On the 2) question of Criticism vs. Construction? I’m a great advocate of real life “work” and physical accomplishments. And being “constructive,” first a) in the sense of having an effect in the material world.

Still, there’s a very common hazard here for the theologian or academic or cleric. Coming from a life of books, trying to suddenly enter the material world, there is a very common mis-step: we often end up merely trying to enact, make real, bookish ideas. But ideas, the preconceptions of things we get from books, sometimes work, but sometimes don’t work, in the “real world.” Or in other words, the physical life.

So that – as I’m sure many of us have learned the hard way – entering a life of practical works in the world, being “constructive” in the sense of coming up with material prosperity, etc.., is not just trying to immediately enact our academic preconceptions among the People. It is just as much or more, a process of humbly learning from material life. And modifying our academic/bookish/priestly concepts, accordingly.

As for b) being “constructive” in the sense of simply being positive? Here I’d note another common error that is superficially opposite, but actually related to the above: often people give too much respect to their preconceptions. And therefore, cannot criticise and correct them, as experience teaches them new and better ideas. Growing involves first, seeing and acknowledging /confessing sins and errors, in our “child”hood ideas of life, and of God.

If we think we are perfect, we have no motivation to change or grow: how can you improve on perfection? It is only if we are willing to see and acknowledge our sins, and the sins of others, that we can begin to grow. And seeing sins of course, involves … criticism.

The road then, to a more “mature” theology, a better view of God and Christ – one that might even one day give us a real “kingdom” – involves in effect, not just valorizing ancient theologies. Or valorizing ALL of human thought. No doubt it involves some tenative respect for them … alternating with real critical thinking. Even criticism in a negative sense.

Being ready to see sins and errors, in our earlier and holiest theologies – as well as sins in we ourselves, and others, the life of “humanitiy” – is a necessary precondition to growth. If we think that we, or our ministers, are already perfect, there is no motivation or opportunity, to notice any possible errors. And to grow.

This humility can be difficult especially for some ministers and priests; who are sometimes treated as absolutely holy and perfect. Or have been taught that their old ideas about God are infallibly perfect too. And so, to shake people from such “dogmatic slumbers” – as Kant called them – at times, a little shock therapy, real confrontation/criticism, is necessary.

The Bible told us to “rebuke” persons with false beliefs.

I personally appreciate those ministers who choose to be supportive and positive all the time; such ministers have a valuable function. At the same time though, real critical thinking skills, require even dramatic confrontations, to “unveil” old sins and errors. And move on down the road. To a better theology; to a “second” and better view of God.

To view all theological opinions as “disfigured,” might help here; though we should be extremely careful about thereby accidentally valorizing disfigurement.

To be a “pilgrim” theologian, is to be one of the “cross.” Gerhard O. Forde has a good book on this: On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation. Any arrogance and idolatry is vanquished there, and thus knowledge of God is grounded in our participation with Christ in God’s life, by the Spirit.

This is what I see the “trek” looking like.

Readers might be interested in cross-referencing this discussion to a continuing discussion in part on “Emmaus,” and ending dualism. A discussion in part with the author of a notable book on God’s Word and the Words of men.

This can be accessed by searching on this blog, for “Word of God,” Part4.

Many “different” topics on this blog, are often deeply interrelated. Some cross-referencing might be useful. Our minds often move along associatively; and at times it seems that the “different” topics on this blog, often form one continuous conversation.

In this case, again: many of us are looking to 1) end dualism; the “rift” between God and Flesh, word and world, heaven and earth, Religion and science. And 2) we find the specific incident on the road to Emmaus to be particularly useful in this respect.

I haven’t read Lash, but from what you quote here it sounds as if theology’s task is to interpret the graced human condition. There are “patterns of human action” that “embody particular conceptions” of “fact and possibility.” So as a theologian, I would turn my attention to that “sacramental” field of experience, and offer descriptions of it as “expressive of the mystery of grace.”

I suppose we could sneak Scripture into the loop at an earlier point. It could be part of the impetus for bringing about the particular form of life we are interpreting, so that anything I see in the graced experience is already given a shape by Scripture, before I ever start interpreting it. But I’d prefer a more direct route to Scripture. And isn’t “giving symbolic expression to that meaning of ‘humanity’, that account of human identity, significance and destiny, which Christian faith declares…” an unfortunate formulation?

Just a thought. Thanks for posting this, very interesting.