In case you hadn’t figured it out, I’m not blogging for you, I’m blogging for me. Selfish, I know, but I just like to write my thoughts down in an attempt to make them work, and I decided to put them up to (a) baggs this blog name (I already own the domain name constantlyreforming.net) and (b) let anyone who cared correct my thoughts and do my work for me.
Now… I’ve been thinking a lot about historical theology, and what the whole point is. Much of my experience of theology has been what seems to me to be historical theology for the sake of historical theology. I agree that we should read theologians whom we agree with and whom we don’t, from all parts of time, to correct our understanding of what God is saying in the Bible – to challenge our cultural assumptions and to add different angles of thought. I understand that to understand what a theologian is doing, you need to understand (to a degree) the controversy(ies) that he/she/it is addressing.
I do NOT understand writing a PHD on what Barth thinks of XYZ and the cultural influences. Why waste the time? Why not write your PHD on what the BIBLE says about XYZ, and include any new insights that Barth/Augustine/Bob the Builder have to offer?