Five points of a para-ecclesial identity

Hauerwas commented twice in Hannah’s Child about “the loss of ecclesial identities”:

“Theology in modernity, moreover, has been position driven. Thus you are a Tillichian, a Bultmannian, a liberal, a conservative, a Barthian (if you can ever understand what that might entail), a process theologian, and so on. That many theologians think they need to have a position is, I suspect, the result of the loss of ecclesial identities.” (60)

(To put it very crudely, theologians don’t go to the church, and that’s why they need some kind of position rather than the traditional denominational identifiers. Hauerwas, too, recollected how he learnt to belong in the church. It is perhaps an honest admission of the oft-mentioned divide between the academia and the church.)

“It was true that I was neither a Protestant nor a Catholic. I did not have to be a Protestant or a Catholic because I had gone to Yale. The sad reality is that, for many of us, where we went to graduate school was more important than our ecclesial identification.” (94)

And I think I can resonate with his claim to the extent that I like to identify myself more with the book publishers that I like the most. Thus, I like to identify myself with Eerdmans, which claims to be “deeply rooted in the historic Christian tradition, ecumenical in spirit, open to emerging dialogue with other faiths, [and] continues its commitment to the life of the religious academy, to the church, and to the role of religion in culture.” Or, IVP Academic, which describes who they are as being “evangelically rooted [and] critically engaged.” So, here is my five points of Eerdmans-IVP-ism: academic, evangelical, ecumenical, traditional, and critical.

(Sorry but I can’t make a good flowery acronym for my five points.)

4 thoughts on “Five points of a para-ecclesial identity

    1. septian Post author

      I’m not joking!

      I shall add another point to make it a triad of dialectics of hyper-Eerdmans-IVP-ism: in the academia and in the church (setting), evangelical and ecumenical (spirit), traditional and critical (approach). This must be the best theological method ever.

      By the way, I just knew that the founders of Eerdmans (William Eerdmans), Zondervan (Eerdmans’ nephews), and Baker (Herman Baker) were Dutch Reformed. Truly we love books!

      Reply
      1. dpredie

        i know. its just funny in itself, sorry lol.

        anyway, the academia and the church are divided, self-proclaimed evangelicals are usually not ecumenical at all, while tradition & critical approach does not go hand in hand.

        In the end, u are still a dialectical Barthian. (whatever that may entail!)

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s