I don't know all that much about the "quiet revival" to which you are referring (from here in the US), but I appreciate the analysis. And I appreciate your conclusion: that God is in charge of all transformations of the heart and mind. We are invited to participate. Perhaps when the rest of the world feels shaky enough, more people are willing to surrender their own goals and agendas and let God be their guide. I find it requires a daily "yes" on my part.
This sublimates and subliminates pneumatology into ontology and does not engage with the real energetic soteriology of Revival. Martin Heidegger, Edmund Husserl and Peter Greig are adding nothing to understanding what Revival really is.
Did you mean: Reducing pneumatology to ontology risks abstracting revival into static categories of ‘being,’ rather than engaging with the Spirit’s dynamic and saving work. Revival is not first a philosophical problem, but a lived soteriological event. While philosophy and pastoral commentary can illuminate, they cannot substitute for the real work of the Spirit in renewal? If so I’d agree with you.
However that is not what Pete Greig has done. And I have used Husserl et al in very limited ways, ie their cautions about the dangers of over analysis. I did not overlay their methods on what revival is.
And with regards to ontology I do consider it the fundamental layer to understanding anything, and that it flows from a doctrine of God as the ground of all being and existence, ie the to be of to be.
I don't know all that much about the "quiet revival" to which you are referring (from here in the US), but I appreciate the analysis. And I appreciate your conclusion: that God is in charge of all transformations of the heart and mind. We are invited to participate. Perhaps when the rest of the world feels shaky enough, more people are willing to surrender their own goals and agendas and let God be their guide. I find it requires a daily "yes" on my part.
This sublimates and subliminates pneumatology into ontology and does not engage with the real energetic soteriology of Revival. Martin Heidegger, Edmund Husserl and Peter Greig are adding nothing to understanding what Revival really is.
Did you mean: Reducing pneumatology to ontology risks abstracting revival into static categories of ‘being,’ rather than engaging with the Spirit’s dynamic and saving work. Revival is not first a philosophical problem, but a lived soteriological event. While philosophy and pastoral commentary can illuminate, they cannot substitute for the real work of the Spirit in renewal? If so I’d agree with you.
However that is not what Pete Greig has done. And I have used Husserl et al in very limited ways, ie their cautions about the dangers of over analysis. I did not overlay their methods on what revival is.
And with regards to ontology I do consider it the fundamental layer to understanding anything, and that it flows from a doctrine of God as the ground of all being and existence, ie the to be of to be.