I am fairly new to JMC and even newer to Wyatt Graham (I literally stumbled here because I was trying to grasp what about JMC's stuff rubs me wrong sometimes); but I am not new to Christianity nor its history of writings through the centuries. That's my preface.
I understand your sentiment about how there sometimes can be a sense of gatek…
I am fairly new to JMC and even newer to Wyatt Graham (I literally stumbled here because I was trying to grasp what about JMC's stuff rubs me wrong sometimes); but I am not new to Christianity nor its history of writings through the centuries. That's my preface.
I understand your sentiment about how there sometimes can be a sense of gatekeeping: Whose perspective and voices are "orthodox" enough to be allowed. Comer certainly seems to like throwing around "orthodox" and claiming it for himself, so it seems reasonable that part of the debate ought to be over what exactly is orthodox. Of course, the ground for that (as I think we--me, you, Comer, Graham, etc.--all would agree) is the Bible. The discourse over the centuries always has been who is reading and interpreting it rightly--or as rightly as we can. In that sense, part of these critiques of theology almost have to happen: If our view of God informs what we do, and we get our view of God from Scripture, which requires us to interpret what we see there; then all of the above becomes necessary in some capacity.
Now, I would agree that we can't just point to the Church Fathers. Modern voices have done some excellent work in helping us continue to make sense of this ancient faith in our modern context. At the same time, even the modern voices always will be pointing back to those ancient commentators because they are the ones who lived in the same cultural and religious space and so are most likely to have the best grasp of the teachings. Why was Paul such a formidable apostle? Because he was a Jewish Jew in the Roman Empire who learned from the Risen Christ! Leaving aside the power of the Spirit working through him, he's got a good position from which to explain what God has done in Jesus Christ and what God intends for those in Christ Jesus to do. In that sense, there is a certain level of appropriateness in preferencing ancient voices ("classical theology," "the tradition," etc.) over modern voices who seem to be throwing out those. Christianity today didn't get where it is by reinventing the wheel every few years. In some ways, we're still experiencing a lot of negative effects from the Protestant Reformation, whatever good things it produced! At any rate, I would press that theology doesn't "grow" because the subject of theology doesn't grow: God is the same yesterday, today, and forever! Our understanding, particularly as it relates to our current context, certainly can though.
But that brings us to what I understand is the crux of your critique: Preferencing academic theology over practical theology doesn't really help anybody. True, to a certain extent. I think Comer, Graham, and I (you? others) understand that the practical theology has to flow out of the "academic theology." If that is well-established, then we are well-equipped to act it out. If, however, we cast aside elements because they make our practical work too difficult or too messy, then I would reckon that we have made a misstep. That seems to be the point that Graham has made: Comer wants to chuck out some theology because it doesn't fit the praxis which he wants to promote. And so much of the praxis is good! We just don't have to throw away theological principles because they are too complex.
I say all of this as somebody who does this hard work every week as a pastor. How can an unchanging God "change his mind" multiple times in the beginning of Genesis? How can a good God even let evil into the world at all (since allowing it would seem to be not good)? How can this God who is above all things also be Immanuel, God with us? I can't say that my answers always make perfect sense or are perfectly satisfactory--I don't reckon that they will be this side of heaven--but I don't resort to throwing out parts that don't fit (which seems to be the basics of what Graham is saying of Comer). Instead, I present the witness of Scripture in its multiplicity of parts and say, "At the end of the day, God's ways are higher than our ways, and his thoughts higher than our thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)
All of that to say: Maybe Comer could spend a little more time grappling with the God of the Bible in all of his self-disclosure then refine his teaching which brings people closer to this God. If there is a difficult, jagged edge to this God, rather than try to buff it out, maybe our theology needs to expand still more. Maybe the answer for how to understand God's immanence and what he wants to do through us isn't less transcendence but, paradoxically, more.
I am fairly new to JMC and even newer to Wyatt Graham (I literally stumbled here because I was trying to grasp what about JMC's stuff rubs me wrong sometimes); but I am not new to Christianity nor its history of writings through the centuries. That's my preface.
I understand your sentiment about how there sometimes can be a sense of gatekeeping: Whose perspective and voices are "orthodox" enough to be allowed. Comer certainly seems to like throwing around "orthodox" and claiming it for himself, so it seems reasonable that part of the debate ought to be over what exactly is orthodox. Of course, the ground for that (as I think we--me, you, Comer, Graham, etc.--all would agree) is the Bible. The discourse over the centuries always has been who is reading and interpreting it rightly--or as rightly as we can. In that sense, part of these critiques of theology almost have to happen: If our view of God informs what we do, and we get our view of God from Scripture, which requires us to interpret what we see there; then all of the above becomes necessary in some capacity.
Now, I would agree that we can't just point to the Church Fathers. Modern voices have done some excellent work in helping us continue to make sense of this ancient faith in our modern context. At the same time, even the modern voices always will be pointing back to those ancient commentators because they are the ones who lived in the same cultural and religious space and so are most likely to have the best grasp of the teachings. Why was Paul such a formidable apostle? Because he was a Jewish Jew in the Roman Empire who learned from the Risen Christ! Leaving aside the power of the Spirit working through him, he's got a good position from which to explain what God has done in Jesus Christ and what God intends for those in Christ Jesus to do. In that sense, there is a certain level of appropriateness in preferencing ancient voices ("classical theology," "the tradition," etc.) over modern voices who seem to be throwing out those. Christianity today didn't get where it is by reinventing the wheel every few years. In some ways, we're still experiencing a lot of negative effects from the Protestant Reformation, whatever good things it produced! At any rate, I would press that theology doesn't "grow" because the subject of theology doesn't grow: God is the same yesterday, today, and forever! Our understanding, particularly as it relates to our current context, certainly can though.
But that brings us to what I understand is the crux of your critique: Preferencing academic theology over practical theology doesn't really help anybody. True, to a certain extent. I think Comer, Graham, and I (you? others) understand that the practical theology has to flow out of the "academic theology." If that is well-established, then we are well-equipped to act it out. If, however, we cast aside elements because they make our practical work too difficult or too messy, then I would reckon that we have made a misstep. That seems to be the point that Graham has made: Comer wants to chuck out some theology because it doesn't fit the praxis which he wants to promote. And so much of the praxis is good! We just don't have to throw away theological principles because they are too complex.
I say all of this as somebody who does this hard work every week as a pastor. How can an unchanging God "change his mind" multiple times in the beginning of Genesis? How can a good God even let evil into the world at all (since allowing it would seem to be not good)? How can this God who is above all things also be Immanuel, God with us? I can't say that my answers always make perfect sense or are perfectly satisfactory--I don't reckon that they will be this side of heaven--but I don't resort to throwing out parts that don't fit (which seems to be the basics of what Graham is saying of Comer). Instead, I present the witness of Scripture in its multiplicity of parts and say, "At the end of the day, God's ways are higher than our ways, and his thoughts higher than our thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)
All of that to say: Maybe Comer could spend a little more time grappling with the God of the Bible in all of his self-disclosure then refine his teaching which brings people closer to this God. If there is a difficult, jagged edge to this God, rather than try to buff it out, maybe our theology needs to expand still more. Maybe the answer for how to understand God's immanence and what he wants to do through us isn't less transcendence but, paradoxically, more.