Anyway as a follow-up another Jensen asked on facebook: "OK, now for the hard and honest self-examination part: what does QandA tell us about public theology?" I like what I had to say, so I thought I'd repeat it here!
What Q&A definitely tells us about public theology is that:
- we should free up the very gifted for these roles (although that is problematic because these folk often make very good pastors & preachers as well...).
- we should never look to audience response to gauge how well we did - we can be as intelligent, calm and caring as PFJ and still have people up in arms and assuming the worst.
- and yet there is perhaps merit in finding a fairminded thinking person who disagrees with us (like the lady immediately to the right of Tony Jones) and asking for feedback. I say this because I'm thinking of how poorly the Christian lady on the panel came across. It's not enough to have faith - you also need to understand the people you are speaking to.
- we should seek to understand where people are at and of course aim to speak plainly and clearly, but that at the same time as this, we should speak to the dignified part of people, speaking respectfully, assuming that amidst all the hostility and blinded thinking something of the knowledge of God remains and may recognise truth when it is spoken. So: speak intelligently, gladly and hopefully, knowing that these words of God are good words.
- it is possible to use Christian language and concepts in secular public discourse, as long as you make it comprehensible and all your other language is directly engaging with the culture-at-large. So: PFJ's mention of men and women being valuable because both are made "in the image of God" and that a husband's role should mimic Christ's of "laying down his life". While people unfamiliar with the Bible may not have completely understood these ideas, they showed that Christianity is more than just another philosophy of how to life well, that the presence of God brings profound realities. Normally Christians either avoid this explicit language or use it without taking the time to understand the culture (and so it's no more than a jarring insert).
- it is possible to mention the Gospel in public discourse - with careful planning (the question about men and women's roles in marriage) and jumping on opportunities (the critique that Christians should be more into equality).
What I *hope* we find that it tells us is that a kind, true and winsome word may be the thing that tips someone over into going to church.
- to ensure that these public opportunities have maximum benefit going forward, it is also good to aim for more process/systematic/meta things as well as conveying actual content - like "I want this to be the sort of thing that can be discussed openly", "I want us to have a respectful and serious discussion".
Posts
2 comments:
I simply can't watch it. Nick did, and told me how good Peter was. But I just cannot cope with Catherine Deveny. Even on the rare occasions when I agree with her (she was a participant on this year's version of the SBS refugee reality show 'Go back to where you came from'), her manner is soooooo grating. I don't think I would have slept if I'd watched it.
Pumped that you can watch Q&A though!
Yeah, she was really painful to watch. But, in a strange sort of way, her comments actually helped Peter's 'cause' because he seemed all the more reasonable in comparison.
Even though she is so terribly uninformed, I think that quite a bit of what she says really does resonate with folks (if not her manner) - eg "The only thing I'm intolerant of is intolerance".
Post a Comment