Humility in Humanity
In reading about foundationalism, anti-foundationalism, and post-foundationalism, it seems to me that despite the fact that the latter two attempt a separation from the premises of the first, these two approaches to theory always return to a foundation to validate claims. And I suppose it makes sense. How can one even ask questions without some kind of foundation, or rather truth commitment? Why would I argue, for example, for gay rights in terms of will, sin, etc, if I had no foundation for doing so? Even if a person thinks that he does not, she may rely on a foundation of skepticism, or argument for argument's sake.
Without making a truth commitment a true relativism would most certainly exist for the individual and the ultimate conversation amongst others will be halted because there will be no ground for argument to stand on, to further conversation. Why would, say, religions even want to have a conversation when pluralism is oftentimes equated with ultimate relativity and so everyone is right (or wrong)? The answer lies somewhere in the interconnectedness with each other, bound in an umbrella of conversation in which each make truth claims. Every person may in fact make a stand on a certain foundation, though respect for the stands of others should be implied in those foundational commitments.
As a Christian, I hold the truth to be embodied in the person of Christ and as such interpret my experiences from this perspective because I hold it to be the ultimate reality...am I right? As a human I have to say maybe not, but by faith I can hope.
It takes humility in humanity to respect the truth claims of the Hindu or the Scientist for me...I cannot put myself in the place of someone else, especially someone with a separate truth claim, but I can admit to myself that my truth claim is not the only one, and that there is the possibility of its untruth. This is not a relative interpretation that everything goes, but rather there should be interreligous, interdisciplinary, intercultural, etc conversation...
Why have a conversation at all...? For growth? To move farther along the parabola towards the utimate reality? What good does it do? If you say none, then you've found yourself at the impasse of postmodernist thought.
Where does the Bible, as a classic text (a text which transcends culture), fit within the overarching conversation. As readers we read for information and then impose information upon a text at the same time and so we are constantly interpreting and reinterpreting. What separates this text for me is its witness to the embodiment of truth: Christ. However, the Bhagavad Gita might do this for a good Hindu, or the Quran for a Muslim. The text itself is not the truth, but it is the avenue for understanding that truth, the witness to the truth. But this is not to say that it is the only avenue. Personal experience, secular influences, other religions, cultures can also be avenues as well -- these things are what are imposed upon the text. Your experiences homogenize and become your lens for reading any classic. Within the historicity of the Christian tradition each theologian has contributed an interpretation from particular lenses, and have ultimately shaped how we theologians today read and interpret Scripture as well...though exeriences are changing, cultures are changing, and uncharted territory is constantly coming into focus for Christians today and each poses new questions for theologians to grapple with that have not been grappled with before. Scripture is thus involved in the overarching conversation among Christians as a character in the drama, and as such in the drama of the world narrative...
more to say later...must read...I'm procrastinating again...
Without making a truth commitment a true relativism would most certainly exist for the individual and the ultimate conversation amongst others will be halted because there will be no ground for argument to stand on, to further conversation. Why would, say, religions even want to have a conversation when pluralism is oftentimes equated with ultimate relativity and so everyone is right (or wrong)? The answer lies somewhere in the interconnectedness with each other, bound in an umbrella of conversation in which each make truth claims. Every person may in fact make a stand on a certain foundation, though respect for the stands of others should be implied in those foundational commitments.
As a Christian, I hold the truth to be embodied in the person of Christ and as such interpret my experiences from this perspective because I hold it to be the ultimate reality...am I right? As a human I have to say maybe not, but by faith I can hope.
It takes humility in humanity to respect the truth claims of the Hindu or the Scientist for me...I cannot put myself in the place of someone else, especially someone with a separate truth claim, but I can admit to myself that my truth claim is not the only one, and that there is the possibility of its untruth. This is not a relative interpretation that everything goes, but rather there should be interreligous, interdisciplinary, intercultural, etc conversation...
Why have a conversation at all...? For growth? To move farther along the parabola towards the utimate reality? What good does it do? If you say none, then you've found yourself at the impasse of postmodernist thought.
Where does the Bible, as a classic text (a text which transcends culture), fit within the overarching conversation. As readers we read for information and then impose information upon a text at the same time and so we are constantly interpreting and reinterpreting. What separates this text for me is its witness to the embodiment of truth: Christ. However, the Bhagavad Gita might do this for a good Hindu, or the Quran for a Muslim. The text itself is not the truth, but it is the avenue for understanding that truth, the witness to the truth. But this is not to say that it is the only avenue. Personal experience, secular influences, other religions, cultures can also be avenues as well -- these things are what are imposed upon the text. Your experiences homogenize and become your lens for reading any classic. Within the historicity of the Christian tradition each theologian has contributed an interpretation from particular lenses, and have ultimately shaped how we theologians today read and interpret Scripture as well...though exeriences are changing, cultures are changing, and uncharted territory is constantly coming into focus for Christians today and each poses new questions for theologians to grapple with that have not been grappled with before. Scripture is thus involved in the overarching conversation among Christians as a character in the drama, and as such in the drama of the world narrative...
more to say later...must read...I'm procrastinating again...
posted by Timcom at 11:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home