Brian [McLaren] makes such a good point about the importance of the subjective encounter with God that he tends, I think, to minimize the importance of the objective truths of scripture. Unlike Brian, I believe that objective, propositional, ultimate truth is of absolute importance.
"We ought not to follow those 'modern scholars'", Brian writes, "who abstract principles from the stories and various declarations of the Bible and then apply those in contemporary settings to inform us how to believe and act". But that's exactly what I think we should be doing.
Tony Campolo.
(Missing the Point, p246)
We live in a relative not an objective universe. Two observers may witness the life or death of a star depending on their position in the cosmos. Which observer has the objective truth, he who sees the birth or he who sees the death?
ReplyDeleteObjective/subjective are limited human terms. The divine cannot be contained within human concepts. That's like trying to stuff an elephant into a matchbox. How can one book contain the transcendent?
Only love can pierce the cloud of unknowing.
yours respectfully
Beep and Booster.
Thanks for your post.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the claim that either the book or the terms "contain" the divine or the transcendant is being made here.
Rather the claim is that that the divine has spoken, and we are able to hear because we are made imago-dei. This correspondance means that while do not hear perfectly, let alone comprehensively - we can in the grace of God, hear sufficiently.
I would never, claim that the divine (etc) is containable in human language. To hear is not to claim to contain.
I've found "Is there a meaning in this text?" by Kevin Vanhoozer convincing on these issues.
Yea, but like, crazy man. All the purple colors just kinda burst out into a real daisy rainbow flower. We've all just got a real kinda groovy perspective on the truth that ain't there. They're just all real jumbled words on the crazy page of life.
ReplyDeleteYea, like right on man
ReplyDeleteAh yes, the snake crawls his slimy way into the garden and says to the humans, "did God really say?" So Pilate wrings his wretched, treacherous hands hands and says "what is truth?". So today, postmoderns say that we cannot know what God says, we cannot know what Jesus meant by what he said, and its all beyond our finding out.
ReplyDeletePostmodernism is just the latest fad, merely an intellectual posturing, just the latest attempt of sinful humanity to justify our disobedience to Almighty God.
The word of God to all cultures, times and places remains the same; and starts with repentance.
Dear Anon ii, you discredit the valid point behind your argument, with overstatement and inflammatory language.
ReplyDeleteOooooh - hark at you!
ReplyDeleteWe would like to reply to one or two points raised.
ReplyDelete1. There is no suggestion of being "post modernist". We were simply being rational. Faith without any reason is folly.
2. There's little point in attacking post modernism anyway as it's simply an inevitable step in cultural evolution.
3. The "latest fad" in historical Christian terms is probably "family values evangelicalism" which lacks the 1600 years pedigree of Christian monasticism.
4. Pilate is regarded as a saint by the Coptic church and one of the first Christians.
regards
Beep and Booster
Thanks again for your thoughtful posts. I'd like to make a few observations on the debate here between the various parties. Firstly - anon contributions are rarely ever helpful or constructive. If you want to 'troll' fair enough - but at least admit who you are!
ReplyDeleteThen with regards to the last post:
1) your claim to pure rationality is perhaps negated by the final statement in your original post. "Only love can pierce the cloud of unknowing" is certainly a lovely sentiment - but is based on spiritual/emotional criteria as much as rationality.
2)If there is "no point attacking po-mo" because of its inevitability? where has your rationality gone now? In 1924 would you have said, don't critique Stalinism - it's inevitable? We're told that free-market economics are inevitable and therefore beyond critique - nonsense! No-one and no movement is beyond reproach! If po-mo becomes 'inevitable' then assessing its strengths/weaknesses becomes more, not less, urgent.
Anyway - I'm not sure if the 2nd anon poster's attack on po-mo was aimed at you, or the 'cosmic man' who followed you.
3)What is "family-values-evangelicalism"? It must be some American thing we don't have here. We have 'evangelicals' (that is Christians who stress Bible/conversion/cross/activism) - with a line of history through the Puritans, Reformers and back to Augustine and St Paul....
As for 'family values' perhpas you're right, heterosexual monogamy is just a fad, it'll never catch on.
4) St Pilate, eh? Brilliant! I have some friends who are Coptic Christians and I've been to some Coptic ceremonies (baptisms and the like) and spent some time talking to their priest. So I have followed your post by reading up on the Coptic view of Pilate as the example of the redeemability of even the worst offender by the grace of God. From what I have read they don't seem to deny his former hypocrisy, but do develop a tradition of his subsequent repentance (under his wife's influence)and martyrdom. Really interesting stuff - thanks for the pointer.
Incidentally, my Coptic friend showed me his favourite book. It was a much read Arabic paperback. Expecting it to be something like Athanasius, I asked him what it was, "Peace with God by Billy Graham" he said. "Wonderful book" he added with some glee!
Beep and Booster said...
ReplyDeleteWe have pondered your wise reply oh hideous one. We acknowlege the good sense of much you say. We would like to reply to one or two things though...
Our reference to the Cloud of Unknowing, incase you are unknowing, is taken from a 14th century devotional work which makes the point that rationality will only take you so far in the search for the ultimate. It claims God cannot be known by the power of the intellect, only by the power of loving. To say only love can pierce the cloud of unknowing is an acknowledgement of our dependence on the action of God through grace. A rational view we hope. Check out Penguin Classics.
2. We see what you mean about PM. Our point was really that it isn't a "fad" but a development of culture and thought. We feel anon 11 does post modernist thinkers a diservice by suggesting that are trying to justify disobedience to God. Infact they may well be honest souls seeking the truth.
3.Re family values. We would only say that the gospels don't seem particularly interested in family life and that the Church saw it as second best for about fourteen hundred years. It seems to us that organised religion often uses "the family" to control people rather than to encourage them to have life and that more fully. (For example- Franco's Spain).
Our era may be the early middle ages of a vaster future. Family life may well prove to be a brief phase in the history of humanity.
regards B & B
Thanks again for your postings.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, after giving me the publisher and a quote, any chance of an author and title for the "14thC devotional work"?
The idea that the intellect is limited in its reach, is surely correct. The idea that "only love" can move beyond this needs to be teased out a bit though.
I think I'd want to say that the 'cloud' is pierced firstly by God (the incarnation), and secondly by scripture (the word of God) and finally by the Holy Spirit (illumination). This he does, undoubtedly out of His great love.
Our response, must be then, to respond to this love with our our God given faculties. Jesus' instruction (following Deuteronomy) is to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength". The mind loves God as it responds to the cognitive revelation of the word, the heart & soul sing love songs back to God, with our strength we serve God (by serving others) and so all our God-given faculties come alive as we are recreated into the image of Christ.
This is life in all it's fullness (John 10:10)!
You also said:
ReplyDelete"The Gospel's don't seem very interested in family life"?
I think two things need to be said in reply to this
1) By limiting your comments to "the gospels" you have determined the result you wish to hear, I think! It appears that family life in Jesus' time was certainly not the isolated nuclear entity of today (far from it); neither was it the radical departure from OT sexual ethics that is typical of 1stC Greek society or 'the west' today. As such, the gospels do not dwell on it as a major issue, whereas when the gospel reached greek societies it became a big issue - hence its prevalence in the epitles.
2) Family life/sexual ethics etc. may not be a major theme in the gospels, (Jesus appears to be the central theme himself) - the references there are still useful. Lust and adultery are both condemned, but forgiveness offered, fatherood and motherhood are both affirmed with generous examples, from Mary to Jairus. So even in the gospels, heterosexual-monogamy appears to be affirmed, adultery and other such covenant violations rejected.
Finally, while it is true that the church upheld the celebate ideal for a long time; was this right? Patriachal emasculations are notorious!
My suggestion is that the long shadow of gnostic influence on the church was the cause of this. The idea that the soul is imprisoned in the 'evil body' is not biblical, and is denied by the incarnation itself - as much as by the promise of a resurection body.
While it is vital that the church cherishes its members who chose celebacy as the correct path for them to follow (and I know some wonderful Christians to whom this applies) - to suggest that this is either the norm or a superior lifestyle belies an unhealthy anti-materialism. This is not an appropriate response to the creation that God describes as "very good" and is condemned in the NT epistles. Do we not need a faith that recongnises that 'Song of Songs' is part of the Bible?!
However, as you point out, there is a difference between seeking to discern what God's ideals are - and seeking to "control others". I would strive to both uphold biblical morality and accept that the choices people make are ultimately between them and God. There is no question of forcibly controlling anyone, nor denying civil rights to theose with whom we disagree.
The model in all this is Jesus himself. The Bible describe him as "full of grace and truth". I read this as meaning he was willing to conflict with people on the basis of preaching the truth (however unpopular) and also to dealing with people in a very gentle and kind manner (with the notable exception of religious hypocrites).
thanks again for your posts
Beep and Booster said
ReplyDeleteThannks for your thoughtful reply on which we will muse.
Meanwhile the book we mentioned is infact called "The Cloud of Unknowing" by author unknown but translated into modern English by Clifton Wolters. First published 1961 but often reprinted.
They think the author was a late 14th centruy English parson.
This is goodbye for we will post no more. God bless.
B & B.
Hi again B&B, thanks again for your time, your thoughts, and the references you have sprinkled into your posts.
ReplyDeleteBye for now
"A late 14th Century English parson, eh?"
ReplyDeleteCan anything good come from England?