15 internautes sur 16 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
- Publié sur Amazon.com
I want to first say that this book is not for the faint of heart. It is highly technical, philosophical, and seems to draw more questions than answers in the end (clearly a sign of the post-modern trend). Though I admire so many aspects of this work, the book essentially fails to deliver a thoroughly evangelical model for 'doing theology' which would see scripture as our final authority (contra culture, neo-orthodoxy, post-liberalism). I state this criticism not as an ignorant evangelical, but one who shares their concerns: a desire for a more honest engagement and method for doing theology in our present culture. However, though they (Grenz/Franke) attempt to move from propositionalist methodology into a more culturally relevant method, they essentially desire to stay within the evangelical framework. At points they engage this reworking successfully, yet in the end they tend to align themselves more with the Post-Liberal, Yale theology of George Lindbeck and Hans Frei (and somewhat with the 'Neo-Orthodoxy' of Karl Barth), than a conservative evangelical could agree with. So, in essence, the book fails not because it essentially aligns itself with these methods for doing theology, but because it attempts to do this while at the same time remaining within the more conservative/evangelical tradition which sees scripture as the ultimate authority.
Other reviewers have given solid assessments of the many specifics of these aspects, so I will not write further on this. I will comment briefly on how the book attempts to give tradition and culture a somewhat equal status to scripture because the bible itself was written within a cultural and historical setting. From the outset, I feel this is honest, yet it seems to lean towards interpretations that tend to be drawn from present culture rather than an understanding of these eternal truths within their cultural setting. Some might say that Grenz and Franke have 'Left Foundationalism'. I don't think I would go that far, but they certainly attempt to exit the propositional methodology of scriptures for something that is more defined by culture.
In the end, their desires to move away from this type of 'doing theology' is well-warranted as this method (propositionalism) came out of a cultural reaction as well, the conservative reaction to the liberal interpretations of scripture during 'Modernity'. Essentially, the famous 'Fundamentals' came from this reaction as it was needed within its cultural context. So, I would agree with Grenz and Franke that we need to move 'Beyond Foundationalism'. This 'Foundationalism' (which refers to a method for doing theology) sets the scripture up as an essential treasure trove of propositional facts for the Christian to learn, memorize, and essentially believe in. Clearly, the method of 'proof texting' has been taught to the majority of believers as a very practical outgrowth of this kind of belief. As an evangelical, I don't see this as wrong as long as a thorough understanding of the book/chapter and background is understood well-enough to explain that proof-text. This is just one small example of the common 'Foundationalist' method for doing theology which this book sets out to revise.
This leads to the books final assessment: Does the book achieve what it sets out to do? I don't believe so, for the reasons I mentioned above. In the attempt to move beyond foundationalism, it seems to leave the distinctive of foundational/evangelical theology of the primacy of the written Word as authoritative and final in practice and life. It somewhat elevates cultural views of this authoritative written Word on equal status as the original context the writers engaged in. I believe the writers essentially aligned themselves more closely to the Neo-Orthodox view on revelation than most evangelicals would be comfortable with. Their handling of the 'Final Revelation of God', His Son Jesus Christ, seems to take precedence over the preserved written Word which both testifies of Him and is a testimony of the Holy Spirit. I think the balance between the Living Word/written Word is somewhat lost in this book, which is why I feel they have not achieved their essential goals, a revision of evangelical methods for doing theology (and an attempt not to leave it).
Lastly, their attempt is oriented more for the academic audience than for the common reader. The book is highly philosophical dealing heavily within this realm. The wordage is also extremely academic in nature, almost convoluted to a point. In my final assessment, I believe Dr. Kevin Vanhoozer's book, "The Drama of Doctrine" is a more faithful presentation of how to 'revise' evangelical methodology. This and his, 'First Theology' are excellent books on how to approach the Foundationalist methods, revise them biblically, and keep the Living Word/written Word in balance as testimonies to the One true God. His work is very generous, even-handed, and revises (more than departs from) evangelical methods for doing theology in our present, post-modern culture. However, this is still an excellent work in scholarship by two first-rate theologians.