as a religion based on experiences, for “if that were the case, it would have become a backward-looking religion, based on experiences from the past—instead of being open to the present time in the hope of a new future.”28
There is a need for a balance between experience and theological reflection. The dialectic between “the text” of life (experience) and the text of the Bible is the kernel of the interpretative enterprise.29 Without the interaction between the two entities we have either a theology from above which neglects the present context, or a theology from below which uses the Bible to illustrate and validate a predetermined activity. There is a need for a perspective that involves a view from above and below simultaneously.
1. For a full list of the characteristics of the classical Christian faith and new spirituality respectively, see Mortensen, “For All God’s people,” 476.
2. Ibid., 476.
3. Bollmann, Kirke til tiden, 90–92.
4. There is a risk of using an analogical model which is too simple. To avoid such a risk, one must argue that patterns and paradigms exercise a normative role through analogical imagination, which seeks to act in new situations in ways that are faithful to the original pattern. In order to be both free and faithful, modern believers reason by analogy from the earlier interaction that is witnessed in the biblical text to a similar response to the challenge of their own time. Analogical thinking relies on imagination and the ability to discern similarities and differences between one situation and another (Spohn, What Are They Saying about Scripture and Ethics?). On analogical imagination, see also Nissen, “Bible and Ethics,” 86–87.
5. On characteristics of Hellenistic culture, see Stambaugh and Balch, The Social World of the First Christians.
6. This reminds us of the modern phenomenon of globalization. For further characteristics of globalization in early Christianity and today, see Nissen, “Mission and Globalization in a New Testament Perspective.”
7. The present investigation only sporadically touches upon the relation between the Fourth Gospel and Judaism. From a historical point of view this relation is important (see also chapter 4 of this book). Biblical scholars have produced a number of analyses. For instance, there has been much discussion as to whether the Gospel has some anti-Semitic dimensions, a question that has also relevance for the present dialogue between Christianity and Judaism.
8. E.g., Appasamy, Christianity as Bhakti Marga.
9. Borup, Dansk Dharma, 22–24. Notto Thelle (Buddha og Kristus, 89–102) gives a review and critical evaluation of some recent books.
10. Steiner, The Gospel of St. John; and Steiner, The Gospel of St. John and Its Relation to the Other Gospels.
11. A survey of the strengths and weaknesses of the different methods is given in Nissen, “Mødet mellem Bibelen og nutidens mennesker,” 73–89.
12. Weber, Experiments with Bible Study, 10–11.
13. Hammar, Det som hörs, 21–24; Nissen, “Mødet mellem Bibelen og nutidens mennesker,” 49.
14. Nissen, New Testament and Mission, 15.
15. Traditionally theologians have defined the sources of theology as Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason. The Indian theologian Thomas Thangaraj has suggested the addition of a fifth source, namely dialogue: “Dialogue as a source brings new knowledge and opens our minds into newer ways of thinking and knowing” (Thangaraj, “What Are the Implications of My Experience of Interfaith Dialogue for the Understanding of Christology?,” 11).
16. Aagaard, “Den religiøse dimension,” 19.*
17. Nissen, “Matthew, Mission and Method,” 74–75.
18. Gadamer, Truth and Method, 101–21 and 293–326.
19. West, Contextual Bible Study, 44.
20. Green, “The Practice of Reading the New Testament,” 415.
21. Cf. Nissen, New Testament and Mission, 15. On the problem of self-asserting Bible reading, see my remarks on Luke 4:16–30 (ibid., 68–69).
22. Schneiders, The Revelatory Text, 171.
23. Schillebeeckx, “Erfahrung und Glaube.”
24. Lönnebo, Religionens fem språk.
25. Lönnebo, “Trons språk,” 11–12.
26. The relation between the experience of the first Christians and our own experiences is discussed in an important article by Sauter (“Wie kann Theologie aus Erfarhrung entstehen”). He asks if we are able to formulate authentic experiences without just repeating previous experiences. The dilemma can be put as follows: On the one hand stand the biblical texts, which came about in a very unique historical situation; hence, they reflect specific experiences. They are seen as a sort of “primordial” (original) experience and it is presupposed that we should try to imitate them. On the other hand the biblical texts belong to a concrete historical situation which is impossible to imitate or copy.
27. Tro i lære, 23.*
28. Gregersen, “Kirkens grænsegængere,” 38.*
29. For further reflections on this issue, see Nissen, “Scripture and Experience as the Double Source of Mission,” 182–86.
Part One
2
