EngineeredTheology

Last month there were two conferences taking place. The first was in Wheaton, and was a large group to discuss the impacts of N.T. Wright on modern Christian theology. The second was Together for the Gospel (T4G) which is a “bi-annual conference that encourages pastors to take their stand together for the gospel” (from their FAQ). Fortunately for me, both are available on line: T4G and Wheaton.

To me, it is quite fitting to have two conferences occurring at the same time. One focusing on how N.T. Wright’s reading of Paul has changed the landscape of the discussion about justification, and the other focusing on protecting the gospel from just such changes. In listening to both, I’ve tried to be as neutral as possible (which is quite impossible because I already have strong agreements with Wright). Without getting into anything actually said, this has been my overall impression.

Lexicon and Presentation
From the start, there is a large difference in how the lectures were prepared. The Wheaton conference was highly technical, focusing on very academic debates. For those not already well versed in their “ologies”, there would have been only one speaker that would have been largely understandable. While there were jokes (and some quite funny ones), they would really only be understandable to people really following along. Otherwise the presentations were basically dry and like a collegiate lecture. On the other hand, the lectures at T4G were on the level of a Sunday sermon. No expectations of terminology and dramatic swings in tone and volume at important points.

Criticism
The Wheaton conference was conducted as a scholarly debate. While all the speakers generally agreed with Wright, each one brought forth the main point they think he has missed, overlooked, or completely gotten wrong. There was criticism within the people in the room, but stressed unity for the church as a whole. T4G is a conference to defend a certain idea. Because of this, there was unity within the room, and criticism for the church as a whole.

A priori
Even coming out of the gate of their talks, there were certain things that were explicitly stated as assumed. At Wheaton, it was assumed that to understand Jesus, you need to understand a historical Jesus. He was a real man who walked on the earth in a certain time. It is foundationally important to understand Jesus in this context, and to read the gospels in such a way that they would have made sense in that setting. At T4G, most explicitly stated by John Piper, the assumption is that understanding Jesus does not require, and is in fact hindered by, historical research. Jesus is completely found by what is contained in the bible, and it is complete in its portrayal of him.

In all these things, there were certainly good points in each. I suspect that the average attender of the T4G conference (mainly pastors and some laypeople) had logged more hours in seminary than at Wheaton (current students, some pastors, and laypeople). The main drawback to the Wheaton conference is the high barrier of theological entry. Without a strong foundation in the topics, many people will be lost in the talks. It isn’t that the concepts are too difficult, but I don’t think the speakers have reached the ability to state things simply (with the exception of N.T. Wright).

It is the comparison in criticism that worries me. At the Wheaton conference there seamed to be a stronger desire to look for what is true vs. the T4G conference protecting what they know is true. Personally, I get concerned when we speak of absolute truths. It isn’t that they don’t exist, but we need to be extremely careful when we presume to have them. I can not in good conscience turn off my mind to search for god in new ways and assume that where I am is the culmination of Christianity.

The a priori assumptions then comes down to personal belief, but is obviously one of the key differences in the content of the conferences.