What is the relationship between meditation and the disputation, between the experience of faith and the knowledge of faith? Once we see the distinction between these two basic types of theology, the danger of a one-sided emphasis becomes evident. We can fall into error on both sides. It is just as wrong to absolutize mediation and make it independent of the disputation, as it is to absolutize the disputation and make it independent of meditation.
If meditation becomes independent, the result is mystical darkness, that inner darkness which we can only experience but never penetrate through reading and debating....On the other hand, when the disputation becomes independent, theology is also at risk. This can happen in a variety of ways. However, in each case, reference to the context (Sitz im Leben) is in danger of being lost. If that happens, scholarship becomes sterile, if not dead. We must therefore remember that all scholarly methods, including supposed "pure" logic, have their origin in particular forms of life and carry these with them, even if this origin is no longer recognized. If we remember that, we can avoid the danger of thinking that the use of scholarly methods is a purely formal matter and that the methods themselves are value-free. If scholarship understands itself properly, if it really "thinks", we would realize that it cannot exist in isolation but is connected with an experience of the world and the self, and indeed God.
...From the standpoint of systematic theology, the decisive thing here is not simply to see this as a unique type of theology, scholastic in name, but rather to realize that we cannot understand it apart from the liturgical spirituality of monastic theology. It is necessary to distinguish both types from each other and, at the same time, to keep them connected. This then is a fruitful way of formulating the problem of the relationship between the two sides of theology, which is important not only for the history of theology but also for systematics.
(Oswald Bayer, Theology the Lutheran Way, translated by Jeffrey G. Silcock and Mark C. Mattes, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007: 11-12)
If meditation becomes independent, the result is mystical darkness, that inner darkness which we can only experience but never penetrate through reading and debating....On the other hand, when the disputation becomes independent, theology is also at risk. This can happen in a variety of ways. However, in each case, reference to the context (Sitz im Leben) is in danger of being lost. If that happens, scholarship becomes sterile, if not dead. We must therefore remember that all scholarly methods, including supposed "pure" logic, have their origin in particular forms of life and carry these with them, even if this origin is no longer recognized. If we remember that, we can avoid the danger of thinking that the use of scholarly methods is a purely formal matter and that the methods themselves are value-free. If scholarship understands itself properly, if it really "thinks", we would realize that it cannot exist in isolation but is connected with an experience of the world and the self, and indeed God.
...From the standpoint of systematic theology, the decisive thing here is not simply to see this as a unique type of theology, scholastic in name, but rather to realize that we cannot understand it apart from the liturgical spirituality of monastic theology. It is necessary to distinguish both types from each other and, at the same time, to keep them connected. This then is a fruitful way of formulating the problem of the relationship between the two sides of theology, which is important not only for the history of theology but also for systematics.
(Oswald Bayer, Theology the Lutheran Way, translated by Jeffrey G. Silcock and Mark C. Mattes, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007: 11-12)
全站熱搜
留言列表
一些關於研究的事 (3)