Couple of comments: (a) Making relationships reveals holes. The *Election diagram is missing *Grace, for example. (b) Laying cards out like this begs some kind of method that identifies which idea is the spoke, which are antonyms or synonyms, which are higher-level or lower-level relationships, etc. (c) I don't think I understand what a pattern really is.
What is a pattern? Is it a recurring move or strategy or theme? For example, is *God the Father a pattern? What about *Water? What about *Christology?
And how many patterns is too many? Does a language need to be small enough to hold it all in one's mind, or, because patterns are indexed, can it be much larger? Does a large number of patterns suggest sloppy repetitiveness? Is too few not useful?
Finally, I have two ideas about an overall schema or index. I keep thinking about the divine economy and the Trinity and such. I keep thinking about the threefold liturgical confession: "Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again!"
I keep thinking about theological moves and movements. And so I have been toying with the following dramatic scheme:
- creation/introduction/recognition
- identification/empathy
- kenotic service
- gracious restoration
- glorious presentation.
But, then again, maybe the classic divisions such as Christology, pneumatology, ecclesiology, etc. are just as good.
Doctrine needs to answer a question that arises and presses for a response.1 Belief is “inextricably embodied in patterns of habit, commitment, and action, which constitute endorsement, ‘backing,’ or ‘surroundings’” for that belief.2
ReplyDeleteWhere it fails to do so, it begins to address freestanding problems and loses connection with its own life context.3 And losing connection with this life context runs the perilous risk of falsifying precisely the belief that the doctrine affirms.