With your permission, I’d like to retire (possibly permanently?) from your pages here; and defer henceforth to the comments of Dr. Woodbridge Goodman. Whose thoughts are far more systematically formulated, even in his rough-draft blog. A blog which outlines the central importance and nature, of a true science of theology. Finding its sources particularly, in the Bible itself.

Goodman far more fully oulines my “personal eschatology” (thanks BG! I’ll accept it). The idea there being that one “day” or another, as we “mature” and develop our Reason, we are supposed to see God note sins in all our holiest men and angels. But next, God at the same moment introduces us to a “second” and better “appearance” of God; in reason- and Science-Based theology. Or science-based Religious Study.

If we have to follow a guru, or a definitive idea of “Christ,” I’d strongly suggest that vision. Which is currently being worked out in rough draft. On the Woodbridge Goodman/ “Destruction of Heaven” blog. Now being roughly worked out.

Thanks for your tolerance to date.

That is encouraging to know that Breen is trying to give these terms more robust content, but I still think it is a mistake to use them at all. Even if you try to change the meaning, you are, in fact, changing their meaning. The world knows what these terms mean, and it seems odd to use terms that are already used by the greatest temptation for spiritual growth – self-help movements. I just think it is wiser to use terms like holiness that are more removed from our ability to create ourselves in our own power.

In terms of Jesus being our model, I think your baptism example is a helpful one. To talk about our lives being formed by Christ is to do a good deal of theologizing. Paul did a lot of this, hence his total rejection of the term “disciple” or “discipleship.” Paul, I believe, recognized their inherent problems, and his theology was built on a deeper reality that we need to pick up and re-inform our use of terms like “disciple,” if we choose to use them at all.

OK, part of the disconnect is clearer now. I don’t know where you encountered that definition for “character,” but it’s not what I mean at all. I don’t know Breen, but one of my mentors is being discipled by his group, and when we talk about character, “acting right” is pointedly *not* what we mean — so I kinda doubt it’s what Breen means either. What I mean (and feel free to read this back into what I said earlier) is actually in direct contrast to that: character is being the sort of person who makes the right choices from within (i.e., driven by love and communion with God, “doing what [you] see the Father doing”) rather than needing to have them imposed from without (i.e., by imposition of Law).

I would guess this is pretty close to what you mean by ‘holiness,’ a perfectly good biblical term I often avoid because in my circles people think it means “punctilious moral rectitude.”

I think you’re defining “competence” differently from Breen as well. You’re reading him through a megachurch lens, and he’s a different animal altogether — not a corporate church guy at all, and so not using ‘competence’ at all in the way you are hearing it.

If we were ministering in the same context, Kyle, we’d have some common experience and knowledge of each other to guide our discussion. As it is, we lack that, and we’re speaking two different languages, so actual communication will be an uphill battle. That said, I’m willing to put some effort into hashing through it if you are — you call it.

If we do, I think the next bit is probably continuing the discussion of Jesus as a model and in what senses that is or isn’t true. Might be we could make some headway there, if we are able to get down to specifics (like the preaching in parables thing you mentioned).

The tern character is simply acting correctly in the given situation you find yourself in. That is much more narrow than holiness, which is an aspect of God’s own life, a life we must come to participate in.

I’m not worried about competence as such, just the place it is given. Competence is a power term, a term of achievement. We are to minister out of weakness. Does that, at times, include competence? Of course. But making that the main thing is missing the main point, especially Paul’s point in his spiritual gifts discussion. Competence is what Paul rails against in the kind of preaching that undermines the cross.

When given the prominent place in the discussion, competence and character replace the Spirit. You don’t need the Spirit for either.

I must confess I’m confused about what it might mean to talk about our call in terms of doing other than Jesus did. Jesus seemed to like that language: “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works I do he will do also….” If we’re not proclaiming the gospel of the Kingdom, ministering to the broken, annoying sanctimonious hypocrites, baptizing the nations and teaching them to observe all things that He commanded us, then what would it mean to have a gospel calling at all? Jesus was Paul’s model — that’s who Paul was following, and he exhorted others to follow him as he followed Christ. Again, I don’t know in what useful sense you can talk about Jesus not being our model. Maybe I’m not familiar with the sort of thing you’re backing away from, or something — what am I missing here?

re. the language, if it makes you happy to say “holiness” rather than “character,” feel free — although I think the latter encompasses more than we usually mean by “holiness.” Perhaps you’re working with a broader definition than I’m accustomed to?
As to competence being the self-help version of spiritual gifts…no way. A person can develop abilities outside his area of gifting — and we all have to, because we’re not gifted in every area where we must operate. I must give, and I must evangelize, but these are not spiritual gifts that I have. Nonetheless, I need to be able to do these things well, and this requires that I grow in competence in those areas. What word would you rather use? Moreover, a person can lack competence in an area of gifting, just because he hasn’t yet developed his gifts.

My method therefore, would be to read the Bible ourselves; keeping in mind conventional church dogmas … but also reading with a reasonably indpendent mind too. To find out who Christ really was, as far as we can. In this search, I’d like to hear not from just one church or cult; but many churches. And then from independent scholars especially. So we have a wide data base from which to choose.

In my experience, working just with small groups, churches, can be good; but can also be dangerous. My impression of several cults and communes that I’ve briefly visited, was that often communal group-think is not as healing and healthy as one would hope.

Partially for these and other reasons? Rather than working intently with small groups, I rather prefer an academic theological method. One that is open to many different approaches; and that does not fix on any single one, with (an often bullheaded?) singlemindedness.

Life is complex and nuanced; so is God; so is the Bible. To demand clear and simple and forthright marching orders, toward a “kingdom,” means often, falling victim to simply the most trenchant anti-intellectuals and unimaginative drill-sergeants.

In developing an integrative model of education, we also need to talk deeply about spiritual formation and the role of the seminary in that. I was in a program like this, that was cohort based, and I found it very fruitful.

In general though, I think just as much weight falls on the churches and their general disregard for coming alongside seminary students (in mentoring roles, financial, etc.).

Good and provocative post Kyle. I think i’m with you on this in that, i also am drawn toward starting everything from scratch, but upon further reflection recognize that i’d reproduce a lot of the problems again. I’d like to hear more of your thoughts on what reworking the model from within might looks like. How can we train our people in a theology that really does help them to read and interpret their bibles better (as opposed to just constructing a massive list or box of ‘orthodox’ questions and answers). There seems to be a gaping divide in many seminaries between the biblical exegesis faculty and the theological faculty. Perhaps this is one of the signs of the sickness of our current state that needs to be overcome?

On “character” and “competence,” though, I’m not so sure. I concede the talking-pointiness of the terminology, but I think they’re driving at a useful point. We do, in fact, need people who bear a recognizable family resemblance to Jesus, and who can credibly do the sorts of things He did — as Paul and the early disciples clearly did, as did men like Patrick, Boniface, etc. That’s character and competence, by whatever terminology we want to use, and existing academic programs do in fact fall woefully short of the mark a high percentage of the time.