I've been reading at various sites where the seeker-sensitives (notably R. Warren) seem to be using something called the Hegelian Dialectic in order bring everyone's thoughts into line with the church's ideas.
Hegel basically created his philosophy to explain the process of history. First there is one view or event called the thesis. Then there is the opposing view or event called antithesis. Out of these two (many times a compromise of the two; other times simply the end process of the two clashing) is the synthesis.
Here is an example from Hegel's writings:
THESIS: In Ancient Greece the stoics believed in a moral absolute that applied to everyone.
ANTITHESIS: During the Enlightenment period, Rousseau believed that the individual decided what was right and wrong for him.
SYNTHESIS: Society decides what is right and wrong for its citizens.
In the continuing process, the new synthesis then becomes the new truth or thesis. Then an antithesis is introduced which culminates into synthesis which becomes the new truth or thesis and so on-- the process continues ad infitum.
At Small Groups and the Dialectic Process, Berit Kjos relates how this is used in seeker-sensitive churches.
A diverse group of people (in the church, this is a mixture of believers (thesis) and unbelievers (antithesis),
gather in a facilitated meeting (with a trained facilitator/teacher/group leader/change agent), using group dynamics (peer pressure), to discuss a social issue (or dialogue the Word of God), and reach a pre-determined outcome (consensus, compromise, or synthesis).
In other words, Kjos says the Word of God is dialogued and a consensus reached. People are taught to "respect other interpretations and ideas." Truth is often arrived at through this dialectic dialogue.
In contrast to Hegel's dialectic is Socrates' dialectic. I firmly believe this method can be used successfully in churches without compromising Biblical truth.
The Socratic Method is a conversation, a discussion, wherein two or more people assist one another in finding the answers to difficult questions instead of dry teaching and/or memorizing. It seeks the "why" of things.
My Sunday School class is an excellent example of this method. The teacher will ask a loaded question after perhaps reading a Bible passage. For example, "What does this say about capitalism. Should we be practicing it?" Or, "What should be the Christian response to the influx of immigrants to our community?" Then the fur flies in my class as opposing views are eagerly shared. But the teacher always brings it back to WHAT the Bible says--or at least it's essence. We don't come to "synthesis" based on the [opposite] views presented. This class is hugely popular as you can imagine, because it causes us to think about Biblical applications to everyday life, including business and political life.
So, Hegel in church? Probably not.
Socrates? Let's try it at times.
By the way, guess who used the Hegelian dialectic as a central part of their philosophy?
Yep--Marx and Engels. The Communist Manifesto guys.
A Prayer Request & Thanks
6 days ago
4 comments:
Diane,
I referred to this, one of my pet peeves, over at Cerulean Sanctum:
That Nutty Small Group Dialectic
My conclusion is controversial, to say the least.
There is a fine distinction between these two dialectic methods. I agree with your conclusions about the difference, but I fear at times, there may be crossover between the 2. The teach must be intelligent and forceful enough to draw attention back to the Scriptures if the Hegelian dialectic is to be properly avoided.
What about when a class successfully does this, but then a new teacher comes in who is not so strong? There is a danger of a "synthesis" and consequentially a drift in those cases.
Excellent post and one of the best short-to-the-point explanations of Hegelian Dialectic I had ever seen. I had read numerous online web pages and had to experience lenghty rambling and this was short and precise.
As I read the article and saw how you explained this concept becoming cyclic, it reminded me of how Darwin's theory of evolution works and how these concepts 'evolve' and 'evolve'. There is too many things in the church that is founded off of this 'evolutionary' process and the Word becomes pragmatic instead of powerful.
Dan,
You have hit on one of my pet peeves too and I think I "feel" another post coming on my site on the small group. Actually I did whole series on the small group...maybe time to take it out and dust it off.
Totem,
Thank you very, very much...:)
Jason,
Yes, I absolutely agree and perhaps this is what Dan is kind of saying over at his blog too. One good thing about my church is the highly theologically educated people there who we can draw from to teach a Sunday School class. For example, this summer we give our regular teacher time off and others teach. Most of the teaching will be done by a teaching elder and another guy who works for our denominiation and is a specialist on early American evangelistic history. But in other churches, boy is your point and Dan's point well-taken. And of course people come and go--perhaps one day my church will not have all of these wonderful teachers to choose from.
Post a Comment