…as a Christian theologian, I believe that the soundness of theological teaching does indeed manifest itself over the long run. That doesn’t imply that the churches should teach only what has been handed down from long ago; the church has changed its mind, and the church has erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith. There is no way to guarantee that you’re not off-base. On the other and, if you adhere to what millennia of the saints have taught and believed, you’re a least somewhat less likely to be found in error than if you decide that you’re going to think it all up on your own, taking as fundamental a set of political and philosophical ideas developed over the last couple hundred years. The Enlightenment wasn’t A Bad Thing, but neither was it the dawning of the messianic era. If there’s something you want to identify with Jesus, or Christianity, then your argument is stronger if you can actually give numerous reasons for making that identification; and the more such reasons that you can provide, the stronger the theological argument. And if you want to repudiate a great deal of what is plausibly associated with Jesus and Christianity, it’s not unreasonable for people to question the extent to which your enterprise is still ”˜Christian’.
Andrew Adam is possibly my favourite TEC liberal. He can be counted on for thoughtful writing.
However, this isn’t one of his best efforts. He engages in so much qualification (esp. on the subject of attendance numbers) that it ends up sounding like an inability to connect the dots and for TEC to take their medicine. TEC hasn’t learned anything from the decline in attendance– they’ve doubled down on incorporating sin into their church culture. It is arrogant, and I fear I’ll wait in vain for AKMA to stand up and speak prophetically about that.