mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/25/85)
Again, not having read Childs, I'll confine myself to comments on but a few points. Gary writes: >In this, Childs remains pre-critical ignoring the possibility of >systematic distortion in the tradition. He ignores the possibility >that texts and language, far from being a vehicle of knowledge, are >in fact the bearers of oppressive ideologies. And why does this sound like a conspiracy-theory statem of biblical criticism? Even if you concede that the NT does contain "oppressive ideology" (and this point is certainly hotly debated and not by any means a settled question), theories about how it got there have to have some sort of verification, after all. For instance, take the following case: >Such is the view of feminist theologians. Elisabeth Shussler Fiorenza >has recognized this and writes her book "In Memory of Her" to try to >restore the historically true picture of the full participation of >women in the church over against the distortion of same by both the >canonical biblical texts and tradition. Gary goes on to cite an apocryphal Acts as an example. So to resolve this issue, one needs to know why Luke's got in and Paul and Thekla didn't. But in the absence of such evidence, all the feminists are doing is projecting their doctrine of male man upon the past. And it must be pointed out that liberal theology has been sensitive to the cries of the feminists and has generally come to the realization that there is no reason to apply the social standards of the 1st and 2nd centuries to this one. >Again, in the canonical approach "authors intention" is not important >and so the texts, in reality, become the vehicle for legitimation for >Childs own confessional position. "Authors intention" cannot judge >Childs nor can historical context since he has excluded these from the >conversation from the very beginning. Unless there is clear ex-textual evidence of that intention, though, one is really reading one's own prejudices about the author into the text. >Canon is the founding ideological document of the Protestant Church. >By consensus, Protestants have agreeed that the bible is the "Truth". >Bible and canon exist at the level of truth as consensual definition >and not Truth as defined in terms of mimetic re-presentation of any >external reality. Childs will see to this by eliminating historical- >critical method which could prove it wrong. Childs will see to this >by eliminating any appeal to authors intention which would inhibit the >free-play of his exegesis. Well, this is factually wrong in that the Anglican churchs have always asserted that Truth may not be found in the Bible alone, but instead needs also consultation with tradition (which can be taken very broadly) and application of reasoning. Author's intention is under those rules fair game, although I can't imagine many Anglicans take agnosticism as a fact (as the deconstructionist apparently do). >Is it not possible that the 2000 year history of Christianity has >*created* the problem as much as it has solved it. In HR(History of >Religions) this is known as the "Salvation Syndrome". Religion offers you >both poison and cure. It becomes the answer to its own self-generated >problem. > >Why have the "questions of human existence, justice and theology" >remained the same throughout the past two millennia ? Because the West >has been Christian for the past two millennia and has been prey to >Christianities own self-generated, self-defined problems. > >Yes, and the canon can serve as a paradigm for the solution of said >"problem". But why accept the "problem" as a problem in the first >place ? The problem is a problem by definition - a "given". > >I don't think Man is in need of any "supernatural" redemption. I don't >think any supernatural redemption is either possible or necessary. I >don't think the canon should be "valorized" in the way Childs sets out >to do. I don't think the (Christian) tradition should be valorized. >I don't accept the statement of the problem and therefore "the truth of >the gospel of Jesus Christ" is no answer. Given that this system Gary espouses assumes the historical lack of any revelation, and thus postulates a certain agnosticism, I can hardly see how he expected to arrive at any other conclusion. Charley Wingate
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (10/28/85)
>>I don't think Man is in need of any "supernatural" redemption. I don't >>think any supernatural redemption is either possible or necessary. I >>don't think the canon should be "valorized" in the way Childs sets out >>to do. I don't think the (Christian) tradition should be valorized. >>I don't accept the statement of the problem and therefore "the truth of >>the gospel of Jesus Christ" is no answer. Does anyone else have the same problem with Gary's postings that I do? I can't understand them. I don't think he and I are writing in the same language. For instance, "valorization" is an organized action by a government to increase the price or value of something. Obviously, from the context, this isn't what Gary means. So what does he mean? Can anyone enlighten me? I generally make wild guesses about what he says. For example, I'd guess that the above quote means: }Man is not sinful, and therefore doesn't need to be redeemed from sin. }The canon and Christian tradition contradict this premise, and are }therefore not true. Is this what you mean, Gary? If so, and if, as it appears, you consider yourself a Christian, then I think you and I disagree on the meaning of the term "Christian". In your vocabulary (which seems to be highly specialized and at odds with the one I use), what, exactly, does the word "Christian" mean? charli
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/04/85)
>>I don't think Man is in need of any "supernatural" redemption. I don't >>think any supernatural redemption is either possible or necessary. I >>don't think the canon should be "valorized" in the way Childs sets out >>to do. I don't think the (Christian) tradition should be valorized. >>I don't accept the statement of the problem and therefore "the truth of >>the gospel of Jesus Christ" is no answer. [GARY BUCHOLZ?] > Does anyone else have the same problem with Gary's postings that I do? > I can't understand them. I don't think he and I are writing in the > same language. [CHARLI] That's odd, because I find them quite sensible. Perhaps you simply cannot fathom some of his very simple notions because of your particular belief structure. Such as: > }Man is not sinful, and therefore doesn't need to be redeemed from sin. > }The canon and Christian tradition contradict this premise, and are > }therefore not true. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/06/85)
In article <2033@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> Does anyone else have the same problem with Gary's postings that I do? >> I can't understand them. I don't think he and I are writing in the >> same language. [CHARLI] [not Wingate] >That's odd, because I find them quite sensible. Perhaps you simply cannot >fathom some of his very simple notions because of your particular belief >structure. Such as: >> }Man is not sinful, and therefore doesn't need to be redeemed from sin. >> }The canon and Christian tradition contradict this premise, and are >> }therefore not true. You find them sensible because he starts at the same assumptions and draws the same conclusion that you do. Big deal. By the way: would you care to explain how it is that you know that Man is not sinful? Charley Wingate