My worry is that we, as evangelicals, have over-emphasized the historical, and are left with simply an ancient text. I have even heard some very conservative NT scholars refer to themselves as historians rather than New Testament “theologians.” I think that is very disconcerting.

I agree with you about the principle of analogy, if used well, but if that is all we have, then eat and drink for tomorrow we die! What I appreciate about what Wright is doing, particularly in his trilogy, is to try and argue from “enemy territory” in a way which gives validity to the New Testament, but inevitably points to the cross. My worry with this kind of apologetic task is that it can try to validate the cross, which, I think must remain, and will always remain foolishness. I get uneasy when the historical questions (surely Jesus “knew” he was going to be killed, anyone would know that who was preaching politically charged rhetoric around the countryside) seem to re-write the story as Christians have always known it.

In any case, I think you are right, we have to take seriously the incarnational reality of the Christians claims, as claims within history. Why don’t you just figure that all out and get back to me!

If so, I think there are some interesting questions in there, particularly when historical exegesis is reading the text as historians qua historians (at least typically). Take Wright’s trilogy, which is a frontal attack on the Historical Quest, by trying to answer their questions on their own ground. Does this have anything to do with dogmatic work, or even, a proper reading of the text? I’m not so sure it does. But I think there is a lot to talk about there, not the least of which is what role does historical context play in the exegetical task – and how much does that play into dogmatic theology. I too often hear exegesis described in solely historical terms, which assumes an ontology of the text (or lack thereof) which I am not comfortable with.

In any case, I don’t know if that helps spark some more conversation here or end it! LOL.

With that in mind, one might look (as you mentioned) to a robust Pneumatology, a doctrine of the Spirit. Pannenberg might be a good example on that front, his pneumatology actually being spread throughout his doctrines of creation, anthropology, Christology, church, and the culmination. For him, to speak of Jesus’ continuing relevance is not only to play the history card (which he does) but also to appeal to the Spirit’s ongoing work in partnership with the Son – something clearly found in the NT.

On the other hand, what Pannenberg does not have is much of a doctrine of the ascension. It serves only to point to the necessity of the Spirit’s work after the Son’s physical departure and thus one finds little of the ongoing kingly ministry of Christ. If one were hoping to stay more in the tradition of Calvin than Luther at this point, then I suppose the ongoing work of the exalted Lord and his mediation before the Father would run closer to the surface here (the ultimate reality of Jesus as you mentioned I think). This line of thinking reminds me of an essay I read recently by Sandra Fach (which is sitting here in front of me) in which she said, “New life made possible because of Christ’s life lived, given up on the cross, and risen from the dead, is completed in the ascension to the right hand of God where Christ lives not only for himself but also for us.”

One more way to frame the issue (likely an underlying theme throughout many different ways to do it and more emphasized in some than others) would be to place a great deal of emphasis on divine freedom. In the same volume I quoted a second ago, John Webster appeals along these lines saying, “The light which Jesus Christ is, his effulgent majesty, is not simply a state but an action and movement. In his majesty as the eternal Son, he is not inert and passive, resting in a separate and secluded glory. Rather, the majesty of Jesus Christ is known in and as the action and movement in which he imparts himself. He himself moves towards us; he comes to us.” This shifts the emphasis a bit.

Dogmatically, I love Webster’s move here and my only fear is that it could seem too formal or abstract to some in the church less accustomed to conceptual moves such as this. For it to work well in a ministry setting (either preaching, teaching, or counseling) this move would have to be tied very tightly to points in the scriptural witness of Christ’s ongoing ministry. For me, as much as I like this move, I probably tend more toward the pneumatological thrust because I suspect it might have more “hooks” for lay people to grasp. I am still working that out.

I am done rambling. Your thoughts?

On the dogmatic front, I might start with how similar purposes could be served with a doctrine of God.

Your thoughts?