vol 2

I’ve had a couple mental breakthroughs on my larger project at the moment: an application of post-metaphysics to Biblical theology.

It will do a couple of things (a la Integral Politics)

  • 1)Index through dominant perspectives the major schools of Biblical interpretation already in existence.
  • 2)Having seen that, offer a more inclusive vision. (Theory)
  • 3)Point towards a deeper, more liberating, biblical praxis.

The reason I think to do this, this general view, is simply to breathe some more air/consciousness into the otherwise currently cramped environs. I also hope it could go some way to bridging gaps between academic theology and local churches/believers. Particularly to do something about the horrific state of preaching in most churches.

And further to point to the Biblical texts as the main spring of all theological thinking. I’m not particularly impressed by so much non-Biblical theology. [This btw is why showing the deep Biblical nature of the mystical path is so important–to counter charges that it is a non-Biblical, even pagan, import].

I take very seriously Wilber’s notion of freedom through limitation. That the real “enemy” (as it were) is not what already arises but the “isms” that grow around them.

Conservative not conservatism.
Liberal not liberalism.
Science not scientism.
Fundamentals not fundamentalism.
evangelical not Evangelicalism
catholic not Catholicism

This is a huge issue in the field of biblical studies, not just across the liberal/conservative divide (at each level plus levels up/down) but more I find between the different paradigms: form critics versus historical source critics versus sociological critics versus literary…..

Not that everyone has to become master of all sub-specializations (which is impossible anyway) but so that we have a way to be and do together, mentally as well as emotionally. Consciousness as incorporating both the cognitive and affective dimensions. It brings a freedom and lightness I find (when done properly) versus heavy handed categorizations and anti-intellectualism that is the possible shadow of this way.

Otherwise the (non)choice is further balkanization, mini-fiefdoms, ego battles in academia, particularly over reduced funding, less theological students, etc. This way you actually give a reason for theological education. As opposed to assuming an entire worldview/system and philosophy of education from the secular world and then replicating it theologically and then wondering why the numbers keep dwindling.

Anyway, that soap box aside, a couple of interesting points have already emerged—Habermas and validity claims with regards to textual criticism and textual transmission of the Biblical canon; a cutting of the Gordian Knot that is the Jesus of History vs. Christ of Faith (non)debate; the introduction of mystical criticism. But I don’t want to give away too many of the details just yet.

The concept of “natural transcendence”–immanental transcendentalism is the real key. With immanence having levels of expression.

Advertisements
Published in: on July 31, 2007 at 9:36 am  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://indistinctunion.wordpress.com/2007/07/31/vol-2/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: