A lot of what I post here consists of Bible exposition, theological writing and practical pastoral or ethical advice. This reflects that my main aim here is to provide teaching and training resources for those who want to be better equipped, particularly for urban context ministry. I also comment on current affairs as this helps us to think Christianity about what is sometimes termed public theology.
You may notice that some of my articles and videos/podcasts engage in debate with other Christian and non Christians, sometimes I disagree with a blog post I’ve read or newspaper article, sometimes I review a book and engage with where I disagree with an author.
This is the part of blogging that is probably the most controversial or that others struggle with. It looks confrontational and polemic? Is it a bit rude? Might I upset the person I disagree with? Am I picking fights? Does it hinder unity?
So I thought I might explain a bit about why I do this. The first thing to say is that this is an aspect of blogging”. Whilst the aim of the overall website is to provide a training resource, this bit here is a blog and although I primarily use it to prepare stuff that will find its way into the resources elsewhere here, I am working within the culture and framework of blogging as I do
So my first reason for engaging with others is that this is what bloggers do. Blogging provides space for conversation. It enables us to talk with others, people we might not get to meet very easily or very often in person. It helps us to better understand and learn from others. One reason we debate is because we are prepared to think things through and either have our mind changed or change other people’s minds.
Another aspect to conversation is that this is an aspect of accountability. Blog articles don’t get peer reviewed in the same way that academic papers do. I would hope that there is a level of accountability within the local church, for me that works as a kind of soft accountability, I cannot expect fellow elders to read everything but I function on the basis that they could be reading at any time. So I write with an awareness of where the boundaries of discussion and debate are. However, I also know that other bloggers will be reading too and may choose to challenge things I say. Additionally, there are other writers who I will get to check an article in advance and they will get me to do the same for them.
What this also means is that attempting to do theology (and that’s a big part of what I’m trying to do in order to equip pastors) is a relational thing. Historically this happened in the academy with the risk that it became detached from real life but it meant that theologians had conversations, organized debates any symposiums, wrote essays and books to spark off each other, challenge, correct and learn. Now it happens online!
One reason I write in response to others is because I see dangerous error which creates a risk both for the local church and the wider church. I write specifically to warn and counter. I’ve specifically done that in resonse to Christian Nationalism and Federal Vision.
However, the primary reason why I engage and debate with others from time to time goes back to the original purpose of Faithroots – to teach, train and equip. It’s standard practice in academic theology to engage with the opinions of others. If you were accessing a theology degree via seminary, then your lecturers would engage both with contemporary authors and those from history. They would do this both to expose you to other ideas and opinions from outside your own perspective and to model how to challenge and critique. That’s one of the things I try to do here.
Faithroots 