18 April, 2011

mondays are for deep thoughts, ep. 1: historical-critical critics

Studying theology academically (or, generally speaking, just being a post-Enlightened westerner) can have some major drawbacks, foremost among them being the tendency to analyze Christian Scripture into an impotent stew of historical-psychological-sociological lab experiments instead of a double-edged sword to be eyed warily lest we find ourselves actually being (gasp!) remade by its power, or at least offended by its claims. Take it away Jürgen,

I imagine that I step behind the pulpit in a church and preach in order to proclaim the Gospel and, if possible, awaken the faith.  But those who sit in the pew don't listen to my words.  A historian is there who examines critically facts about which I am speaking; a psychologist is there who analyzes my psyche which reveals itself in my speech; a cultural anthropologist is there who is identifying the class to which I belong and as whose representative he believes I am functioning.  Everybody is analyzing me and my context, but nobody is listening to what I want to say.  And the worst thing is: nobody is disagreeing with me, nobody wants to discuss with me what I have just said.

-Jürgen Moltmann, as quoted by Miroslav Volf

This idea finds me at a good moment, as my wife and I are, together, reading some Reflections for Holy Week. The offense of the cross is getting ever more, well, offensive, that is, if I'll let it.  

No comments: