Customer Reviews

Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the Philosophical Turn to Relationality

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I Corinthian 13:12 says that "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known." Yet oddly, it seems that many who have theological interests seem to think that we can see all of theology in a crystal-clear way, and now that we 'have' this perfect knowledge, all we need to do is pass it down.

LeRon's excellent book Reforming Theological Anthropology is basically about Paul's point in I Corinthians: we DON'T have everything figured out. As we all see darkly now, we must work to understand that darkness through the light of Christ, as Christ related to the world: by interacting with people's understanding of the times. LeRon's book is very much about deconstructing some of the strong assumptions that we've come to accept as fact, and he challenges us to see that many of these 'facts' are, in fact, not facts.

This is a thick read: don't expect to blow through it and have full comprehension of it. For myself, I know that I probably woudn't have understood half of it if I hadn't had him as a professor who was willing to explain things in class. But don't be to quick to pass it by because of this...LeRon's work deserves careful consideration.

Shults has painted a fantastic piece of theological art which speaks humbly, yet boldly to theologians in the West. It's art is found not so much in raw innovation, as it is in re-covering key Christian theological intuitions that have been buried, especially in the Theological West. In the process of analyzing and critiquing our post-modern landscape, Shults offers the reader a tertium quid, which he refers to as "postfoundationalism." Exploring what he considers to be promising opened doors in light of the recent philosophical "turn to relationality" in the West, Shults engages the significant anthropological doctrines for any Christian systematics in an attempt emphasize the importance of responding to the on-going call of reformation with respect to the church's articulation of the Christian faith in each generation. Shults has written something special here that can only be ignored to the detriment of the contemporary theologian.

As certain strands of the Christian tradition have at times been guilty of simply propagating its beliefs over time without regard to its inherent reciprocal relation to science, philosophy, and experience; Shults challenges us to look closer.....in some cases, "there is no spoon."

All in all, I think the book was pretty dense, but it challenged some long-held evangelical assumptions that must be reformed for the future. This is an important book that helps to make evangelical thought more conversant with some of the major contributions in 20th century theology. It serves to help conservative christians engage other disciplines, as well as helping us to understand our faith in philosophical categories that more closely correlate to the Biblical presentation of a dynamic transformative Triune God.

As the previous reviewer (who happens to have been Shults' teaching assistant, and who therefore may be more than a bit biased) stated, Shults has written an interesting and timely book. It is, however, very dense--perhaps for economy's sake, Shults frequently does not define complex theological terms, and the readability of the book ultimately suffers. While a student of theology will find it an interesting perspective, I would not readily recommend it to the average layperson.

This book certainly has some strengths. Shults is obviously well-versed in the history of philosophy and theology, he knows his concepts, and is terribly bright. The book proves to be a challenging read and will force a person to examine his or her own theological and philosophical presuppositions. Shults provides a forum off of which to bounce ideas and reflect on modern and classical theological formulations and this is always healthy for theologues.

However, I disagree with many of Shults' conclusions. Much of his keen intellect seems misdirected on red herrings and questionable premises stemming from his apparent commitment to the dregs of the "biblical theology" movement and from his unwavering allegiance to the controlling metaphor of modern philosophical relationality. As a result, I believe several major portions of the book become paper tigers. And, though Shults declares his theologizing to be "reconstructive", I hardly recall reading anything substantively positive regarding the classical theology of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, et al., other than some tangential references and conciliatory hat tipping. For the most part, they are portrayed as philosophically neanderthal and lost in the Grecian metaphysics and patristical Neoplatonism which they supposedly assimilated by osmosis, thereby poisoning their theology. The latter is something continually emphasized in the book and a tired cliche following the well-worn henpecking of the "biblical theology" movement (ala Muilenburg, Anderson, Bowan, et al). The notion that classical theology has been "infected" with Grecian metaphysics (as opposed to USING it within certain sociocultural constructs in early Xian history) is one with a storied past (e.g., Harnack) but, in my view, has been so well countered and mollified that it surprises me a man with Shults' intellection endorses it so vigorously. The result is scholarly meat packed on the bones of a genetic fallacy and ignores the fact that the patricians and classicalists demurred on far more pieces of philosphy than they appropriated from the Neoplatonists and Stoics.

Shults wants to bring "new" and "updated" insights into historic Christian doctrine, as opposed to USING new insights to UPHOLD Christian doctrine. In my experience, whenever a "progressive" theologian or philosopher desires to do this, they often begin with the Greek vs. Hebrew paradigm argument. And, whenever I see this argument regurgitated as a sort of prolegomena, I know something novel is likely around the corner. This is true in spades of Shults. And, in a one-two combination, he also does this with modern science which he supposes to render moot much of the backbone of classical theology. While Shults' discussion in this regard is certainly interesting, I'm afraid I simply cannot share his confidence in the power of modern science to accomplish what he hopes it will, and I think he's far too cocksure in building his case on what he sees to be radically transforming discoveries in neurobiology, physical studies, anthropology, and other fields. Some of the theories he brings forth are highly speculative and, in my calculus, should not be knighted as fancy cues for building an entirely new theology that doesn't "reconstruct" classical theology, as he hopes it will, but deconstructs and demolishes it as antiquated.

This is interesting reading, but haven't we seen this sort of "novel" thing a thousand times before? The task of Christian theology is to take it's historic gospel truths and put them in modern dress so that people can receive and understand them within their own cultural framework, not to change the dress along with the form that fills it.