why not?”
Is the postmodernity worldview completely compatible with the Christian one?
if it isn’t, how postmodern can Christians get before they cease being christian?
About the divinity of Jesus, yes or no? (and i haven’t read it), there are some questions that need to be answered before one becomes a Christian, and that’s one of them.
Re: The grace-centred approach to Open Source Theology
well i havent been around in a while but i must pop in on this thread and say that for a few months time OST was the closest i could get to anyone who called themselves christians - shoot it may have been the closest i could get to god there for a while. the care, integrity and honest wrestle embodied by the people here who agree to converse about matters that are both vitally important and as impossible to grasp as liquid mercury - encouraged me with hope for a church.
so many forget that what we need are not answers, but a safe place in which to ask questions. was this not the quality jesus brough to his encounters with his disciples, the jewish leaders and the masses? didnt he himself lead most conversations off with a question? and when questioned didnt he usually tell a story?
my last thoughts on the concerns of that other site: if i call myself a christian and then find myself full of confusion, frustration or doubt over one of the tenents of my faith - where would you like me to go? with whom would you like me to speak?
i choose OST.