Rantings of a Wanna-Be Theologian
A good friend sent me an e-mail regarding my correspondence with N.T. Wright. In it, he remarked about how he is fascinated by the Bishop's humility in interacting "with us wanna-be theologians." I fully agree with my friend's comments, in a number of respects, e.g., Bishop Wright's humility, the "wanna-be" aspect of (my, at least) theological endeavors.
But then, I got to thinking. I tend to do that from time to time, and this friend's comments tend to get me going in that direction.
"Wanna-be theologian..."
"Wanna-be theologian..."
"...theologian..."
This is gonna be nebulous, but I'll give it a shot.
Over the last few days, I've encountered a few writings that, stronger and stronger, impress upon me how much I don't want to be a theologian, or to expend much energy in such "-ogy" endeavors. And I say this in the "study of God as science" sense in which the term is used. Mind you, I would venture to guess that no one else would read these individual items and come away feeling like I'm feeling. These are unique to me, I'm aware, but inasmuch as they've served as a catalyst for my growing distaste for "theology per se" ...
There was a reply to a comment I left to a post about "one of the few areas of N.T. Wright's theology with which [the blogger] agrees," which commenced with the following lines:
I am of the opinion that Christianity is a system of doctrine. While I don’t agree with any notion of a central dogma, I do believe that Christianity is a full orbed system, comprehensive in scope. It’s one big package, and it all hangs together.
Then, there's this book I'm reading called Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be. Maybe you've heard of it. I'm just getting started on it, maybe 60-70 pages in. And I've glanced at a number of reviews, etc., in the blogosphere, and the overarching consensus is that these guys have "a generous but valid critique" of the emerging conversation. And I see the generosity. Actually, its kind of funny how the book reads much like an emergent critique of the modern church, just the other way around.
The book starts off expressing frustration about how trying to critique the movement is like "trying to nail Jell-O to a wall." In other words, the authors are frustrated that they cannot pin the movement down to one set of articulable beliefs. It sounds like the same frustration that the scribes and the Pharisees must have felt.
But I digress.
Like I said, I see the "generous" part, but I don't get much of where the critique is, outside the hidden argument that "these emergent guys are saying things that don't jive with our Reformed tradition, and the foundations on which that tradition is based." In other words, the line of thought (so far, to be fair) is that "these emerging types are saying A, B, and C, but since we know that Luther and Calvin said C, D, and E, be weary of them and their newfangled efforts to get you to forget D and E."
There I go again, reducing a conversation to A's, B's and C's.
I really hate this.
I must stop.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
But then, I got to thinking. I tend to do that from time to time, and this friend's comments tend to get me going in that direction.
"Wanna-be theologian..."
"Wanna-be theologian..."
"...theologian..."
This is gonna be nebulous, but I'll give it a shot.
Over the last few days, I've encountered a few writings that, stronger and stronger, impress upon me how much I don't want to be a theologian, or to expend much energy in such "-ogy" endeavors. And I say this in the "study of God as science" sense in which the term is used. Mind you, I would venture to guess that no one else would read these individual items and come away feeling like I'm feeling. These are unique to me, I'm aware, but inasmuch as they've served as a catalyst for my growing distaste for "theology per se" ...
There was a reply to a comment I left to a post about "one of the few areas of N.T. Wright's theology with which [the blogger] agrees," which commenced with the following lines:
I am of the opinion that Christianity is a system of doctrine. While I don’t agree with any notion of a central dogma, I do believe that Christianity is a full orbed system, comprehensive in scope. It’s one big package, and it all hangs together.
Then, there's this book I'm reading called Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be. Maybe you've heard of it. I'm just getting started on it, maybe 60-70 pages in. And I've glanced at a number of reviews, etc., in the blogosphere, and the overarching consensus is that these guys have "a generous but valid critique" of the emerging conversation. And I see the generosity. Actually, its kind of funny how the book reads much like an emergent critique of the modern church, just the other way around.
The book starts off expressing frustration about how trying to critique the movement is like "trying to nail Jell-O to a wall." In other words, the authors are frustrated that they cannot pin the movement down to one set of articulable beliefs. It sounds like the same frustration that the scribes and the Pharisees must have felt.
But I digress.
Like I said, I see the "generous" part, but I don't get much of where the critique is, outside the hidden argument that "these emergent guys are saying things that don't jive with our Reformed tradition, and the foundations on which that tradition is based." In other words, the line of thought (so far, to be fair) is that "these emerging types are saying A, B, and C, but since we know that Luther and Calvin said C, D, and E, be weary of them and their newfangled efforts to get you to forget D and E."
There I go again, reducing a conversation to A's, B's and C's.
I really hate this.
I must stop.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
0 Comments:
Post a Comment