“A justification for our own sorry existence as evangelicals.” Or, why evangelicals don’t fit in anywhere.
In this episode, Dave Fitch and Geoff Holsclaw make a first attempt at articulating another way, a third way, for theology and mission for evangelicals, beyond the conservative/progressive dichotomy. Dave and Geoff talk about some historical roots for this dichotomy and hint toward an alternative life in community. The next two episodes will flesh out this third way farther by exploring the topics of “Gospel” and then “Scripture”, showing how our theological commitments make a really missional difference (subscribe so you don’t miss them). If you don’t fit in as an conservative evangelical, but don’t feel drawn to progressive framework, then check out this episode:
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/215571509″ params=”color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false” width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]
Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism: How Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda ~ Nancy Murphy
Books Mentioned in "What Ya Reading?":
Hospitality as Holiness: Christian Witness Amid Moral Diversity ~ Luke Bretherton
The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, & Experience as a Model of Evangelical Theology ~ Don Thorsen
And be sure to check out (or tell others) about Northern Seminary's exciting new Master of Arts in Theology and Mission where Dave, Geoff and other students and pastor continue learning about these things.
Missio Alliance Comment Policy
The Missio Alliance Writing Collectives exist as a ministry of writing to resource theological practitioners for mission. From our Leading Voices to our regular Writing Team and those invited to publish with us as Community Voices, we are creating a space for thoughtful engagement of critical issues and questions facing the North American Church in God’s mission. This sort of thoughtful engagement is something that we seek to engender not only in our publishing, but in conversations that unfold as a result in the comment section of our articles.
Unfortunately, because of the relational distance introduced by online communication, “thoughtful engagement” and “comment sections” seldom go hand in hand. At the same time, censorship of comments by those who disagree with points made by authors, whose anger or limited perspective taints their words, or who simply feel the need to express their own opinion on a topic without any meaningful engagement with the article or comment in question can mask an important window into the true state of Christian discourse. As such, Missio Alliance sets forth the following suggestions for those who wish to engage in conversation around our writing:
1. Seek to understand the author’s intent.
If you disagree with something the an author said, consider framing your response as, “I hear you as saying _________. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, here’s why I disagree. _____________.
2. Seek to make your own voice heard.
We deeply desire and value the voice and perspective of our readers. However you may react to an article we publish or a fellow commenter, we encourage you to set forth that reaction is the most constructive way possible. Use your voice and perspective to move conversation forward rather than shut it down.
3. Share your story.
One of our favorite tenants is that “an enemy is someone whose story we haven’t heard.” Very often disagreements and rants are the result of people talking past rather than to one another. Everyone’s perspective is intimately bound up with their own stories – their contexts and experiences. We encourage you to couch your comments in whatever aspect of your own story might help others understand where you are coming from.
In view of those suggestions for shaping conversation on our site and in an effort to curate a hospitable space of open conversation, Missio Alliance may delete comments and/or ban users who show no regard for constructive engagement, especially those whose comments are easily construed as trolling, threatening, or abusive.