Renewing the Center: Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era

by Stanley J. Grenz

Book Overview

A new take on evangelical theology re-interprets the role of Christian philosophy in the modern world. This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0801022398
• ISBN13: 9780801022395
• Release Date: January 2000
• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Length: 368 Pages
• Weight: 0.40 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.0" x 6.3" x 9.3"

Customer Reviews

Appreciation and critique of postmodernism in theology

Stanley Grenz, Renewing The Center: Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000) Grenz articulates a fresh evangelical theology for our transitional time. He describes the history of evangelicalism through to current post-evangelical and charismatic influence. He calls Christians to move beyond any polarities of liberals and conservatives to a renewed `center' that can address the needs of post-modern (and perhaps post-theological) context. (`Post-theological' is not to diminish theology in itself but to recognise the emerging non-academic, non-huge-systematic-foundationalist text based approach to theology.) He articulates a belief mosaic for our times, champions a move towards Trinitarian local theologies, explores the place of science and other religions, and emphasises the role of the gathered community and their witness. Thus rather than bemoaning postmodernity and its influence on theology, he calls for a critical appropriation of postmodern insights in the evangelical theological task. Originally reviewed in Darren Cronshaw `The Emerging Church: Spirituality and Worship Reading Guide.' Zadok Papers S159 (Autumn 2008).

Read it and decide about the premises for yourself

I write this to encourage you to look beyond the only customer review this far. For example, start by simply clicking above to view all of the editorial reviews of this book. Many good minds have commended it to you.I'd hate to see you decide not to read this book based on one other person's conclusions. I happen to disagree with him about the 'faulty historical premises', 'fallacies', 'tired old dichotomy' and 'caricatures'. But this is not the place to argue that. If you don't have your mind made up in agreement with that critic about this one, basic premise, then I encourage you to read the book and then decide what you think.