gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) (06/26/85)
> is N. L. Tinkham >I have indeed heard conservative writers (Lindsell, for instance) argue >that if one rejects the inerrancy of the Bible, one must also reject >much of orthodox Christianity. In my judgement, this does not follow. This does follow if in fact one has some sense of "historical consciosness". This 19th century "revolution" (or revelation) in philosophy set all things in radical relativism. It was the recognition that *all* understanding and interpretation is historically conditioned and determined. The bible, set in this context, becomes just another of mans speculative attempts to understand the world and there is nothing to set it over any other of mans speculative attempts. Seen through the eyes of "historical consciosness" there is nothing to give the bible any priority, primacy or authority as *the*(only and true) way to construe the world and Reality. From this perspective, philosophy views the bible with the same incredulity as a Xian views the greek pantheon of gods. That is, it is one and the same all merely time conditioned culturally determined and constrained speculation about Reality as such. There is nothing constitutive in either to warrant the assertion that either is the Word of God. >It is true that without an infallible authority to guarantee the truth >of propositions, we cannot assert propositions with justified >certainty. Nevertheless, the absence of an infallible guarantee of >the truth of a belief does not make that belief false. It is the historical position of these things that puts them into question. First century Man is not like us in the 20th. The set of interpretive categories used in the 1st century are not ours, they are radically different. Their understanding is different so one ought be careful regarding what they tell us "happened" and the causal factors that they assign to certain events. It is a different interpretive system completely. >It could.... >easily be true that the events around which our faith is based (the >Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, miracles in Israel and in the early >Church, etc.) did indeed occur but that no infallible record of them >exists (and thus that we are forced to rely upon the good but not >inerrant testimony of witnesses to the events). This is to ignore the possibility that the gospel account were constructed. One very obvious literary/theological device used in Matthews gospel is prophecy fulfillment. In the apologetic to the jews it was probably the case that a series of "proofs from scripture" were collected. It seems that such a list may have found its way into Matthews gospel as polemic and Matthew constructed the events to fit the prophecy which he thought the messiah must fulfill. This could account for the virgin birth narrative with Matthew reading LXX rather than the hebrew text with the ambiguous "almah". There is something of a blunder on the part of Matthew that shows this "constructed" nature of events to fit prophecy when he reads Jer., misunderstands it, and has Jesus ride into Jerusalem on both an ass and a colt. I don't think anyone need mention more than the existence of the Synoptic Problem and the radical theological divergence of the gospel of John to illustrate how the gospel writers redacted thier sources and constructed events in the service of thier own theological agenda. But all this is moot anyway because none of this can escape the charge of historical relativism. >Similarly, I can >easily imagine the major doctrines of Christianity (Atonement, the >Incarnation, and so forth) being true without the existence of an >inerrant writing to assure us of their validity. One would hope that >the records we have are accurate enough to give us a reasonably good >idea of the acts of God in Israel and in Christ; but I see no need to >deny the truth of these events and doctrines just because the records >can not give complete certainty. If the major doctrines find thier primary articulation in greek metaphysics and if greek metaphysics turns out to be an inadequate and obsolete construal of the world then what is the implication for the status of these doctrines ? In the history of philosophy greek metaphysics took at tumble at the end of the middle ages. Can we say that a good deal of Xian doctrine did also ? What remains of the language of the Trinity if the metaphysical system that it is based on is pulled out from under it ? Words without meaning ? Words without a context and without a reference ? In the words of Austin it becomes a "performative speech act" and the meaning lies in its saying and nothing more - its meaning is the saying act itself. >One further comment: In the paragraphs quoted above, there are several >references to the political or theological usefulness of beliefs. >Although I understand that mythology is a very important part of the >human experience, I am extremely hesitant to accept as true a belief >merely on the basis of its usefulness. Beliefs are useful to people who do not believe them. Let the other fellow believe them and then they are useful to the "Student Prince" (Machiavelli) who wishes to politically control the mass of people that hold those beliefs. *You* are not supposed to see the usefulness of beliefs - you are only to know that they are true. >As obvious as this sounds, I...... >prefer to believe things if and only if they are true. It can, of >course, be a difficult, perhaps even impossible, task to determine >whether a given proposition is true; but the task, I think, is still >to determine which things are true and then believe those. The "Student Prince" would supply you with a worldview in which these beliefs become true. The criteria to judge is integral to the global metaphysics that construes and interprets the world. It seems reasonable (to me) to assert that Xianiy only makes (made) sense in the 1st century - that is its context, the referential context to which the words of Xianity refer. Given this, it is so easy to understand why the Fundamentalists deny the scientific worldview in favor of the ancient and obsolete cosmology of the 1st century. How could they do otherwise? The language of Xianity is intimately related and integral to the metaphysics and cosmology in which it was born. How could the words have any other referential context and still retain the meaning thier authors intended ? >The.... >question of usefulness is, at most, an interesting observation made >along the way. Yes, it is very useful to have an infallible book, >person, tradition, or method of reasoning to give certainty to >beliefs. If I ever find such an infallible guide, I will treasure it. >But the need for certainty in belief does not justify asserting that >an object is infallible if it is not. The astute political leader with some theological talent may find "usefulness" an interesting observation and so interesting an observation that it is the controlling factor in his doing theology. If he is indeed astute he will retain the services of an excellent bible scholar / rhetorician who would exploit the ambiguity of the text (Scripture) and the polysemy of words to his advantage in legitimating whatever ideology is his political goal. It would certainly be a mark of his scholarly erudition and creative imagination if he were to produce such a "infallible" and "inerrant" bible and tradition that just happens to legitimate the ideology of conservative middle class America in its values and morals. Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority (maybe we ought to stress the word "Majority" given our democratic political system) already have the bible in thier service and my friend Jimmy Swaggart tells me that "Capitalism" is a biblical concept. I hope all this (politically) "useful" theology was not by accident. If it was how much better could this (theological/political) task be accomplished if it were done consciously and systematically. If this has been a systematic endeavor then I'm glad for those theologians who have put thier heretofore academic( = "..having no practical or useful significance") education to good use. If this has not been a conscious systematic endeavor then divinity school students may want to "pray" for a revival of religion in America - or maybe create one. Gary
homeier@aero.ARPA (Peter Homeier ) (07/10/85)
This vain discussion illustrates just one thing: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." 1 Corinthians 1:18-25, NKJV Peter Homeier ARPA: homeier@aerospace
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (07/19/85)
To Peter Homeier: Are you playing with a full deck? Ron Rizzo