I Think that the American Church has done an embarrassingly poor job of articulating its theology. I found its response to the Windsor report (the document To Set our Hope on Christ) lacking in theological argu\u00c2\u00adment, and have said so publicly.<\/p>\n
The American response em\u00c2\u00adphasised the personal experiences of members of the Body of Christ in the United States, and the historical context that led to the American Church\u2019s current position. This re\u00c2\u00adflects the nature of theological discus\u00c2\u00adsion in the United States, where ex\u00c2\u00adperience and historical context are given great weight. This is a theo\u00c2\u00adlo\u00c2\u00adgical epistem\u00c2\u00adology that I think is quite defensible. But I think that theo\u00c2\u00ad\u00c2\u00ad\u00c2\u00adlogical epistem\u00c2\u00adology itself needed to be defended, and that was not done.<\/p>\n
In addition, by putting so much emphasis there, doctrinal issues that are part of the debate \u201d\u201d such as scrip\u00c2\u00ad\u00c2\u00adtural authority and human nature \u201d\u201d were not discussed in enough depth. Theologies of scrip\u00c2\u00adtural authority and human nature were implied, but not elaborated. The American position deserves (and can receive) a stronger theological ration\u00c2\u00adale.<\/p>\n