Chapter 3: Resources for Theological Reflection
Our unique theological viewpoint should serve as a template that is overlaid upon our theological reflection and deliberation. These templates are patterns by which we view the world through Christian experience. Each person has his or her own one-of-a-kind theological template that comprises their embedded theology as well as certain themes and categories they feel personally inclined toward. It is the standard by which the rest of their theological experience is measured. Stone and Duke recall the concept of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral as primary resources for building a theological template—that is, the fourfold witness of experience, reason, tradition, and scripture. Each element must be tempered and balanced by the other three to construct a coherent theological template. Just how proportionately they are balanced, however, depends upon the individual.
Though
I have been aware of the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral since I was a young
teenager, I am only just beginning to consider what balance of authority I give
to each of these resource elements. This is extremely important, since how one
balances these resources determines their ultimate theological perspective. Too
much emphasis on experience leads to extreme subjectivism, while too much
emphasis on reason can cause one to cynically deny mystery. Too much tradition
leads to empty, passionless theology (and worship), while too much scripture
can lead one into “bibliolatry”.
In my own experience, I used to hold a theology that was about leaned very heavily on reason, a little less heavily experience, even less on scripture, and least of all on tradition. But now I am moving toward
a more balanced perspective. I have grown to appreciate tradition, to doubt the extent of reason's usefulness as the sole arbiter of truth, and to be skeptical of my own personal
experience (or lack thereof). I hope this act of balancing continues and
eventually becomes a long-term trend that helps me to stabilize my theology
and, ultimately, my humanity.
Chapter 4: Theological Method
Just as every good scientist makes
use of the scientific method, every good theologian needs to develop a set of
criteria for analyzing and evaluating where a particular theological claim finds
its grounding, how that claim is valued among other claims, and which
theological premises are to be taken as normative. To this end, Stone and Duke
suggest that it is important for the Christian theologian to develop his or her
own theological method (while taking cues from the methods of others). To do
this, one must examine their “starting point”: do they approach theology from
the perspective of human faith (anthropology) or from God’s message to the
world (divine revelation)? While there are advantages and disadvantages to
both, where one begins determines their ultimate approach to theology.
Next, those seeking deliberative
theological reflection must pursue in their method a creative balance between
sequential (linear) and parallel synthetic (abstract, big-picture) thought. The
authors suggest a that a rudimentary method for theological deliberation calls
for explicitly describing the issue being discussed in terms of the Christian
message, analyzing this understanding of the issue to better understand its
strengths and weaknesses, proposing an adequate solution to the problem, and
supporting and explaining the solution in theological terms. Finally, in this
chapter Stone and Duke lay the groundwork for the next three chapters that
represent three distinct approaches (diagnostic exercises) for doing
theological reflection.
I
am personally a more parallel synthetic thinker. I love to paint biblical
theology in broad, empathetic tones that helps others see the beauty of
scripture. When I was a youth pastor, the lead pastor of the church I was
serving told me that there are “big picture” people and “detail” people, and
the trick to accomplishing great things is to figure out how to pair these two
kinds of people together. The same is true of theological reflection. Linear
thinkers must train themselves in the discipline of abstraction and seeing the
ultimate goal of their logical thinking, and parallel synthetic thinkers must
likewise train themselves in the discipline of approaching and accomplishing their
theological vision step-by-step.
Chapter 5: The Gospel
This
first of three approaches to theological reflection involves determining what
the gospel is and what it means for a particular situation. Stone and Duke
provide three primary questions as a starting point for approaching theological
reflection in this manner: 1) What is the gospel? 2) How does the gospel reach
people? 3) How do people receive the gospel and its benefits? How one answers
these questions determines how one will approach the issue at hand
theologically. “Coming to an understanding of the gospel’s meaning,” claim the
authors, “is a bottom-line issue for every Christian theologian” (p.75). The
case study of a couple from a church congregation presenting a self-help
“refinding yourself” lecture at church represents just how a situation might be
differently perceived depending on one’s own interpretation of the gospel.
Answering
these questions for myself is not simple. As my training is primarily in
biblical studies, I am keenly aware of the sheer variety of views even
(especially) within the biblical text itself. I agree with John Dominic Crossan
that “good news is good news” and cannot be quantified in a way that means
“good news for some, bad news for others.” Therefore, I try to approach the
gospel holistically: it is the announcement that Christ, in his teaching,
death, and resurrection, has been shown by God to be God’s hope for the
potential of humanity. The gospel is that God had revealed for us in the risen
Christ a liberating and reconciling force for both the oppressed and
oppressors.
No comments:
Post a Comment