question about conversation...

i was listening to a podcast yesterday (ekklesiaphx: An emerging converation on Christian spirituality) on a topic that i like to engage in: the emergent church. one of the uniqunesses within the emergent conversation is the ability to disagree with whom you are talking to and still be fully involved in the conversation. it's accepted and encouraged to have conversations with people who have different opinions. we as a Church, as a group of people seeking after Christ, need this. it's a fresh breath of air to the stale lungs of tradition for traditions sake.

as i was listening to this perticular podcast the host used himself as an authority for a definition for words or phrases. he would say things like, "this is my definition of..." i realize that this can be used as a method of restating the definition, but i guess i need some clarification. if, in conversation we continue to refer to ourselves as the authority or source, then what benifit is the conversation? if we just simply sat that we believe something and "that's that," then what's the point. how does that benifit the person we might be talking to? it seems that this question is asked and answered within the realm of sports, but it's unacceptable for theology. if sports were approached like postmodern theological conversation i think it might look like this:

bro: i'm a bears fan.
dude: good for you, i'm a broncos fan.
bro: wow, that's great. they are having a great year, aren't they?
dude: yep, they're the best.
bro: they're having a good year, but they aren't better then my bears.
dude: silly boy, of course they are. they're undefeated and on course to set 15 records.
bro: i think i've missed something, because i thought that they've lost a game or two.
dude: nope, perfect season.
bro: i think you might be mistaken.
dude: nope, they're the best team in the league, by my definition, of course.


anyone overhearing this conversation would think that gabe is loosing it because it's obvious that dude's broncos aren't doing as good as bro's bears. there is an element of personal opinion that comes into play, but by dude saying that the broncos have never lost is a fact that cannot be argued. if dude said that the broncos are his favorite team because he likes their colors, that would be different.

one of the hardest elements of the postmodern conversation for me to be apart of is pluralism. there must be something that is absolute, something foundational. somewhere in the mix something is going to contridict itself. what i struggle with is where the foundation starts. even saying that the foundation is the Word of GOD is difficult because the interpretation of scripture has been debated since scripture has been scripture. what do we do with this? the only thing i can think of is that our understand of something can be held as true until it contridicts something, then we must evaluate which of the two things is true. this approach, then would most likely lead us to continually reevaluate what our foundation for truth is, rather than throw truth out all together.

what do you think?