Ritröð Guðfræðistofnunar - 01.01.2007, Side 56

and ministry; it is not part of the responsibility of theology, or of practical the-
ology, to criticise, change or reform them. His thought thus becomes ‘a blue-
print for the clerical church, and almost its apologia’.12 His is not a ‘church
theology’, but a clerical theology which assumes that within the Church the
non-clerical members will be in a dependent capacity, like patients seeking
healing from their physician, or clients asking the help of their lawyers.
Despite problems such as we have outlined above, Schleiermacher’s vindica-
tion of the right of theology to a place in the modern academy, and his account
of the internal organisation of theology still have influence today, although many
people believe he produced an unsatisfactory resolution of the still continuing
tensions between what he calls ‘ecclesial interest’ and the ‘scientific spirit’. If
ecclesial interest is abandoned, academic theology loses its roots in a particu-
lar community of faith in ‘the real world’, and with that it often abandons a
concern with relevance. If the scientific spirit is set aside, theology becomes
the in-house private discourse of small and declining Christian communities
without sustainable claims to possessing public truth with something to offer in
the public square. A balance or tension needs to be maintained for the sake of
responsible and relevant theology, to save the church from becoming a ghetto
incapable of communicating with the culture and society in which it is embed-
ded, and for a healthy and lively university which does not dodge or marginalise
fundamental issues which are admittedly difficult to handle and almost impos-
sible to resolve. Perhaps the task of theology in the university is to be like the grit
in the oyster around which the pearl may gather, by asking in the academy the
hard unfashionable questions which are often a productive irritant, by affirming
the continuing significance of the tradition of faith, and by reminding the intel-
lectual power structures of their responsibility for the weak and the poor.
3. Maps of Learning and their Dangers
Maps are important, for without them we risk wandering and getting lost.
But maps can distort or misrepresent reality, and confuse the pilgrim on her
journey. The modern university and even (with appropriate qualifications)
12 W.Jetter, cited in Pannenberg, op. cit., p. 429.