Marshall & Alexander

20.12.12. 11:17 Uhr

dtthpzzx about

Marshall & Alexander

BsMurN xmjszqjgxusb

18.12.12. 19:31 Uhr

Nyoman about

Marshall & Alexander

, The very nature of the Protestant arnmuegt was that the tradition itself had wandered; the answer was to eschew tradition in favor of a new and innovative biblical reading – new only because it had been lost throughout the centuries. Actually, this is pretty much what I was arguing McLaren is doing, even if he doesn't do it well and regardless of whether we agree with his conclusions (or tentative, ambiguous suggestions!). I do think you are right to cast doubt on my point that McLaren takes tradition seriously. In any case, he claims to do so in this interview, so I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. Whether one agrees that he actually does so in his writings is up for discussion. I think he takes it seriously in at least one sense: he understands and recognizes the complexities and ambiguities inherent in the very idea of the Christian tradition. And this is where Protestants have always been a little more free (at least in terms of the logic) to be reflexively critical. While we can't escape the influence of tradition (nor should we), we are, at least theoretically, bound more to Scripture itself than to any particular tradition's reading of it. This creates space for a continual review of our interpretations and appropriations of the text. It should inspire fear and trembling, not flippant, easy-breezy theological constructions based on our own whims or prevailing cultural ideologies. So, we're back then to the question of whether McLaren's project represents the former or the latter. I personally would like to see more explicit engagement in McLaren's writings with say, patristic theology. But as a baptist protestant, I'm less interested in whether he is submitting to tradition than in whether or not his reading of Scripture rings true. Not that the two are divorced but for me the biblical source is authoritative.