Progressive Orthodoxy of an Informed Ignorance: A Brief Review of Selected Topics. Part1
Приходится писать собственное видение систематического богословия в ультра-кратком виде для церковного начальства. Раздел - не больше страницы-полторы. Что...всегда сложно. А особенно непросто писать так, чтобы и текст был, и серых полей для лаврирования оставалось немало...вроде бы и сказать, а вроде нет. Такая уж у меня родная хохляцкая натура:-)
Выкладываю драфт\черновой материал некоторых глав. Разумеется, на английском.
Приветствую замечания, комменты, и прочая.
Introduction:
The task of outlining personal theology on a number of selected topics is understandably a challenge due to various impediments. The greatest impediment faced is the need to present one’s own theological outlook in its entire fullness. For example, it is hard to make a reasonable argument on “Sin and the Fall” without first explaining one’s own viewpoint of theodicy. Such a composition will unavoidable lead to misunderstandings and gaps in what otherwise may be a well-rounded structure of something that strives to be what Etienne Gilson used to call the “cathedral of the mind”. For this reason, this paper will contain additional chapters that will link requested topics in order to provide a more systematic theological outlook. The chapters and topics are listed in the traditional Trinitarian structure of presenting systematic theology.
In order to make the reading of this short paper easier, as well as for the considerations stated above, it proved beneficial to initially state the general theological outlook on which it was based. This outlook is defined as the Progressive Orthodoxy of an Informed Ignorance. Based on dogmatics, it was best defined by Karl Barth as
"the science in which the Church in accordance with the state of its knowledge at different times, takes account of the content of its proclamation critically, that is, by the standard of Holy Scripture and under the guidance of its Confession." This theology is orthodox in the sense that it more or less speaks in the language of the Holy Scripture and Tradition, illuminated by the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
Such traditional language and concepts serve as a helpful guide in our attempts to reveal the faith in our historical and cultural context. Nevertheless, it is also based on the understanding that there has never been a set of beliefs shared “everywhere, always, and by all”. To accept Vincent of Lerins maxima is to blindly deny the reality of the ever-developing nature of the Christian faith. Faith that began with messianic hopes of immediate establishment of the Kingdom of God in judaistic context, was transformed within the formation of the New Testament into an interpretation of Christ as the incarnation of Wisdom of God through which all word can obtain the eternal life outside of the framework of Torah. Additionally, the same Faith was not only re-defined in Platonistic terms but also later defined in Aristotelian terms solely so it could be dissected and developed by the Reformation, Counter-Reformation, Pietism, Enlightenment, Modernism, Neo-Orthodoxy, etc. As such, one can see the importance and need for a balance on this Progressive-Orthodox dichotomy. Moreover, when stressing the developmental nature and the plurality of Christianity, we must utilize the focal point of centrality and necessity of the belief in and worship of Jesus as the Son of God. Likewise, when outlining the historical and cultural context that led to the development of various teachings of the Church, we must remember that such dogmas must concur with the basic message of the social justice, personal and universally public liberation of humanity, and the whole cosmos through Christ.
By pursuing such direction, Church stands on the long tradition and experience of the re-interpretation of the Christian Faith. This experience includes grand successes and even more deem mistakes. Based on this knowledge, the Church is better equipped to meet the challenges of the current standard. However, we cannot overstress the importance of our own limitations on knowledge. After Gregory Palamas, we proclaim the impossibility of
knowing God in His essence. In contrast, after Hegel we repeat the hope of the Easter Church Fathers of theosis of all creation. This cosmic theosis becomes possible after progressive revelation of the divine through history comes to the end. Therefore, the Christian faith is best described as the acknowledgement of our ignorance to comprehend the mystery of God. Such ignorance teaches us humility and carefulness in our attempts to define the doctrines of the Christian faith. Lastly, it also reminds us to leave some room for our continuing enlargement of understanding of the divine throughout the history.
Выкладываю драфт\черновой материал некоторых глав. Разумеется, на английском.
Приветствую замечания, комменты, и прочая.
Introduction:
The task of outlining personal theology on a number of selected topics is understandably a challenge due to various impediments. The greatest impediment faced is the need to present one’s own theological outlook in its entire fullness. For example, it is hard to make a reasonable argument on “Sin and the Fall” without first explaining one’s own viewpoint of theodicy. Such a composition will unavoidable lead to misunderstandings and gaps in what otherwise may be a well-rounded structure of something that strives to be what Etienne Gilson used to call the “cathedral of the mind”. For this reason, this paper will contain additional chapters that will link requested topics in order to provide a more systematic theological outlook. The chapters and topics are listed in the traditional Trinitarian structure of presenting systematic theology.
In order to make the reading of this short paper easier, as well as for the considerations stated above, it proved beneficial to initially state the general theological outlook on which it was based. This outlook is defined as the Progressive Orthodoxy of an Informed Ignorance. Based on dogmatics, it was best defined by Karl Barth as
"the science in which the Church in accordance with the state of its knowledge at different times, takes account of the content of its proclamation critically, that is, by the standard of Holy Scripture and under the guidance of its Confession." This theology is orthodox in the sense that it more or less speaks in the language of the Holy Scripture and Tradition, illuminated by the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
Such traditional language and concepts serve as a helpful guide in our attempts to reveal the faith in our historical and cultural context. Nevertheless, it is also based on the understanding that there has never been a set of beliefs shared “everywhere, always, and by all”. To accept Vincent of Lerins maxima is to blindly deny the reality of the ever-developing nature of the Christian faith. Faith that began with messianic hopes of immediate establishment of the Kingdom of God in judaistic context, was transformed within the formation of the New Testament into an interpretation of Christ as the incarnation of Wisdom of God through which all word can obtain the eternal life outside of the framework of Torah. Additionally, the same Faith was not only re-defined in Platonistic terms but also later defined in Aristotelian terms solely so it could be dissected and developed by the Reformation, Counter-Reformation, Pietism, Enlightenment, Modernism, Neo-Orthodoxy, etc. As such, one can see the importance and need for a balance on this Progressive-Orthodox dichotomy. Moreover, when stressing the developmental nature and the plurality of Christianity, we must utilize the focal point of centrality and necessity of the belief in and worship of Jesus as the Son of God. Likewise, when outlining the historical and cultural context that led to the development of various teachings of the Church, we must remember that such dogmas must concur with the basic message of the social justice, personal and universally public liberation of humanity, and the whole cosmos through Christ.
By pursuing such direction, Church stands on the long tradition and experience of the re-interpretation of the Christian Faith. This experience includes grand successes and even more deem mistakes. Based on this knowledge, the Church is better equipped to meet the challenges of the current standard. However, we cannot overstress the importance of our own limitations on knowledge. After Gregory Palamas, we proclaim the impossibility of
knowing God in His essence. In contrast, after Hegel we repeat the hope of the Easter Church Fathers of theosis of all creation. This cosmic theosis becomes possible after progressive revelation of the divine through history comes to the end. Therefore, the Christian faith is best described as the acknowledgement of our ignorance to comprehend the mystery of God. Such ignorance teaches us humility and carefulness in our attempts to define the doctrines of the Christian faith. Lastly, it also reminds us to leave some room for our continuing enlargement of understanding of the divine throughout the history.