Mick Turner

With regards to truth, @Anakainosis points out that truth is not binary. Derrida would deconstruct the false binary of true and false.

What this means practically is that the Bible is not the Koran. The Koran was written propositionally. It attempts to be contextless and to apply to every situation. The Bible was not written as such and it is a mistake to make the bible into an encyclopedia. Even the epistles, which were written propositionally, are still epistles. They were written to a particular audience and address very particular concerns. The ten commandments are outlined as a part of a historical narrative. Why are we attempting to systematize and universalize truths when the bible itself was not written that way. It’s as if we don’t think the bible is good enough for us.

This is what I believe but I acknowledge that others do not believe this. The problem I have is that there is absolutely no dialogue. I have never had the opportunity to sit down with a “neo-puritan” and have this dialogue and see where they are coming from. When I try to, they only say, “that’s dangerous” and then the conversation ends. That’s what frustrates me.

ok, on a diff note here, what’s really interesting is how asian christians debate. Much of the dialogue here sounds almost philosophically Greek in its tenor, orthodoxy, theology, etc.. mine own included.

It’s just funny how if someone reading this knew nothign about us they would’ve thought we were a Platonic school or something, we Asians debate so classically.

Hope that helps.

I do recognize how constraining the culture can be resulting from some of the manifestations of puritan-esque principles. This can be constricting, even life-robbing. I’m not sure if I’m ready to say that such attitudes are the invariable result of the theological belief system. It’s possible, but I know enough handfuls of loving “puritan hyperconservatives” to fly in the face of such a judgment.

In any event, I count my evangelical spiritual heritage as my own. I appreciate the importance of spiritual discipline, I continue to believe in substitutionary atonement, and hold Scriptures as sacred text that speak to generations through the Spirit’s authorship (room to interpret here, of course). I acknowledge my finiteness but I still embrace God’s story in my life and do not reject it. However, I do want to shake loose the constricting manifestation promulgated by many typical Korean American churches’ cultures.

In terms of theological challenge and conversation, for me, the people who have challenged my theological framework have always been able to do so from a posture of humility and love. I hope to join their ranks in challenging our framework and perhaps see one day a body of some diverse views, exemplifying love, respecting disagreement, and welcoming the tension as testimony to the mystery of God’s infinite nature. Indeed, my prayer is that it will give rise to even more wonder and worship from the hearts of believers, that God would be at work crafting a church with such radically varied beliefs.

Out of that theological humility and love, perhaps an informed humility and love would also impact the lives of believers in the Asian American church. That would be great; we have burned enough people.

I think relativism is the idea that truth is only in the eye of the beholder. “That’s true for you, but not for me” reflects relativism. The sky is blue to me but yellow to you. In a sense, relativism may still operate on modernist foundational principles: if it is yellow to you and blue to me, that means it’s NOT yellow to me, and it’s NOT blue to you. You’re not “wrong” from our collective standpoint, since relativism bounds the authority on which we can determine truth, but you’ll never be “right” from my shoes, either.

Subjective knowledge and truth in a postmodern context, however, does not necessarily impugn on the integrity of another’s knowledge. If I may cite some of the influences on my thought, removing the binary nature of truth and thinking of it as a symphony rather than a single melody (see Poythress, “Symphonic Theology”), or a Christian mosaic rather than one coat of paint (see Grenz, Franke “Beyond Foundationalism”), may result in a diversity of subjective truths in tension may paint a more complete view of an infinite God (Franke, “The Character of Theology”).

I think knowledge being subjective respects the integrity of other people’s knowledge and punts on anyone being a final arbiter of truth. Indeed, I think a humble, Christian view on the subjectivity of knowledge confesses that there IS such a thing as truth, but its fullness escapes our finitude on this side of heaven. In other words, its inability to be arbitrated (?) to complete comprehension does not make it any less true, but indeed, motivates inquiry and conversation.

I’ll stop right there, because I think it’s a conversation based on fundamental premises that I can’t articulate with perfect accuracy. But I would point to an exciting new work from Franke:

http://www.amazon.com/Manifold-Witness-Plurality-Living-Theology/dp/0687491959

More rambling from me in a separate response.

Can you explain this statement a bit more? What do you mean when you say truth is “subjective”? If you and I are each the final arbiter of what truth is to us, then how is this different from relativism?