E.

Crump/JensonReview/1
Jenson, Robert W. Systematic Theology, Vol. 1: The Triune God. New York/Oxford: Oxford
UniversityPress,1997.
Systematic Theology, Vol. 2: The Works of God. New York/Oxford: Oxford
UniversityPress,1999.
1
ForJenson,systematictheologyisacognitivepracticeofthinkingundertakenbythechurchthatis
internaltothetaskofspeakingthegospel.Theologicalthinkingisspeculative,practical,and
hermeneutical.Theologyisapracticaldisciplineasacriticalandselfcriticalguidetothepracticeofspeaking
thegospel,whichisthemissionofthechurch.Itisalsoacognitiveenterprisesocaptivatedbyadeterminate
objectthatitisitsownreward(p.11).Itisspeculativewithregardtothedeterminateobjectwhichthegospel
witnessesto,namely,theResurrection.ToattendtotheresurrectionistoattendtoGodselfidentifiedasthe
onewhoraised theLordJesus.Whoever and,indeed,whatever, didthat,thechurchsays,istherealitywe
meanbyGod.ToattendtotheResurrectionandtoattendtothisparticularputativeGod,totakeeitherasthe
objectofourreflection,arethesame(p. 12).Asreflectioninternaltothepracticeofspeakingthegospel,
theologyisalsohermeneuticalreflectionasinterpretationinternaltotheactoftraditionthatbeginswitha
receivedwordandissuesinanewwordessentiallyrelatedtotheoldword(p.14).Thehistoryofthegospeland
itspracticeis,hence,necessarilyahistoryofinterpretativethoughtonthepartofthechurchthatinvolveshistoric
choices.Thesehistoricchoicesaredogmaticallyevidencedinthelogicalformmarkedby irreversibility
characteristicoftheologicalpropositions:Tobespeakingthegospel,letushenceforwardsayFratherthan
thatotherpossibilityG.Adogmaticchoiceisonebywhichthechurchsodecisivelydeterminesherownfuture
thatifthechoiceiswronglymade,thecommunitydeterminedbythatchoiceisnolongerinfactthecommunityof
thegospelthusnochurchthereafterexiststoreversethedecision(p.17).Christiantheology,forJenson,isa
hermeneutical,secondorderdiscourseexplicatingtheprescriptivegrammarofthefirstorderdiscourseofthe
church'spracticeofspeakingthegospel.
Astheongoingecclesialpracticeofthinkingforthesakeofitsmissionandpracticeofthespeakingof
thegospel,systematictheology willalwaysberelatedtodogmaastheirreversibledecisionsofthecommunityof
1
Iamgratefultotheeditorof Homileticforpermissiontoincorporatemyreviewofthefirstvolumeforthisexpandedreview.
E.Crump/JensonReview/2
faithsofartakeninthateffort.Thereforealltheologyissubjecttotheauthorityofdogmaandmayinturn
contributetodogmayettobeformulated.Thetheologianwho understandshisorherworkknowsthattoproceed
incontradictionorindifferencetodogmaistoturnfromtheologytoanotherpractice(p.22).ForJenson,
systematictheologyisonlyrelativelydistinguishedfromdogmatictheologyinthat,whereasdogmatictheologyis
principallyconcernedwithexplicatingthedogmasofthechurch,systematicsismorefreelyconcernedwiththe
truthofthegospel,whetherdogmaticallydefinedornot(p.22).
TheplanofJenson'ssystematicsisconfiguredinlightofCatholicandProtestantoutlinesoftheology,
twoconstrualsofsystematicsthathavetypicallypredominatedintheWesterntheologicaltradition.InScholastic
andTridentineRomanCatholictheology,thesubjectmatteris,firstandforemost,Godandthenallotherthings
asorderedtoGodastotheir sourceandfinalgoal[ThomasAquinas, SummaTheologiae,i.1.8].For
Protestanttheologyinitsseventeenthcenturymaturity (p.x),theologywasconstruedasapracticaldiscipline
thatisaguidetoapracticeorpractices,namely,truefaithinGod,throughvariousmeans.Whileinformedby
andincorporatingfeaturesofboth,Jenson'sprojectdepartsfromthembyincludingchristologyand
pneumatology,togetherwithdiscussionsofthehistoricalJesus,ofthedoctrinesoftheatonement,andofthe
resurrection,backintothedoctrineofGod(p.x).Jenson'saimistopresentaradicallytrinitariantheologyin
whichtheimmanenttrinityistheeconomictrinity.ForJenson,Christiansystematictheologycanonlybea
trinitariantheologywithitsconceptuallydevelopedandsustainedinsistencethatGodhimselfisidentifiedbyand
withtheparticularplottedsequenceofeventsthatmakethenarrativeofIsraelandherChrist(p.60).The
inclusionofchristology,pneumatology,andtheaforementioneddoctrinesfunctionsnotonlytosafeguardagainst
thepossibilityofthetemptationofanontrinitarianidentificationofGod,butrathertoenablethemtoidentifyGod
asnarrativeofthehistorywithuswithwhichandbywhichhe[God]identifieshimself(p.60).
ForJenson,sincethebiblicalGodisidentifiedbynarrative,God'sselfidentityorhypostaticbeingis
constitutedbydramaticcoherence.Asconstitutedthroughdramaticcoherenceofthebiblicalnarrative,divine
selfidentityisestablishednotfromthebeginningbutfromtheend,notatthebirthbutatthedeath,notin
persistence,butin anticipation. ThebiblicalGodisnoteternallyhimselfinthathepersistentlyinstantiatesa
beginninginwhichhealreadyisallheeverwillbeheiseternallyhimselfinthatheunrestrictedlyanticipatesan
E.Crump/JensonReview/3
endinwhichhewillbeallhecouldeverbe.Itholdsalso or,rather,primarily withGod:astoryisconstituted
bytheoutcomeofthenarratedevents(p.66).But,sincethebiblicalnarrativehasmorethanoneagent,the
identityoftheGodofExodusandResurrectionisdeterminedinhisrelations withotherswhoarenotextrinsic,
suchthattheologymustreckonwithandseektoidentifyapluralityofwhatcanonlybecalled dramatisdei
personae,charactersofthedramaofGod(p.75).ForJenson,theeventoftheresurrectionofJesusprovides
thecentraldramaticcoherencefortheselfidentificationofGodastriune.
PartII[TheTriuneIdentity(pp.63161)]presentsareinterpretationofthechristologicaland
trinitariandoctrinesthroughacloserrecognitionandadherencetothebiblicalGod'shypostaticbeingas
determinedbythecoordinatesofthetriunenameinlightofthe dramatisdeipersonae Father,Son,andSpirit.
Thissectioncanmostfruitfullybeunderstoodasasystematictheologicalrethinkingofdogmatictheologyinlight
ofthescripturalnarrative,preparatoryworkfortheculminationofthevolumeinPartIII[TheTriune
Characterpp.165236)]anditspresentationofthedefinitiveselfidentificationofGodintermsoftheeventof
theresurrectionofJesusattestedtointhegoodnewsthatJesusisrisenfromthedead.Jenson'sreinterpretation,
astherethinkingofdogmainlightofthebiblicalnarrative,seekstoaddressthepatrological,christological,and
pneumatologicalproblemsintheclassicaldogmaticformulations.Specifically,heseekstoaccomplishwhat
NiceaandConstantinopleandthetheologianswhoenabledthemdid not accomplishinlightoftheirassumption
oftheequivalencebetweendeityandimpassability,theirfailuretorecovera biblicalunderstandingofthe Logos
asGod's speech,andtheirprotologicalinterestinrelationsoforiginasconstitutiveforthedivinelifeofthe
triuneGod,therebysuppressingthe eschatological characterofGod'sscripturalhistory(p.108).
PartIIIisthesystematictheologicalconclusion,presentingthetrinitarianconceptoftheBeingof
God[Chapter13"TheBeingofGod"(pp.207223)]byreinterpretingbeingtoaccommodatethegospel,
andjustbysodoingsaywhatitisforGodto be(p.212)invirtueofJenson'sconceptualmovefromthe
biblicalGod'sselfidentification byeventsintimetohisidentificationwiththoseevents(p.58).Jenson's
argumentcanbeseenasaradicalizationoftheseventeenthcenturySwabianLutheranchristological
proposalregardingthepersonalunityofJesusofNazareth(asscripturallypresented)asthebasisforthe
understandingofthedivinityandhumanityofChrist,ratherthaninterpreting,inabstractionfromthe
E.Crump/JensonReview/4
Scripturalnarrative,thepersoninlightofanunderstandingofthedivineandhumannaturesderivedfroma
metaphysicsofsubstance.JensonsystematicallyproposestorevisionthedoctrineofGodintermsofthe
gospelnewsthatJesusisrisenfromthedeadbyincorporatingchristology,pneumatology,thehistorical
Jesus,theatonement,andresurrectionwithinthedoctrineofGod,though,withaneschatologicalemphasis
upontheresurrection.ThisisthereasonwhythetrinitarianinterpretationofthebeingofGodispreceded
bytheinterrelateddiscussionsofJesus[Chapter10(pp.165178)],thecrucifixion[Chapter11(pp.179
193)],andtheresurrection[Chapter12(pp.194206)].Thecentralityoftheresurrectionashistorical
eventisunderscoredbybeingalready included,contraBultmann,asaspecificationofJesus'historical
reality,togetherwithhisbirth,life,anddeath,inChapter10.Chapter12[theResurrection]isconcerned
principallywiththequestionofthebodilycharacteroftheresurrection.
Jensonnotesthathisrepeatedemphasisuponthecentralityoftheresurrectiondoes,however,
removetheCrucifixionfromakindofcentralityithassometimesoccupiedintheologyandthat[w]hat
thechurchinherselfidentificationhasdenotedbythegospelisthemessageofthecrucifiedone's
resurrection(p.179).Hisemphasisinvitesthecounterquestionastowhetherhispositionisatheologia
gloriaeratherthan theologiacrucifixi.Despitehisaffirmationsoftheunityofcrucifixion andresurrection
aseventswithinGod'striunelife,anambiguityispresentinhisvariousformulations.Ontheonehand,his
languagecanimplythatthecrucifixionisthenegativepresuppositionforthepositiveeventofthe
resurrection:TheCrucifixionisGod'ssalvificactionjustinthatGodovercomesitbytheResurrection
(p.182).Ontheotherhand,inanotherplace,hislanguagecanimplythatthecrucifixionofJesusisthe
positiveconditionofthepossibilityfortheresurrectioninthatGod'sselfidentityisdecisivelyestablishedin
thecrucifixion:TheCrucifixionputituptotheFather:Wouldhestandto thisallegedSon?To this
candidatetobehisownselfidentifyingWord?TheResurrectionwastheFather'sYes.Wemaysay:
theResurrectionsettledthattheCrucifixion'ssortofGodisindeedtheoneGodtheCrucifixionsettled
whatsortofGoditiswhoestablisheshisdeitybytheResurrection.Or:theCrucifixionsettled whoand
whatGodistheResurrectionsettled thatthisGodis"(p.189).Aclarificationoftheissueforthereader
wouldhavebeenpossibleifJensonhadexplicitlyengagedindialoguewiththosecontemporarypost
E.Crump/JensonReview/5
Bultmannianpositions(e.g.,EberhardJngel,IngolfUlrichDalferth,andEbeling)emphasizingthe
centralityofthecrucifixion,thatargueforthelatterclaim,namely,thetriuneselfidentificationofGodin
thehistoryofJesus'birth,life,anddeathdisclosedintheresurrectionwithoutrequiringtheaffirmationof
theresurrectionashistoricaleventinspaceandtime.Thisisespeciallyimportantinlightofthemany
theologicalconcernssharedincommonbybothJensonandsuchfigures.
Thistheologicalissueisalsorelatedtoanimportanthermeneuticalissuevisvisthetheological
interpretationofScripture.CouldonenotpossiblyaffirmthetriuneselfidentificationofGodinlightof
thenarrative/storyofJesus'history(birth,life,anddeath)andresurrectionratherthan,asJensondoes,in
lightofthe historyofJesus'birth,life,death,andresurrection,therebyconflatingnarrative/storyand
history?ForJenson,thetestforasystemoftheologyinrelationtoScriptureisintermsofitssuccessor
failureasahermeneuticalprincipleforScripturetakenasawhole,asonegreattextwithaverycomplex
internalstructure.Internalbiblicalproofofthesystemthatfollowscanthereforeonlybethesystem
itselfasitpresentsitselfintheroleofageneralhermeneuticalprincipleforScripture takenasasingle
complextext,thatis,asitmarshalsthestructuredwholeoftheBibletoitsownsystematicand
argumentativepurposesandjusttherebydisplaysorfailstodisplaythecoherentsensethattheBibleitself
isantecedentlypresumedtomake(p.33).ButisitnecessaryhermeneuticallytoreadtheBibleasone
singlenarrativeinordertoaffirmtheologicallythetriuneselfidentificationofGod?Manypost
Bultmanniantheologicalpositions,suchasthosementionedabove,wouldaffirmthattheaffirmationofthe
triuneselfidentificationofGoddoesnotnecessarilyrequiresuchahermeneuticalclaim.
JensonhimselfdoesinfactraisethequestionIsthereinfactthebiblicalnarrative,running
throughalltheScriptures'historicaldiscontinuitiesandnonnarrativegenres?(p.58).Hisresponsetothe
questionisadogmaticstipulationbecausefinallyonecannotinterprettheBibleindependentlyofthe
churchanditsdogmaisthatwithoutthesethereisnosuchbook.Themodernattempttointerpret
Scripturehistoricallyhasbeenintrinsicallyselfdefeatingandhasnowdefeateditself,sinceithas
curiouslysupposedthattointerprettheBiblehistoricallywemustabstractfromthehistoryforwhose
attestationthechurchassembledthiscollectioninthefirstplace,theIncarnationandtheResurrectionof
E.Crump/JensonReview/6
Christ(p.59).Jensondoesnottotallydiscredithistoricalcriticism,however,eventhoughhetermsit
selfdefeatinganddefeated:Inthechurch,wewillcreditreconstructionsofthehistoricalJesusthat
arecompatiblewiththecanonicalnarrativebeforewecreditalternativehypothesesthatarenot(p.174).
Butdoesthismeanthattheinterpretationofthebiblicaltextsiscaptivetoitschurchlyinterpreters
whoclaimproprietarypossessionofthetexts?Jensoncontendsthat[I]fnowweask whoistodefenda
biblicaltextagainstitschurchlyinterpretersperhapsbypointingoutfactsaboutit[emphasisadded]the
finalansweristhattheSpiritmustdoso.Butatthelowerlevelmaintainedintheseprolegomena,the
neededinsightisthatthereisnoonetodefendthetextagainstthe associationofitsinterpretersexceptthe
communityofthosesameinterpreters,thatis,thechurchaschurchoveragainstthechurchasacertain
numberofconjoinedpersons.Alltextsfinallyneedaninterpreterthatisnoparticularinterpreteroreven
allparticularinterpretersaddedoraveragedtogether,thatistosay,alltextsneedatruecommunityas
interpreterinthechurch,Scripturehasjustsuchadefender(p.40).Couldonenotsaytheologically,
however,thattheSpiritoftruthisfreetoelectasdefendershistoricalcriticalinterpretersofthebiblical
textsbothwithinthechurchandoutsideofthechurch(inaCyruslikecapacity)?Itisquestionable
whetherJenson'santitheticalportrayaloftherelationbetweenthehistoricalcriticalmethodandthe
theologicalinterpretationofScriptureisadequateinlightofthosesystematicpositionsthatarticulate
hermeneuticalmediationsbetweenthem.ItwouldhaveagainbeenhelpfulforthereaderifJensonhad
seriouslyengagedothercontemporarytheologicalpositions,whicharticulatesophisticateddiscussionsof
thehermeneuticalissuesbetweenthehistoricalcriticalmethodandthetheologicalinterpretationof
Scripture,inordertosubstantiatehis,oftenacerbic,contentions.Ithasoftenbeenremarkedthatthe
greateststrengthofseventeenthcenturyLutheranchristologicalproposals,itsdogmaticattentivenesstothe
Scripturalnarratives,wasperhapsalsoitsgreatestweakness.PerhapsthestrengthofJenson'sdogmatic
attentivenesstothebiblicaltexts,underlyingthestrengthsofhissystematictheologicalproposals,isalso
the greatestweaknessofhissystematictheology.
Jenson'ssecondvolume,devotedtotheworksofGod adextrainrelationtothedoctrinesof
E.Crump/JensonReview/7
creation,thechurch,andthefinalKingdom,ispredicateduponthedogmaticclaimofthedramatic
coherenceoftheScripturalnarrative.ThedramaticcoherenceoftheScripturalnarrativeisthe
presentationofinitialcreationandredemptionandfulfillmentas"dramaticallyunitedmomentsofGod's
onecreativework,shapedandmovedbyhisoneintenttosave,atotaldramaticallyunifieddivineaction
(Vol.2:14).HisaffirmationofthedramaticcoherenceoftheScripturalnarrativeissignificantintermsof
hisdeparturefromassociatingitwiththeCatholictradition'sframeworkofnatureandgrace(cf.2:6668)
anditsdeclaredreclamationoffuturisteschatologyandthedescribabilityofitscontentoveragainstthe
"eschatologicalascesis"ofdialectical,NeoProtestant,andpostmoderntheologies(cf.2:309310,321).
ForJenson,thecriticalquestionsandsuspicionsdirectedtowardsthedogmaticclaimofthecoherentunity
ofthebiblicalnarrativeinlightoftheworkofthehistoricalcriticalmethodinmodernityarefinally
irrelevant,eventhoughheclaims"[s]uchhistoricalconsciousnessandtheroutinesofreadingthathave
developedwithinitareinthemselvesimperativeforthechurch'sinterpretationofScripture"(2:278).
CitingEbeling,JensonclaimsthatatleastwhereChristianityandmodernityorpostmodernityoverlap,
thehistoricalcriticalreadingofScriptureisthenecessaryselfcriticismbytheinterpreterwithrespectto
thepossibilitiesofselfdeceptionaboutwhatthetextintends(vol.2:278).
Eventhoughthechurchisabletoliveneitherwithnorwithouthistoricalcriticalexegesis(vol.
2:279),theresolutiontothecrisisofinterpretationinmodernityliesinthenatureofthechurch.For
Jenson,the"onesimpleinsight"requisitefortheresolutionofthehermeneuticalcrisisisthat,"[w]hatever
hermeneuticalgapsmayneedtobedealtwithinthecourseofthechurch'sbiblicalexegesis,thereisone
thatmustnotbepositedorattemptedtobedealtwith:thereisnohistoricaldistancebetweenthe
communityinwhichtheBibleappearedandthechurchthatnowseekstounderstandtheBible,because
thesearethesamecommunity.ForJenson,[t]heerrorofalmostallmodernbiblicalexegesisliesinits
subliminalassumptionthatthechurchinandforwhichMatthewandPaulwrote,orinwhichIrenaeus
shapedthecanon,andthechurchinwhichwenowreadwhattheyproducedarehistoricallydistantfrom
eachother,thesubliminalassumptionthatthereisnoonediachronicallyidenticaluniversalchurch:nearly
allmodernbiblicalexegesisinfactpresupposesasectarianecclesiology(vol.2:279280).
E.Crump/JensonReview/8
Jensonnotesandemphasizesanecessaryhermeneuticalcorollarytothisdogmaticdenialof
historicaldistance,namely,thathistoricalhonestyrequiresthechurchtointerpretScriptureinthelightof
herdogmas(vol.2:281).Hence,ifthereisthechurch,thenthedogmaofthechurchisinthedirect
continuityofScriptureandisanecessaryprincipleforinterpretingScripture,andviceversa(vol.2:281).
Hence,Jensoncontendsthatthe dogmaticclaimofthechurchconcerningtheentitativeidentityofthe
WordthatcametotheprophetsandtheWordincarnatebyMaryentailsthattheinterpretationofthe
ServantSongsthroughthechristologyoftheecumenicalcouncilsisnottheimpositionofanextrinsicrule
butisrathervitalelucidationofwhatthetexthistoricallysays(vol.2:281).Thehermeneuticalnecessity
ofinterpretationofthebiblicaltextsinlightofdogma,however,neithermeansthateverybiblicalpassage
mustbemadetoagreewithdogmanorthattheBibleistheologicallyhomogeneousevenwithitself
(2:281).Italsodoesnot,Jensonclaims,meanthathistoricalstudymaynotfindthatparticularapparently
dogmaticdecisionsofthechurchareunsupportedbyScripture(2:281).
ThecategoricaldenialofhistoricaldistancewithregardstothechurchisseenbyJensonasnot
beingthecriticaldisarmingorneutralizationofhistoricalcriticalstudy'sabilitytoconfrontreadersof
Scripturewiththeothernessofthetexts(2:281).Thehistoricaldistancesthathistoricalcriticalreading
ofScripturecanandmustkeepopenarehistoricaldistanceswithinthestoryofScripture'scommunity
theymakethehistorical compassoftheonecommunitywhosebook thisis.Thehistoricaldistanceswith
whichinterpretationmustindeedreckonandofwhichhistoricalcriticallaborsmustmaintaintheawareness
arethedistancesbetweenMosesandthelaterprophets,orbetweentheprophetsandJesus,orbetween
JesusandPaulandPaulandus,butneverbetweenthestoryasawholeandus,neverbetweenthebiblical
communityasawholeandthepresentchurch(2:281).Thesehistoricaldifferencesarepreciselythose
whichitisthetaskofhistoricalcriticismtomarkevermoresharply(2:282).Itispreciselythetask
ofhistoricalcriticismtofunctioncorrectivelyinordertopreventtheperversionofspiritualexegesisby
attendingtohistoricallocationsandtherespectivehistoricaldifferencesbetweenthoselocations.Churchly
exegesisas"spiritual,"safeguardedfromperversionthroughhistoricalcriticism,thatshouldnowbe
possiblewouldbedevotedasanymedievalhomilisttofindingachristologicalandeschatologicalandmoral
E.Crump/JensonReview/9
senseineverylasteventortestimonyofScripturebutwouldbeconstrainedbyhistoricalconsciousness
fromfindingthembyahistoricalassociations(2:284).Jensonoffershisownpagesofscriptural
interpretationinhissystematicsasillustrativeexamplesofsuchapossibleexegesis(whichthencouldbe
legitimatelyexaminedastowhetherornotitissufficientlysafeguardedfromahistoricalassociations).
YetJensonstipulatesalimittohowsharplysuchhistoricaldistancescanbedrawn.Inthechurch
hecontendsthatevermoresharplydelineatedhistoricalcriticalreadingscannotcallintoquestionthe
dramaticcoherenceofthechurch'stellingofthenarrative.Butinthechurchthismustbedoneonlyto
profiletheindividualmomentsofonedramaticallycoherenthistoryanditstelling.Withanyparticular
biblicaleventorpassage,thispreliminarystepisnecessarybutactualinterpretationisthentheartof
displayingthethusprofiledeventorteachingorprophecyorprayerinitsplacewithintheonestoryofGod
withhispeople(2:282).ForJenson,thehistoricalcriticalmethodispermissibleandnecessaryasan
ancillarymomentandacorrectivetoabusesofspiritualexegesis,situatedwithindogmaticlimits.
ThoughdisputingtheFirstVaticanCouncil'steachingconcerningthesuppositionofaknowledgeofGod
bynaturalhumanreason(2:162163),JensonappearstoconcurwiththeFirstVaticanCouncil's
DogmaticConstitutionontheCatholicFaithanditsexplanationoftheTridentinedecreeonthe
interpretationofScripture:thatinmatteroffaithandmorals,belongingastheydototheestablishingof
christiandoctrine,thatmeaningofholyscripturemustbeheldtobethetrueone,whichholymotherchurch
heldandholds,sinceitisherrighttojudgeofthetruemeaningandinterpretationofholyscripture.In
consequence,itisnotpermissibleforanyonetointerpretholyscriptureinasensecontrarytothis,orindeed
againsttheunanimousconsentofthefathers(in DecreesoftheEcumenicalCouncils,Vol.2: Trentto
VaticanII,ed.byNormanP.Tanner,S.J.[Sheed&WardandGeorgetownUniversityPress,1990]).
Jenson'spositioncanalsobeunderstoodasareaffirmation(withmodifications)ofwhatErnst
Troeltschdescribedasthedogmaticmethodinhisclassic1898articleHistoricalandDogmaticMethod
inTheology(availableinEnglishtranslationinErnstTroeltsch,ReligioninHistory,essaystrans.by
JamesLutherAdamsandWalterF.Bense[Minneapolis:FortressPress[FortressTextsinModern
Theology],1991).Atissueiswhetherornotthehistoricalcriticalmethodasmethodcanbelimitedsuch
E.Crump/JensonReview/10
thatonecannotevenrationallyconsiderandseriouslyentertainthepossibilityofsuspicionsitmightraise
thatdogmaticconstrualsofthedramaticcoherenceofsalvationhistoricalmodelcouldrestupona
hermeneuticalselfdeceptioninrelationtothebiblicaltexts.ForTroeltsch,[w]hoeverlendsit[the
historicalcriticalmethod]afingermustgiveitahandsuchthat[o]ncethehistoricalmethodisappliedto
biblicalscienceandchurchhistory,itisaleaventhatalterseverythingand,finally,burstsaparttheentire
structureoftheologicalmethodsemployeduntilthepresent(Englishtranslationmodified).Doesnotthe
useofthehistoricalcriticalmethodasaselfcriticalmethodrequireseriouslyentertainingsuchapossibility
inordertobepreparedtofollowrationality'simperativeofepistemicopenness?
JensonhimselfdefinesrationalityasepistemicopennesstoGod'sfuture,obediencetothe
command,Bepreparedtochangeyourmind.Testyouropinions,bywhateverareinanyinstancethe
appropriatewarrants(2:146147).Irrationalityispreciselydisobedienceofthiscommandandassuch
isindeedacrime(2:147).InlanguageremarkablyakintoImmanuelKant'sessayWhatis
Enlightenment?Jensonstatescategoricallythat[w]henImaintainmyopinionsmerelybecauseIalready
holdthem,Ishutmyselfagainstthefutureandsoagainstthenewpossibilitiesothersrepresenttome.And
soIviolatecommunity.IviolatecommunityevenorespeciallywhenIholdmyopinionssimplybecause
mycommunity itselfalreadymaintainsthem(2:147).Couldnottheaffirmationofadogmaticlimitation
tothepossibleradicalityofquestionsthatmightbe(andhavebeen)raisedforcertaintheologicalconstruals
inrelationtotheinterpretationofScripture,such asasalvationhistoricaloneofthetotaldramatic
coherenceofthebiblicaltexts,besuchaviolationevenorespeciallywhenacommunityitselfalready
dogmaticallymaintainsthem?And,whereChristianityandmodernity(andpostmodernityperhaps)
overlap,thisisaquestionthattheologyhasoftenbeentemptedtoavoid,butfinallyinselfhonestycannot
beavoided.
Asnotedearlier,forJenson,systematictheologyisonlyrelativelydistinguishedfromdogmatictheology
inthat,whereasdogmatic theologyisprincipallyconcernedwithexplicatingthedogmasofthechurch,
systematicsismorefreelyconcernedwiththetruthofthegospel,whetherdogmaticallydefinedornot(1:22).
PerhapsamoreaptgeneraltitleforJenson'ssystematicswouldbedogmatictheologyratherthansystematic
E.Crump/JensonReview/11
theology.
EricH.Crump
Assoc.Prof.ofSystematicTheology
LutheranTheologicalSeminaryGettysburg