So what is Christian realism? What are its central principles? The last chp in John Stackhouse, Making the Best of It
To describe Christian realism, I'd quote this passage from Stackhouse (p. 288), and I quote it for you to see how you respond to it. Is this, in other words, the way we are called to behave?
Most of the time, then, we know what to do and must simply do it. Sometimes, however, the politician has to hold his nose and make a deal. The chaplain has to encourage his fellow soldiers in a war he deeply regrets. The professor has to teach fairly a theory or philosophy she doesn't think is true. The police officer has to subdue a criminal with deadly force. We are on a slippery slope indeed -- and one shrouded in darkness, with the ground not only slippery but shifting under our feet. So we hold on to God's hand, and each other's, and make the best of it.
Now four principles -- with lots of subpoints and nuances and qualifications:
1. A mixed field, mixed motives, and mixed results: This might be the best section in this whole book. He uses the parable of the wheat and tares to show that world is mixed, we have to co-exist, and we will work with various motives and we not always get what we hope. There is sin and graft and there is ambivalence. So, we cannot hold out for all-or-nothing results.
2. The Normal ... and beyond: the goal is steering societies, converting communities, improving individuals. A big idea here is that cultural precesses are not controllable and history doesn't take straight lines. (He has a long section, slightly drawn out by too many nuances, on miracles and the normal.)
So, and here is another way Stackhouse defines realism: we either choose never to do something prohibited in the Bible or ... big one ... we "do whatever will be truest to the revelation of the will of God, taken as a whole, recognizing that in a topsy turvy world sometimes one must do what one would never do in Eden or in the New Jerusalem, something that is objectively impure but that nonetheless is the best of the available options and will produce the most shalom in the situation" (275).
That's it. That's what realism is.
So, we need to see where we are in the Story, we need to recall both the creation commandments and the redemption commandments, we need to see that in the Story God enters into a world of violence, and we need to distinguish our work from God's work. (Those commands: cultivate the earth, love God-love others, love each other in the church, and make disciples of all nations.)
3. Faith and faithfulness: we are to trust God, to trust ourselves, to trust others.
4. Liberty and cooperation: our own liberty, the liberty of others, and unity and diversity in the church.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Michael,
are we not doing a similar thing with "greatest shalom"? Greatest shalom according to whom? To scripture? To us? are we then left with the necessarily nebulous "we'll just have to figure out what greatest shalom looks like on our own or with the help of the spirit"?
I heartily agree that we suffer in our decision making. I do not believe that the bible is simply a rulebook. But it is something, is it not, if we are to affirm that it is authoritative in our lives? In the life of the church? What function then does the scripture serve?
I also am not trying to be snarky, but trying to understand the position you're taking appropriately. thanks again for great conversation.
Mike #57
Yes there is a challenge in discerning greatest shalom. There is no escaping the inherent nebulousness we live in. Our vision of the Kingdom of God is hardly opaque but neither is it transparent. It is translucent. ("We see through a glass darkly but then face to face.")
Enlightenment and Modernist Christianity has largely been an exercise in idolizing either orthodoxy or orthopraxy. Some reason their way to the perfect system of doctrine that handles all eventualities in an effort to transcend the nebulousness. Others reason their way to a code of behavior or pattern of living that will shield them from the uncertainty (either in some form of accommodation or counter-culturalism.)
This is where Stackhouse’s notion of the “tetralectic” comes in. In Scot’s Christian Realism #5, he wrote:
“…there are four means to understanding how to make moral decisions in Christian realism: scripture, tradition, reason and experience. He [Stackhouse] calls this — not the Wesleyan quadrilateral but — “a Protestant (Christian) tetralectic.” Besides being a bad word and hard to say and all, his idea is exceptionally important:
If Scripture is primary, it is not that simple. His point: as a “dialectic” is the interaction of two things, so a “tetralectic” is the ongoing, mutual interaction of four things. And that is exactly how it works out, friends. “Our reading of Scripture is always in a tetralectic, a four-way conversation among these four resources” (173). Think about this very long and a few things happen, not the least of which is a little humility about our claims. And this tetralectic involves not just Scripture but our “interpretations” of Scripture (174).”
My point is that scripture is primary. But scripture is not an instruction manual. It is a collection of authoritative witnesses to the in-breaking of God into human affairs involving specific people in specific cultural-historical realities. We can’t lift the Hebrew and Greek words off the pages and directly apply them in out 21st Century context. Before application comes interpretation. Biblical interpretation is an exercise in discovering what the original author intends for his readers or the original speaker for his listeners. Only then can we begin to move to a tetralectic application, guided by the Spirit.
So yes, scripture is paramount. I’m suggesting that admonitions to follow the “plain teaching” of scripture, or to just do what is “good,” or to live according these counter-cultural anti-Empire Emergent values, are abstractions from scripture. We can’t function in life and community without a measure of this abstraction but we dare not confuse our abstractions with the scripture.
Again, we’re called to faithfulness (not flawless discernment) in the midst of paradox, trusting God for our justification and the final results.
By "tetralectic application, guided by the Spirit" what do you mean? My own understanding is that the Spirit - direct revelation - is primary, and the four factors of the tetralectic assist us in correctly discerning the Spirit. I would not state scripture as paramount because, as the early Quakers said, "they are only a declaration of the fountain, and not the fountain itself." (Robert Barclay, Apology for the True Christian Divinity, Proposition 3, Concerning the Scriptures)
I'm not clear how you are viewing direct revelation. And how does Stackhouse treat it?
I can't reconcile an awareness of the Spirit of Christ, alive as our present Inward Teacher, with a holding of scripture as primary. My biggest quarrel with evangelicalism is that it is book-centered, whereas I think we should be Christ-centered.
To some degree most of us at one time or another want to take the credit for salvation by what we know rather than Who we know. We still think that it's a 50 - 50 hold even if only one of us is God. The good news will always be that Jesus Christ wilingly died for us so that we could live, not neccesaraly read, write or understand. That's what makes us ALL so wonderfully special.
Salvation for me, came even before I ever opened the bible and when I did, I realized that I had a right to say so. Thank you sweet Jesus.
Bravo Rebecatt, is that ointment at His feet that I smell?
Bill #59
Stackhouse writes concerning the elements of the tetralectic: “In, with, and under these resources and the Christians who investigate them works the Holy Spirit of God.” (178) So God is at work in all of this and all of us.
Scripture is “paramount” may not be the best adjective. My basic point is that it is uniquely authoritative as an authentic witness to the mighty deeds of God and his vision for, and call to, the world. Stackhouse acknowledges scripture as “…the Word of God written – the book, so to say, that God prompted and that God wants us to have with his authority.” (171)
Unlike tradition, experience, or reason, which have evolving qualities to them, I think scripture is more of a fixed beacon. I don’t think I can go all the way with you to Barclay but I understand the sentiment as a response to bibliolatry . Scripture is one fountain but it is a uniquely authoritative fountain. It is intended to read us more than us reading it. Through the Spirit, it is a corrective anchor, a transforming teacher, and a provider of hope in a way no other fountain can be.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.