Shall we choose between unity or doctrine?
Personal or Propositional?
Relationship or Truth?
Orthopraxis or orthodoxy?
Why can't we have both, avoiding a tunnel vision?
As LT Jeyachandran once said to me, "But the devil is in the details". Here's thot-provoking article from KrisisPraxis on some "details" that broaden and open up our options:
"It has become fashionable in some Christian circles to deride the need for theory or to disabuse the importance given to doctrinal orthodoxy as a poor substitute for living faith. Indeed, it is claimed that preoccupation with doctrinal orthodoxy leads to judgmentalism. Hence, the favourite slogan “From Absolute to Authentic”.
I think these criticisms are unfair. Do contemporary theologians view right doctrine as substitute for faith? Do theologians really offer their doctrinal formulations as absolute truth? For that matter how can Christians be authentic if they reject belief in absolute truth (which admittedly is fully grasped only by the omniscient God)? In any case, clarity is needed since contemporary theologians and critics differ on how the word ‘absolute’ is significant for Christian faith and understsanding...
“truth as transformation always involves truth as disclosure; speaking the truth is never separable but is distinguishable from doing the truth.”"
Read on for the rest of article
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment