>Paul, thanks for your substantive reply. It doesn't
>entirely allay my concerns, but I see that you have
>already considered these concerns even before my
>voicing of them.
>> The point here is to identify how it is
>> that one is liberated by truth, at least inwardly,
>> and the Rogerian theraputic model seems quite
>> parallel to the convincing work of the
>> Parakletos here in John 16.
>Is the therapist a (the?) Paraclete? This is not meant
>as a facetious remark. I am curious about how far your
>use of Rogers takes you.
I use the modest language of a "parallel" with intentionality, Jeffery. I
think there may be some overlap, and in the best cases I might imagine a
therapist furthering the work of the Parakletos. Likewise, I believe the
convincing work of the Parakletos is therapeutic, although I see that work
as having a larger goal than personal transformation, as important as that
is. So, I would envision the parallel to have some overlap, but not
In terms of continuity with the Johannine tradition, I envision closer
connections with the personal transformation that happens in the meeting
for worship. Across traditions and forms, the human-divine encounter
evokes a renewed perspective, including one's appraisal of self. The
Johannine theology of encounter emerges epistemologically, I believe, from
transformative experiences, and it likewise draws the reader into such
> How does one
>legitimately construct a Biblical theology that
>presuppose some sort of unity despite the varied
>voices that one finds in the text? Any suggestions?
The work of the Bible and Christian Theology section of SBL, along with
the Lilly-funded consultation headed up by Ulrich Mauser has done some
good work here (the session in which my paper was presented), and standard
texts on biblical theology abound. The challenge, of course, is that one
must take seriously the "theologies" within the canonical corpus even in
coming out with a "biblical" perspective on any theological topic.
Any comments from others?