K v. Gunton – rough no.2

Two very different methods of theology – both are historical and engage critically with historical sources, but Gunton’s bears the marks of a modernist purity even as he rebuffs it. K’s history of theology is ever imperfect, and such imperfection doesn’t seem to be inherently problematic. The picture implicit in his charitability, even when he charitably demands maturity and the ability to converse in a mature fashion of the newer and less-developed eastern theologies of the trinity, the implicit picture is of a living history, rather than of a perfect goal, attained more or less throughout history.

Gunton’s critiques (as exemplified by his assertion that Augustine held an essentially non-trinitarian ontology) tend to be more dogmatic rather than descriptive–if we were to follow his lead, the project of dialogue would become one of fits and starts, of paradigms building, exploding, and being replaced, rather than being a continual process which strains against itself. One is certainly more appealing — it demands less of the reader and provides a feeling of concrete surety, but, as James Jordan is apparently fond of pointing out, the urge to settle, to remain still, is an urge toward death.

Advertisement