| | I was reading an assignment for one of my classes, which happens to be
two treatises one by Emil Brunner, and one by Karl Barth who has
heralded in this era in the protestant age of "knowing God". Written
and published in 1934 these treatises are very systematic and
scientific in layout and proposal. Here is a brief excerpt to show my
point:
I
have formulated them as Barth's opinions as best as I can. I am
not perfectly certain however, whether I have hit upon ever shade of
Barth's opinion.
In what follows I set out:
- My counter-theses witha very brief scriptural proof.
- A discussion of its relation in the history of dogma to the Reformation, to Thomism and to Neo-Protestantism.
- A concluding discussion of the theological and practical
signifigance of the controversy, i.e. of the interest of theology and
the Church in the rejection of the conclsions which Barth draws from
his correct fundamental position.
Many times I remember reading in Blue Like Jazz that Miller is tired of himself and others thinking of Religion in such a mathematical
way. The truth is, perhaps Miller is looking at the wrong thing, in
essence Miller while using post-modernist thought and arguing against
modernist thought, is indeed employing a modernist argument to
post-modernist people who are using modernist ideas of knowledge, and
he is doing this under the guise of post-modernism.
Now that was rather wordy and perhaps hard to follow, but let me
explain. Where Miller sees mathematical and regulated ways of talking
at the Bible, I see that as just another way at looking at the Bible as
looking at it relationally. Miller is constructing a fundamental
theology based on narrative and relationship, while at the same time
expecting those who look at it rationally as inherently wrong or biased against this.
If he were a true adherent to post-modernism he would be apt to say
that both are paths to finding God, regardless of whether or not he can
see it from the point of view presented through Rationality and the
scientific method.
Don't take me wrong here, but I am niether a supporter or opponent to
either of these views, I think that both have their own nuance and
tact, and in their own rights are different means to the same end. I
will say this though, experientially I can understand a systemetic way
of thinking, I am prone to do so, often times.
I use the example of Emil Brunner above to say one thing: Because he is
systematically understanding the Bible and our interaction with it
(I.e. Scriptural proofs, a 3-point outline) does not mean that his
understanding/faith in God is any more or less important than Don
Millers.
Let us free ourselves of negating each other's clearly God given
talents and join hands and work to the glory of his kingdom. In other
words: let's get along. Let us also not forget the beauty of both
systems of thought: without rational systematic "modern" thought our
world of ease and technology would never have ascended to become what
it is now, and without relational and narrative theology our
understanding of Christ and the move towards civil rights would not be
as far progressed as it has become. In the end, without the narrative
of Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr. might not have been such a determined
or peaceful protester.
|
| | Posted 1/3/2006 7:27 PM - 31 Views - 0 eProps - 0 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
