1. How should people across different confessional lines read the Church Fathers/Mothers? Do we need a method before we start reading them? Should we read them for use in a kind of theological “bricolage” to address contemporary issues, or should we read them only in a fastidiously historical way, trying to ascertain what they “said” and “meant” in their context to the best of our ability? Contemporary readings of these figures seem to go either way.
2. Is "patrology" a proper theological locus, along with other topics like the Trinity or liturgy? (Barth has a long reflection on this question in CD 1/2). Is there already an early version of a patrology in the figures I'm reading?
3. Is heresy defined essentially as an over-rationalization of the Christian mysteries, as Henri de Lubac says? Or is heresy ill-read scripture, as the Fathers themselves seem to say? (Or is heresy a category that should be thrown out all together?!)
4. How does personal piety relate to theological reflection on Jesus Christ? What about liturgically formed, communal piety? Is there a clear distinction between these in the texts I'm reading, or are these two blurred?
5. What role does Jesus' life and ministry play in late ancient Christology, along and besides the incarnation itself and Jesus' cross, death, resurrection, and ascension?
Concerning #1, it occurs to me that a method similar to canonical exegesis might be the way to go. That is to say there is both the synchronic and the diachronic. The Orthodox (and probably also the Ressourcement group) must intuitively do something similar to this already. Hence, their frequent reference to "the Fathers" in general without being overly concerned for which father at which time in which debate, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think?
I like that idea. I wonder if Baptists or evangelicals might claim a different heritage of "Church Fathers" than groups like the Orthodox, or the nouvelle theologie folks, although it would be interesting if it turned out that we all liked the same theologians (like Nyssa for instance).
ReplyDeleteBarth's interesting on this because he says that Luther and Calvin have become the new "Church Fathers" of the Reformation churches. He dances around saying that they've superseded the theology of the patristic period or corrected essential errors in folks like Athanasius or Augustine (even though he notes that L & C appealed to these two)...I wonder what Torrance thought about that.