Postmodern, Emergent theology can make you dizzy. After giving a strong, unequivocal endorsement of the uniqueness and significance of Jesus the Messiah, theologian John Franke then makes a plug for the plurality of Christian theology:
“The [theological] diversity of the church is not a problem to be solved but is, in fact, the blessing of God. Indeed, the proper expression of orthodox biblical faith can only be characterized by plurality. But in the midst of our diversity, we must remain unified on this point – Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (CT, Dec. 2009, 31).
While I appreciate that Jesus is the center of his faith, Franke leaves me wondering, “Which Jesus and which of His teachings?” If our theological “plurality” is a “blessing of God,” perhaps we shouldn’t try to nail down what He was trying to say? Perhaps instead, it’s more blessed to hold contradictory beliefs about His teachings?
If instead Franke had said, “Theological unity and certainty are difficult or even impossible to attain on the less-than-central issues, because we see in part. Therefore, we have to exercise a high degree of tolerance for theological nuances,” I would offer a resounding, “Amen!” However, for him, it seems that this plurality (and the accompanying uncertainty) is something to be extolled and perhaps even tenaciously guarded. Franke writes,
“Truth is not finally to be found in abstract notions or theories, but rather in the Person of Jesus Christ, the unique son of God and the living embodiment of truth” (28).
Is truth not also embodied in Jesus’ teachings? If not, then pluralistic musings about them become a viable option. While the vast majority of Christians would agree that Jesus is “the living embodiment of truth,” we would also regard His teachings as “truth,” along with our attempts to capture His teachings in our own English translations. However, Franke seems to want to divide Jesus – Jesus alone is the truth – from His teachings and everything we or the Apostles might say about them.
However, this division works against his writings, mere “abstract notions or theories.” We are tempted to ask Franke, “If your own writings do not reflect theological truth, but rather “abstract notions or theories” where truth is not to be found, why should you expect anyone to read or listen to them. If the plurality of opinions is a virtue, instead of arriving at the truth of Jesus’ teachings, why have you even written in favor of one point of view? Why not instead a pluralistic hodge-podge of contradictions?”
“The [theological] diversity of the church is not a problem to be solved but is, in fact, the blessing of God. Indeed, the proper expression of orthodox biblical faith can only be characterized by plurality. But in the midst of our diversity, we must remain unified on this point – Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (CT, Dec. 2009, 31).
While I appreciate that Jesus is the center of his faith, Franke leaves me wondering, “Which Jesus and which of His teachings?” If our theological “plurality” is a “blessing of God,” perhaps we shouldn’t try to nail down what He was trying to say? Perhaps instead, it’s more blessed to hold contradictory beliefs about His teachings?
If instead Franke had said, “Theological unity and certainty are difficult or even impossible to attain on the less-than-central issues, because we see in part. Therefore, we have to exercise a high degree of tolerance for theological nuances,” I would offer a resounding, “Amen!” However, for him, it seems that this plurality (and the accompanying uncertainty) is something to be extolled and perhaps even tenaciously guarded. Franke writes,
“Truth is not finally to be found in abstract notions or theories, but rather in the Person of Jesus Christ, the unique son of God and the living embodiment of truth” (28).
Is truth not also embodied in Jesus’ teachings? If not, then pluralistic musings about them become a viable option. While the vast majority of Christians would agree that Jesus is “the living embodiment of truth,” we would also regard His teachings as “truth,” along with our attempts to capture His teachings in our own English translations. However, Franke seems to want to divide Jesus – Jesus alone is the truth – from His teachings and everything we or the Apostles might say about them.
However, this division works against his writings, mere “abstract notions or theories.” We are tempted to ask Franke, “If your own writings do not reflect theological truth, but rather “abstract notions or theories” where truth is not to be found, why should you expect anyone to read or listen to them. If the plurality of opinions is a virtue, instead of arriving at the truth of Jesus’ teachings, why have you even written in favor of one point of view? Why not instead a pluralistic hodge-podge of contradictions?”
www.MannsWord.blogspot.com
