I went back and added the ironic quote and his explanation.
And I was just preparing to say I’m not sure which part you had in mind. In your now included quote it is hard to imagine how anyone who would think his treatment of objectivity had been arbitrary would be mollified by a little redefinition work. But while looking for it myself I latched onto this which has the ring of a zen koan.
Therefore, we may also characterize gospel truth as victorious truth that overcomes the world, but this victory is eschatological and future-oriented so that in this world it is always an overcoming truth, always an on-the-way-to-victory truth. It is never a triumphant, sover- eign truth that rules and reigns here and now with full and complete presence. To be eschatological is to be hopeful; it is to be oriented toward things that are yet to come.
I think the point is the world as it comes into being would always need to be won over again so there is never a victory parade. And of course I personally don’t think the parade is to be held in an entirely different setting somewhere else than this world. But that doesn’t mean the world can’t be transformed for you if you manage to do some internal rewiring.
1 Like
In spite of Penner’s worry that:
All of this is bound to produce apoplexy for anyone committed to a modern, objective approach to truth who insists truth requires a metaphysics
, I find (have been finding) most of his references to Christian practice, tradition and to the church (local congregation, or all currently living Christians) and Church (worldwide church over time) surprisingly traditional. Practices would minimally include: baptism, Holy Communion (Lord’s Supper, Eucharist), prayer and communal worship in all denominations. And we rely on a fairly consistent set of texts. Penner sees these as potentially edifying.
Additionally, while he wants us to have a clear understanding of precisely what kind of thing our doctrines are, he is not calling for an overhaul of them.
[C]reeds and doctrines…are fallible, human expressions (interpretations) of the truths Christians have won for themselves in their various contexts. They are, in other words, the best rendering a Christian community could give, given their concerns and interests within the specific contexts and Christian practices in which they formulated the truth claims. They are normative-for we Christians, who share similar interests and concerns as part of the same church, continue to find them edifying as part of our own confession of Jesus as Lord within our various cultures and practices. (pp. 121-122)
The idea that the Christian life occurs within community is as old as the Church, and it is still usually valued/emphasised. Penner reminds us that community is essential for edification. We don’t get to or have to carry out this struggle alone. We also have responsibility for each other within the church. We are in relationship.
This point needs to be understood carefully in light of my earlier insistence on viewing Christian belief as occurring within a hermeneutical tradition-a set of texts that are part of the ongoing conversation of a diverse and ever-widening community of people. If we take this view, we will understand ourselves and our edification as significantly related to the confessions of our fellow believers. One may always question us as to why our edification is specifically Christian edification, and this will have to be answered (at least partly) in reference to something like the Christian tradition-or, better, the church. As I have said already; edification is not merely a private event that I can interpret for myself and all by myself. It is entirely possible-indeed, we should expect-that others may have more insight into my edification than I do. And I may not feel particularly edified when really I am. So we cannot naively (and arrogantly) dispense with the truths that have been confessed and witnessed to by our forbearers or those in other cultures and places. They stand as a sign to us, a challenge even, of the edification that can be ours if our lives are shaped significantly by the same confessions and practices. (pp. 122-123)
Penner’s emphasis on being “part of the ongoing conversation of a diverse and ever-widening community of people” is greatly undervalued, I think. Those of us in the Church only see a snapshot of a segment of life in the Church, frozen in a moment. However, we have great resources over time and across the planet particularly in the writings of the past as well as in the lives of Christians all over, alive right now. There is great potential to be edified “broadly” even within the Church. We do ourselves a great disservice, if we treat other expressions of Christianity as of no edifying value.
1 Like
Love must be grounded in reality, to be sure. For example, how I’ve treated somebody, what we’ve said to each other - those are the realities of a relationship. Truth will be important in a relationship, but what I’m contrasting is the living of a faithful relationship (be it a friendship or marriage or other familial connection) with the mere “propositional content” that people may hold in their heads about each other. If one insisted that the most important thing I need to do for my wife is to correctly know lots of facts about her, and that upon memorizing and accepting those, I have fulfilled my primary obligation to her and can then carry on as I will - my wife may have a thing or two to say about that (as well she should). Give me any day the loving spouse or friend who may not be able to correctly remember all available facts about me - but is committed to loving and caring for me in a faithful relationship. Facts may be important - yes - and who hasn’t caught it hot from a spouse for letting an anniversary slip their mind? But find for me the spouse who will let their husband off with only remembering a few important facts, and otherwise counts on no further obligation of him? I will suggest to you that such a person does not exist - or will not be long married if they do.
Regarding “escaping the fear that…” - that was just my turn of phrase. Sorry. I wasn’t meaning to imply that you actually are living in fear. Change it to " … those who think Penner is insisting…"
That’s quite a limitation on where edification is allowed to happen! I don’t follow you there at all. I can’t see Christ checking people’s theologies to make sure only the doctrinally correct ones receive any compassion or healing from him.
Penner did acknowledge that this anecdote “could be apocryphal”. So it’s status as a literal or mythical event is hardly the point. Even if Luther never said it, somebody did - and the expression itself still has all the significant content that Penner finds useful for insight. Arguing over whether Luther really said it or not is like arguing whether the prodigal son was a real historical figure.
1 Like
Some Christian tradtions characterize the phenomenon that Penner was describing as “the already and not yet.” Maybe that sounds kind of like a zen koan as well?
In a few places in some of the gospels, Jesus mentioned that the Kingdom of God had arrived (with him), but we don’t see it complete here now.
Definitely, no victory parade is warrented right now. So the world, as you mentioned, will need to be won over again and again. What that winning over looks like, Jesus also demonstrated by stripping down to his Fruit of the Looms, tying a long towel around his waste and washing his disciples’ filthy feet before serving them supper. So, still no victory parade.
Precisely how and where that final “victory parade” takes place, nobody knows.
2 Likes
Talk about extrapolation way beyond warrant and inferring things I never implied! One of the things I had in mind are the couple of basic facts about who Jesus is and how we know his love, propositions that are deniable and resolutely denied by more than a few.
What’s up with this? There you go again, same thing, extrapolating. When a couple of Christians are talking about edification, guess what, they are talking about Christian edification, in a Christian context. I just don’t hear the word used in a secular context – maybe I’m too provincial. The Christians are not talking about a lecture series at the public library or taking an evening class at the local community college on scrapbooking.
Good grief. How am I supposed to continue to take you seriously? Sure, redefine ‘edification’ idiosyncratically as a catch-all for helping your neighbor and other good deeds, but that dictionary hasn’t been printed yet.
Good grief again. Is that really what you thought my point was? I was talking about what he meant.
And I see you are not responding to my last point.
There was important propositional content in the way God introduced himself to Maggie, there was important propositional content in the way he guided Rich Stearns and there was important and recognizable propositional content in the way he encouraged Glenn Morton.
And yet, …
I can’t avoid thinking that a Penner-ian desire to dialogue and edify will be one of several targets of Van Til-ian Presuppositional Theonomists and I suspect that somebody’s going to get hurt, but it won’t be the latter. [The basis for my “fear” comes from Jeff Durbin Confronts The Woke Church - Oct 5, 2020. I don’t recommend watching if you’re adverse to “Rowdy Christians”. They aren’t numerous, but they sure are “Rowdy”.]
Terry, I don’t know what half of your reply to Merv means.
Went to the video. Muted for privacy, while sitting in the kitchen. Dude with beard and all the tattoos at the mic was interesting. Oh! I see, he’s the pastor of a church called Apologia, where all the staff wears burleyman beards, guages and tatoos except the guy in the suit, who seems there for debates with the more suave folks like Dawkins wannabes? None of these guys remind me of pastors I’ve known, studious, thoughtful, wise and humble. Don’t think I want to hear rowdy Christians loudly misunderstanding thoughtful people.
In spite of my lack of familiarity with the landscape you mentioned, I agree that that words like dialogue and edify are definitely going to get some dander up. Churches I have known always tend to keep a separatist feel. Unfortunately the underlying thought is that (almost) no one else has anything of value to say to us. One reason I am a strong supporter of (secular) public education k-PhD.
1 Like
All I’m doing is responding to what you actually wrote, Dale. It’s all I can do since I’m not a mind reader.
So when you avoid Penner’s main points about Luther’s alleged speech and instead focus on the “alleged” part - I assume that your concern was about … that … since that’s what you wrote.
And regarding edification … I’m responding to your …
I understood that to mean that only Christians can benefit from what your more narrow definition of edification “in a Christian sense” (your qualifier still notwithstanding). It still sounds like a limitation to me! But I suppose you can define it down to where only self-identified Christians can be recognized as beneficiaries.
But this is all arguing over who said what - which isn’t productive. If you meant something other than what I responded to - then I will accept your corrections. You are the authority on what you mean!
Regarding the last point (something I apparently missed) … I gather that was your point about the Gideon Bible conversions?
Okay - sure! I’m not contesting that the Spirit will move however the spirit will, and use all sorts of tools, and Bibles surely qualify as an eminent tool of witness for many. People have probably also had (what may have grown into genuine) conversions from much lesser things as well - like having listened to a charlatan preacher or having seen some Madonna pattern in a tortilla or stuff like that. I’m not saying that Bible reading should be equated with spurious and whimsical stuff; I’m only claiming that we have no business or capacity to limit God on how God can reach in and initially grab a person’s spirit. The searching shepherd will probably spare no effort or creativity to reach a lost sheep on whatever strange crag it happens to be perched.
That’s okay, I prefer not being understood to being misunderstood. Reflecting on the issue(s) that concern me, I think I need to take them directly to Penner.
1 Like
Yeah - and I forgot to mention to @Dale that this was too much hyperbole on my part. …Like I’m such an “authority” on Penner that I can declare chapter 4 to be any sort of ‘pinnacle’ of his labors. I certainly didn’t mean to come across that way. Take it as an expression of my enthusiasm for what he says (and how he says it) in chapter 4.
Meanwhile, like Kendel, I didn’t really understand much of what you wrote either beyond that I took it to be your confidence that some of these other ‘more rowdy’ folks would take Penner out behind the woodshed - I don’t doubt that for a moment. (And I also vote for Penner as being the most likely party to be ‘turning the other cheek’ to his enemies with whatever transpired behind that woodshed.) I entertain no illusions whatsoever that Penner’s thesis really ticks off a lot of Christians (those who even know about it), beyond even just a few at the ‘rowdy’ margins that you note. But as it all turns out, after listening to and reading from so many on this subject, it’s not so much Penner’s faith and discipleship that I’m having doubts about, so much as the wider western culture at whom Penner’s critique is aimed. Turns out that Penner might be more the true disciple in wanting to emulate the guy getting nailed to the cross, rather than joining with the rest of ‘Christian’ society as it chooses to admire the ones wielding the hammers instead.
2 Likes
I did.
I didn’t write much, and you got an important part of it.
- I don’t see Penner aiming at “the wider western culture” as much as I see him aiming at “part of the Church”, … part of the same Church that he’s in.
- The “Rowdy Christians” may look and sound like Atilla’s Huns but they’re not. They’re Hardcore Reformed Calvinists to the core, and they have their Apologetics script down pat with Bible references.
2 Likes
I wonder if he would continue pitching pearls to the porcine, the hardcore atheist having insinuated himself disingenuously while pushing his agenda of god belief as an abstraction to point away from the God of reality in every other sentence, meanwhile garnering likes from the gullible.
Exactly!
They are like the team all in clean uniforms, training regimen all complete, drills and instructions fresh in their minds ready to “play ball”, and then Penner shows up … “game? …Oh… that game? I don’t play that one any more.” And he leaves the shocked team standing there mystified, looking at all their equipment, helmets, and polished gear.
3 Likes
Whether swine, or lost sheep, or found sheep, … I think that for any given person - any one of us, those are very fluid categories, all three. Christ referred to such categories, even by name; but I don’t think he tolerated the permanent banishment of any class of people to being just one of those things.
I fear you may be lumping me in with the industrial apologist, but how many of them do you hear talking about objective evidence for God’s interventions?
I try not to be too much of a lumper; so if I write things that seem to lump you in where you don’t belong, call my attention to it.
Why make any distinction if there is no distinction to be made?
- Minor modification: “fresh in their minds ready to play ball” > “fresh in their minds ready to fight” (Jeff Durbin’s first words to the crowd, in the video.)
That’ll work, I suppose, as long the two teams don’t share the same property.
1 Like