1 - A Conversation

A Conversation
By Thomas W. Gillespie and Hugh T. Kerr

We welcome to this issue which begins Volume XLI, Thomas W. Gillespie as Chairman of the Editorial Council of THEOLOGY TODAY. A Californian who has come East, Dr. Gillespie is the newly elected President of Princeton Theological Seminary and Professor of New Testament. He is a graduate of George Pepperdine College, Princeton Seminary, and the Claremont Graduate School, where he received the doctorate in New Testament studies. He has served as the minister of the Garden Grove and Burlingame Presbyterian Churches, and as Adjunct Professor at San Francisco and Fuller Seminaries and at New College Berkeley. In church affairs, Dr. Gillespie has been active in local and national committees on ecumenism and theological education.

Kerr: When THEOLOGY TODAY came into existence forty years ago, its editorial policy assumed that both "theology" and "today" be taken with utmost seriousness. The two terms, we insisted, were interdependent, so that one without the other would diminish either or both. And we were committed to the proposition that critical reflection on the classic Christian faith be directly related to both church and society.

Does that still make sense, as you see it, for theological journalism not only for today but for tomorrow?

Gillespie: Yes, it does. If theology is "critical reflection on the classic Christian faith," then there must be conditions which require it. I would define them in terms of the temporal change and cultural diversity which interact and which characterize our human historical existence. So long as these conditions endure, theology will be necessarily a continuing and thus ever contemporary task. Authentic theology must be theology today.

That does not condemn theology to being "trendy" and "faddish." On the contrary, as critical reflection it is committed to the subject

2 - A Conversation

matter attested in Scripture and interpreted by the tradition. Theology is most responsibly contemporary when it effectively reinterprets its given subject matter in and for its own time and place. Which is simply to say that each generation of theologians need not begin by re-inventing the wheel.

The intrinsic relation between church and society is established by the subject matter of theology, which is the living God who is both Creator and Redeemer of the world through Jesus Christ. Theology's task, accordingly, is not merely that of re-stating the classic Christian faith but re-lating that faith to our life amid the social realities of the world.

Kerr: In the early days of THEOLOGY TODAY and somewhat later when you were yourself a seminarian and a graduate student, the big doctrinal issues revolved around revelation (Barth), the kergyma (C. H. Dodd and Bultmann), human perversity (Reinhold Niebuhr), the uniqueness of Christ (Donald Baillie), the church (William Temple and John Mackay), comparative religions (H. Kraemer), and existentialism (Tillich).

Do you detect similar kinds of paradigm issues in theology today?

Gillespie: The issues mentioned remain vital, in my judgment, to the life and faith of the church. What has changed since my student days are the paradigms which theologians use to resolve the issues. In fact, one could argue that the paradigmatic issue in theology today is the proper paradigm for doing theology.

With reference to the philosophy of science, Thomas Kuhn. speaks of the paradigms which provide the normative assumptions, frameworks, and methods for scientific research. Once established in the scientific community, they go unchallenged until unresolvable problems compel someone to propose a new paradigm, a new way of organizing the data, a fresh way of approaching the subject matter. When such a proposal receives sufficient acceptance within the community, a "paradigm shift" occurs which results in a scientific revolution.

Something like that is happening in theology today. The paradigms which dominated theology during the Neo-Orthodox period (between the Wars) and Thomism (before Vatican II) have been found wanting. Theology is thus preoccupied with methodology, and new proposals abound. To date, however, those advanced by process, phenomenology, narrative, liberation, hermeneutic, and other theologies have not so captured the imagination of the theological community as to cause a paradigm shift."

Some doubt that it will ever happen. Pointing to the emergence of ethnic, racial, and feminist theologies, they argue that theology is necessarily "contextual" in nature and therefore requires a "pluralism" of paradigms. Paul Ricoeur reminds us, however, that we are located not only in "situations" but in a "world." That, it seems to me, requires a more universal paradigm for the doing of theology.

If a "paradigm shift" does occur, it will need to take seriously the

3 - A Conversation

various criticisms leveled against, for example, the former Neo-Orthodox consensus. Theological claims based on revelation will seek confirmation in empirical evidence. The conviction that theology must accede to the norms of public knowledge and discourse will renew interest in natural theology and apologetics. Philosophical commitments will be made explicit. And theology will seek a, basis for honest dialogue among the world religions.

Personally, I believe the Reformed theological tradition and the current Catholic perspective afford us with abundant resources for working out the needed "paradigm shift."

Kerr: If we look back at the major cultural disruptions of the past forty years, we would need to include the post-WWII reconstruction era, the cold war with Russia, the growing awareness of the Holocaust, the emergence of the Third World, the Civil Rights movement, the ant-iestablishment protest, Vatican Council II, and so on.

Where, as you see it, are the crisis points in today's culture?

Gillespie: I am tempted to respond by reciting the obvious list of crises occasioned in the modern world: the threat of nuclear war, world hunger, economic injustice, political oppression, and the "isms" attached to race, sex, age, and nation. But these, I think, are symptoms of a deeper malaise.

From a Christian perspective, a truly radical diagnosis must focus upon the central human crisis of our relationship to God, and to one another within the context of that transcendent relationship. In biblical terms it is the crisis of sin. That is the root source of the value conflicts, the power corruptions, and the idolatries which characterize any list of modern cultural crises.

One of the ironies of our theological history over the last forty years is our forgetfulness of the insights provided, for example, by the Neo-Orthodox movement, especially Reinhold Niebuhr, into the impact of human sinfulness, individual and corporate, upon the social and political realities of human existence.

If modern cultural crises are in fact contemporary manifestations of the human crisis, then the crisis in the church reflects our inability to articulate the Gospel of redemption in a way that both makes sense and makes a difference.

Kerr: Your own scholarly research has been in the area of New Testament studies. What insights from your doctoral studies continue to motivate and inform your present perspective on theology, church, and society?

Gillespie: Two insights come to mind, and both are related to the conditions under which I pursued my graduate studies. Throughout my doctoral program at the Claremont Graduate School, I was pastor of a church. That created all kinds of time pressures, but in terms of my education the results were beneficial. For by having one foot in academe

4 - A Conversation

and the other in a congregation I experienced a healthy tension which nurtured my theological development. Each provided a critical perspective on the other. What was learned in the classroom had to be tested regularly in the pulpit, and what was proclaimed in the pulpit had to be tested consistently in the classroom. For me, at least, the results were positive.

One major insight was the necessity of a critical-historical interpretation of the Scriptures. My appreciation of the human character of the canonical literature and the historical manner of its composition was deepened. I learned from experience that any attempt to interpret Scripture apart from a serious consideration of the historical conditions out of which it emerged was simply inadequate because it was unfaithful to its nature.

The other positive insight was the inadequacy of a purely critical-historical interpretation of the Scriptures. The biblical texts may indeed function primarily as a witness to their own time and place. And the primary task of the historian may indeed be to establish what they meant then and there. But the Scriptures also function as a witness to the God who interacts redemptively with us within history. The primary task of the historian is thus for the minister of the Word merely the preliminary task. The preacher of biblical texts must move from what they meant to what they mean for us today. How to make that move is the problem of theological hermeneutics, and that has been a continuing concern of mine ever since.

Kerr: You have indicated your interest in such current surveys as In Search of Excellence (by Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Whiteman).

How can a book such as this instruct and inspire those of us in religious studies, theological education, and the pastorate?

Gillespie: The book has made a deep impression upon me because of the insights it offers concerning life together within institutions. Peters and Whiteman, of course, focus upon the ten best-managed business institutions in America, but the management style which characterizes these companies can be translated meaningfully into other institutional contexts. I am thinking specifically of the way we treat people within our organizations.

One way of expressing the issue is to ask whether we see people as "employees" or as "colleagues" in a common task. The latter, it is argued, is the more beneficial to the results of the institutional enterprise. It takes people seriously, listens carefully to their suggestions, encourages them in their work, and keeps the purpose of the institution ever before them.

What is important is not merely "the product" but the fulfillment to human life which comes from participation in the production. The results, they say, are very positive. And I believe that. How it applies to a theological seminary does not take much imagination to envision.

5 - A Conversation

Kerr: In the early days of THEOLOGY TODAY, the ecumenical movement commanded world-wide attention.

How do you read the current temperature of ecumenism and what predictions would you make especially as regards Catholic and Protestant theological understanding?

Gillespie: John A. Mackay was, of course, my mentor in ecumenism, and I remain grateful to him for the vision he shared with us of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. It has shaped my practice of ministry over three decades. The "current temperature" of the ecumenical movement must be taken at two levels for a reliable reading.

At the level of inter-church relations, the reading is high. There is less denominationalism, especially at the grass roots, than before, although we remain separated in our denominations. Yet we are talking to each other and even working together in a variety of exciting ways. Vatican II has made it possible for Catholics to join in conversations in a way that was unimaginable during my student days. So, at the level of our relations, ecumenism is alive and well.

At the level of church unions and reunions, the reading is rather low. I say that despite the miracle of grace which most recently reunited the PCUS and the UPCUSA into the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). I do not view that as a trend for the immediate future. Churches have many things on their minds these days, and, although ecumenical unions and mergers are among them, they do not seem to enjoy a very high priority at the present moment in church history.

Kerr: What would you like THEOLOGY TODAY to emphasize in coming issues?

Gillespie: I would like to see THEOLOGY TODAY participate fully and creatively in the current theological ferment. By "fully" I mean taking present issues seriously and representing them fairly to our readers. By "creatively" I have in mind bringing the rich resources of our theological traditions to bear upon the issues. Put simply, I would hope that THEOLOGY TODAY might continue to do more than report on the changing theological scene by opening up new possibilities of theological reflection that would empower the church for more effective ministry in the service of the Gospel.