a couple of points from hall's chapter 2 i found interesting: (1) the "self-confidence" w/ which many (alert: politically-incorrect term approaching) churchmen handle scripture is born of hubris; and (2) "spiritually ill theologians produce sick theology" (20). i should confess up front that i've been as guilty of the former as the next person, which is one reason i'm excited about reading the church fathers. for quite some time now i've been feeling for some fences, exegetically speaking, to give me more guidance than the standard gordon-conwell "big idea" or whatever that was we learned in preaching class. seeing as how renee' won't let me be roman catholic (yet), i'm hoping the patristics will give me some boundaries. seems like everybody but me is supremely confident in their own ability to exegete, but, to be honest, it scares the bejeezus out of me sometimes. it's comforting to be able to fall back on the insights of authors w/ more "hermeneutical proximity" to the biblical era.

i think caleb's point is well taken that, in their rejection of what they consider the bankruptcy of liberal protestantism and catholicism, post-evangelicals are "removing themselves from tradition, and thus perpetuating the vicious cycle." here's a question, though -- in all our rhetoric about tradition and the emerging church, do you think we're piling on our brothers and sisters in the emerging church? recently i had a lengthy back-and-forth viaemail w/ some friends from our marblehead days, and i think we ultimately agreed to disagree. tacitly. but they've got such hearts for mission -- one family has a profitable business that they don't really use to get rich; rather, they use the money to support their family so that the husband can donate his time to their church, a church which is reaching out to a community surrounding an apartment complex, providing after-school activities for kids whose parents work, etc. another guy left duke to go back into the marketplace b/c he believed that's where god wanted him to live out the gospel. i think these things are great, things that ought to be hallmarks of the church instead of exceptions to the rule. it's just that their motivations often sound a lot like hall's opening volley about the futility of theology w/in a reductionist framework: "they have little choice but to 'reinterpret the tradition in terms that will speak, as they say "meaningfully" to the modern age'" (19).