Page History

...

1. Like her mentor, Charles Wood, Lancaster operates throughout with an essentially humanistic-idealistic conceptuality, whose theological appropriateness is, to say the least, questionable. Thus, for example, she speaks continually of such things as "Christian formation [Bildung!]," "growing in a saving relationship," and so on (173, 177, 178). The worst part of this, however, is that she is completely uncritical about it – revealing it—revealing at no point that she has reflected on the appropriateness of her concepts sufficiently to have good reasons for using them instead of others.

...

4. So far as I am able to tell, Lancaster's whole "narrative approach" is something of a red herring. Whether or not the Bible is to be construed as narrative, or a narrative (and there are, of course, the best of historical- and literary-critical reasons for not so construing it!), the "reformist feminist theology" for which she argues, both in general and with particular reference to the authority of scripture, can be -- and be—and has been! – adequately defended -- e—adequately defended—e.g., by Pamela Dickey Young. Far from making for a more adequate such defense, as she in effect claims, her narrative approach really saddles her with defending positions that are irrelevant to the main thing she seeks to establish. (An interesting confirmation of this is her statement, "In their own ways and without explicitly using this terminology, both Bultmann and Frei identified the way in which the Bible exercises its authority appropriately, for Bultmann when it discloses to us authentic human existence in the light of God's love and for Frei when it portrays for us a world in which God is present through Jesus Christ" [10, n. 7.].)

...