Oct 27, 2008
Coffeehouse Theology: Discussing Strengths and Weaknesses
There are quite a few blog posts out there today reviewing Coffeehouse Theology. They all found some great points and some found weak points in the book, so I’d like to offer a brief overview of each blogger’s review.
Adam Malliet, a friend back from my days in youth group, offers some great reflection on dangers of continuous deconstruction:
Maybe its time to begin reconstructing. We have to build on something and that cornerstone will always require faith (and the accompanying doubt) whether it is in nothingness, yourself, capitalism, nation-states, etc… the list goes on. I am building on the narrative of God’s redeeming work, first through Israel and then through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Andy Rowell, a teacher and student at Duke Divinity School, clarifies my confusing use of “contextual theology”:
Darrell Guder’s Missional Church uses the term “contexualization” but not “contextual theology.” “The church relates constantly and dynamically both to the gospel and to its contextual reality. It is important, then for the church to study its context carefully and to understand it. The technical term for this continuing discipline is contextualization” (Darrell Guder, ed. The Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998, 18). Again, I do not think Cyzewski’s approach has the weaknesses of the group of theologies under the heading “contextual theologies” but I do think it is unfortunate he repeatedly uses that term to describe his own approach.
He also offers some kind words about the book:
Maybe McLaren’s A New Kind of Christian and Cyzewski’s Coffeehouse Theology should be given to all Christian college students–the former to get them intrigued about theology and the latter to nudge them toward further constructive reflection. Cyzewski’s book is ambitious–tackling a number of issues related to systematic theology.
and
All in all, Cyzewski’s Coffeehouse Theology is a fine introduction to a number of contemporary issues in theology in language college students or other beginning theological students will understand. I hope it will serve as the on-ramp for many into rigorous theological reflection.
Writer Heather A. Goodmam, who really liked the book, did mention the following weakness:
I would’ve liked to have seen more direct sources–thinkers, theologians, philosophers of the times of which he spoke rather than relying more on present-day historians. And in speaking of postmodern times, I would’ve liked to have seen a few more case studies. I think there were a couple of times that were almost repetitive and would’ve allowed for these developments instead. He does have some case studies in the global church section, mostly his personal experiences.
Goodman provided a great summary of the book, and shared the following:
Which brings me to the next sections: the historical church (or tradition) and the global church as perspectives and voices in the discussion.
These are two things I’m passionate about. Ed notes that we don’t blindly accept anything and everything, but we have to realize that this isn’t my discussion. While we need to be relevent to our culture, we need to be mindful of the perspective of the universal church. We all wear cultural glasses that affect our views (sometimes clarifying, sometimes distorting). I need the universal church in my study.
This book is informative, helpful, and personal. Ed shares his journey of learning about the process of theology.
So all in all, it’s been a great day for the Coffeehouse Theology blog tour. My thanks to the bloggers who have generously given their time to read my book and to present their careful reflections.
