Now that I have finished all my seminary obligations, I am free to do more theology on my own terms. I have a desire to build a theological system from the ground up and perhaps I can satisfy this desire through blogging. The first task is to work out a good starting point and there are many to choose from. Finding a suitable definition for God would be a logical place to begin, but given the wealth of possible information from sacred texts and from every theologian who ever lived, a comprehensive doctrine of God is just too broad of a foundation to build on. There is also a humanistic temptation of starting with the definition of humanity and then fitting God into it somehow. Problems with that kind of anthropocentrism include idolatry of the human form (believing humanity to be God, or at the very least believing that humanity is the most important life form in the universe) or a severe downgrade of humanity (we're all just psychotic apes after all).
Both of these options illustrate a fundamental tension of the theological task. In order to build theology we need information. Information about God comes by revelation from either an outside source (sacred text, tradition) or an inside source (reason, experience). So, the Wesleyan quadrilateral emerges. Christian purists might contend that John Wesley meant for the sacred text (specifically the Christian Scriptures) to be the primary source for theology and the other three categories are meant to be illumined by the Scriptures. Such an idealistic stance may be commendable, but in reality the quadrilateral is more descriptive than prescriptive. It is a mistake to pretend that our understanding of sacred texts is not informed and colored by our tradition, reason, and experience, let alone pretend that sacred texts are not a product of ancient text, tradition, reason, and experience.
Let me be clear that I do believe in the Christian Scriptures (this includes both Old and New Testaments in the Christian canon). They are extremely helpful and formative for both personal and public faith, as well as for society as a whole. As a foundation and starting point for theology, they are ambiguous at best and even contradictory at certain points. This is not itself a bad thing. Healthy theology will contain a certain level of ambiguity and paradox. The danger with any sacred text, specifically as it pertains to theology, comes in an uncritical and unrealistic elevation of its importance. This can be a form of idolatry, as it can effectively silence God's revelation through other sources.
Most of my writing will fall in the reason corner of the quadrilateral. This is not to say that the other three corners are less important or somehow irrelevant, or that my own thinking is the sole authoritative source of revelation. My goal is primarily apologetic, meaning to talk about theology through the language of reason with the intent of inviting readers into a deeper engagement with the Divine. It will be strongly Christian and particularly colored by Anabaptist, Radical Pietist, and Reformed traditions. You may recognize allusions to Scripture and you may detect hints of theologians that I have read. I may even drop a name on occasion. This is not intended to be academic writing and I am not as of yet seeking to make any profit through writing, so please kindly excuse any unintended plagiarism.
So, I have strung a bunch of words together without really answering my original question. As a Christian, I believe that my theology should begin with Jesus Christ. This is by no means the only place to begin building a theology, but it is my conviction that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ are lenses through which we can look at God and mirrors through which we can look at ourselves as human beings. However, this is still a rather large foundation to start building upon. I suppose, though, that foundation as a metaphor demands a certain breadth. The foundation needs to be at least as wide as the structure you intend to build and must be able to support the height of said structure. A single foundation may also support several structures that may or may not be connected in any other way. Jesus Christ is a big enough foundation for many theologies.
Perhaps cornerstone is a better metaphor. What is the first and most important stone to be laid? I am inclined to give the same answer. So I begin with an unavoidable paradox. Jesus Christ is both the foundation and the corner stone. As if things were not confusing enough, there is an alternate translation of capstone, or keystone, instead of corner stone. From the start, the language of reason shows it's limitations when it comes to theology. Jesus Christ, the foundation, cornerstone, capstone, and keystone confounds reason. Yet, this is where this reasoned theology starts.
Perhaps the whole task of building a theology is flawed to begin with. I can say that Jesus Christ is the foundation, but then I have to say what my understanding of Jesus Christ is. Even the foundation must be built. Maybe there really is no foundation and theology is more like building a house of cards. Someone or something can easily come along and knock it down. So, I will at least continue to string words and ideas about God together, even if I do not really say anything at all. Maybe others will be inspired to think more deeply about things, or maybe it will help me continue to sort things out for myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment