Anabaptist Studies

3 Responses to “Tom Finger”

• So, how did it go…? I’m so sorry I couldn’t make it - I’d have loved to have been there!

  By Joe February 24th, 2007 at 9:24 am

• Hi Joe

  There were ten of us, including Tom, on the day. Tom introduced himself with some very interesting stories and then gave us a 90 minute summary of his book. He provided clarification that he was doing theology from an Anabaptist perspective and not writing an Anabaptist theology. So he was deliberately working from within the Western tradition of Systematic Theology and providing an Anabaptist slant on this.

  This clarification provided a substantial answer to my main question posed to him which was whether an Anabaptist Theology should look much like standard systematic treatments. Tom maintained that his approach was still substantially different than other systematics and I readily grant that. However, I am still concerned that an Anabaptist approach should take Western systematics as a starting point. The problem, for me, is that this does not take sufficient account of the pervasive effects of Christendom on the whole theological enterprise. I would want to argue that any Anabaptist theology would inevitably be more “messy” than systematics has us believe. I argued for Anabaptist theologising to begin with the canonical scriptures and continue with early Christian (1st/2nd century) texts supplemented by writings from the Radical Reformation and those of other Christian groups dissenting from the Christendom model. These source documents then form the basis for theological reflection in our 21st century Western context.

  Tom was not convinced! We had a good discussion but, personally, I felt frustrated as I was under-prepared having just spent the last three weeks on jury service!

  I am afraid we did not record the session so a podcast will not be available!

  By Lloyd Pietersen February 26th, 2007 at 10:46 am

• Lloyd

  Sounds like really stimulating morning - might just have to buy that book of his!

  Interesting, in the light of the incredible journey of Advanced Workshop, that he seems so resolutely set on working within the paradigm of Western systematic theology, rather than a theological approach that is more narrative, which seems to me to resonate more with Anabaptist perspectives (I’m thinking here about the frequent way that people encounter Anabaptism through stories, in written form such as Estep’s The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism, or in oral form as people’s personal stories). With the insistent focus on Christocentrism, for example, a contemporary Anabaptist theology would make more sense to me as marginal narrative of a marginal group that is dependent on a peculiar story of a first-century life.

  I’ve been reading Brueggemann recently and his notion of ‘reading as wounded an as haunted’ resonates with me as an Anabaptist reader. And it seems to share ideas with your suggestion of always beginning with the canon and moving on through other radical, dissenting texts of marginal Christian voices. It strikes me that with a history of martyrdom ‘in the family’ we are certainly wounded by the text and the consequences of a close reading, but also haunted because, despite the wounds, we return to the canon for sustenance, challenge and in expectation of the presence of God amongst (our) suffering. Does that make any sense…?

  Sorry you felt underprepared. Would you have done things differently if you had had more time…? Were there other questions you had that arose from his book?

  By Joe February 27th, 2007 at 7:59 pm