There are few places I'd rather be this Friday at 3:15pm than Wheaton, Illinois. In the Edman Chapel at Wheaton College, N.T. Wright and Richard Hays will be clearing their throats and testing their microphones as they prepare to take part in a panel discussion including audience Q & A. I don't know what they will be discussing. It could be the subtle differences between Lidl and Aldi for all I care. When those two are breathing the same air, that's worth checking out if you have ears to hear.
I have three favourite Christian scholars/authors. The above make up two of those three, with Walter Brueggemann being the third. I like to think each bring something important to the table which complements the other two, but with all three sharing much the same vision for the faith and its scholarship. Brueggemann is an Old Testament scholar, whose writing is simultaneously rooted in age-old faith but also capable of stirring up radical newness. Wright is Mr New Testament. He can say more in a sentence than most can in a book. The church is blessed to have him among us, though I think future generations of Christians will be more blessed by Wright than we are. We are too close, too stuck in the tired, old ways of thinking that Wright strives to root up. Hays, then, completes the trinity. He is like a mixture of the other two, with much of his work bridging the gap between old and new testaments. He is also a remarkable reader of texts, capable of the kind of imaginative reading (and writing) that brings words to life. Moreso than the other two, I can read Hays simply for pleasure.
I don't have a set theology. I don't have a view on baptism, I don't subscribe to either side of the predestination debate, and I haven't even begun to plumb the depths of a theology of the cross. To be honest, I don't have much time for systematic theology, with all my doctrinal i's dotted and all my doctrinal t's crossed. Perhaps this is naive of me, but at the moment I'm happy not to be one of those people with a long list of beliefs that must be defended at all costs. In other words, I'm happy not to be reformed. (Zing!)
Credit (or indeed blame) for this lack of a rigid theology must go to the above three authors, along with biblical scholar Arden Autry. They have taught me a way to read the Bible that avoids using it merely as a source for doctrine, and instead uses it as a means for knowing and engaging with the living God. Doctrines have their place, but even demons have doctrines (note to self: a good title for a future book). What they don't have is God as Father and fellowship with his sons and daughters, and all the possibilities these relationships entail. Brueggemann, Wright and Hays always bring such possibilities to light. They are able to spark a conversion of the imagination by bringing it into contact with an unsettling God, leaving one ever surprised by hope.
I have three favourite Christian scholars/authors. The above make up two of those three, with Walter Brueggemann being the third. I like to think each bring something important to the table which complements the other two, but with all three sharing much the same vision for the faith and its scholarship. Brueggemann is an Old Testament scholar, whose writing is simultaneously rooted in age-old faith but also capable of stirring up radical newness. Wright is Mr New Testament. He can say more in a sentence than most can in a book. The church is blessed to have him among us, though I think future generations of Christians will be more blessed by Wright than we are. We are too close, too stuck in the tired, old ways of thinking that Wright strives to root up. Hays, then, completes the trinity. He is like a mixture of the other two, with much of his work bridging the gap between old and new testaments. He is also a remarkable reader of texts, capable of the kind of imaginative reading (and writing) that brings words to life. Moreso than the other two, I can read Hays simply for pleasure.
I don't have a set theology. I don't have a view on baptism, I don't subscribe to either side of the predestination debate, and I haven't even begun to plumb the depths of a theology of the cross. To be honest, I don't have much time for systematic theology, with all my doctrinal i's dotted and all my doctrinal t's crossed. Perhaps this is naive of me, but at the moment I'm happy not to be one of those people with a long list of beliefs that must be defended at all costs. In other words, I'm happy not to be reformed. (Zing!)
Credit (or indeed blame) for this lack of a rigid theology must go to the above three authors, along with biblical scholar Arden Autry. They have taught me a way to read the Bible that avoids using it merely as a source for doctrine, and instead uses it as a means for knowing and engaging with the living God. Doctrines have their place, but even demons have doctrines (note to self: a good title for a future book). What they don't have is God as Father and fellowship with his sons and daughters, and all the possibilities these relationships entail. Brueggemann, Wright and Hays always bring such possibilities to light. They are able to spark a conversion of the imagination by bringing it into contact with an unsettling God, leaving one ever surprised by hope.
that sounds good...what Bible are you reading btw....we do need our eyes opened, continually..what is it about us...we want everthing in neat little packages...we run away from relationships..i remember a guy, who was not a christian, a few years ago, saying to me, that God was all about "Relationships"...i nearly fell over...it sounded a bit like Pilate prophesying that, it would be better, if "One" Man could die for the Nation, before the actual Crucifixion...
ReplyDelete