Loren, this is a nice essay, and I've been enjoying your recent posts. Short, pithy, and powerful.
I'm a little unsure what to make of your aside about Thomas Jay Oord. What you wrote appears "one-sided" -- telling the story solely from Oord's point-of-view, which is quite self-involved. Moreover, I hesitate about your criticism that he was judged by "the less educated." Besides the facial elitism, I do think the character of the church is one where our ecclesiastical judgments should be both informed from the top (clergy, those with great theological training) and from the bottom (laypeople, minority voices, prophets, lay church leaders). Lay people are still Oord's peers, and if he wants to persuade people that his preaching and teaching is Gospel-centered, he has to persuade the whole church, not just the privileged and ivory tower types like me. Despite being a university professor myself, I am allergic more and more to implications that the church should become more clerical and academic in terms of the voices who are permitted to express the mind of the Church.
I also know Oord personally. He does do a lot of good work, and he's a very nice guy. But I also think his interpretation of the Church and these recent events is colored by his longer history of institutional exclusion and reprimand. Not sure I totally blame him; I've had similar experiences myself. I just sometimes find a touch of resentment in his reporting on encounters with those he disagrees with. There's a chip on his shoulder. And all of this is complicated by the fact that all encounters are happening within the context of polarization and cultural conflict. That makes it hard to have good faith encounters or ecclesiastical processes.
Loren, this is a nice essay, and I've been enjoying your recent posts. Short, pithy, and powerful.
I'm a little unsure what to make of your aside about Thomas Jay Oord. What you wrote appears "one-sided" -- telling the story solely from Oord's point-of-view, which is quite self-involved. Moreover, I hesitate about your criticism that he was judged by "the less educated." Besides the facial elitism, I do think the character of the church is one where our ecclesiastical judgments should be both informed from the top (clergy, those with great theological training) and from the bottom (laypeople, minority voices, prophets, lay church leaders). Lay people are still Oord's peers, and if he wants to persuade people that his preaching and teaching is Gospel-centered, he has to persuade the whole church, not just the privileged and ivory tower types like me. Despite being a university professor myself, I am allergic more and more to implications that the church should become more clerical and academic in terms of the voices who are permitted to express the mind of the Church.
That’s a fair critique. I’m certainly leaning only on Oord’s perspective. I’ve met him multiple times and appreciate his work.
I also know Oord personally. He does do a lot of good work, and he's a very nice guy. But I also think his interpretation of the Church and these recent events is colored by his longer history of institutional exclusion and reprimand. Not sure I totally blame him; I've had similar experiences myself. I just sometimes find a touch of resentment in his reporting on encounters with those he disagrees with. There's a chip on his shoulder. And all of this is complicated by the fact that all encounters are happening within the context of polarization and cultural conflict. That makes it hard to have good faith encounters or ecclesiastical processes.