Don, thank you for taking
the time to respond. (To Brian’s
article about the River East Borderland proposal.) I think the way
you interpreted my metaphor (which, admittedly, has shortcomings) reveals a
basic difference between our two different approaches to theological
reflection. In my thinking, there is only one conductor. There can be only one
conductor—Jesus.
All members of the metaphorical choir are subject
to the direction of the Great Conductor, and he is the one who calls the tune.
Our work is concerned with the task of playing our parts faithfully.
However presumptuous or arrogant it may seem for
me to insist that the established position represents what we believe to be the
direction of Jesus, in my view it is more problematic to consider the
implications of participating in a choir with multiple conductors, all of whom
are presuming to give leadership to the group.
It would be truly arrogant to insist on a
theological direction that originated in the ruminations of a group wielding
its own authority.
What MBs confess is the product of group reflection on what Scripture leads us to agree together. What has changed has changed for specific reasons, not because of the presumed inevitability of change itself.
On a related note, my working assumption about the nature of theology itself is that it is secondary reflection on God's self-revelation. It is not ultimately the product of human ingenuity, however sophisticated or well-intended.
So what I have argued is not a truth I presume to have invented or mastered. Rather, it is a truth to which I am bound to be subject, and I do not pretend to have any advantage over anyone else.
Brian Cooper is Associate Professor of theology at MB
Seminary.
This is a fascinating discussion between Brian Cooper & Don Peter on the blog. Cooper suggests that the theological conductor is Jesus-- admitting that it could sound arrogant to suggest his position represents Jesus. Don Peter's suggests that we "encourage the conductor to try a little new music"-- which views the conductor less in terms of a relationship to Jesus' Lordship and more in terms of denominational and community discernment. It occurs to me that there are so many parallels to this discussion and the discussions between Karl Barth & the whole stream of natural theology, as represented in the discussion between Barth and his interocular Schleiermacher.
ReplyDeleteSchleiermacher’s theology attempted to place human beings at its centre. Natural theology presupposes, “a union of man with God existing outside God’s revelation in Jesus Christ.” (CD II/1, 168) In other words, natural theology goes behind the back of Jesus Christ seeking after a knowledge of God, apart from Jesus Christ. Schleiermacher’s theology attempted to place human beings at its center, making knowledge of God in truth knowledge of ourselves. Barth learned this from his teachers in liberal theology, but rejected it later so fiercely because he discovered that this speaking of God as man in an elevated tone is a false start; ultimately it denies God the freedom to be God over and against human beings. Natural theology reduces theology to anthropology, that is, to the study of human beings. Barth famously rejected this approach by saying:
“One can not speak of God simply by speaking of man in a loud voice.” (The Word of God and the Word of Man, 196)
It seems like some questions folks will have to wrestle with as they engage Don Peter & Brian Cooper's discussion will be:
What do we make of revelation?
Is theology ultimately anthropological? (Us in a loud voice)
Who is the conductor?
How much weight do we give to historical interpretive tradition?