gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Gary Buchholz) (09/27/86)
"...much of recent Protestant theology may be regarded as a series
of salvage operations, that is, attempts to reconcile the ethic of
of critical historical inquiry with the apparent demands of Christian
faith. They are efforts to turn aside the criticism that one can be
a believer only at the price of sacrificing the standards of truth
and honesty which have dominated the scholarly community since the
Enlightenment. ...there is considerable pathos in these apologetic
efforts. It was, after all, Christianity that tutored the Western
mind to believe that it should know the truth and the truth would
make it free. But now that the student has learned to prize the
truth, he has discovered, with pain ...that it can only be gained at the
cost of rejecting the one who first instilled in him the love of it."
--The Historian and the Believer
Van Harvey p 246
"Once you give up your integrity the rest is easy." - J.R. (of Dallas)
[ concerning my posting "Can Pat Robertson overcome the "Wacko Factor"
(ie his religious comsology) .....]
In article <217@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes:
>In article <638@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>, gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Gary Buchholz) writes:
>> not keep my sanity long if I knew that a guy who thinks he can "rebuke
>> a storm" [ Pat Robertson ] was running the country......
>
>This is a misconception of the viewpoint. Look at II Chronicles 20
>for a description of a successful war waged with prayer. Notice that
>full natural preparations were made (muster the army, etc.). Notice
>also that their confidence was in God, not in the army...
>I certainly support full military preparedness (including SDI), but
>I also know that we need all the prayer we can get. (And some
>repentance would help.)
>--
>Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>
Why do we need "full military preparedness" if we have the Big Guy on
our side ? What chance have a few incoming ICBMs have against the
mighty hand of the Lord ? Why even bother if the deity is controlling
the shots ? For that matter, why prepare at all if God will work out
his will in history independent of the wishes of mere men ?
I think Mr. Gathman, that you would be hard pressed to find any modern
history book that attributes the outcome of any historical event to
the action of a deity; such thinking as you propose is the stuff of a
middle ages mentality.
I'm not saying that one cannot, in principle, construct such a
historiography consistent with a religious cosmology - you can. I'm
just saying that such an explanation (in the context of Western
intellectual history) is considered no longer viable.
As far as the history of theology is concerned, the definitive statement
as regards the application of Enlightenment principles(Herder/Lessing/
etc) of historiography as applied to Christian theology and salvation history
can be found in an 1898 work by Ernst Troeltsch titled "On Historical
and Dogmatic Method in Theology". The deity does not intrude into the
causal nexus, miracles do not happen, and men, not even god-men, get
raised from the dead. So goes modern theology.
I don't know what "canon" of theological texts you are reading-
certainly you do not have "the Word" yet that the Enlightenment has
happened and that theology has taken a radical(excuse me) turn since
Augustine wrote "City of God" in religio-historical motif.
This just backs up what Wall (of the Christian Century magazine) has to
say about Robertson - he's a "Wacko" because of his (mis)understanding
of simply, how the world works. From Van Harveys point of view (as
quoted above) Wall is probabaly a "Wacko" himself insofar as he is a
Christian. Its interesting to watch these Christians hurl the
attribution "Wacko" to each other without taking note of the biblical
injunction that one ought see the the piece of lumber in ones own eye
before he sees the speck in the eye of his neighbor.
Garypmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (09/29/86)
In article <654@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> gary@sphinx.UUCP (Gary Buchholz) writes: > > "...much of recent Protestant theology may be regarded as a series > of salvage operations, that is, attempts to reconcile the ethic of > of critical historical inquiry with the apparent demands of Christian > faith. They are efforts to turn aside the criticism that one can be > a believer only at the price of sacrificing the standards of truth > and honesty which have dominated the scholarly community since the > Enlightenment. ...there is considerable pathos in these apologetic > efforts. It was, after all, Christianity that tutored the Western > mind to believe that it should know the truth and the truth would > make it free. But now that the student has learned to prize the > truth, he has discovered, with pain ...that it can only be gained at the > cost of rejecting the one who first instilled in him the love of it." > > --The Historian and the Believer > Van Harvey p 246 This is a rather self-serving claim to possess the truth by adherents of Enlightenment Religion. Still, it *is* ironic. The one who said that we should know the truth and it would set us free also said, "I am the way, the *truth* and the life...". Seems to me that an equally likely possibility is that the sons of the Enlightenment are thowing the term "truth" around in a manner not unlike the sons of fundamentalism. They have modified the concept of truth to meet the apparent demands of intellectual integrity and it is that concept they follow in their desire to know the truth while thinking that they must reject the One who is the truth in order to do so. If much of Protestant theology is to be likened to a "salvage operation" (performing surgery on the Tree of Knowledge, you might say), I would also suggest that the activities of Enlightenment theologians can, with equal clarity, be seen as an attempt to escape the "salvage operations" by sawing off the branch on which they stand. -- Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd