Can you give me a few concrete examples of classical theology expresed in postmodern language, and/as opposed to dry repetitions of shibboleths.
I hesitate to give particular formulae because that is kind of the point, formulae don't necessarily work. I think I'm using "language" here more broadly than just words and sentences. It has more to do with using verbal and visual imagery, telling stories and parables (and possibly in certain ways), and so forth. Part of what I mean about repeating shibboleths is that certain words and phrases that have been in long use don't have the meaning that they once did. For one thing, words like "salvation" and "faith" and even "sin" may need to be explored in ways that many have not needed to do. That old Lutheran question, "What does this mean?," needs to be asked again while also going deep into our theology and tradition. For example, with salvation we might need to be more particular about thinking not only what ways can we speak of this and think of this without the word "salvation" (although I would never say we should not use it, either), but also questions such as "to what purpose" and "why should we care about it."
More importantly, what I mean by my comment about repeating shibboleths is being more concerned about expressing ideas and seeing that they take on real meaning that reaches deep into our very being, than with using traditional language to express it. Please note carefully, this is not an argument for abandoning that traditional language, but rather on our focus for concern and our ability to communicate the meaning. Keep the Creeds and the catechism, make them a center, and talk about them with the emphasis on finding deep meaning in and around them. And even more importantly, do this in and around the Scriptures.
Some particular classical theological concepts I think would be fruitful to explore in "postmodern language" is the theology of the cross (in particular how it is that we know Christ foremost through his joining us in our human predicament, becoming a curse for us in St. Paul's language, to have compassion on us (note compassion is literally "suffering with") not so much to remove us from suffering but to be with us as we move through it, as does Christ on the cross; the idea of union with Christ (see, for example, Luther in the Freedom of a Christian but also the work of theologian John Zizioulas in "Being as Communion" on trinitarian theology, the notion of a person, and what all this means about our relationship with Christ); valuing the "christus victor" idea along with Christ as sacrifice for sin; our being justified in Christ and our being in bondage to sin. These are not shibboleths in themselves, but they easily become so when we assume that they hold meaning for those who hear them in proclamation or in teaching. Sometimes we need to break out of modern, Enlightenment habits here. We need to renew our efforts, engage our imaginations, and explore these topics to make them hold real meaning again.
I am certain that some of the people who were sharing the table with Richard when he went ballistic would say some things very similar. I can understand that this will cause some concern and skepticism. But it seems to me that many of the people like those who sparked off Richard actually go in a hypermodern direction. They cut off a fixed anchor and set themselves (and others) adrift. What they don't find, then, is that what they cut loose is actually a center with some real and powerful gravity to it. The difference in metaphor is, I think, important.
I don't know how well I answered your question, Paul, but as I noted above. In some ways this is a big theological and ministry project or program, needing much to consider and many faithful people to pursue it.
Mark C.
