mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/20/85)
In article <1203@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Gary w Buchholz writes: >>Well, there's no getting around that word "fulfilment". It's in the >>text. >Lets not overlook something here. The NT canon as we have it contains >a great deal of specifically Pauline material. One might say that the >NT represents a "Pauline Christianity" over against other forms that >were present in the 1st century. The effect of this "high density" of >Pauline material in the canon and its literary ordering has the effect >of skewing(distorting) our view of the 1st century church. And, one must add, any attempts to "deconstruct" this, since those who do so are operating in the theological world of such preconceptions. >The text(canon) is not co-extensive with the culture. The canon is a >"key hole" through which to view the history of the early church but it >is not the whole history of the church. The canon is a bias in the >reconstruction of history. It is not the true history of the church >simply because it is canonical. Nor is it the true history of the >church simply because it is the only one accessible to the believer. And likewise, any attempt to analyze it at this point in time. There is a strong ring of "Disbelieve this not because it is false, but for some other reason" in this kind of analysis, especially in light of these allegations that the truth of the canonical scriptures is of no importance when compared against assumed political battles. >Pauline Christianity is successful Christianity. "Truth" of the kind >that theologians and philosophers are want to talk about does not enter >into the socio-political/historical fact of success that I have just >mentioned. Socio-political success does not validate historical facts >and cosmological assertions that the canonical scriptures make. And neither does it invalidate them. It is a consideration utterly irrelevant to the truth of scripture. >Peter did not write or if he did what he wrote did not survive history. >But there is the Gospel of Peter and the Acts of Peter that, even >though he did not write it, may indeed be based on authentic Petrine >tradition passed on in community from one generation to the next just >as Pauline Christianity was passed on in community from one generation >to the next. The Gospel of Peter and the Acts of Peter may be as true >to his thoughts(theology) as are the canonical Pastorals(1,2 Tim & >Titus) written in Pauls name after his death. I would be willing to >defend the thesis that Pauls view of the validity of the law as regards >jews and gentiles is in radical opposition with those of Peter. Fine. Do so. But first I'd like an explanation of why you choose to ignore the Petrine epistles, as well as James's. After all, James argues against the most extreme form of justification by faith which one occaisionally sees argued out of Paul. >The canon is not an innocent document. It is the juxtaposition of a >number of separate writings that in themselves and with each given >its own integrity are, I would call, ideological weapons. Not only >do they hurl polemics among themselves (Gospel of John to Gospel of >Mark) but they also polemicize individuals (John the Baptist in Johns >Gospel) who are not even present in literary form to defend themselves. And this article is innocent? >The canon is witness to a war of "super powers" in the early church. >Canon has already suppressed those communities that did not survive >the first wave of theological confrontation. The views of Pauls >opponents have not survived history and all we hear from Paul was that >it was a "false gospel". What that "gospel" was no one knows - but in >Pauls judgement it was "false" and that is the only judgement we have. Well, certainly on the basis of the last sentence there is no reason to take this very seriously. If the content of the "suppressed" works isn't even known, (and I'm well aware of the existence of various heretical works) then what profit can there be in what are only speculations upon the reasons for their rejection? To be able to talk about "canon politics", one must either make lots of dubious assumptions or have a tremendous wealth of writing on both sides. >"Its in the text... and there's no getting around it." The text is the >victor, and has the "truth" but not the kind of truth you think it has. I.E. you believe scripture to be false on every level. What other faith could motivate such a statement? Of course this passage is irrelevant if one believes scripture to be worthless. Who cares? >The canon defines the kind of truth one has when one systematically >eliminates all opposed and contrary opinions by means of force. Pauls >opponents have already been vanquished by their exclusion from the >canon. Petrine Christianity has fallen also and has been banished to >the apocrypha (even if he was the "rock" on which Jesus said he would >build his church). John the Baptist didn't have a chance in the face >of repeated polemic salvos fired off in rapid succession in the first >three chapters in the canonical gospel of John - put in his own mouth >no less. Again, based upon the presupposition that what is stated is deliberate lies. >The Truth of the Gospel(s) are clear. "Might is right" and the victory >goes to the one who carries the biggest sword and the longest spear >even when those "spears" and "swords" are polemic and rhetoric. And the Gary goes off to sling mud at the church councils, on the presumption that they came up with the wrong answers. >Constantine is dead but Wingate and others, now armed with an infallibly >true text filled with True doctrine, continue the "Christian" fight to >this very day. Well, first off, as I'm sure that they teach people at U of C even now, in the Anglican tradition we do NOT believe scripture to be infallible. We believe that one must also exert reason, and consider church tradition (which one can take to include heretical and non-canonical works). In a somewhat strained sense, Gary's argument here falls within this sort of consideration. But I get the sense that instead of full reason, we have merely the determination to employ certain principles to the end, resulting in a sort of scholasticism run amok. It simply does not follow that (for instance) the political considerations surrounding the Council of Nicaea render the conclusions they drew as erroneous; the conclusions are true or false on their own merits. I also object to the notion that we can sit back now and come up with an objective evaluation of 2nd and 3rd century theological controversies. Considering the impact of the adoptions of the various positions, it can hardly be argued that any of us is objective. Deconstructionism must itself be considered as politically motivated, and following this road very far leads me at least to the conclusion that it doesn't get me anything; one certainly cannot find anything that can be labelled true, and indeed seems to argue against any truth value at all, even falsity. The only way I can see that justifies deconstructionism is the presumption that Christianity, in any form at all, can be presumed false. Fine. Rather than hiding in clerical robes, they would do better to state their antifaith openly, and honestly. Charley Wingate
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (10/27/85)
In article <1925@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > >I also object to the notion that we can sit back now and come up with an >objective evaluation of 2nd and 3rd century theological controversies. >Considering the impact of the adoptions of the various positions, it can >hardly be argued that any of us is objective. Deconstructionism must itself >be considered as politically motivated, and following this road very far >leads me at least to the conclusion that it doesn't get me anything; one >certainly cannot find anything that can be labelled true, and indeed seems >to argue against any truth value at all, even falsity. The only way I can >see that justifies deconstructionism is the presumption that Christianity, >in any form at all, can be presumed false. Fine. Rather than hiding in >clerical robes, they would do better to state their antifaith openly, and >honestly. > During the first 200 years of Christianity, do you know who killed the most Christians? Other Christians. Where I was growing up there was a ``convenient fiction'' that this was ``ok'' since it was part of God's plan. The idea is that God wouldn't let real sincere Christians get far off the path. It is a comforting idea, but hardly hold up to historical scrutiny. You can find pleantly of sincere Christians who honestly believed that God wanted them to burn heretics and witches, or who thought that Russian communism was what God wanted, or who thought that a strong Nazi Germany was part of God's plan. Take a look at what happened inside Germany as Nazi supporting church leaders discovered that there *were* concentration camps. (Hint: a good many of them discovered this only *after* being sent to one.) In the light of this, it is clear that you can't count upon the Christian God to directly communicate ``you are making a hideous mistake'' to you simply because you are a sincere Christian. There is no reason to assume that the council of Trent had any better luck avoiding mistakes. Given all this, it seems strange to practice Christianity because you think that this is part of God's plan -- in some sense you can believe that everything is part of God's plan, but in that case you are part of it whether or not you are a Christian -- since you know that whatever you perceive as God's plan could be very far off the mark. YOu are left with adopting Christianity for the effect that it has in your life, or because you think that its percepts match that which you consider moral by your own standards of morality (which could come from God, of course, but don't come from God in the same way that someone who does things simply because the Bible says so, means ``they come from God''). In this case, I'll bet a careful scrutiny of the Old Testament makes you squirm... You are left with a very eclectic form of Christianity, which is more concerned with USEFULNESS than with TRUTH, since the more you look at it, the more impossible it seems to actualy know that you have truth even if you had it. But be careful. Follow this too far and you will end up dropping the Christianity, and ending up simply eclectic, like me... -- Help beutify the world. I am writing a book called *How To Write Portable C Programs*. Send me anything that you would like to find in such a book when it appears in your bookstores. Get your name mentioned in the credits. Laura Creighton sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa