 |
|
|
|||||||
|
Fides Quaerens Intellectum? Premodern classical theology was oriented around Anselm's famous phrase fides quaerens intellectum, "faith seeking understanding." In other words, one believes in order to understand. Prior to the "Age of Reason" Christendom itself was the a priori basis upon which intellectual questions were broached. In otherwords, the Church's authority was assumed as fact--faith in that structure was the starting point for everything intellectual. Following Descartes and his intellectual progeny, faith ceased to be the doorway through which one entered the conversation. Descartes wrote, "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." Kierkegaard offered another way with his famous "leap of faith," which was kind of a return to the premodern approach with a more existential and less institutional bend. Unfortunately, Kierkegaard was altogether ignored by his contemporaries and it was the cognitive, the rational, and the empirically verifiable that were given precedence over the emotive and/or metaphysical. The church of modernity co-opted the scientific paradigm to make the Christian faith more respectable to the intelligentsia. As a church-planter I now find myself wondering which is the best avenue to the church? Is there a cruise-lane into the Kingdom? If so, what does it look like?The influential mystic, Evelyn Underhill, in her book The Essentials of Mysticism, describes three capacities or faculties endowed upon humanity--the thinking faculty, the feeling faculty, and the willing or acting faculty. I'm assuming prima facie that one, a combination, or all of these are essential to faith in Christ and his rule. As a Christian seasoned now two decades, I have seen how different approaches have been used to connect individuals with God and the church. As a young evangelical fear (a prominent aspect of the feeling faculty) was the modus operandi for my entree into the Christian faith. A preacher, literally, scared the hell out of me. That feeling led me to walk an aisle, pray a prayer and take a baptismal plunge. I am not criticizing this as much as I am describing my experience. I have friends who became Christ-followers by reading Mere Christianity or A Case for Christ; quite a use of intellectual capacity. I have heard hundreds of essay-like sermons, in which the minutiae of the faith were explicated with precision. Tapping into the intellectual faculty seems to be the dominant mode for many mainline churches and seminaries I have visited. Now we have postmodern, missional approaches that suggest belonging over believing, is the key to communicating the Gospel to postmoderns. So here are my questions: which approach is better? Or is one better? Ought we proceed with a utilitarian approach to communicating the Gospel? What implications does this have for seeker sensitive, traditional, charismatic, missional manifestations of the Church? Peace. posted by Jake at 2/21/2006 12:00:00 PM  
1 Comments: |
Friends w/ Blogs
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 My Reading Queue 
 
 
 
 Just Finished 
 
 
 The Looooong List 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Previous Posts Frogs in a Pot ------------ Katrina and Tony ------------ Biloxi Blues ------------ Scarry: Pomomusings and Bode Miller ------------ Bloggers beware! ------------ I look like a Homeless Guy? ------------ Hmmm... ------------ You Know You're a Religion Nerd When... ------------ Coordinator for Missional Community ------------ The Dark Night of the Evangelical Soul ------------ Archives November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007
|
first of all..like the tweaking of your design..pictures are cool..
--
ok..probably going to speak in some circles here, but what are blogs for?
I think you are beginning here to think of some type of integrative approach to mission. That is, engaging all of these capacities of humanity to introduce Christ.
I want to pull back to preaching for a second. In preaching, I dont think this is possible, at least for a single minister. For preaching to be authentic, the preacher must engage at that level which he or she has been engaged. That is, there is something that rings false when one tries an purely intellectual approach when one is more of an emotionally driven person. In this scenario, something of the preacher is lost in the sermon. It is buried to serve a form, a type of approach. The preacher herself is still somewhere deep inside.
Perhaps this is why the emerging church has emphasized worship as that which does engage these other senses, these other inivitations to engagement.
And here lies the rub between dialetic erasure vs. identity formation. Does a church let this desire for various and diverse forms of engagement drive their liturgy formation? If so, the identity of the church has been subjegated to form and program once more. Instead, perhaps the identity of the congregation controls the forms so that the very authentic "face" of the community comes through.
Now, the problem arises: What if in seeking this kind of authenticity we somehow retreat into a homogenous unit? And thus McClure helps us in remembering that scripture and liturgy always de-center our assumed identities when we are intentional about engaging scripture in the presence of the other.
And I guess the answer is somewhere in the middle. We must let our idenity drive our forms of invitation but we must be intentional about making room for the "other" so that those forms do not lead us to become a niche congregation.
huh..that make any sense?
mark