THE THEOLOGIES OF EDWARD FARLEY AND JAMES MCCLENDON IN CRITICAL DIALOGUE
Author(s)
Theologies Of Edward FarleyThomas W. Harrington
James Mcclendon
Thomas W. Harrington
M. Agr
M. Div
Contributor(s)
The Pennsylvania State University CiteSeerX Archives
Full record
Show full item recordOnline Access
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.920.825http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article%3D1107%26context%3Ddissertations_mu
Abstract
A lively theological debate in recent decades has been the dispute over theological method between “revisionist ” and “narrativist ” theologians. To explore and evaluate this debate I consider the work of “revisionist ” theologian Edward Farley and of “narrativist ” theologian James William McClendon, Jr. Farley’s method calls, first, for an attempt to uncover faith realities that can be directly perceived, such as the faith community’s efforts to remove ethnic boundaries, and, second, for an endeavor to examine how such realities indirectly demonstrate the existence of additional faith realities, such as the character of God. In contrast, McClendon’s method calls for an attempt to ground doctrine in various sources, such as experience, community and the narrative of Christian tradition, but most especially in the narrative of Scripture, conceived of as the word of God. An endeavor to address adequately their understandings of theological method requires not only a direct analysis of the methods themselves (set forth in chapters 1 and 2) but also an examination of how these methods may be applied in the construction of doctrine. Thus, (in chapters 3 and 4) I consider the manner in which Farley’s andDate
2016-09-24Type
textIdentifier
oai:CiteSeerX.psu:10.1.1.920.825http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.920.825