Forthcoming this November from Baker Academic is Mary Veeneman’s Introducing theological Method: A Survey of Contemporary Theologians and Approaches. According to the book’s blub, Sound theological method is a necessary prerequisite for good theological work. This accessible introduction surveys contemporary theological methodology by presenting leading thinkers of the twentieth and twenty-first…
The God of the historic Christian faith then is fatherly and kind. He is a good, faithful, compassionate and genuinely forgiving patron. True at-one-ment can never be understood apart from the light of an Athanasian or Cappadocian (i.e. Jewish and Biblical) understanding of the Trinity. The Incarnation must not undue the true nature of the atonement (as is so often the case when so many get snagged and falter from enlightenment methodologies, or academic pursuits of was the Trinity undone when Christ cried out his existential [not ontological] anguish as he prayed the Psalms in and to his death), rather it must frame it. It was a man (the God-man) on the cross after all.
So much of what nowadays passes for theology is done from a victorian scientific method.Sterile, neat clean and ‘objective’. The method that is. The conclusions however are mostly horrifying.
The historic faith executed their theological method noticeably differently. While objective or public readings and understanding mastered, these readings found their true purchase in the context of covenant and relationship. They started with Nicene and Chalcedonian dogma (as rooted in the Jewish prophets and in the new Israel of Sts. John, Paul and Peter) and worked from Christ to man. The conclusions were pastorally comforting as they reaffirmed the self emptying love of God.
The categories used in Second Temple Judaism are that of the Cappadocians. The categories of the premodern Cappadocians overlap the plight of modern and postmodern man: Shame and Honor, Purity and Pollution, Patronage and Kinship. These categories of culture, social and rhetorical reality are also the categories used by the two-thirds majority world.
While the debates of the person and work of Christ are being waged around us, the richness of the historical faith is being missed. The historical Jesus, the deity of Christ, the reality of the Trinity, the nature and extent of the atonement are not evil pursuits in and of themselves. They matter. Yet, often we would argue - their pursuits are marred by faulty (scientific) theology.
A brief illustration: The faith of Christ and the vicarious humanity of Christ as perfect penitent.
The cross, we would assert, did not and does not make God become more gracious toward man. The incarnation must be represented in the work of Christ’s redeeming reconciliation of man. More importantly, so much the fact that we were reconciled to God in Christ, NOT God to us. The cross was not wrestling forgiveness from God. It was not appeasing a blood thirsty God. God was already on the move, seeking to win our wayward hearts back to himself.
Rooting the atonement in the Incarnation and vicarious humanity of Christ, we can see that this is genuine at-one-ment, one firmly rooted in God’s self revelation. Forgiveness preceded atonement in that the incarnation was the context of Christ’s kenotic actions including his passion, yes, but also his ascension. Atonement comes from the self manifestation of a loving God, NOT the other way around, that is, it is not its cause.
Scripture is neither a book of statutes nor a dogmatic textbook but the foundational source of theology. As the Word of God, not only its exact words but also the inferences legitimately drawn from it have binding authority.
-- Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2, 297.
On what I mean when I say "I am boringly orthodox"
Frequently, whether in discussions with the Glit or when discoursing with the various Christians and non-Christians I call myself "boringly orthodox". It has occurred to me that the meaning of this term might be somewhat opaque to my readers, especially given the fact that there is no particular theological tradition that identify with or worth within. (and in fact, the tradition I admire the most, Neo-Thomism, I strongly disagree with the church it exists within). What follows is an explanation of what I consider orthodoxy, and why I view my particular version of orthodoxy as quite boring.
For me, Orthodoxy is not just the adherence to a particular set of correct doctrines about God, but also a particular way of trying to discover truths about God. The rightness of an orthodox belief comes from reflection upon what the Church (in general) has said about God, What the Biblical texts (read as thoughtfully as possible) seem to say about God, and reflection on how these datums could possibly be incorporated into a coherent theology in dialogue with our philosophical understanding of the universe. In particular, I believe that orthodox theology should seek to build upon past ways of understanding God, and supplement rather than supplant as much as possible.
A solid example of this can be found in some of my exchanges with biblicalbelief (A quite intelligent individual who differs from me substantially on a number of issues) (follow him if you don't already). Usually, he'll present some well-founded critique of a naive picture of God. The options I have are to a). Absolutely deny his critique. b). Accept his critique. c). Use materials present in the tradition (or at least amenable to the tradition) to answer his critique and better qualify our effort to understand God. My contention is that the appropriate method as a Christian scholar is, on most issues, to aim at using critiques to better elucidate what the traditional concept really means.
This does not mean that we never whole-heartedly reject a particular way of understanding God. Periodically there are perspectives which are sufficiently damaging or problematic (including some that are widely accepted within the broader framework of Christianity) on which there can be no compromise. For example, up to a certain point Gnosticism can serve as a quite useful tool to better develop an understanding of Christianity. But eventually, one does have to choose whether one prioritizes the Gnostic tradition over the now-dominant tradition. One must be in dialogue with various perspectives so that what we are trying to say can be defined in relation to those perspectives. However, there does become a point at which we must ask whether we should keep our current perspective or adopt a different one. For me, what the Orthodox individual aims at is to better articulate the tradition of the church, the reflections of those who have gone before, while still participating actively within that tradition.
I consider myself boringly orthodox for reasons closely related to this. I don't consider it my place to try and offer a radically new picture of God, and I view such efforts as problematic. For reasons largely similar to Maritain in introduction to Metaphysics, forsaking the traditional conception of God entirely seems to me to give up the insights of that tradition and imagine that one visionary genius today "got it". There is plenty of room for qualification and development within the traditional vision IMO, and it is to misunderstand the nature of theology to imagine that it works like the sciences do. All men and women, IMO who are truly theological in their vision are aiming at talking about the same God. The particular insight of the Christian tradition (in philosophy, not in Theology) is not that this dialogue was unnecessary, but rather God enters into this dialogue via the incarnation. God is not beyond dialogue, but deigns to participate in it. Together with all who have gone before, we seek insight into this same thing. When we try to proclaim a radical break with past, we delude ourselves into believing that we see something new; when in fact we only tend to absolutize some element of the traditional picture.
This is why, despite my interest and deep intellectual awe of such figures as Whitehead, Hartshorne (and presumably Caputo and such once I get to reading them), I must part ways with them, for this reason. They imagine that theology is like a science, where a new insight must replace what has gone before, rather than being a deepening of past insight. I'd contend that this is a rather silly form of presentism; whether present among those who call themselves "Bible-believing" Christians or the various Liberal and Neo-Orthodox communities. Let us approach our God with humility, and remember that others have done the same.
However, this approach is boring because it slowly builds upon what has been said before, rather than providing the sort of sweeping critique, that while exciting (and often incredibly useful to spurring actual development within the orthodox community), often ends up neglecting the actual development of the Christian Faith in the excitement of saying something new.
A last few notes. 1). Often appeals to tradition are in order to support an existing social order and hierarchy, this is not what we see in the scriptures generally (especially in those most directly concerned with issues of justice). It is very clear in the letters of Paul that even if a particular social structure remains in place, its function should be radically transformed by the presence of Christian love. (to what extent that is practical is an important question and expansion upon the Pauline themes).
2). The appeal to tradition does not mean no historic doctrine can ever be rendered less important. For example, I prefer to develop a way of talking about predestination that coheres differently with the ordering of the world and salvation, but still preserves some of the intuitions that underlay the Calvinist system rather than simply rejecting the concept. But I would de-emphasize the importance of predestination as a central theme in any scheme of understanding God, viewing it more as an incidental truth from other properties.
3). A major problem of using tradition is that it tends to focus on dominant groups within society in a given time period, and perhaps does not represent genuine piety among groups with good understandings of God, who did not have access to the resources need for recording their thoughts. I'm not sure how to remedy this, but perhaps an intellectual version of thoughtful preference for the oppressed and broken in a Christian Theology might be necessary as a fourth-leg in Christian theology, or as a part of our rational evaluation of any system. Something like if your Christian theology does not result in bringing healing to the poor, broken, and outcast spiritually, socially, physically; if we do not like Christ bring healing to those who are broken on all levels of the human being, that theological system has problems. Similarly, if our theological system does not attack injustice, misuse of religion for personal advantage, and is not based broadly rather than absolutizing one part of God (likely the part we like), then it is not a religious system whose priorities align with those that Christ demonstrated here on Earth, and has failed as a Christian system. (Though as a part of the tradition, it might still need to be built upon, because it is part of this looking-towards-God).
4). Doubting Orthodox beliefs is fine, good, and understandable. The point is not to reject doubt of these beliefs, but rather to see what deeper insight into that belief might reveal.
"This ebook is now not supposed only for other folkss starting formal theological analysis. Rather, Stone and Duke argue that each one believers are theologians because they all wish to interpret their very own are livings within the mild of biblical totally different norms.... The authors at all times take nice aches to supply an evidence for the whole thing, Simplicity is their intention, and so they reap it." The Christian Century
"Stone and Duke have produced a readable and helpful primer on theological reflection. Their clear, comprehensive means is illustrated by the use of a amount of vignettes, instances, case research, and diagnostic exercises. A a hit introduction to the follow of theology!" Don R..How to Think Theologically, 2nd Edition
