mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/24/85)
Since the availability of the books cited by Gary and Jeff is somewhat limited for me, I'm only going to reply to a few short sections of Gary's statements. >I'm sure all this is of no interest to the "believers" in this file >whose faith is secure in their obliviousness to any and all theological >questions. So here is where I will stop having outlined the basic contours >of this academic debate. If Jeff is willing to take up the case for >Childs (which he says he finds convincing) then I would be most happy >continue this at a more technical level. The one thing that puzzles me about this is Why? For what purpose should Christianity be demolished? It certainly isn't in the name of Truth, since the one clear implication of this deconstruction is the utter unknowability of "apostolic christianity" and its relationship with any descendant church (assuming, of course, one accepts the deconstructivist premises). If church tradition AND scripture cease to provide any information, then what else is there? There's clearly some sort of a connection along tradition; but to deny it utterly is simply to make historical speculations, or worse, to project backwards the rationales of 20th century A/theistic philosophers. Anyone who has read C.S. Lewis's limpet analogy can see the extension; along come the deconstructionist limpets who can't figure out at all what the sage said, and decide to attribute other motivations to his statements (or other's reports of his statements) in an attempt to get past the "truth" in his words which they can never grasp. >Koester et al (the historical school) for whom history is important and >not irrelevant might want to say (historically) that the "reason" for >the institution of the canon (authoritative books) in the Roman Empire now >a Christian state with an officially sanctioned religion was for the >political purpose to quell diversity within the empire. Whether or not this is true, there's no reason to presume that this is the SOLE motivation, and it's unclear that it is the primary one either. >A proper resolution can only come from "outside" the (religious / >theological / biblical) tradition. The "answer" to Barr is the >Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas whereby Barrs valorization of >Church history will be eliminated. The "answer" to Childs is Secular >Literary Criticism in the form of the obituary of "New Criticism" which >shadows Childs canonical approach. "New Criticism" and "Canonical >methodology" are one and the same - Childs writes NTAC with a corpse on >his back. If we can't trust the theologians to criticise themselves, why can we trust someone else? One could just as well place deconstructionism in ITS historical context, and strip it of meaning too. I again must ask, Why? What is the reason for attacking any system in this way? What happens when you deconstruct deconstruction? Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe P.S. Gary's haughty remarks about true believers are quite beside the point. Is there any reason to expect people to listen to an argument which they've been told they can never evaluate. The most repellent thing about this whole movement is the seeming intellectual arrogance on the part of the "theologians" who push it. "I say this because I want to be prime minister of Canada someday." - M. Fox