Theological Specificity or Religious Pluralism?

“…any analysis of religion and Christianity does them a disservice if it ignores the particular conceptual definitions they entail.  For example, if someone says that “faith” is a matter of general or basic trust in another, Kierkegaard would respond that such an analysis lacks precision and rigor.  What is necessary is to specify the particular conceptual determination of Christian “faith,” especially its orientation to Christ, its relations to a failure in self-understanding (which Christians call “sin”), and so forth.  Any analysis that does not take into account the particularities of the Christian concept of “faith” is then open to confusing that faith with all manner of other types of “faith.”       – Kierkegaard as Religious Thinker by David J. Gouwens, 53

Although the preceding quote does not deal directly with religious pluralism, I could not help but to make some interesting connections.  First and foremost, any discussion I’ve had or heard concerning religious pluralsim has been limited to a discussion about religious generalities (e.g. love, faith, forgiveness, the solidarity of humankind).  What seems to absent is how the particularites of any given religion factors into the discussion.  This does mean that no fruit can come from inter-religious dialogue.  However, I think the fruit of such a dialogue must begin with honesty.  More often than not, honesty precedes clarity.   We are usually least clear when we are least honest.  Your thoughts?

Bonhoeffer on Costly Grace

On Wednesday nights a few of us guys get together to discuss theology, philosophy, politics, and other topics of interests.  To guide our conversations we typically have some sort of text which we read as a group.  Last week, we decided that Bonhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship would be our next venture.  Today, I finished reading his chapter on Costly Grace and thought it would be a good post.

Bonhoeffer begins his book by theologically asserting that discipleship accompanies grace.  Consequently, when discipleship fails to do so, it becomes cheap.  Bonhoeffer sets up his discussion on “Costly Grace” in dialectical fashion by comparing it to what it is not, that is, “Cheap Grace.” 

Bonhoeffer states:

“Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession.  Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has.  It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods.  It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.

Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.

Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ…”

-The Cost of Discipleship, pg. 45

What stands out to me, besides the “theological haymakers,” is how Bonhoeffer brings out the elusive nature of grace.  He shows just how quickly the Church can get sidetracked and off-mission.  As I was reading Bonhoeffer, I was reminded of the numerous OT exhortations for God’s people to “remember.”  With that in mind, I leave you with a verse and with an exhortation for you to “remember” God’s grace in your life.

 Deuteronomy 15:15  You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.

Dialogical Theology

What types of images does your mind seem to evoke when you hear the term “theology?”  Do you picture some old man sitting in an ivory towering, contemplating lofty ideas, which seem to pass over the minds of simpletons?  Or perhaps more positively, you picture a great theologian (such as Augustine) sitting in solitude and reading big dusty books.  Or maybe more negatively, you imagine some unidentified blogger taking cheap-shots at your favorite minister or preacher.   Unfortunately, these are the some of the activities done under the guise of theology.  If this is so…then it should come to no surprise that most Christians find little to no interest in doing theology.  On the hand, theology does constitute reading, studying, increasing one’s vocabulary to include multi-syllabic words, and of course—a good deal of contemplation as well.  However, doing theology is not tantamount to living the monastic life or committing oneself to being a social recluse.

When I think of theology, I typically think of Starbucks (where I do most of my reading).  I also think of having great conversations about God with some of my closest Christian friends as well as with some of the great saints of the past.  In a sense, what I am doing is defining “theology” as simply “God-talk,” rather than taking the more typical definition, “study of God.”  However, defining theology as simply “God-talk” seems to me to reek of postmodern naiveté.  This is where my post heading, “Dialogical Theology” comes into play.  The aim of dialogical theology is to retain the rigorous study of theology, while at the same time, bringing that study into conversation with others. 

           In his book, How to Read Karl Barth, George Hunsinger states:

“Barth’s theology in the Church Dogmatics could be compared to the cathedral of Chartres.  Once one’s eyes get used to the light, one discovers that one is inside an awesome and many-splendored structure, soaring with vaulted arches, arrayed with intricate passage-ways, adorned with exquisite statuary, and crowned above all by rose windows dancing with fire.  The problem, then, is for one’s eyes to get used to the light.  But once they do, no other architecture, no other theology, is likely to be quite the same.  Back in the light of day, some contemporary theologies will begin to look more like lecture halls than cathedrals, others will stand out as respectable but limited sanctuaries, still others perhaps as monuments to suburban kitsch.  There will of course be other cathedrals to visit, but they will have been constructed long ago.  One effect of getting to know the cathedral of Barth’s theology is that it can help one appreciate the older cathedrals and make one want to spend time in them, too.  But none of this will happen if one leaves the cathedral before one’s eyes get used to the light.”  (Hunsinger, 27-28)

Hunsinger’s statement concerning the theology of Karl Barth is pertinent to our discussion of dialogical theology.  What Hunsinger is essentially saying is this: Karl Barth is a good conversation partner for anyone desiring to discuss theology.  This brings up an interesting point in that most theologians we read about, had at some point, a theologian that they were in constant dialogue with.  For example, John Calvin constantly quotes and converses with Augustine throughout his works (some four thousand times in the Institutes alone).  Today many theologians and ministers take Calvin, Luther, Barth and others as their conversation partners.

Who is your conversation partner?  Who is your theological heavyweight?

Welcome to Bloggerville

I’m new at this website thing…so give me some time!