Mike's musings

Defending the Transcendental Model

Sally challenged me to defend a model which I felt was closer to me than the countercultural, which I distrust. None of the models presented resonates perfectly for me:

• translation (decide on the "core" message of Christianity, "tranlate" it to the local culture)
• praxis (live your theology, make sure it's informed by considered action - e.g. liberation theology feminist theology)
• countercultural (culture's pretty much a bad thing - it always need reform)
• anthropological (culture's good, and we need to read scripture and understand tradition as informed by culture)
• transcendental (my experience of revelation is relevant to others in my community)
• synthetic (let's talk to everyone and pick the best bits from everything, including revelation, scripture and tradition)

However, I've chosen to defend the transcendental model, which might surprise some people who know me. It was a toss-up between this and the anthropological, both of which have their attractions. But the recognition of revelation's relevance to others, as it is situated in a cultural and community context, works for me. I'd situate it in the context of tradition as well, and that's where it can be powerful.

I have a suspicious relationship with revelation, as I have suspicions about "personal relationships with Jesus", but have to admit to revelatory experiences of my own: I'm very much able to relate that to my understanding of tradition and scripture, though, so that's why I'm happy to defend this model. It's also why I think that Gary's defense of the Translational model actually betrays a possible transcendental bent. Sorry for having painted him as a possible counterculturalist before!