Ernie: Far be it from me to object to a good sermon. I was talking to a friend the other day about how I used to be a Baptist. Than the thought struck, which seems 100 % true, is it really possible to become an ex-Baptist ? Sure, you can add a hundred and one new beliefs. Some may contravene various articles of Baptist faith, nonetheless the fact is that there remains a Baptist core in there. Long way of saying that I actually like thoughtful sermons, at least those with some passion behind them. Alas for the Evangelical community, in the same era as I was becoming grounded in Baptist faith I was also making a lifelong commitment to philosophy. So, for me, there are always two tests, not one, not just "is this good and true in the context of faith ?" but also, "is this objectively true, can I bet my life on it ? " Most "contraries" in the Bible --you'll probably accept that term, which can mean what I mean OR what you mean-- are not that critical. Heck, most may have scholarly interest and nothing else. But others are deadly serious. Hence a certain pique about Evangelicals and their version of hermeneutics. Whether or not a foot is foolish or wise means zilch to just about everybody. That kind of example can well be taken as an evasion, in other words. But let's not get into contravention-by-contravention. argument . You will see it all as a question of context, but, while I may well agree in some cases, I will see it as empirical truth tests, with context being a real stretch, again and again. I have an interest in maximizing the truth in the Bible, let's not overlook that. Many of the people I deal with on a regular basis are either indifferent to the Bible or, in a few cases, are opposed to it as a source of values. I need to defend it as best I can, given the fact that I respect the very logical objections these people have raised over a lengthy period of time. And this has been true of most of my life. I do like your example, "life is complicated, deal with it." That DOES take care of SOME difficulties. Very useful way of looking at the problem. However, the really tough questions remain --whether you choose to be dismissive of them or not. I don't have that option. There is no "refuge of faith" allowable in an academic context. Do I want credibility ? Then there are rules of evidence to observe, and empirical truth tests to heed. So, rather than a game of tennis where I bring up contraventions and someone tries to explain them away one by one, how about if I simply tell you how it all looks from a university perspective ? The Bible can be defended culturally easily enough. No-one needs to even deal with problems in the text if you simply say that the book has been a font of values in Western civilization for close to 2000 years. That is objective statement of fact. But to go from there to a position which defends everything in the text, well, no-one buys that. Many reasons, but to say the least, the prime witnesses to that view, Christians themselves, have had interpretations of key texts that have been all over the lot both historically and in the here-and-now. By itself that is all the proof anyone needs-- because the test isn't some sort of ideal situation where theologians hammer out some type of consensus, but the life of Christian communities and also individuals. Text A, has in fact,, meant one thing to Group #1, another to Group #2, and still another to Group # 3, after all. Why the confusion ? God says it is OK to produce texts in his name which allow for such wide variation in interpretation ? I mean, philosophers have struggled from the beginnings of philosophy with the problem of "understandableness." It not only is a virtue to make oneself understood, it is essential. But it is OK if a book that purports to be "all true" to include many, many passages which can easily have multiple interpretations ? And this is not trivial since these passages often have serious behavioral consequences. Very illogical. The principle of Ockham's razor also applies . What is the simplest --most elegant, cie vous plait-- way to look at the issue of contraventions ? ( 1 ) God has given us a thousand puzzles to work out despite the fact that faith isn't really supposed to be about solving puzzles but about matters of the heart and decisions which literally are life and death. Or ( 2 ) the Bible was written by fallible human beings who sometimes disagreed with each other or who sometimes were mistaken. Granted, this is an oversimplified way to frame the problem, but as shorthand for the difficulty. Then there is the perspective which comparison gives you. VERY easy to see when a Muslim tries to defend the inconsistencies in the Qur'an, or a Hindu the inconsistencies in Vedic texts or Upanishads, or a Buddhist or Jew or etc. Including anyone who might seek to defend Mesopotamian scriptures too. Now we are supposed to believe that Christians are immune from this problem and that their text is free of all problems despite the fact that the Bible, like nearly all the other sacred books was written thousands of years ago , in an age before modern conventions about evidence, about clarity , and about logical consistency ? I don't think so. So, for me, as is true for any academic who seeks to defend the Bible, I take it as a given that the book is imperfect. But while that is not OK, it is human and, as in all things human, the way forward isn't to demand perfection or to pretend perfection exists when it does not, but to concede the obvious and focus, instead, on the truths which are there to be found. There is no perfection in Freud, nor Darwin, nor Nietzsche, etc But this is NOT the same as saying "because there are errors the whole has no value." Anyone who said that would be immediately ridiculed. So it is with the Bible, flaws notwithstanding, it is a treasure trove of truths. But I admit the flaws. Yes, that is a problem, but it is far less of a problem than taking the view that the book is error free and then needing to deal with innumerable questions that, if I am seriously honest, cannot be answered except through casuistry. I have zero interest in that approach. This is how things look to me. Billy In a message dated 12/12/2009 8:55:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
Hi Billy, On Dec 12, 2009, at 12:00 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Ernie : > How do you obey scripture when, for example, a text like Malachi 1: 11 is as > ecumenical as anyone can think of, and another verse, such as Ezra 9 : 1 , > is as anti-ecumenical as anyone might come up with ? > > Before a recommendation to obey scripture can make good sense it is > necessary to be convincing to the effect that the Bible is non-contradictory. > Otherwise you end up with recommending both "A" and "anti-A" Radical centrists: including the excluded middle! > Some things are prior to others. Some things are, but most are not. They simply exist in different *contexts*. I think that is how I would answer about half the issues you raised. To me, that is the crux of both interpretation and application -- understanding the context in which those statements were meant and intended. The most obvious example of this is: http://bible.cc/proverbs/26-4.htm > Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. http://bible.cc/proverbs/26-5.htm > Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. The Bible contradicts itself! It is utterly useless! Religion is completely idiotic!!! :-) Well, no. This isn't the case of two different writers who are disagreeing with each other. This is one proverb in two parts. Both are true. LIfe is complex. Deal with it. That's why an authoritative Scripture is necessary, but not sufficient. I believe a mature approach to applying Scripture is accepting -- even reveling in! -- the tensions and paradoxes. Scripture isn't some static modernistic set of axioms that we are to rigorously follow. It is a complex dataset describing God's interaction with humanity. Yes, it does include some universal imperatives, but it also includes numerous contextual instructions, as well as more ambiguous anecdotes than I would like. Yet all are essential for understanding who God is and how to please Him, but neither should be mistaken for the other. After all, the goal isn't to blindly follow Scripture -- or worse, just some rationally consistent subset thereof. The goal is to *know God*, and love/obey him.That's hard, and any attempt to over-simplify can be disastrous (and usually is). Scripture helps in this -- it is essential! -- but it isn't enough. I believe we also need the Holy Spirit, the body of believers -- and yes, history, scholarship, and even trial and error. The important thing, IMHO, is to focus on God Himself, and not make an idol out of Scripture. Only then will we know the right questions to ask of and about Scripture, so that we can get meaningful and useful answers. -- Ernie P. P.S. Sorry to preach, but you brought it up. :-) _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
