What is Theological Interpretation? The Example of Robert W. Jenson

Theological interpretation is an approach to reading generated by a theological understanding of the biblical text, of the community that reads it theologically, and of the practice of reading. This essay argues this point on the basis of the work of one representative theological interpreter, Robert W. Jenson. In addition, it entertains John Barton's objection that theological interpretation amounts to eisegesis. The article concludes that theological exegesis does not necessarily involve reading one's views into the text, but rather that it results in putting the text to a different end.     

Herman Bavinck on the Image of God and Original Sin

The organic motif is Bavinck's preferred means to communicate creation's triune shape. An archetypal unity‐in‐diversity in the Godhead implies that creation displays an ectypal unity‐in‐diversity. This article argues that Bavinck's organic ontology provides him with a theological rationale for a doctrine of original sin in which the covenant headship of Adam reflects the organic character of humanity in unity and diversity. Thus, the transmission of original guilt on account of Adam's trespass is not a mere special ordinance by an inscrutable divine will, but an expression of humanity's organic shape. The article concludes by drawing some implications of Bavinck's construction for current discussion concerning original sin.     

Mystagogy and Cyrillian Orthodoxy: Christology as Fidelity to a Carnal Presence

Henry Chadwick’s contention that the “nerve-center” of Cyril’s Christology is the Eucharist reconfigures the urgency of his polemic against Nestorius: it is not a question of abstract doctrine, but of the mystery encountered in the liturgy. This contention has been corroborated by patrologists, but its theological implication has not been fully drawn – viz. that mystagogy is the basis of Cyrillian orthodoxy. When this implication is grasped, it entails that the orthodox doctrine of the “unity of Christ” concerns not merely the unity of the historical Jesus with the Logos, but the unity of the encounter with Christ: “mystical union” is not an addendum to the doctrine of the “hypostatic unity,” it is basic to it.     

T.F. Torrance on Biblical Interpretation

T.F. Torrance's writing contains an account of theological interpretation of Scripture which is pregnant with insight but which has received little attention to date. Depth exegesis, as Torrance calls his program, takes its cue from a theological understanding of the Bible: the nature of the text determines the interpretive strategies readers should apply to it. Depth exegesis helpfully sketches out key aspects of the reader's situation, depicting the sense in which biblical interpretation is an encounter with God. Nevertheless, Torrance's view gives inadequate attention to the literary and historical side of interpretation and, relatedly, portrays the reader as altogether too passive. In spite of these weaknesses, reflecting on depth exegesis can be fruitful for future discussions of theological interpretation.     

Contextuality and Catholicity: The Task of Orthodox Theology in Ecumenical Theological Education

The essay unfolds theological foundations for theological education in ecumenical perspective from Orthodox perspectives seeing it as a worldwide enterprise fundamental to the mission of the church, not in its institutional character, but in its eschatological awareness of being a foretaste of the Kingdom of God. The relation between early ecumenical optimism and enthusiasm towards the goal of the visible unity of the church and the wide application of contextuality, i.e. the recognition of the contextual character of theology as a method from the 1970s onwards is discussed. According to the Orthodox perspectives, the ecumenical movement has lost its momentum and coherence and its determination for the quest of visible unity with the predominant acceptance of contextuality as the guiding principle in ecumenical discussions and theological education. The author argues that Orthodox theology has to deepen the understanding of its own contextuality and soften the existing antithesis between contextuality and catholicity of theology and theological education. Orthodox perspectives should underline the relevance of a fundamental unity of divine revelation, as represented in the broad understanding of Christian tradition, which is for the entire created world, not only for believers and which is challenging both a potential distortion, wherein unity is identified with the maintenance of denominational loyalty, as well as all contextual expressions of Christian theology with regard to their relation to the overall goal of church unity. The paper concludes with a plea for all Orthodox theological education to be of some real service to the church in deciding to deal both with current issues (to be contextual) and not to lose sight of the past (to be oriented to catholicity and church unity), to both open up to ecumenical theological education while at the same time maintaining a strong commitment to the common church tradition.     

The Civil Rights Movement as Theological Drama—Interpretation and Application

In this essay, Charles Marsh sketches a theological interpretation of the American civil rights movement. Marsh argues that interpretation must begin by reconsidering the theological legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., taking into account his deep, though largely overlooked, confessional convictions as well as his sympathy with the theology of Karl Barth, whose influence on King has been ignored. Marsh further argues that a theological interpretation of the civil rights movement should not be a matter of writing religious genealogies of moral actions, of civic piety or of representations of human goodness, but of understanding the detail of theological convictions in their lives particularity. Marsh thinks it is altogether appropriate for theologians to retell the story of the American civil rights movement as the story of the church.     

The Churches and the Evolution of Europe

This article offers the reader some theological reflections on the 2014 ‘Agreed Statement on Christology’ (ASC). Its scope is thus limited to shedding light on certain aspects of the document that appear to the author as theologically complex and not self-explanatory. The author’s intention is not to provide the reader with a comprehensive theological evaluation of the document, but to initiate a discussion about the content of the statement so as to provide some theological groundwork for a future comprehensive evaluation. The article starts with a brief and schematic exposition of theological developments during the fourth to early fifth centuries that threatened ecclesial unity. It then delineates certain problematic aspects of Christological thought that pushed a united Christendom to the state of disunity. The main body of the article then endeavours to elucidate two sections of the ASC which were of particular interest to the author. An assessment (necessarily partial) of the ASC’s theological significance and of its ecumenical import concludes the article.     

UNIQUENESS,THE IMAGE OF GOD,AND THE PROBLEM OF METHOD: ENGAGING VAN HUYSSTEEN

Wentzel van Huyssteen's book Alone in the World? provides a thoughtful and nuanced account of human evolution from a theological perspective. Not only does his work provide what is perhaps the only sustained theological reflection specifically on human evolution, but his working through of many of the issues, particularly on the image of God literature in theology, has few parallels. Despite this, I focus on what I consider to be several weaknesses of the text, including areas of theological method, theological interpretation, and the central topic of human uniqueness. Addressing these weaknesses will, I propose, improve van Huyssteen's argument and lead in new and fruitful directions.     

Ask and You Shall Find Out: Some Multicultural Dynamics in Catholic Theological Education

The theological classroom is a place where dynamics of diversity and multiculturalism enter not only the understanding and interpretation of the course material, but also the very processes of teaching and learning. But how is one to learn and assess what students and professors are experiencing as cultural differences, and how is one to sort out the personal characteristics from the cultural? This essay, underscoring the importance of asking students about cultural issues, discusses a few such issues via some anecdotal data.     

Reference Ethics: Theological Librarianship in Conversation with ALA Reference Ethics Guidelines

This particular article will look at one ethical concern that is likely to be very familiar to most theological reference librarians. This question is what the theological reference librarian's ethical responsibilities are when the American Library Association's Code of Ethics seems to conflict with an institution's expectations for an employee of that institution. In order to adequately solve this question, the article will first summarize the basic elements of the American Library Association's Code of Ethics that relate to the reference interview. Next, the special nature of theological reference librarianship will be discussed. Third, the Association of Theological Schools accreditation guidelines will be examined to determine the relationships that theological librarians have to their religious institutions. Fourth, in light of the theological librarian reference ethics that emerge from the proposed investigation, possible ethical solutions will be suggested. The article will conclude that the article's research question is actually a false question, not because theological librarians have not raised it or because it is not worth considering, but because the American Library Association's Code of Ethics and the Association of Theological Schools accreditation standards expect the same thing from their librarians.     

Nulla Proportio in Concordantia: Catholic Political Theology and the Mystery of Consensus

The main question in this article is whether there is room for a genuine Catholic political theology in a contemporary liberal society. Catholic political theology faces the dilemma that it is either opposed to the autonomy of the political sphere as it has been given shape in liberal society by its totality claim, or that it is not, and thereby loses its plausibility as it does in the case of Catholic Social Teaching. The authors of this article assume that there is a way out of the dilemma, namely by applying the fundamental theological concept of ‘locus theologicus’ to political theology. By viewing the political as a locus theologicus, the question arises: Which political aspects of the theological tradition could qualify as having a critical function in modern liberal society? The proposal in this article is to consider Nicholas of Cusa’s theory of finding consensus. Cusa developed this theory during and in response to the Council of Basel (1431-1449) in his book De concordantia catholica. The experience of consensus is viewed in this text as an apophatic confirmation of God in the performance of political authority. The way in which Cusa develops the idea of consensus is in sharp contrast with modern liberal thinkers such as John Rawls. Cusa’s theory shares a resemblance with those of modern critics of consensus such as Chantal Mouffe and Jacques Rancière. While these authors do not formulate their criticism theologically, once brought into conversation with Cusa, one can find opportunities of seeing the mystery of consensus as a theological critique.     

The Apostasy of the Church and the Cross of Christ: Hans Urs von Balthasar on the Mystery of the Church as Casta Meretrix

The ongoing moral and theological catastrophe of persistent and pervasive clergy sexual abuse across the Catholic Church makes theological reflection on sin in the church essential. This essay has two parts. The first, longer part is a hermeneutical argument. I offer a contextualized interpretation of Hans Urs von Balthasar's 1960 essay “Casta Meretrix,” in which he traced the image of the church as a “chaste harlot” through the Christian tradition. I demonstrate that several recent interpretations of this essay have not penetrated to its radical heart. A close reading of the text reveals that here Balthasar affirmed that the church sins precisely as the church, and not merely as individual members. The motivation for this affirmation was not the empirical failures of individuals, but was properly dogmatic—a necessary implication of christology. In the second and concluding part of the essay, I contend that even though Balthasar's use of the feminized image of the casta meretrix does have significant problems and should not be uncritically adopted today, the underlying theological claim regarding the church as sinner is theologically significant. He affirmed a necessary ecclesiological truth, one that can help the church recover its visibility and better understand its essence in repentance, which is all the more essential in light of the continuing revelations of clergy sexual abuse.     

Orthodoxy in Unity and in Conciliarity

This article considers how the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church faced challenges such as how the gospel relates to a pluralistic society; the Christian message in a society marked by religious pluralism, ethnic diversity, and cultural relativism; whether Christians encountering today's pluralist society should concentrate on evangelism or on dialogue; and on how conciliarity relates to the unity of the church. The article examines how the council attempted to respond to, or at least reflect on, these challenges in relation to the theological dialogue of the Orthodox Church with the other Christian churches and confessions. The bilateral theological dialogues have also increasingly led to bearing Christian witness, and an atmosphere of mutual appreciation, friendship, and fellowship has already become at least a reality. But has this development also led to a deeper mutual theological understanding? Have the profound differences between the Orthodox churches and the other churches in bilateral dialogues been clarified theologically?     

《周易》自然哲学与生命实践

《周易》蕴涵的自然哲学思想,可谓是一种以生命为隐喻,宇宙论、本体论、价值论统一的生成哲学,它基于道德实践与认识实践统一的生命实践。文章根据《周易》"经"、"传"本身之内涵,按现代哲学表述方法,从源于道德之宇宙论,三才圆通之本体论,知行不二之实践论,生成整体之方法论等方面,阐明中国式自然哲学的特性与意义。指出正是这种独特的自然哲学,不仅开启了中国文化超越的价值之源,为中国古代科学提供了形而上学基础,而且应在21世纪伟大历史转型和中西对话中,共同创造人类不同文化"殊途同归"、"和而不同"的世界生成之序。     

John Milbank and Biblical Hermeneutics: the End of the Historical‐Critical Method?

It is perhaps ironic that a methodology still convinced of its radical iconoclasm and progressive nature should at the same time be regarded as critically backward, a by‐product of a disappearing philosophy. Such a view of the historical‐critical method is held by John Milbank who argues that because of its dependence upon heretical philosophies that affirm the ontological autonomy of a world without reference to or participation in God, it should be confined to theological history. This essay will argue that Milbank's challenge ought to be taken seriously by Christian biblical interpreters and suggests that historical‐critical study, in the form criticised by Milbank, needs to be rejected. Milbank exposes the philosophical bankruptcy of the method from a Christian perspective; nevertheless, Milbank overstretches himself. His rejection of the historical‐critical method results in a hermeneutic that has no place for a biblical text's historical particularity and sense. 1 Because of this, he is left subsuming historic texts into the regula fidei of his philosophical meta‐narrative, whether they fit such a move or not. This is particularly the case with Milbank's treatment of biblical texts, which, it shall be argued, operates as a refusal of history and a refusal of the particularity and alterity of the text. This highlights the need for an historical hermeneutic for Christian biblical interpretation, based on theological presuppositions, which takes the theological value of both historical particularity and the text seriously.     

The unity of science

The paper addresses the question of how the unity of science can adequately be characterized. A mere classification of scientific fields and disciplines does not express the unity of science unless it is supplemented with a perspective that establishes a systematic coherence among the different branches of science. Four ideas of this kind are discussed. Namely, the unity of scientific language, of scientific laws, of scientific method and of science as a practical‐operational enterprise. Whereas reference to the unity of scientific language and of scientific laws does not provide a viable basis for the unity of science, the methodological and practical unity might. The unity of science can be characterized by the way in which methodological criteria enter into the assessment or evaluation of theories, and, moreover, by a transdisciplin‐ary approach to problems. Accordingly, the unity of science is not expressed by theoretical uniformity but by the unity of scientific practice.     

A Theological Challenge: Coordinating Biological, Social, and Religious Visions of Humanity

This paper attempts two tasks. First, it sketches how the natural sciences (including especially the biological sciences), the social sciences, and the scientific study of religion can be understood to furnish complementary, consonant perspectives on human beings and human groups. This suggests that it is possible to speak of a modern secular interpretation of humanity (MSIH) to which these perspectives contribute (though not without tensions). MSIH is not a comprehensive interpretation of human beings, if only because it adopts a posture of neutrality with regard to the reality of religious objects and the truth of theological claims about them. MSIH is certainly an impressively forceful interpretation, however, and it needs to be reckoned with by any perspective on human life that seeks to insert its truth claims into the arena of public debate. Second, the paper considers two challenges that MSIH poses to specifically theological interpretations of human beings. On the one hand, in spite of its posture of religious neutrality, MSIH is a key element in a class of wider, seemingly antireligious interpretations of humanity, including especially projectionist and illusionist critiques of religion. It is consonance with MSIH that makes these critiques such formidable competitors for traditional theological interpretations of human beings. On the other hand, and taking the religiously neutral posture of MSIH at face value, theological accounts of humanity that seek to coordinate the insights of MSIH with positive religious visions of human life must find ways to overcome or manage such dissonance as arises. The goal of synthesis is defended as important, and strategies for managing these challenges, especially in light of the pluralism of extant philosophical and theological interpretations of human beings, are advocated.     

The Future of the Past: The Contemporary Significance of the Nouvelle Théologie

Abstract:   The nouvelle théologie was a noticeably diverse movement, but if it had a core it was not in opposition to Thomism, or in a claim that patristic sources were to be privileged in theology. Rather, it was in a serious examination of all historical theological resources that both recognized their diversity and partiality but also sought to find in them resources for the renewal of theology. In contrast to the situation into which the nouvelle théologie developed, the danger for theology today is not a captivity to a particular historical source, but a refusal to engage seriously with any historical material, because it is seen as irrelevant, or positively harmful, to the theological task for various reasons. The chastened traditionalism of the nouvell théologie might thus be seen to have something to say to our own day, as well as its own.     

Kings,Professors, and Ploughboys: On the Accessibility of Scripture

Under the heading of ‘the accessibility of Scripture’ I investigate accounts of the conditions – skills, knowledge or status – necessary to extracting meaning from the text adequately. I suggest that modern theological scholarship has a visibly different account from classical Reformation and post‐Reformation dogmatics, insisting on the need for historical and linguistic expertise, which used to be denied, and refusing any account of the need for the aid of the Holy Spirit, which used to be insisted upon. I suggest that, because of the constructed nature of the ‘Bible’, theological accounts of Bible reading must be responsible to lived practices of engagement with the text to be academically coherent, and on this basis argue for the superiority of the older tradition.     

The Character of Theological Interpretation of Scripture

Recent proposals for reading Scripture have increasingly focused on the role of divine agency. Greater attentiveness to the complexity and place of divine agency results in an irruption in the relationship between theological hermeneutics and theological interpretation and a challenge to the dominant way of perceiving their relationship since the rise of modernity. Thus it is increasingly recognized that Scripture is not read like other books. The unique character of theological interpretation necessarily originates in the unique character of the God who speaks the Word of the holy canon of Scripture: the Trinity. Our methodological formulations and hermeneutical understandings of theological interpretation must go beyond the formal acknowledgement of divine causality that remains in these recent proposals to thick confessional and dogmatic reflections on the character of the Trinity and the practices of reading which faithfully reflect that character.