Comments on: Words or Action?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 04:13:13 +0000

I too felt like no one was responding to Scott Smith, until the book Christianity and the Postmodern Turn came out. You really can't claim that no one has responded to Scott anymore. It's interesting to see Westphal, Franke and Jamie Smith respond to Scott's sincere pressing of the issue of truth. Franke seems unable to respond and resorts to claiming that philosophy should recognize its limits. Jamie is the only one that really engages Scott, and has to get into some serious Heidegger to do so. As I recall, Jamie's fundamental objection is that Scott makes an ontological separation between truth claims and reality (as have all moderns since Descartes), when truth claims are themselves parts of reality. I completely agree with Jamie on this point, and have not heard anybody from the Biola crowd respond (in fact I haven't heard anybody from the Biola crowd demonstrate that they have seriously read Heidegger). When a Biola academic stops implicitly asking me to accept the Cartesian mind-world separation, and attempts to actually engage Heidegger's attempt to undermine Descartes in Being and Time, then I'll get interested in this debate again. But, at this point, it seems like Jamie, and by extension Heidegger, are the ones who are being ignored by the Biola crowd.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:34:21 +0000

re- words or actions. You may be interested in this story
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=762

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:20:35 +0000

Senor Jefe, et. al.
I find your response to be at best an ad homonym argument. Saying that the only reason a critic wants a response is ego is like saying the only reason that a prosecutor takes a defendant to court is ego. YES, some people are motivated by ego, but their arguments can still be valid. In reality, most prosecutors would rather be in a world where people did not have to be tried for crimes and most critics would rather be in a world where they did not have to worry about orthodoxy, but both the critic and the prosecutor are (usually) primarily motivated by desiring to see truth.
I honestly do not understand what you mean by a conversation if every time there is a critic they are keeping the conversation from moving forward. A conversation is ideally a discussion of all sides of an issue. When someone criticizes, they may be right (in which case learn from them), they may be wrong (in which case teach them and show them why they are wrong) or they may be irrelevant (in which case help them to see how they are off track/making a straw man/etc. and show how they are playing unfairly with the truth). Is the emergent conversation truly an open conversation, or is it limited only to those who disagree with traditional evangelical theology and/or practice? I hope not.
I personally am grateful for critics because I would not know where to start reading and what works are leading sources if the critics weren

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 06:39:54 +0000

Thank you for your response Dr. Clark,
Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing you at the conference last year- I believe at the paper Dr. Horton presented on Radical Orthodoxy. It sounds likely, considering the points you and Dr. Lucas have made, that this year's ETS was something of a fluke in regards to Reformed participants. In view of that, it seems my post here was at least over the top.
I certainly agree the broader evangelical world doesn't read enough, and I agree that ETS isn't the height of scholarship. I didn't make it to the paper you're referring to, but I was disappointed in the quality of a couple of papers that I attended. I look at the uninteresting sessions as blessed opportunities to explore the book tables, but it is a problem that with a few dozen papers being presented concurrently there are uninteresting sessions.
What I think is valuable about ETS is the variety of people present who can be impacted by the work Reformed scholars do in that environment and I'd like Reformed scholars to make use of such opportunities. If this year was simply a off year, then I apologize, especially for the strong language I used.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:40:27 +0000

Sean Lucas has also replied to this discussion:
http://seanmichaellucas.blogspot.com/2006/11/its-big-world-after-all.html
cheers,
rsc

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:38:10 +0000

Hi,
I'm not sure that your account of things is quite accurate. Mike Horton has been engaging the evangelical academy for years in a variety of forums including ETS.
I gave a paper at last year's ETS. I don't attend every year because the seminary cannot afford to send me to multiple conferences. This year I'm reading a paper in Miami at an historical conference.
In the four ETS conferences I've attended, I've been sometimes discouraged by the level of scholarship at ETS. I'm not saying that there aren't good papers but where I have to choose at AAR or the Sixteenth Century Studies Society I have to make difficult choices between good sessions at ETS I've sometimes struggled to find an interesting session to attend. Then there are strange combinations. I understand that a leading evangelical NT scholar gave a paper evaluating the President from a Biblical perspective. I'm afraid this is becoming typical of the sort of thing one can expect to find at ETS.
I can't speak for the others listed, but I don't think it's quite fair to say that confessional Reformed scholars are not engaging the broader evangelical academy. A lot of us engage the evangelical academy in print on a regular basis. Maybe the broader evangelical world just doesn't read enough? After all, Noll did write a book on the “Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.”
rsc

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:46:55 +0000

Thanks for posting that Tony.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:36:56 +0000

I think you missed my point. I said nothing suggesting people should only read what the critics write- I agree that that's an awful idea. Rather, I'm suggesting that those being criticized occasionally take responsibility for their teachings and answer their most thoughtful critics. I agree that some criticisms should be ignored, I practice that policy here from time to time, but to ignore every criticism is foolish at best. I'm curious, why do you think Scott Smith's book has been so ignored?
Also, your questioning of people's motives is another problematic response typical of Emergent conversations (while I've seen it on both sides, I think it's a great problem on the Emergent side). Almost every critic I've personally conversed with is truly interested in glorify Christ by upholding His truth. Sure, some have bad motives, but that's no excuse to question the motives of every critic. But let's just say that all critics have immoral motives. So what? Do their criticisms all of the sudden become invalid? Not in reality. It's quite possible for people to have bad motives but still have good points worth considering.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:28:58 +0000

I had to cut my earlier comment off this morning so I could get to work, but I had a few other thoughts.
I find it odd that you brought up not getting paid for all this. Do you think we get paid to “toss around accusations”? We actually have to pay for our blog. Given my indebted-college student status, it's a bit of a sacrifice, but I see it as a ministry.
Most people don't get invited to ETS. I'd be surprised if more than 5% of the presenters were invited. The bulk of the people there are interested in putting forward new ideas in an environment where they expect to be challenged and as a result have their ideas sharpened and refined. John Piper made this point during his lecture as the main reason he attends, and he subsequently took questions after his lecture even though I don't believe the format of his particular presentation called for it.
I should clarify that I

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:11:39 +0000

Since when is Geisler Reformed?