Bruegemann's strength, in my view, in
addition to his profound understanding of the Bible, especially the Old Testament,
is his knowledge of post-reformation theology and his powerful exegesis,
as exemplified in his various collections of essays. Also extremely provocative is his tapping
into the imagination as the most potent means of linking the biblical text to
the ethos of the contemporary setting. In this respect he may be viewed
as the apostle to the postmodern secularists.
In this capacity he would play a formidable role in the UCC God is still
speaking campaign http://www.stillspeaking.com/intro1.htm.
For those on the margins of faith and doubt, WB, on personal testimony, offers
an extremely powerful way of re-entering the strange new world within the
Bible that for many, more dogmatic approaches would not have been
convincing. The seeming irrelevance of the Bible is a phenomenon that
shapes the thinking of more than a few who attend mainline (or perhaps even
evangelical) congregations, who at some level are still seeking a Word where
one has not been found for a long time. The deep influence of
secularization, even in the midst of our congregations, is a factor that cannot
be lightly dismissed, in which the pastoral call very well may be, in WB’s
terms, that “funding” of the Word of God, one verse, one miracle, one
revelation at a time, in which to attempt more could very well turn into
sterile bibliolatry. I hope it is clear that I am speaking at the level of
reception and I am speaking for some and not for all.
In any event WB played a very
similar role with me that Jurgen Moltmann did some years earlier in opening up
the hermeneutical possibility that God could speak a vital Word through his
text. I spent a good part of two years pouring over everything I could
get my hands on by WB. In the process of following the trajectory of his
interpretations, I also read substantial portions of the OT.
I also experienced some
limitations, such as WB’s privileging of some texts over the others, which I
interpret as at least partially contradicting the spirit of 2 Timothy 3:16,
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” While WB might have viewed it as ironic, my re-encountering
the Bible through his theology pushed me toward an evangelical faith retrieval
of some enduring stability, which I needed to reclaim if the Christian faith
were going to prevail in my life in a compellingly vital way. This retrieval— illuminated, as far as I
could discern by the Holy Spirit—has depended, in no small measure, on the
capacity to embrace the Bible full without privileging certain texts over
others, as the very source of my ultimate vocabulary.
The second, and related limitation
I find in WB, is, notwithstanding the “existential” power of his “funding” of
postmodernity one text, one miracle, one revelation at a time, is that I simply
could not fathom how, at least, I could construct a stable religious life from
that basis, or how a congregation could establish an ecclesiology which could
mediate the religious needs and passions of a congregation from week to week.
I could imagine, in theory, a
postmodern/post-Christian congregation, which gathered week-to-week from their
travails within the secular city. This
ideal congregation would encounter the Word once again through the imaginative
dynamic of the charismatic preacher who would reach those in the pews through
the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit, where the Word would come alive, once
again one verse, one miracle one revelation at a time. I do believe this
is a place where many people, and perhaps congregations in such denominations
like the United Church of Christ are, and in this respect, the voice coming out
of the theology of WB may very well be the authentic Word of God that such a
congregation may need to hear. Interpreted from this vantage pint WB is an
authentic UCC voice that needs to be thoroughly heard and respected within
the Confessing Christ network, at least as a viable Kairotic option of
where a certain sector of the faith community may be in our secular era of
modernity/ postmodernity http://confessingchrist.net/.
Yet, if taken as the gospel itself,
or as THE authoritative theology of our times, WB’s vision could also be viewed
as extremely repressive and oppressive to boot. The possibility for a
thoroughly biblically-based evangelical encounter through the likes of Bloesch,
Vanhoozer, Barth, Henry, Fackre, Lints, and others is also a critical need
which has been profoundly repressed within the mainline denominations going
back to the struggles with fundamentalism at the beginning of the 20th
century. In order to get at the root of these issues, the historical dynamics
that lent them their intensity would need to be imaginatively re-encountered
and reconstructed. That is work for another message.
Someone had suggested a dominant
role for Bloesch at an upcoming Craigvlle conference. Whether at
Craigville or elsewhere, I would recommend a thorough and respectful encounter
between WB and Bloesch where some of these critical issues could be aired out.
For this is one of the crucial encounters I believe that needs to take place
between the CC community and the UCC Cleveland leadership and progressive ministry
throughout the denomination. Let us
assume that both brothers deserve a respectful place at the UCC table, and then
establish the places where they could mutually sit and where we could
respectfully engage them.
No comments:
Post a Comment