The course in Contemporary Theology is revealing a perspective in me that seems to be different from my fellow students and the professors. Most seem to judge theological errors as pure error; I tend to see a kernel of in the midst of the error.
This is not to say that I lessen or justify error. Rather, I see the effects of humanity as imago Dei, yet as having radical inability (also known as total depravity, a term too often misunderstood). In other words, humans have the ability to see God’s truth, but that ability is damaged.
The simultaneous presence of imago Dei and corruption reveals both in theological error (in that it has a kernel of truth, however small) and in theological truth (in that it has a patina of error, however thin). This is, I think, what the “no absolute truth” crowd may be seeing—though they take it too far (more evidence of radical inability).
I think we must realize that all our theological truth statements are on a sliding scale. Pure truth and pure error may only be revealed in the eschaton (a la the wheat and the tares). Until then our aim as theologians should be to get as close to pure truth as possible. This happens when we expose our theological truth statements to the critique of others. It happens when we respectfully and honestly critique the theological truth statements of others, searching diligently for truth, hearing truth behind the error.
Given radical inability, I may be full of baloney. Respectful and honest critique is welcome.
Tag(s): theology
No comments:
Post a Comment