Clint, of Lutheran Confessions, correctly pointed out to me that sometimes the most doctrinaire critiques of CPE are registered by those who at heart want to avoid the sometimes painful knowledge that it can impart. He wrote: "I think a lot of theologically minded folks use that criticism as a defense against actually being engaged by (transformed by?) the CPE experience, and in that sense, the very law/gospel distinction they are trying to uphold actually becomes a second order discourse for them that doesn't apply to their own lives. As in, as long as I prove that this isn't theologically correct, it can't address me or name my sin, weaknesses, etc."

I think that he is right, and that those of us in CPE should take the wheat even as we leave behind the chaff. And there is much wheat to be taken. Whatever its theological shortcomings, much of CPE is useful for schooling future pastors in how to do ministry critically. It can expose them to their weak spots, introduce them to the difficult work of crisis ministry, and give many opportunities for collegial advice on handling tough situations. I appreciate all of these things in my own CPE experience.

This conversation has reminded me of an essay I read by Carl Braaten, in his book Justification, on pastoral theology & CPE. He makes a point very similar to the one Clint made; that is, that CPE and the psychological disciplines generally, can shape the form of the questions that the Law asks of us.

He cites three directions that Christian theologians have generally taken in response to recent (20th century) psychology. First is the Barthian response, which is to attack any non-theological discourse as insufficient. We see this approach taken up in Eduard Thurneysen's book on pastoral care. The more recent response (and much more pernicious, I might add) is the "process" response. Process theology, to put it crudely, equates secular insights with revelation (i.e. there is no such thing as "special" revelation). Braaten faults both of these positions for their extremity-- Barth seems to rule out a truly incarnational God at work among us. Process thought jettisons what is truly theological by making it irrelevant in the face of more "factual" concerns. God is subject to those (and not the other way around) in this paradigm.

The third, and preferrable response, Braaten says, is exemplified by Paul Tillich. I had a hard time swallowing that with all the negative press my teachers have given Tillich. Yet Tillich wisely saw that secular wisdom can shape the questions that the law asks of us and that the gospel answers. Braaten critiques Tillich's deficient Christology (thankfully), but uses Tillich's thought in a way that I had not considered before. In any case, Braaten's essay is well worth checking out.

The text I used for introduction to theology cites Johann Gerhard's definition of theology, which I was impressed by. I can't remember the precise wording, but it's something to the effect of this: "theology is not about knowing as much as it is about being formed into the person God wants you to be." For those of you who don't know, Gerhard is the seventeenth century king of Lutheran orthodoxy. This guy probably knew all there was to know about the Church fathers, Hebrew, Latin, Greek, and all the Catholic & Evangelical theology that preceeded him. Obviously, he was not haughty, but saw keen intellect & humble piety as unified in the Christian life.

Perhaps we moderns have defaulted on this wholistic model of theological formation, making theology into an arcane discipline instead of a living & life-changing study. Our lack of character has allowed others to step in and do the work that the Church should be doing. How can we reclaim catechesis?