Christoph Fischer

Reading through a couple of chapters in Jim Belcher's Deep Church, the question of how to deal with tradition came up. Belcher rightly reminds his reader that the issue of tradition starts with the very definition of "tradition." Low-church theology, starting from the 16th century, put an emphasis on breaking with tradition. "No creed but Jesus" became a battle cry to abandon the high church's vast amount of tradition. In the same vain, reformist movements have continued ever since.

However, in their low-church point-of-view, tradition came to be regarded mainly as the elements of the immediate past. Discarding the ways of their direct predecessors, theologians presented new, "tradition-free" views - which, ironically, became traditions later rejected by others in turn. Non-traditionalism became the hallmark of a new individualism, of generational emancipation. Each generations rejection of their parents' views was presented almost as a sign of maturity.

Of course, not only the bad things were discarded. Many babies were thrown out with the bath water as new views "replaced" the old ways, without anybody realizing that little was actually accomplished beyond a repetition of the same circle. Rejection followed tradition followed rejection followed tradition .

What is needed to break the circle is a new(?) or at least a revised view of tradition. More in vein with high-church theology, tradition has to be seen as a contiguous flow continuing throughout church history-which is, after all, the continuing history of the community of the Spirit. At the center of this flow, a consistent core can be found. You might call it "the Gospel", a "Rule of Faith", or, as Belcher does, the "Great Tradition." This core is what makes Christian theologies of all times "Christian" and what defines the center of a centered-set theology.

Even though it remains the task of each generation to continue the flow and to re-examine, critique and contextualize the tradition inherited from their fathers, the core is not something to be reinvented ever again. Here, the challenge to the theologian is to call upon the "Great Tradition", to extract the core and to live up to it.

Reflecting on what criteria Pentecostal theological thinking would need to fulfill in order to be acceptable (or even accessible?) to a postmodern mindset, all the while staying Pentecostal, the following list is what I came up with so far. I'd love to hear your comments...

1. It must be postfoundational. From a postmodern point of view, this should be number one. This is where postmodernism rightly recognizes the failure of the Enlightenment project. We need to get away from seeking assurance in some mythical objective foundation. Which does not mean there's no foundation to be found at all. After all, there's a reason why I'm signing all my emails with the famous credo ut intellegam (I believe, therefore I am). My faith, and therefore my being related to Christ through his Spirit should be the basis on which I am building.
2. It must be Christ-centered. I have previously written on Christocentrism as the organizing motif of Pentecostal theology. And I simply think there can't be any "Christian" theology without Christ at the center. At the same time, the definition of a clear center facilitates the move from a foundationalist "bounded-set" system into a more open "centered-set" theology, where truth is defined by its relation to the center, Jesus Christ. On the other hand, such a Christocentric model fends off the dangers of radical postmodernism with its completely relativistic "relational-set" structures, where truth is simply defined by the consensus of the community, no matter where it can be found.
3. It must be mediated by the Spirit. This seems to be the sine qua non from the Pentecostal side with its major emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit. And, indeed, the inclusion of the Holy Spirit as the authority on Truth (with a capital T) mitigates the effect of the subjective elements introduced by Postmodernism. By community we mean the community of Spirit-indwelled believers; by tradition the tradition of that very community, shaped by the influence of the Holy Spirit. Even the Bible we read as the inscripturated work of that Holy Spirit in the community of believers.
4. It must be supported by the Scriptures. Having said the above, the Bible has to remain the foremost source of truth mediated by the Holy Spirit. It is more than the starting-point of the tradition of a Spirit-indwelled community. By accepting it as the "word of God", we attach to it an authority beyond other sources - all the while remaining conscious of our own limitations in reading and interpreting it.
5. It must be driven by the community. Postmodernism correctly criticizes the role of the individual "self" in the foundational model. When access to truth becomes more fluid, the community has an important role in mediation. Note that this mediating ability (1) derives from the Spirit who is the source of this particular community, and (2) applies beyond the present also to past members of this same community, which should make us value tradition much more. The Spirit (i.e. the authority on Truth) and the community (a place for construtivist discovery of the truth) form two poles of a continuum, between which the believers find their conception of theological truth.

A model that carefully relates Bible, community, reason, tradition, experience and gives a prominent place to the Holy Spirit behind all of them should be capable of balancing a large part of the postmodern subjectivity while avoiding the pitfalls of foundationalism.

Fast unverändert aus Jamie Oliver's neuem Amerikakochbuch: Killer Mac'n'Cheese -- wobei unsere Variante auch nicht schlecht war.

Read more »

Ich muss dringend mal meinen "Rezeptrückstau" abarbeiten. Deshalb gibt's heute gleich mehrerere Rezepte. Zum Beispiel den verfeinerten Coq au Vin, den ich neulich kredenzt habe.

Kennengelernt habe ich dieses Gericht ursprünglich -- ganz untypisch -- in der Schweiz, bei Rebeccas Tante Doris. Dort gab es den Coq mit Reis und roten Linsen. Inzwischen habe ich das Ganze oft in unterschiedlichen Varianten nachgekocht. Zum Beispiel in dieser Variante, die etwas Süßliches mit ins Spiel bringt:

Read more »

Diese Woche bin ich in Belgien in der Küche meiner Schwiegermutter zu Gange. Beim Arbeiten in einer fremden Küche fällt mir dann auch schnell auf, welche Annehmlichkeiten meiner eigenen Küchenumgebung ich hier am stärksten vermisse. Hier ist meine aktuelle Liste (wobei zu beachten ist, dass ich zwei gute Messer samt Wetzstahl selbst mitgebracht habe).

• Gewürze. Das war mir eigentlich klar. Ich habe sogar kurz mit dem Gedanken gespielt, meinen "Gewürzkoffer" mitzunehmen, aber das war mir dann doch zu blöd. Schade trotzdem. Außer den Grundgewürzen Salz und Pfeffer gibt es noch Muskat, ein Standard-Curry und einige fertige Gewürzmischungen.
• Ein großes Schneidebrett
  Daheim schneide ich bequem auf einer übergroßen Plastikunterlage. Hier gibt es nur die kleinste Größe. Da bin ich mehr beschäftigt, das Schneidgut vor dem Herunterfallen zu bewahren, als tatsächlich zu schneiden.
• Ein vernünftiges Schälwerkzeug
• Platz zum Arbeiten... habe ich zu Hause auch nur unter Einbeziehung des Esstisches, aber der war hier auch blockiert.
• Weißwein für die Soße.

Die Liste wird fortgeschrieben ... überhaupt nicht als Kritik -- ich lerne einfach, meine eigene mise en place zu schätzen.