The following is part of an ongoing dialogue I have had with one of my friends.
George (original): “As a Christian working out of a broad-based orthodox tradition grounded in the core doctrines of the faith…”
Dave: What constitutes a “broad-based”
as opposed to a narrow-based orthodox tradition?
George (response): The capacity to
draw freely and comprehensively from the full range of the orthodox tradition
(past and present), including its Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox
expressions, as well as a range of perspectives with Protestantism—Reformed,
pietistic, Wesleyan, evangelical, and mainline Protestant. Bob La Rochelle has explained this in his
work on ecumenism which he posted few weeks back. http://day1.org/4004-dr_robert_larochelle_what_protestants_and_catholics_share_in_common
George (original): “A simple
difference between us is that I draw extensively on these two sources as the
basis for my spiritual epistemology while you draw on other resources.”
Dave: Yes, that is true, however, I believe a
more significant difference between our points of views is the different
interpretation we give to our common source, the Bible. I see the stories in
the Bible in metaphorical, symbolic, mythological terms whereas I will venture
to say that you see them more in literal, actual, historical terms. Also, while
I view the letters of Paul, Psalms, Job, etc. as being human in origin, I will
venture to say that for you these words have what we would call a divine
origin, and are therefore far more significant than the words of Emerson,
Tolstoy, etc. I put the words of Thoreau, Blake, etc. on an equal footing with
Paul, not so much in terms of their relative influence on civilization, but in
terms of the source from which they come.
George (response): Not quite.
I accept all your terms as having some relevance, but do not limit my
understanding of the Bible (let’s stay with that for now—the single source) to
them. The Bible also includes history,
which is not the same as saying that the biblical narrative is synonymous with
the way things actually happened in real time.
Rather, historical experience is refracted through the text and
interpreted within the prism and conventions of an ancient world view. This is not the same as saying that the Bible
does not contain any accurate historical information, but that its truth and
relevance for Christian theology and spiritual practices (i.e., its revelatory
significance) does not depend on its historical veracity. The same goes in spades for any literal
interpretation, which is more of a modern rather than an ancient
construction. As I used to say when I
first came to Christ in the 1970s, I view the Bible as significant; replete of
revelatory power (2 Timothy 3:16), but not necessarily literal; certainly not
so in all of its varied genres. This is
not the same as denying the importance of biblical statements; what is commonly
interpreted as biblical “propositions;” what one finds in much of the first eight
chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, one of the most important texts in the
entire canon, in my view.
On
the divine origin of the Bible as given to the human writers; I accept this
well established faith-based presupposition, with the notation that there is a
great deal of diversity within a broad-based common understanding of faith.
Those operating out of the orthodox theological tradition across the board
accept this assumption of divine origin, even while acknowledging (a) that the
Bible is not without problems, (b) that there are questions that remain
unresolved, and (c) that there is a
range of meanings and applications of given biblical text that defy any
simplistic consensus. This diversity of
interpretation is pervasive even in evangelical biblical studies and theology,
to say nothing of the broader Protestant perspective. A book I picked up at the Evangelical
Theology Society Annual Meeting titled The
Future of Biblical Interpretation: Responsible Plurality in Biblical
Interpretation lays out in a broad way some of the diversity within an
orthodox tradition within the contemporary evangelical tradition. http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-Biblical-Interpretation-Hermeneutics/dp/0830840419
You
are correct to assume that I place the Bible, read canonically through the arc
of the narrative from creation to consummation, as a primary source of
revelation over and beyond anything beyond what Thoreau, Emerson, or Whitman
have said or could have said. Moreover,
I place it in a higher realm than what theological or ecclesial expositors have
said, though I draw on both in the quest to ever deepen my understanding and
application of the faith. To the extent
that they are useful I will also draw on range of secular authors or sources of
knowledge, but only ultimately so to the extent that such resources amplify my
understanding of the Christian faith. My
epistemological approach starts from a faith-based stance in search of greater
knowledge. In one sense I believe before
I know while seeking greater knowledge to further my understanding the
faith. A primary trust of the Bible,
sifted through a common, critical, and canonical sense interpretation, while
being apprised of and, at least in part, accounting for secular experience,e is
the way that I approach the faith. I
discuss some of this more in my book In
Quest of a Vital Protestant Center: An
Ecumenical Evangelical Approach. https://wipfandstock.com/in-quest-of-a-vital-protestant-center.html
George (original): “In addition to
the Bible as the basis of my-faith-based epistemology, I also draw extensively
on the almost 2000 year tradition of the mighty cloud of witnesses.”
Dave: Yes, but in that cloud are a great many
voices that I could cite in support of my way of seeing religion, faith,
belief, etc. And of course so could you for your way of seeing these things.
Mine is a minority view compared to yours in terms of the historical
understanding of the nature of what is called the divine and its connection with
humanity, but not so much that there aren’t significant resources for both of
us to call upon.
George
(response): In the case I am making the cloud beyond the biblical writers
provides essential secondary support that buttresses and sometimes illuminates
the primary source of evidence. This
includes my personal understanding, which I view as a secondary rather than a
primary source of evidence. That is, my
personal testimony is an existential/ phenomenological source of understanding
of the faith as it has opened up to me, though the surer ground upon which such
faith stands is the promise of God in Christ revealed in the Bible. See Hebrews 6: 17-20: 17:
“Because
God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs
of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by
two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have
fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged. 19 We
have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner
sanctuary behind the curtain, 20 where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on
our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”
I’m
not going to find this source in Emerson, however edifying his writing may be.
George (original): “In terms of
the original proclamation, ‘Then God saw everything he had made, and indeed, it
was very good;’ that stands, but there is another side of the coin, namely, the
Fall, however metaphorically or literally one might interpret it.”
Dave: I think it is important to point
out that you are taking two very different stories and combining them together
as one. The first creation story sees God as sovereign, the second in more
relational terms. Another way of saying this is the first story is the priestly
account of creation presenting God as the universal Elohim and the second story
is the non-Priestly account presenting God as the tribal Yahweh. We can talk
more about this if you wish but I don’t want to get too detailed in any one
message.
George (response): Yes. However, I am not reading the text
historically, nor am I seeking to deconstruct or dissect the narrative. My reading is a canonical one in which the
creation story is a critical linchpin in the biblical story. Depending on what one is trying to accomplish,
an analysis of the two creation stories can be instructive and relevant and
there are (may be) reasons to engage in such interpretations. In not overly concerned about this. Rather, I am following the precepts of Old
Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann who argues that, in terms of faith stance,
we cannot really go behind the text, but have to deal with the text itself as a
primary source of faith. There is a lot
of current work on narrative theology, which, with different emphases makes
this point, but I cannot get into that here.
George (original): “However one
might interpret this, this claim is a core precept of biblical Christianity.”
Dave: I submit that it is more accurate to say
that this claim is a core precept of Pauline theology, which was to become
synonymous with Biblical Christianity, not as a foregone conclusion, but as a
result of historical and psychological realities rather than divine fiat.
George
(response): I believe Paul needs to be seen as a very early Christian
interpreter, in which it is likely that his conversion experience took place in
the mid-to late 30s and that his accounting of the faith was likely to be a
good summation of what the earliest followers believed; certainly about the
resurrection of Christ and the impartation of the Holy Spirit to the early
church. Moreover, he had close contact
with Peter early on and kept apprised of the Jerusalem church throughout his
ministry. Clearly his ministry to the
Gentiles was an overflowing of the Abrahamic promise; one to which the
Jerusalem church leaders signed onto (Acts 10-11, 15) even though some members
had difficulty with the extent that Paul moved beyond the law and Jewish temple
traditions. What Paul wrote is amplified
and extended in the Gospel of John, and in a somewhat different way in the
letter to the Hebrews, with echoes in Ephesians and Colossians. Clearly the synoptic gospels had more of a
concrete depiction of the earthly ministry of Christ, but these also were
constructed texts designed to amplify the early church’s vision of Christ as
resurrected savior. Even Mark, the first
gospel, opens its text by proclaiming “the good news about Jesus the Messiah,
the Son of God.” What followed, it might
be said, was commentary on this core proclamation. Moreover, both Mark and Luke were at least
sometimes followers of Paul and were intimately knowledgeable about his
ministry years before constructing their gospels.
In
short what Paul wrote in his various letters is broadly consonant with the
entirety of the New Testament even as he formalized some of the early doctrine
that without his work may not have been put in the forms that his work opened
up.
George (original): “According to the story line, "God created
mankind in his own image" (Gen 1:27) and therefore as part of the good
creation, though as the thinking, willing creature, with the capacity of
obedience and disobedience to the directives of God.”
Dave: Again I note the combining of two stories
written from two traditions as if they are one, but overlooking that for now
for the sake of argument, it is inaccurate, it seems to me, to state that Adam
and Eve had the capacity for obedience and disobedience before eating the
apple. It wasn’t until after they ate of the apple that their eyes were opened.
Before that, they had no capacity to choose to be obedient or disobedient.
That’s the point of the story isn’t it? They became human after the apple.
Before that, they had no more of idea of the moral consequences of choices than
a shark feeding on a school of fish or a surfer. The shark will eat whatever is
close to the shark’s mouth, just as did Adam and Eve before the “felix culpa”
that was the birth of human consciousness.
George (response): Their eyes were opened up in that they
experienced the impact of their choice.
Before sin entered in they were innocent of guile against God. Obviously they had the capacity to choose;
otherwise they would not have been able to take the path they did. Once they did choose, they did not have the
capacity of escaping the consequences of their sin and in that sense were less
free than they had been, in which, in paradise, their humanness was reflected
in their congruence with the desires and will of God. I think this issue of what humanity would
have been like if sin had not entered into human experience was addressed by CS
Lewis in one of his novels. I never read
it, but I’m aware of such a book. In any event I think there is a distinction
between innocence and guilt before God, which is not synonymous with whether or
not one is authentically human. The
difference, rather, is with the type of humanity one experiences. While we live in a post-Fall reality we
cannot get back to that condition, though in faith, in relation to the atoning
sacrifice of Christ, we have a foretaste of what such innocence is like, in
which its full expression is promised in the Eschaton. Moreover, it is that state of innocence
regained and amplified beyond what we can now imagine through New Adam that
will characterize our state in eternity, when mortality puts on
immortality. CS Lewis would refer to
this description as mere Christianity, which encompasses a variety of specific
denominational and theological traditions.
George
(original): “Stated in other terms, the Pauline longing is an expression of
our state of biblical reality between Paradise lost and Paradise gained.”
Dave: As opposed to the message of
Jesus that the kingdom was to be established on earth Paul’s message and the
message of Jesus are fundamentally different from each other, a reality that
can be seen both in the difference of words attributed to them and in the
contempt Paul felt for the Judaizers who were actually the disciples who walked
and talked with Jesus.
George (response): I addressed this in part above. Let me simply say that it is a false polarity
to establish a radical dichotomy between Paul and the synoptic gospels. I say synoptic, because you would need to
eliminate the Gospel of John, in which Jesus declared “Before Abraham was born
I am” (John 8:58). The most
comprehensive understanding we have of Jesus is that embodied in the New
Testament, the entirety of it, whatever primary resources can also be teased
out of the evidence. Given the depiction
of Jesus in the gospels as a construction of the early church on a mission of
world conversion, I believe it is a false dichotomy to pit Paul and the
synoptic gospel writers in dichotomous oppositional terms.
George
(original):
“Other ways of understanding reality may be of interest, but to me only
ultimately so to the extent that such understanding amplifies the faith
tradition of the orthodox Christian tradition, generously defined.”
Dave: What constitutes a “generous” definition
of orthodox Christian tradition?
George
(response): The original terms comes from Hans Frei, an early proponent of
narrative theology, in a discussion with the evangelical theological Carl
Henry. In response to Henry’s insistence
of an inerrant interpretation of Scripture, Frei argued that a complex test
like the Bible was open to a variety of interpretive frameworks and should not
be circumscribed by a limited view of language which was pervasive in 20th century
fundamentalism in its war against modernism.
A good description can be found in George Hunsinger’s essay, “What can
Evangelicals and Post-Liberals Learn from Each Other: The Carl Henry-Hans Frei
Exchange Reconsidered.”
Brian
McLaren has popularized the phrase, in his book, A Generous Orthodoxy http://www.amazon.com/Generous-Orthodoxy-evangelical-conservative-contemplative/dp/0310258030. I link this interpretation, leaning more
towards Frei, with CS Lewis’ objective as articulated in his classic text Mere Christianity. It is an approach to the Christian orthodox
tradition that has scope for a range of theological and biblical perspective
within an overarching structure as detailed throughout the biblical narrative
and developed in more formal terms through the basic dogmatic proclamations of
the early church. These two resources
(the Bible and the early church dogmatic proclamations) have served as the
basis for the ongoing development of the orthodox Christian tradition, which
continues as an unfolding process that includes scope for new light for many
new insights to emerge with new insights in response to fresh challenges. This growth remains embedded within the
boundaries of the core precepts of the grand tradition based on the biblical
narrative from creation to consummation and the founding doctrines of the incarnation
and the Trinity. Within this orbit there
is, and has been, much room for development.
No comments:
Post a Comment