Eventually, however, this immensely impactful journey of historical theology for Durand gave way to something new. During a time of immense unrest in South Africa, with uprisings and a fierce battle between the proponents and opponents of apartheid, within society, the academy, theology, and the government, Durand entered the third phase, in which he still is (Durand, 2002:69). This final methodological shift for Durand began as a result of the influence of the theology of David Tracy. In response to the so-called “linguistic turn” and the work of Tracy, Durand was inspired to revive a methodological focus which had been more or less dormant since his second doctoral thesis, namely an appreciation for the power of analogy. Because the fundamental assumption of the linguistic movement, that “Christianity is not, in the first place, a historical event, but a linguistic one”, is in conflict with Durand’s tendency within theology, he states that this re-awakening to the power of metaphors came within an “agreement-in- difference” (Durand, 2002:67).30 Durand recognized a shortcoming in his heavily historical
approach to theology, namely that even though events have their root of physical existence in history, they are carried across and expressed to others first as a linguistic act. Acknowledging the central role metaphors play in Christianity, he believes that it is impossible to do theology apart from metaphors, as they convey things which literal expressions cannot, “when we express the inexpressible” (Durand, 2002:69).31 Metaphors work to give expression to the mystery of God, and the number of conflicting metaphors in this quest means for Durand that humility in hermeneutics, philosophy, and all theology is essential. Finding a balance between a historical approach and an appreciation for metaphors and their meaning, uses, and intentions
30 Original: “die christelike geloof is nie in die eerste plek ‘n historiese gebeurtenis nie, maar ‘n taal gebeurte”
(Durand, 2002:67).
117
is what defines this third phase of Durand’s methodological journey, a stage which he is still in (Durand, 2002:69-70). Additionally, a metaphorical approach gives recognition to the processes of interpretation which occur in telling a historical narrative:
In the search for similarity-in-difference the interpreter in conversation with the biblical text as metaphor will have to distil the intent and meaning of the metaphor. To that end the interpreter's commitment to the biblical text, as a believer honed by the tradition from which he or she comes, plays a crucial role in enabling him or her to distinguish between that which is vital in the biblical metaphor and that which is not. Once this has been discovered a new metaphor is created corresponding to the self-understanding of the interpreter. This is the metaphorical character of theology and this is the way in which Christian doctrine has been created over many centuries (Durand, 2011:15). A publication of Durand’s that is deeply relevant to this phase is an article he published in the Journal of Theology for Southern Africa in 1993, Theology and Resurrection –
Metaphors and Paradigms. Herein Durand follows the same rhetorical structure as in Skrifgesag, heilsgeskiedenis en die subjek-objek-polariteit. He begins by identifying a trend
which he regards as a problem, namely that historically, the resurrection has not been given due attention within Western theology. This is followed by a suggestion of why he believes this has occurred – that is, he narrows the focus of discussion to the twentieth century, stating that this undervaluation of the resurrection has taken place because of the immense focus which has been placed on questions around hermeneutics – and an analysis of the major contributing factors, namely the work of Bultmann. After a discussion of the various contrasting perspectives on what role hermeneutics should play in theology, he comes with a constructive proposal.
Durand’s statement that the resurrection does not receive enough attention is based on a historical survey of dominant theological trends within Western theology, distinct from
118
Eastern Christianity. The crucifixion and Christ’s life have proportionately been greater points of focus, and thus, despite the centrality of the resurrection to soteriology and indeed eschatology, Durand is correct in describing it as surprising that an explicit resurrection theology has not been developed yet (Durand, 1993:3). In fact, it was only during a brief revival of interest in eschatological studies in the past century that the resurrection received some much-needed attention. Of the aspects in the history of God’s salvific acts towards creation, Durand cannot emphasize enough how important he believes the resurrection to be: “Without the central salvific fact of the resurrection of Christ there would never have been a New Testament and the religion that is called Christianity would never have existed” (Durand, 1993:3).
The obvious question is, if the resurrection is so important, why has it not been given more focus in the West? Durand hypothesises that the verbalisation of hermeneutical queries around the ways in which the interpreter and the Biblical text interact have led to doubts surrounding the historicity of the resurrection, and questions as to how much the event’s happening itself is connected to faith in what the resurrection represents. Durand believes this can, in recent times, be attributed largely to the work of Bultmann. The fundamental relationship his work explores is one between the world of the text and the world of the reader, and in addition to historical study to understand the context in which the Bible came about, there occurs an internal study of the self and the importance of the subject’s self-understanding becomes prominent (Durand, 1993:4). There are two reasons Durand describes Bultmann’s work as a “turning point”, firstly because his insights were convincing and widely read enough that “it was no longer possible to go back beyond Bultmann”; and secondly, since interpretive weight was placed on the subject, Christians were relieved of the pressure to base their faith on the actual happening of the events described in the Bible, and thus the historical-critical
119
movement had no limits to what it could explore, and how deeply it could question the historicity of the Biblical witness (Durand, 1993:4).
For Bultmann, the only “resurrection” which exists in certainty is the proclaimed one, and further than that, faith is not dependent on the question of whether that proclamation correlates to a historical moment or not. Durand acknowledges that there is some debate as to whether Bultmann actually denied the resurrection itself, or if he simply denied a dependency between faith and the historical resurrection. As a conversation partner to Bultmann, Durand introduces David Tracy’s approach to these questions, and hosts a hypothetical conversation between the two, giving his own version of how their perspectives on the resurrection would differ. To Bultmann, what matters most is the confession the disciples gave of Jesus’ resurrection, not whether it happened or not – in fact, since the claim that Jesus was dead and then came back to life after three days in a sealed grave challenges our, the subjects’, understanding of what is possible in the natural world, in creation, the hermeneutical priority must be given to the subject (Durand, 1993:6). Durand’s description of what Tracy might say, on the other hand, begins by acknowledging that the idea of a physical resurrection challenges the subject’s understanding of what is possible in the natural world, and thus the subject’s self- understanding is forced into a dialogue with the text, with neither given outright primacy over the other (Durand, 1993:7).
In this hypothetical description that Durand gives – knowing from his self-identification in Hoe My Gedagtewêreld Verander Het that he aligns his views largely with Tracy – we see how Durand hopes to do justice to both salvation and creation in light of the subject-object polarity, the question of self-understanding raised by Bultmann, the idea of history as narrative, and the ultimate importance of the resurrection. It is accomplished by accepting the inevitability of dialogue between all of these factors that is described, that “ultimately a conversation cannot be ruled out” (Durand, 1993:7). Creation in the form of the natural world
120
and the ways in which we understand the laws of life and death stand on the one hand, and the salvific claim of the resurrection stands on the other – for Durand justice is not done by subsuming one under the other (just as Conradie warns against), but rather that theology, and Durand specifically speaks to reformed theology, is “a way to wrestle with the Biblical message in a dynamic historical process” (Durand, 2002:67).32 Perhaps justice is found in an indefinite yet purposeful wrestling with the text, and not in a theologia perennis, nor in just a search for pure historicity in the Bible – Durand’s hope is that metaphor is the way forward in finding justice between the subject and the object, between our understanding of the world and the claim of the resurrection, between creation and salvation. It is worth noting the similarity between Conradie and Durand in this regard, both in their definition of what the role of metaphor is in theology, and in terms of the importance they place on metaphors in their theology. For Conradie, the household of God as root metaphor is essential in allowing for his description of God’s economic acts of house-holding, and saving acts throughout human history. Durand shares this emphasis on the necessity for metaphor to be part of reformed theology going forward if it is to adapt itself it the changing world around it. For both Durand and Conradie, reconciliation is key to their understanding of salvation, while the reconcilability of creatura is fundamental to creation.