В концовке статьи Джона Уэбстера о Барте и постмодернистской антропологии я обнаружил программу для богословия будущего, которая срезонировала с моими собственными идеями. Надо сказать, что выводы Уэбстера никак, на мой взгляд, не вытекают из основной части статьи, где он описывает антропологию Барта. Но это не лишает их ценности!
Прошу прощения за то, что не перевел на русский - просто нет времени. Кратко программа для богословия будущего выглядит так:
1. Реализм. Бог реален. Бог есть. Идеализм и номинализм ошибаются.
2. Экзегезис - основной инструмент богословия. Изучение Священного Писания как свидетельства о Божьем откровении. Изучение в свете богословского наследия.
3. Будущее богословие в том, чтобы заниматься богословием: спокойно, радостно, смиренно, с удивлением, покаянием, настойчивостью, надеждой.
First, I am unconvinced that Christian theology
can long survive after we have silenced the questions which arise from the
impulse which I would call metaphysical. That is, Christian theology involves
claims about the substance of the world, its givenness and its purpose or
character. Nominalism or pure idealism serve Christian theology no better than
the wrong sort of realism, which postmodern thinkers have been quick to
identify as the corruption of the Western theological tradition. Christian realism will have some strongly
determinative features which will not allow it to dovetail neatly with other
kind of realism – features which are derived from the kinds of claims made by
Christian faith about the nature and purpose of the self-manifesting God and
the modes of his activity in the world. But, if these features teach us caution
about being over fluent in our speech of God’s reality, they do not counsel
pure irony, or the kind of silence before God which is all too easily an empty
space to be filled in by all manner of projections. Seeing, knowing, speaking
are intrinsic to Christian faith, and without them neither its dogmatics nor
its ethics would have any real bulwark against the riot of the imagination.
Second: Christian theology works well when it
emerges from slow, patient, deliberate reading of the canon of Christian text –
above all, the scriptural canon, and then by derivation the family of
commentary traditions which Scripture has evoked and nourished. In their
introduction, the editors of Radical of Radical Orthodoxy note that Barthianism
“can tend to the ploddingly exegetical” – the implication being that the
intellectual stylish theology of the future is to take the form of some sort of
their own collage of “exegesis, cultural reflection and philosophy”. But: the
future of Christian theology is exegesis, plodding or otherwise. Particularly
in the current context, exegesis is our necessary first task because we are so
little acquainted with the Christian faith as it encounters us in the prophetic
and apostolic witness and as it has been received in the reading and teaching
of the people of God. This is – emphatically- not to issue a call that the
future of Christian theology is or lies in a renewal of “textuality”. It is
rather to say that theology derives from attention to God, and attention is
directed to God by obedient listening to Holy Scripture. …
Third: The future of Christian theology is
simply a matter of doing theology: calmly, cheerfully and humbly, with
astonishment, repentance, vigilance, hope and joy. (Webster,
John. “Rescuing the Subject: Barth and Postmodern Anthropology” in Karl Barth: A Future for Postmodern
Theology? Hindmarsh: Australian Theological Forum, 2001, pp. 67-69)
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий