(warning: extremely boring ruminations on presupposition, post-modern theology, and only a minor personal payoff at the end)

So i'm (still) reading Classical Apologetics, a book which has repeatedly beaten me down with its lengthy, often argumentative and roundabout defense of rational Christian faith... and the second half of which is a tortuous (not torturous!) criticism of Presuppositional Apologetics. To give you a sense, i started this book in 2003.

Meanwhile, i bought a copy of Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis with a gift certificate. Like Generous Orthodoxy, this book is definitely a standard bearer for the emergent/post-modern Christianity movement. Fortunately, Velvet Elvis is even less dense, and has lots of artsy layout experiments which make it an enjoyable read. Plus, Rob Bell makes Hebrew consumable even for the lay monkeys.

But one of the real pillars of post-modern Christianity is this notion of presupposition and how it fits into experientially bringing Christ to people in their own context. I found the idea really powerful when i first encountered it in a message by Tony Campolo at Cal Veritas Forum (1999? I think.). But as my theology has steadily veered to the Reformed school in the last few years, i'm trying to re-evaluate all of this into something coherent.

Especially since the Sproul book is quite critical of presuppositionalism, because, at its root, it makes two widely divergent claims: first that humanity can't know God (intellectually, rationally) without presupposing God exists, and then proceeding from there. However, it also claims that humanity can not reason effectively without being regenerated (coming to a saving relationship)... essentially, that the presence of sin destroys the ability to reason. How then, can one know God exists?

That doesn't seem very generous, in the Generous Orthodoxy sense, because it essentially says that there is no basic knowledge of God to be found in nature (general natural theology). That seems to be a pillar on which the modern missions movement is founded.

I think my next step is to read some church history. This debate will make much more sense if i have a better view into what came first. Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin, here i come.

I guess what's funny is that this book has been such a bugbear in my intellectual life. Along with Pynchon's Mason & Dixon, just a book i can't finish, close, and donate to the library. (in fact, i'm writing this now to put off finishing the current chapter) I think there's a reason for that-- God was waiting to pull all the threads together in one time and place... BSF, prayer meeting at work, serving at church, becoming decidedly more missional in my outlook, figuring out what church without a pastor looks like.

So i'm learning a little bit of grace from this, and look forward to exploring this truth-- that the story isn't finished. We're not done with our understanding of what Christianity looks like.

My next entry will be about tacos or something. =)