“One criticizes a person, a book, most sharply when one pictures their ideal.” – Nietzsche, Seventy-Five Aphorisms #157: trans. by Walter Kaufmann.
Often I hesitate to answer questions anymore; for it is likely that we mean quite different things by the same terms…and I do n’t know what underlying motive is behind the asking of this question. Also, I agree with S. Grenz when he states, in Theology for the Community of God, that our theology is always in via (L. for ‘on the way’). True, some concepts and constructs are closer to the core by which I interact with the world while others are less valuable. However, there are few questions worth asking for which a moment’s pause is n’t appropriate.
Worse, you might assume (wrongly, I believe) that I am arguing here for the acceptance of all works and thoughts of either Nietzsche or Grenz. I would n’t even wish you to accept everything I say. What I intend is that you (best case scenario) would critically engage with such ideas as these. The horrid thing about ‘liking’ something on facebook is that it suggests that one accepts wholesale what is posted. You mistake me if you think my aim is uncritical agreement; for what I most appreciate about my best friends is that they understand well enough to disagree well – even harshly. So my true aim is dialogue of a greater quality.
Therefore, I should far rather have you disagree with me with reason than disagree without it.
*I should then note what I mean by confluence/non-confluence. The picture intended is of waters flowing together or failing to do so. If one agrees without wading deep into the waters, I aver that it would have been better not to have attempted to swim at all. Can we not learn to say neither ‘I agree’ nor ‘I disagree’ but to wade deeply and to discern well the quality of the waters?