Kuklick on what makes dead theologians worth reading
I've been reading Charles Hodge Revisted, edited by Steward and Moorhead. One of the most intriguing articles is Bruce Kuklick's. Kucklick is a fine historian, most noted for his Churchmen and Philosophers. In the essay in the Hodge volume, titled, "The Place of Charles Hodge in the History of Ideas in America," he asks what makes a Christian thinker worth reading centuries after he has written. His answer: “A nessary condition is that the speculator must have the ability to juxtapose the scared texts of his tradition with his own life experience and the knowledge of his culture. The thinker must give due regard to both to the texts and to the experience and knowledge (sic). It is the synthesis that vivifies the writing. If the synthesis is absent, the writing remains dead, no matter what the technical brilliance of the author. In Edwards this synthesis exists….In Hodge, there is no such synthesis” (76).
These are pretty damning words. Hodge doesn' fare well for Kuklick because the Princetonian prophet uncritically adopted an outdated epistemology (common sense realism) and allowed his theory of science (Baconianism) to rule out all other scientific enterprises. Edwards fares well because even though he was a conservative Calvinist like Hodge he was willing to engage the speculative thought of his day, utilize its language, reflect on his experience and the bible, and combine all this in a very compelling way. Whereas Edwards was better about defeating opposing arguments and meeting them head on Hodge often employed the dubious idea of "intuitions." If one's intuition's showed that something was wrong then it was wrong. No reason need be given. But with the rise of historicism and a consiousnessness that one's place in a culture affects their own thinking about the world, Hodge's authorative and intuitive prouncements don't hold up so well.
Whether or not one agrees with Kuklick's assessment of Hodge, his idea on what makes a Christian thinker long dead worth reading has some merit. Christians today don't read every Christian writer from the past. Many are forgotten and that is probably a good thing. Not everything written is worth reading (even this and other blogs!). Faithfulness to the Word of God, engagement of the culture, and a combination of experiential wrestling with both, often make for a good read. And, one might add that engagement with the full Christian tradition, not just one ghetto of it, is, or should be, a necessary condition for making a writer worth reading.
T. Chris @ 4:03 PM
0 Comment(s)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
|