« Social Indicators: Suicide | Main | Social Indicators: Crime (Part 1 of 2) »

Nov 02, 2005

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

will spotts

Mike,
I agree with just about everything the writer says here.

I still find myself uncomfortable for reasons I can't quite put my finger on.

Part of it is, of course, the community issue because I don't find them guarantors of finding or discerning truth or even of making progress in that direction.

Part of it is the use of words that are "fashionable" as many of these have flabby meanings. This is a side effect of post-modernism, but it is frustrating to me.

The other discomfort I have is with the nature of truth. Yes, I recognize we're not talking about hard postmodernist anti-epistemology. Still, the general understanding conlficts with the way I seem to be wired to process information. I see relationships between dissimlar things, but I am also something of a mismatcher -- I tend to describe things in terms of what they are not. I concur that the objective truth of a claim is generally impossilbe to prove -- almost always requiring a leap of faith. But I find a falsehood is often much easier to prove.

If a "proposition" (which, as McKnight observes, are present even in narrative) contradicts itself or claims to be something it is not, it can generally be rejected as false. In the emergent conversation I often get the impression that identifying what is not true is verboten -- or at least regarded as impossible. Such a stance renders me incapable of any thought.

Michael Kruse

Will, I will be interested to see what McKnight says in his coming posts. I think his next one is about the positvies, which I assume means there is one coming about the negatives.

One of my concerns is what I see as trend (not all pervasive) to link Emergent with leftist (political not theological) agendas. That is not because I want them to be rightest. I just have the sense that some of the conversation is more about showing how "non-Evangelcial political right I am" rather than be discerning how to link good intentions and sound theology with sound public policy.

will spotts

I've also noticed this recent development.

I'm overly biased against the political that is not essentially biblical.

An example I might offer is that the Bible has little to say about government re-distribution programs -- though it has a great deal to say about the poor and justice.

I found the comparisons of wealth versus giving (at least as indicated by tax returns) to be very enlightening in that regard. Many of the most visibly Evangelical areas tended to be very generous in personal contributions -- while they often at the same time opposed many government programs sold as helpful to the poor.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Kruse Kronicle on Kindle

Check It Out

Categories