"Imagine:in an
institution once explicitly and formally Christian and still culturally so,
largely dedicated to the education of ministers, one can deny with utter
impunity that Jesus was born of a virgin or raised from the dead.But if one says that he was the son of God
the father, one runs afoul of the institution’s deepest commitments.If the ancient christological confession is
to be retained at all—and this, presumably, is only a matter of personal
preference—it must be recast in gender-neutral terms. Though our dinner companion did not say so, I
assume that the older formulation may still be employed for purposes of
critique, to show the alleged androcentrism of the early church, but not for
purposes of affirmation, at least not without an immediate qualification to the
effect that the traditional language is a historically conditioned convention
and an unhappy one at that."
No comments:
Post a Comment