Left subdued
Scripture is "self-authenticating." Faith is an "intuitive knowledge." Let me try to explain this to a congregation member years from now when he comes to me with a question on faith. Should I just tell him or her that a faith chosen is not real faith, and that faith only comes by the Spirit...? Then should I proceed with a Calvinistic explanation of the 'elect,' that the Spirit only comes to some unto which salvation will be graciously given? I would rather side with Karl Barth in his theory of Jesus as the 'elect.' God as an exclusively inclusive God seems a little more difficult to explain to a congregation member coming to me for spiritual guidance.
Aren't we to proclaim truth rather than a version of truth intended to encourage believers. Proclaiming and interpreting the gospel is an act of the Spirit working through the mediating orator, and as such, proclamation should be about God...worship should be all about God...not about how the congregation feels after the word has been proclaimed and interpreted.
Again, let me begin a discussion from the foundation of any theological discourse, theological proposition:
God in the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
Without blindly believing and having faith that this act was indeed the revelation of our maker, theology is dead -- plain and simple. Thus, Christianity is based upon this foundationalist claim that can never be falsified, and therein lies the criticism Christianity finds from outside sources. Is it relevant for those who believe in this particular monopoloy of truth to argue in the grand scheme of global conversation, when their particular argument cannot be falsified?
Of course the scientific method, Karl Popper's theory of falsification are products of an age where predictability, rather than truth has become the significant factor in discovery. So putting Christianity under the microscope of modern-day science, and claiming that to be discovery is suggesting that induction is a categorical imperative...hmmm...I have many problems with this approach to which I will refer a bit further down.
But perhaps Scripture should not be questioned at all, taken inerrant or infallible? Again, more problems arise for me.
First of all, Scripture witnesses to the incarnation, which, if held to be true, gives it an authoritative place in theological discourse. Though one must note the limitations upon which Scripture is founded...the incarnation may have been the revelation of God, but God knows no linguistic bounds and so the language in Scripture itself is a limiting to the knowledge of true revelation. It can be argued that what gives Scripture its infallibility is the Spirit working in and through the text and the interpreter...though, as history seems to indicate, the Spirit moving in and through Christians leads Christians to redact what they believe in their various contexts. Christianity takes on the character of a self-critical religion. Who better to demonstrate the way the Spirit moves than with modern feminist theologians who suggest that the encounter with Scripture is where the Spirit works. What feminist theologians bring up is that Scripture is a text, though written by divinely inspired individuals, which is written in the context of a patriarchy. Androcentrism, perhaps a limit within the language of Scripture, needs to be reinterpreted for our own context. Christians are advocating the incarnation of Jesus Christ, who, if God, transcends time and space and any socioeconomic climate. Part of being a Christian in the modern era is interpreting Scripture, letting the Spirit move one to applying the witness of the incarnation to this time and this place with situations Scripture does not address.
In reading John Calvin's Institutes, his polemic against the Catholic church is easily recognizable, but as such he, and the other reformers lend Scripture a rather obscure authority, which can be very dangerous, as the Hitler's, etc in history have proven. Scripture "self-authenticates" itself when the Spirit is working in you and you possess and intuitive knowledge that the incarnation is the Truth -- this is where the room fell silent in discussion today during a theology class. I asked the simple, practical question of how to describe faith and the authority of Scripture to congregation members, and the eerie silence that ensued quite frankly scared the dickens out of me. The question is rhetorical...with no clear cut answer...only more questions.
Further, concerning Calvin, I expected a much more logic-oriented dogmatics, though his logic is based upon varying assumptions concerning the context in which he was writing. It just reveals to me that we take our baggage with us into our interpretations -- our own experiences, our own context and situation, our knowledge of tradition.
Using David Tracy's model again, which he writes in his book, Plurality and Ambiguity, he likens global discourse to a huge conversation. It is a very processual view. But there are different arguments that contribute to the conversation -- biologists argue a certain way, textual critics another, theologicans another, etc. What is significant is that the conversation continues. When an argument arises that kills the conversation (a truth claim, an unfalsifiable account, an exclusive argument, etc) then that argument should be thrown out. Truth is not attainable when one decision is made at the expense of another, when context plays a role in argument, while we are mortal. Does theology have a place as an argument? Tracy would suggest that it does. Every argument is somewhat foundationalist in the sense that without a firm belief, without faith in ones' argument, the argument is either arguing for arguing sake or one that would crumble under critique. Thus belief is a part of argument. Christian faith, if considering that it is an "intuitive knowledge," is thought to be much more than a choice in what to believe -- it is the work of the Spirit. Christianity has this advantage over many other arguments. However, does it kill the conversation? When one takes Scripture to be infallible, perhaps interpreting the Reformers polemic a bit beyond their context, then the conversation dies and natural revelation is hidden to those only clinging to special revelation. Other religions have much to say concerning Scripture...how is the Spirit working in communities where Scripture is unknown to them? In conversation is the only way in which we can learn about each other and come to a fuller undestanding of Truth.
If a secular culture is the only means by which the conversation can continue, then it is only logical that it should be considered an alternative. Embodying what is sacred in my life, and reading Scripture with an open heart, mind, and in community to me has been profoundly helpful and directive.
I said I'd get back to this later, but when I was speaking of science and religion (predominantly because science has become the popular mode of rational thinking within our context in the west -- it defines what is rational for many) it is helpful to look at varying models:
Science and Religion in opposition; Science and Religion, asking different questions; Science and Religion integrative; or Science and Religion in discourse...
...must go...taking my wife to lunch...
Aren't we to proclaim truth rather than a version of truth intended to encourage believers. Proclaiming and interpreting the gospel is an act of the Spirit working through the mediating orator, and as such, proclamation should be about God...worship should be all about God...not about how the congregation feels after the word has been proclaimed and interpreted.
Again, let me begin a discussion from the foundation of any theological discourse, theological proposition:
God in the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
Without blindly believing and having faith that this act was indeed the revelation of our maker, theology is dead -- plain and simple. Thus, Christianity is based upon this foundationalist claim that can never be falsified, and therein lies the criticism Christianity finds from outside sources. Is it relevant for those who believe in this particular monopoloy of truth to argue in the grand scheme of global conversation, when their particular argument cannot be falsified?
Of course the scientific method, Karl Popper's theory of falsification are products of an age where predictability, rather than truth has become the significant factor in discovery. So putting Christianity under the microscope of modern-day science, and claiming that to be discovery is suggesting that induction is a categorical imperative...hmmm...I have many problems with this approach to which I will refer a bit further down.
But perhaps Scripture should not be questioned at all, taken inerrant or infallible? Again, more problems arise for me.
First of all, Scripture witnesses to the incarnation, which, if held to be true, gives it an authoritative place in theological discourse. Though one must note the limitations upon which Scripture is founded...the incarnation may have been the revelation of God, but God knows no linguistic bounds and so the language in Scripture itself is a limiting to the knowledge of true revelation. It can be argued that what gives Scripture its infallibility is the Spirit working in and through the text and the interpreter...though, as history seems to indicate, the Spirit moving in and through Christians leads Christians to redact what they believe in their various contexts. Christianity takes on the character of a self-critical religion. Who better to demonstrate the way the Spirit moves than with modern feminist theologians who suggest that the encounter with Scripture is where the Spirit works. What feminist theologians bring up is that Scripture is a text, though written by divinely inspired individuals, which is written in the context of a patriarchy. Androcentrism, perhaps a limit within the language of Scripture, needs to be reinterpreted for our own context. Christians are advocating the incarnation of Jesus Christ, who, if God, transcends time and space and any socioeconomic climate. Part of being a Christian in the modern era is interpreting Scripture, letting the Spirit move one to applying the witness of the incarnation to this time and this place with situations Scripture does not address.
In reading John Calvin's Institutes, his polemic against the Catholic church is easily recognizable, but as such he, and the other reformers lend Scripture a rather obscure authority, which can be very dangerous, as the Hitler's, etc in history have proven. Scripture "self-authenticates" itself when the Spirit is working in you and you possess and intuitive knowledge that the incarnation is the Truth -- this is where the room fell silent in discussion today during a theology class. I asked the simple, practical question of how to describe faith and the authority of Scripture to congregation members, and the eerie silence that ensued quite frankly scared the dickens out of me. The question is rhetorical...with no clear cut answer...only more questions.
Further, concerning Calvin, I expected a much more logic-oriented dogmatics, though his logic is based upon varying assumptions concerning the context in which he was writing. It just reveals to me that we take our baggage with us into our interpretations -- our own experiences, our own context and situation, our knowledge of tradition.
Using David Tracy's model again, which he writes in his book, Plurality and Ambiguity, he likens global discourse to a huge conversation. It is a very processual view. But there are different arguments that contribute to the conversation -- biologists argue a certain way, textual critics another, theologicans another, etc. What is significant is that the conversation continues. When an argument arises that kills the conversation (a truth claim, an unfalsifiable account, an exclusive argument, etc) then that argument should be thrown out. Truth is not attainable when one decision is made at the expense of another, when context plays a role in argument, while we are mortal. Does theology have a place as an argument? Tracy would suggest that it does. Every argument is somewhat foundationalist in the sense that without a firm belief, without faith in ones' argument, the argument is either arguing for arguing sake or one that would crumble under critique. Thus belief is a part of argument. Christian faith, if considering that it is an "intuitive knowledge," is thought to be much more than a choice in what to believe -- it is the work of the Spirit. Christianity has this advantage over many other arguments. However, does it kill the conversation? When one takes Scripture to be infallible, perhaps interpreting the Reformers polemic a bit beyond their context, then the conversation dies and natural revelation is hidden to those only clinging to special revelation. Other religions have much to say concerning Scripture...how is the Spirit working in communities where Scripture is unknown to them? In conversation is the only way in which we can learn about each other and come to a fuller undestanding of Truth.
If a secular culture is the only means by which the conversation can continue, then it is only logical that it should be considered an alternative. Embodying what is sacred in my life, and reading Scripture with an open heart, mind, and in community to me has been profoundly helpful and directive.
I said I'd get back to this later, but when I was speaking of science and religion (predominantly because science has become the popular mode of rational thinking within our context in the west -- it defines what is rational for many) it is helpful to look at varying models:
Science and Religion in opposition; Science and Religion, asking different questions; Science and Religion integrative; or Science and Religion in discourse...
...must go...taking my wife to lunch...
posted by Timcom at 9:02 AM
3 Comments:
To continue with what I was talking about. Religion and Science are often-times seen as arenas in conflict. When Darwin introduced his theory of evolution, a teleological and ontological threat upon those Christians taking Scripture to be a literal and infallible document. But even before this, science fell away from the church because the church dictated what science was, yielding a crippled science always understood within the limits of the Christian sacred text. When Galileo, when Copernicus and others attested to a world, a universe thought ridiculous and impossible and a potential threat to the stability of the church to those authorities who possessed a monopoly on the interpretation of Scripture, these early scientists were scorned.
Because of the church's literal interpretation of Scripture and political agendas, scientists began to seriously question the Bible's role in scientific discovery. Thus began the common myth that science and religion are incompatible. When evolutionary theory was introduced, the outrage on the part of literal interpreter's of Scripture should have been and perhaps was predictable.
What is not taken into account is the living person of Jesus Christ moving in the Body of the Christian church, instructing them to reinterpret Scripture within our own context. So evolution is more than just a theory...how is that threatening to the Christian proclamation in the incarnation, which is God's real revelation on earth? Scripture attests to this reality and provides analogous normative narrative that we might channel with the aid of the Spirit, so that we might live accordingly...but whether we realize it or not, we are interpreting Scripture based upon our own bias, our own context, our own experience, our own knowledge. The conflict model disintegrates when Christians realize that their "intuitive knowledge" outweighs their fear that God doesn't exist. Then perhaps the world becomes a lot more mysterious, a lot bigger, a lot more wonderful, and God is perceived as much more.
Asking different questions approach is commonly employed when scientists and theologians want to avoid the fact that everything in existence is inter-related, that there are no clear disciplinary boundaries. Theologians ask why questions while scientists ask how questions...though I contend that with the witness of Scripture, the why and the how seemingly overlap.
The other two models mentioned are similar, though discourse does not quite go so far as to say the integration of the two disciplines.
I am not talking about intelligent design here, because, quite frankly, its adherents such as Dembski, have little substance in much of their writings to propose a valid alternative to science. In fact, much intelligent design is mostly polemic and apologetic to those still lingering over the threat posed by Darwinism. Darwin, like any theologian proposes theory and method from a particular point of view, coming out of a particular context. Perhaps his theory, as it was originally constructed in Origin contains many elements that are unacceptable to some. It isn't one person's responsibility to make an absolute truth claim and to be right about everything...the expectation is ridiculous...our biases always seep into 'pure objectivity' (which does not exist). But Darwin did have something very profound to say and may have come closest to discovering how God chooses to create. To completely discount this man's theory based upon
Scriptural presuppositions without reading and re-reading Scripture from a different point of view is irresponsible...
Saint Augustine even notes that had he not grown up in the Christian tradition, Scripture and the Christian religion would probably mean very little to him. (And no I am not getting into a nature/nurture debate). What this suggests is that Augustine's experience of the church led him to want to read Scripture. Scripture itself did not reel Augustine into the tradition. The Body of Christ thus has the responsibility to read, as Augustine, a minority believer in his native NOrth Africa, Scripture and interpret it again and again for our own contexts. It is by Augustine's influence that Christianity was provided with a defense against the Manichees and the Docetists and was enriched with a multiplicity of new interpretations not apparent to earlier congregations. God did not only create, but is still creating in and through the Body of Christ and in and through the world.
I got off track (as normal...this is a train of thought and not some kind of treatise that necessitates a logical flow)...my problem with intelligent design is that it has no grounds, nothing falsifiable like modern science does. For it to be taught as an evolution substitute is to deprive students from understanding that the world is not the center of the universe.
I better stop talking...there are other things to be done besides ramble, and if you've gotten this far in my rambling and thinking, shame on you for wasting the minutes your heart has been pumping while reading.
Lol...I like the entry. Lots of Karl Barth I sense in this (Yodah voice) i.e. 'mediator', 'reconciler', even his revolutionary idea of starting with Jesus Christ when forming his theology. Calvin started with the sovereignty of God, Wesley with God's Love first and foremost, Schliermacher with feeling and emotion, and Tillich with existentialism and our estrangement.
More or less, every theologian takes one idea and runs with it, forming their entire theology around it. The more I read, the more I realized that these guys make more mistakes than anything else, and like you said it is because of their humanity. Their logic is based on these few assumptions I mentioned above, and in such, they are problematic to say the least. Half the time in class we learn useful theology from these theologians and the other half we rip them to pieces. I have come to one solid conclusion; that all denominations are weak. They focus on one particular aspect of God while shortcoming others.
My focus has mostly been on John Wesley and his sermons lately because I have been struggling with many of his theological conclusions but I understand the frustration with theologians in general that you expressed. What I can say is that based upon each theologians 'starting base'(where they derive their theology) their logic is impecable. Yes, based on context (we cannot escape that), but impecable.
Gotta love that Holy Spirit too. I'm sure its the reason some of my grades are up so high. I think its also going to help me get through my second sermon next week. Lol. Sorry, Wesley's killed the Holy Spirit's image for me in the last few literary dialogues we have had. Your statement about, 'how is the Spirit working in communities where Scripture is unknown to them' Wesley would say that the Spirit has not descended upon them yet until they have prayed, participated in the Lord's Supper, and read Scripture. Only then could the Spirit work through them. Calvin would say 'if God wills it it will happen.' I'm sure you know what Barth would say...
I struggled through Calvin and Grace last semester and now Wesley and works this semester. Is there an end to the madness!?!?! I do however like Karl Barth quite a bit, because like a good Christian he takes four different theologies from other theologians and puts them together. I am writing a paper concerning Schliermacher's Christology right now, and you wanna talk about interesting. The guy didn't even think Christ suffered on the Cross...What kinda crap is that...really... Anyway...
Sorry man, its been a long semester thus far. I wanted to let you know that my cell phone fell captive to the washing machine and it was executed. So... if you want to get a hold of me, call Sarah's cell phone or the house phone at 512-391-1516. I don't remember your number because it was saved on my phone.
Hold on...gotta re-read what I said...I don't remember what is was...haha...
I completely agree with you on Wesley...what a topic...I like Calvin's take on the H.S. better given his section on natural theology. towards the beginning of book one...and going along with the logic of the theologians...I think that the logic is good given their background, experience and current situation, but you are right in seeing the weaknesses in their dogmatics. Given a bend one way or another in theological discourse automatically weakens an argument from another bend...it's human nature...and lately I've been looking for some answers as to why we even 'do' theology when God is seemingly inconceivable or sovereign...Calvin is very vague on the subject...Barth on the other hand gives it a try in Gottingham Dogmatics...he says that it is necessary to 'do' theology because God revealed himself through Jesus Christ into the realm of concepts...we only think in terms of concepts and categories and as such, when God revealed himself, we were warranted to discuss that revelation. He goes on to say that what is inconceivable is a definite category we can ascribe to God and as such there are things we can know about God, but not completely know because God is inconceivable (sounds like a Princess Bride kinda logic)...
Again I'm left hanging in Barth's logic, which is good, but full of holes...
The other problem I've recently had with reading both Calvin and Barth are their ambiguities in the language used in their theology...there are references to things that just pop out of no where making one wonder what in heaven and hell they are talking about. The other thing I can't help but notice in their logic is the polemic (for Calvin - against the Catholic church, and Barth - against mysticism) in response to their time period...the bias tends to stretch their logic a bit far and a bit abstract.
Don't diss Schleiermacher...I like him...sort of...yeah, his christology is a bit low, but without him we wouldn't be where we are now...
Good luck on Wesley...I still am not a fan...his version of the trinity seems a bit hierarchical to me...
Gotta get back to thank you notes...talk to you later...
Post a Comment
<< Home