How does one navigate the pluralism of our world today?<\/i><\/p>\n
There’s a lot at stake in this question. Currently, there are only
\na few options available to Christians in a
\nglobalized\/pluralistic\/postmodern society: liberal accomodationism,
\nconservative retreatism, Hauerwasian sectarianism, and the newcomer:
\nMilbankian (Radical Orthodoxy) withdrawal into the liturgy.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I know, that’s a lot of “-isms,” but none of these options offers a Among practical theologians, there have been a couple major avenues Among the Barthians (Frei, D. Hunsinger, Loder), the response has While I appreciate the former’s ability to take culture seriously, That’s why I’m attracted to the model of transversal rationality. I’ll flesh that out in the next post…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" How does one navigate the pluralism of our world today? There’s a lot at stake in this question. Currently, there are only a few options available to Christians in a globalized\/pluralistic\/postmodern society: liberal accomodationism, conservative retreatism, Hauerwasian sectarianism, and the newcomer: Milbankian (Radical Orthodoxy) withdrawal into the liturgy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":134,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-286","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-theology"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nChristian the ability to maintain a “robust doctrine of God” (Steve’s
\nwords) and<\/span> a robust
\nunderstanding of pluralism. In other words, is there a way to negotiate
\na healthy, dialectical relationship with culture and <\/span>maintain an orthodox doctrine of God? Steve and I both think there must be, there has to be.<\/p>\n
\nfor navigating these waters. Among the University of Chicago
\ntheologians (Tillich, Tracy, Browning), there has been an evolving
\n“correlational” model in which theology and culture stand in a
\ndialectical relationship. Tillich said that culture asks the questions
\nand theology provides the answers; Tracy and Browning amended this by
\nsaying that each asks questions and each provides answers — i.e.,
\ntheology and culture stand in a mutually critical relationship.<\/p>\n
\nbeen more of what Steve alludes to in his posts: theology has a unique
\nability to articulate issues of ultimacy, like God’s revelation, which
\ncomes from outside of the created order. Thus theology trumps all other
\ndisciplines when it comes to issues on which theology is uniquely
\narticulate.<\/p>\n
\nit tends to reduce theological reflection to the terms of culture (and
\ncan be a mask for natural theology, as Steve points out). The latter
\nmaintains theology’s integrity, but stands in a position of
\ninterdisciplinary domination, which I find unacceptable in a
\npluralistic environment (it’s tough to convince someone to have a
\nconversation of mutual regard if you start out by stating that you will
\ninevitably win the argument!).<\/p>\n