McCall Initial Post Mueller:
I almost wish we had read this book first, even though the arrangement of the course readings have mostly been in historical progression (old >>> newer, excepting Smith). I say such because Mueller gives some good foundational material re: theological methodology, which probably (hopefully?) would have improved my gestation of the first three titles (knowing what to look for, etc.). Mueller’s statement that method reflects upon reflecting (1) brought to mind the Buddhist maxim that “an unlived life is not worth reflecting upon” (something to that effect). His selection of eight theologians for his four highlighted methods seems well to me (but in all honesty I was unable to dialog much with the socio-phenomenological representatives).
I appreciated (somewhat) the emphasis on human elements in methodology as given by the transcendental representatives, Rahner and Lonergan (however, this appreciative response is also at once my concern re: the transcendental method: its anthropocentricity. I enjoy reading Rahner for the most part (read some of his stuff at Asbury), but trying to read Lonergan is worse than me attempting to read Hebrew. He has such a broad influx of vocabulary words that he creates that it makes reading him difficult, to say the least. However, Lonergan’s four levels of operations involved in this process are enlightening: experiencing (i.e. the apprehension of data), understanding (insight into the data), judgment (acceptance or rejection of ideas resulting from the understanding), and decision (acknowledging value and selecting means for attaining them). Moreover, Lonergan has some affinity to and with the scientific method, and as a result he peeks my interest, so I might be interacting with him more-so soon.
As suspected, the Existential representatives included Tillich (I can’t seem to get away from this man; he keeps popping up in my scientific readings too, note). I think that the existential paradigm/method is fundamentally flawed: one, it merely responds to human existence; two, it focuses almost exclusively on the ‘here and now’; three, it is parabolically excessive in its anthropocentrism (more-so than the transcendental representatives). I think Macquarrie was a quack, and Tillich was simply a misguided victim of the times, so to speak (though well-intentioned). I must say, the more I read re: Tillich’s conception of God, the more interested am I (i.e. the ground of being, which very well has fertility for some of my research going forward in theology and science in terms of pneumatology, so as I told the devilish Mr. Bradnick in the Fall, I may be interacting with Tillich in the near future).
The Empirical method is my background, so I know it deeply, so to speak, even if I have purposefully attempted to abandon it over the last seven years (it is one of my demons). However, I am coming to the realization that if I am going to prosper in my intended area of focus – truly prosper and not just subsist – I need to work with, in some fashion, an empirical methodology (not wholesale, mind you, but an empirically-informed one nonetheless). I say this only because my desires are in the science and theology arena, and in science, empiricism “rules,” and if one desires to work in that arena, those are also the “rules” that one must obey. Perhaps I need to emphasize that experience can indeed be the regulator of truth, but not-so much the originator of truth.
I have had no exposure to the authors mentioned in Mueller’s depiction of the socio-phenomenological method. However, I am sympathetic with their aim, as well their source. This admission by me flies in my face, for I do so only because I am likewise troubled with understanding suffering, not only from my personal experiences, but just the freaking pervasiveness of it all together. Regarding the method itself, and not the application of it in suffering, I am undecided as to its value.
Regarding all of these methods, and my reflections upon them, I now reply. I cannot do any better in stating the connections and the possible implications of these four methods than did the author himself in his conclusion, so I point you there (71-75). I have taken an important truth from Mueller, if nothing else: no one method can exhaust the richness of God’s dealings with us (74).