Pete has just posted the first of a series of further interactions with Bruce Waltke. I really appreciated this post from Pete as I think it reflects a lot of us who are struggling through some of the issues that are being raised against us from those within our own tradition. Here are two quotes I found particularly helpful:
Truth is not determined by the degree to which one is faithful to a tradition. Rather, a tradition is evaluated by the degree to which it reflects the truth. And this, I continue to affirm, is an ongoing theological exercise. Hence, as I have argued elsewhere, the only model of confessional commitment that can maintain this conversation between the vital past and present challenges is one that maintains a self-conscious degree of flexibility, or better, an expectation of self-criticism, lest the confession become the church’s ultimate authority.
____________________________________________
…if intention to remain “true” to a “tradition” (which already assumes its non-growth) drives an academic assessment of real evidence (most of which was wholly unavailable when the tradition’s trajectories were set), one runs the risk of adjusting evidence to what one already “knows” to be true. We do not tolerate such sloppy thinking in any other area of human discourse, but when it comes to theological discourse in some circles, it seems to be the preferred method of interaction. When one’s position is by definition unfalsifiable, any meaningful exchange of ideas functionally ceases. Any tradition that aims to promote truth rather than obscure it must be eager to be open to critical evaluation.
You can read the entire post here.
1 June 2009 at 9.54 am
I once heard Pete Enns end a prayer saying “amen.” Note the man-centeredness, “aMEN.” Yet more evidence of him abandoning Christian presuppositions, just like Art Boulet his little disciple.