Community as Epistemological Reference Point
January 13, 2004
Whitworth professors Dr. Dale Soden & Kathy Storm [also the Vice President of Student Life] wrote an article for Christian Scholar’s Review in 1996 entitled How Firm a Foundation? Postmodernism and the Multicultural Agenda. Dale sent it to me awhile ago, and I reread it a few days ago. While not well-received at Whitworth in ‘96, the article is a good balance of thoughtful reflection on both the benefits and challenges of postmodernism to the Christian faith.
The article has some good points concerning absolute truth and postmodernism. One sentence eloquently states what I’ve mentioned before concerning absolute truth: “While Christian doctrine would not share postmodernism’s skepticism regarding the possibility of absolute truth, it would share with postmodernism and the multicultural movement a stance of deep humility regarding the possibility of absolute knowing.” Postmodernism does in fact allow us/cause us to become more intellectually humble - desiring truth, seeking for truth, all the while accepting the fact that we may never fully know T(t)ruth.
One of the main points in their article was the importance of the community as an epistemological reference point in postmodernism. “And in our reading of Scripture, with its message regarding the relational nature of human beings, the limitations of reason and the dangers of solipsism, this clarion call to community as an epistemological source is one that should be taken seriously.” Doug Pagitt, in his new book Reimagining Spiritual Formation, writes the following:
The work of theology must happen in full community. Of course it must include the ideas of those who have come before us, but to simply accept the work of our forebears in the faith as the end of the conversation is to outsource the real work of thinking, and that turns theology into a stagnant philosophy rather than an active pursuit of how we are to live God’s story in our time. The communities that are best equipped for the task of spiritual formation in the post-industrial age are those who make the practice of theology an essential element of their lives together. This is in no way a call to be less theological, but a call to our communities to be more involved in the work of theology as a necessary part of the spiritual formation process.
So, where does this leave us? Spiritual communities must be engaging in the work of theology; the dirty, messy, beautiful work of theology. Spiritual communities must be actively engaged in hermeneutics - for many are claiming “community” as the final arbiter of truth in the postmodern context. And for me - well, I guess this sounds good to me. Doesn’t it make you feel better to put the power of interpretation into various diverse communities, rather than in the hands of individuals?
Tags: Community, Theology, Truth
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
January 13th, 2004 at 3:11 am
Adam:
Your thoughts made think of a recent article in First Things (Aug/Sept. 2003) re: individuals vs. communities and narrative theology. Here’s the URL.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0308/articles/jacobs.html
I’m not sure that it is necessarily any better to have theology “done” by diverse communities vs. individuals. Community diversity doesn’t necessarily ensure that the resultant theology is good or, for that matter, useful. (I don’t mean ‘good’ in the sense that it correlates with some conservative, liberal or progressive standard, but ‘good’ in the sense that it corresponds with what we know about God’s glory and character). Much has to do with the character of the communities involved, no? Bad community character -> warped interpretive lenses?
Love to hear what you think of the First Things article - may or may not be completely relevant.
January 13th, 2004 at 10:27 am
I’ve seen many discussion and articles on this kind of thing, but for me, it always comes down to one question; how? How will a community “do the work of theology”? And Brian raises a good point about the quality of a community-produced theology. How does a community ensure their theology is accurate, useful and “good”?
January 13th, 2004 at 11:14 am
About community theology: it isn’t so much the production of theology, but the practice of theology that matters. Practice is the sense of “putting it into practice” and the manufacting of theology. And in this way it becomes a spiritual disciple, rather than academic propositionalism.
I think the warning in allen jacobs’ article comes too early. Our consumer/technological culture creates/sustain individuals at a rate unknown to Puritans and Augustine. So we have much work to do before we fall off the communal edge of the cliff.
Jacob’s remarks about memory and sin, past and future in Augustine/Keikegaard are helpful, but still, one can only rightfully know sin through the narratives of Scripture, and the Community of Scritpure. It seems that his article is more focused on overcoming historical anmesia (a-historicism) that individualism.
http://www.up-rooted.com
January 13th, 2004 at 11:22 am
I’m a huge proponent of social epistemologies. If we have no immediate access to the nature of reality, if the narrative of scripture must be interpreted and translated from its context to ours, then there really are no other viable options. “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” only masks the fact that we all have to make judgement calls about which verses we privilege and which we ignore. Community epistemology is messy, but it’s honest; it doesn’t pretend to be able to lay hold of the ungraspable.
Narrative theology and theology-as-communal-discourse are central parts of my church community. We have always done our utmost to facilitate a dialogical atmosphere, where anyone can question anything. We formulate our theological and ethical positions through a process of questioning each other, giving reasons for our beliefs, and examining the reasons we give each other.
Is it good theology? Or useful? I suppose I can’t be the judge of that, but we do have a criterion by which to measure the process: the identity of Jesus Christ, as presented in the gospel narrative. To the degree that our theology and ethics bring us into conformity with the lifestyle and values that Jesus exhibited, it is valid. (Theology should always be seen as a distant second to lifestyle, in terms of importance.) I think dialogical theology has as much or more potential to meet that criteria than other models of communicating/educating/knowing.
January 14th, 2004 at 2:36 am
Fascinating and enjoyable conversation.
The communal practice of theology and community epistemology makes a great deal of sense to me. I’ve just recently read Richard Lamb’s The Pursuit of God in the Company of Friends (IVP, 2003) - a great analysis of what ‘doing theology in community’ is about.
That said, there were a few things over which I quibble in Steve’s post. First, as I see it, the formation of theological positions through group questioning and communal discourse works if all involved have a ‘base set’ of core beliefs or, in diplomatic parlance, ‘red lines’ — points that are not open for re-adjustment. I’m not talking about theological concepts of justice, race, etc. I’m talking about ‘red lines’ in terms of God’s character as unveiled in Scripture, etc. If one member of the community believes strongly that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing; one member believes that the resurrection is best spiritualized; and another views the Old Testament as unnecessary for the believer (just to pull some positions out of a hat), how does one craft and practice a ‘good’ communal theology?
Does the community doing the creating and practicing of theology together have to have pre-existing ‘red lines’?
The other quibble is about theology and lifestyle. I don’t believe it needs to be put in terms of first place, distant second. Ideally, theology drives lifestyle — I choose my practices (at least I try) based upon what I know and believe of God. But lifestyle also reinforces theology — practices that are chosen based upon what I know and believe of God have a tendency to help lead me (and others) to greater, additional knowledge (and belief, and hopefully love) of God.
January 14th, 2004 at 3:00 am
Reading this, and especially what Brian just said, made me think of the way our group “does church”. Much of our meeting together involves discussion… that’s just the way we have “service”. All of us come from different backgrounds, and believe many different things for different reasons. We even have had an athiest, a panthiest, and several others come, who were not of a Christian mindset even. Some are more studied than others, some more educated in different arenas, some of us are even completely ignorant and clueless and have learned to go on experience alone. Obviously, we have a myriad of beliefs.
The main key to the community not coming across “red lines” is that we are all of open mind to learn, even if it means that what we thought to be true is wrong. An example of this would be how I believe in a perfect and personable God, and there is another newer member of our group that wants God to be imperfect, if they decide that he even exists. This is extreme difference in beliefs, but our open dialogue allows us to help each other on our journey to finding truth and experience.
The input of everyone in the group is valuable, because we all learn and grow together. This also makes outside sources of information important to include, as it is another voice to add to the discussion and learn from. By letting anyone question, we have an opportunity to find out why we believe what we do, and either find out it’s wrong and toss it out, or find more evidence that supports it and enriches our lives. We admit that we do not have all the answers, just that we have interesting information that can add to each others’ journey. To me, this is what community is all about; it is even what relationship is all about; learning and growing together, helping each other along the way, and being a perpetual student.
January 14th, 2004 at 10:43 am
Good points Brian. I think that all beliefs and practices should always be open to questioning and revision. Otherwise, you have fundamentalism, which I take to be a bad thing. Having said that, there are certain beliefs and practices, which while being held as open to questioning, are constitutive of the community. To reject them is to reject the very raison d’etre of the community. To affirm them is to hold a conviction: a willingness to live your life fully on the basis of beliefs, even though you admit the possibility you are mistaken. I think churches should provide a context for people who have not yet come to conviction regarding the core beliefs/practices, and a context for people who have. So obviously, a crucial aspect of the communal theological dialogue will be to determine what those core beliefs/practices for the particular community.
January 14th, 2004 at 10:45 pm
I do wonder, though, about how dialogical theology, particularly the kind that Pastor Draven presents, stands up to the biblical witness. As iron sharpens iron, etc. We’re called to expose and reject false teaching - I’m concerned that engaging in such a dialogue could lead to accepting incorrect or harmful doctrine. Brian raises a good point about variations in belief, but it assumes that people have informed (relatively, anyways) opinions/beliefs on certain matters. What of the Christian who lacks a sound theology? Shouldn’t we be concerned that new or uninformed Christians may be led astray by some of this dialogue?
January 15th, 2004 at 3:12 am
Nathan, in our situation, that is where my responsibility as a pastor comes in; or perhaps it’s more my heart and my responsibility. I desire, as well as other in the group, that we not make ignorant assumptions. We all are perpetual students, and being a student does imply a certain scholarly passion. While each of us may have different levels of passion and areas of study in that direction, being the pastor, I try to stay as informed and studied as possible, and definitely to be a resource for finding answers. That means that even if I don’t know an answer with sound backing, I do know where to find it, and where to point people to.
The dialogue usually helps people to understand when they may be uninformed on a subject. And it is our agreed responsibilty to each other as a group that we strive to not be uninformed in our conclusions on matters.
I can definitely see how dialogues can be detrimental without such types of agreements. And I know at least in our circle, even if things start to go a little off track theologically, I try to help them through their journey until they start to find the more informed and more sound answers.
I’ve also seen a few communities in which they haven’t made a community agreement of any sort, and are completely open to just hearing what everyone has to say without any accountability to being informed in their answers. I agree that it’s dangerous. The one I’m thinking of has a whole lot of bad theology and ignorant intellectualism. And while I can’t say in all honesty that The Inner Sanctum doesn’t sometimes come to conclusions that are a bit off-base, I do know that we are all open to continuing to study the subjects we talk about, and all agree that we don’t really have all the answers. We do eventually come back on track.
I’m not trying to blow our own horn here or anything like that. I just have my own community as one of my few reference points to this type of structure. I think what this conversation is leading to, which we can probably all agree, is that accountability is very important or actually imperative.
January 15th, 2004 at 10:15 am
PD -
You’ve answered my concerns quite well. I think you’re right - accountability is imperative, but so is, in a similar vein, strong leadership. I don’t necessarily mean bossy or overly pronounced, just a strong leadership presence like you’ve described, that can help guide and set the correct boundaries.
January 15th, 2004 at 12:56 pm
Thank you for the encouragement :) It’s cool to know that I helped.
January 17th, 2004 at 12:11 pm
Peter Kreeft influenced the generation of the following thought.
Submission, reason and doubt are all important traits of the Christian life. However, as history has shown and the future will show, we naturally gravite towards extremes. The pre-modern world was marked by submission to church authority. The modern world has been marked by scientific reason. And the post-modern world at times paralyzes us with doubt. Thus our three extremes:
The naive sucker (which is possibly the closest of the extremes to child like faith)
The arrogant no-it-all
The armchair skeptic
This is not to say everyone in each of these eras lived at these extremes, but this does appear to be the address of the “general public”.
As a modern man, dabbling in the post-modern world, I am beginning to see that my life has a healthy dialogue between reason and doubt (or so I think), but lacks submission. Perhaps, like Kreeft, I need to spend some time in the Catholic church. Or perhaps I need to spend more time in the presence of God for that is what probably made Moses “more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Num 12:3).
March 8th, 2008 at 10:48 am
There is Christian community, the church, and then there is community that isn’t the church. Brian Auten use of the base set of core beliefs, the “red lines” can apply to any type of community. In a Christian church it would be the theological concepts derived from Scriptures; in Pastor Draven’s community which includes atheists the base set of core beliefs would look quite different. Community is a group of people connected to each by things they have in common–not just because they have things in common but also because they are intentionally connected.
As pointed out, dialog about and questioning these core common starting points from time to time is healthy. We can strengthen our communal ties by reaffirming why we are a community while making corrections and informing newer members or visitors about who we are and why we are. I don’t think it would be healthy to constantly question these base “red lines.” That would be too introspective.
Pastor Draven shared an important point: he has a responsibility as a pastor. I don’t know if he considers the group he described as a Christian community or just a community, but I assume he derives his sense of responsibility from his calling and gifting as a Christian within a larger Christian community. A pastor is a shepherd who cares for a flock. The flock needs direction and protection. There is nothing wrong with the flock sharing in dialog about theology but hopefully, (and as PD noted), those who have responsibility, and the authority–and again hopefully, the training, will teach and direct the flock to a deeper understanding of the “red lines” of their particular community.
So we recognize there are people who are naive, some who skeptical, some who are arrogant, and some who have wisdom and a sense of vision and direction–in any community.
We can know truth, even absolute truth, without knowing it exhaustively. Community dialog about truth is healthy–but it cannot be the starting point or even the authoritative point of already established communities. Somewhere deeper those truth are already held by the key influencers of that community.