|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: A Radical Redefinition of Biblical Authority
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
It may be that schism is inevitable, and indeed it may be beneficial, in so far as the progressive (emergent?) way (and I mean this to include all aspects of Christian belief and practice, not just sexual matters) needs to be able to grow while the traditionalist view dies out (as I think it eventually will, but sadly it will continue to hurt and confuse a lot of people along the way). Maybe the progressive way needs to focus on teaching a radical redefinition of biblical authority -- I believe that the church cannot speak authentically to a postmodern world without this redefinition.
A quote from the Anglican Scandal thread.
My main interest is the last sentence.
Maybe the progressive way needs to focus on teaching a radical redefinition of biblical authority -- I believe that the church cannot speak authentically to a postmodern world without this redefinition.
I strongly agree with this sentiment. Do you?
Is it possible?
Can you do it?
Have you got a working definition that you believe speaks authentically to the postmodern world?
[ 27. May 2011, 09:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
while the traditionalist view dies out (as I think it eventually will
This is the assumption that precedes everything.
On what is it based? Anything more than wishful thinking?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think it would make more sense to come up with the radical redefinition first, then propose it. Rather than propose that someone, somewhere, someday, come up with a radical definition, and when they do we'll accept it (or the "progressive"* types among us will), whatever it happens to be.
--------------
*Whatever the hell that means, beyond being a mere slur against people who think the Christian religion actually has content, and that that content is in large part derived from the Bible.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
while the traditionalist view dies out (as I think it eventually will
This is the assumption that precedes everything.
On what is it based? Anything more than wishful thinking?
Erm, just to be clear, I didn't post that. I quoted it.
And even if it is a false assumption and the traditionalists don't die out, a radical redefinition for the "postmodern" Christian is still required in my opinion.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
I can be rather liberal in some ways, but I am having trouble with what the concept of redefining authority even means. I don't see how authority is something that can be subject to redefinition because it's not based on a definition to begin with.
I would think that the authority ascribed to any thing (e.g. the Bible, or a map, or a statement) is something that has to be examined, discovered, and recognized based on the nature of the thing itself and whether it is in some sense true or reliable in and of itself.
To look at it another way, one can challenge the authority of a statement by trying to demonstrate that it is false or unreliable. Trying to establish or defend the authority of the statement through redefinition just doesn't make any sense to me.
Maybe the progressive way needs to focus on discovering a radical new approach to understanding the Bible?
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think it would make more sense to come up with the radical redefinition first, then propose it.
Yes. But I'm insufficiently creative or articulate on this point. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
--------------
*Whatever the hell that means, beyond being a mere slur against people who think the Christian religion actually has content, and that that content is in large part derived from the Bible.
Are you saying the "progressive" or "postmodern" Christian doesn't believe the Christian religion has content and that that content is in a large part derived from the bible? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Um....this one does....
I concede we're playing with a minefield of obscure definitions tho...
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I didn't post that. I quoted it.
I realise that, but you quoted it in agreement and it hardly seemed fair to attribute it to Lothiriel since he didn't start this thread and may not even know his comments are on here.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I can be rather liberal in some ways, but I am having trouble with what the concept of redefining authority even means. I don't see how authority is something that can be subject to redefinition because it's not based on a definition to begin with.
I think the authority of the bible is based on a definition; that being the infallible word of God.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I didn't post that. I quoted it.
I realise that, but you quoted it in agreement and it hardly seemed fair to attribute it to Lothiriel since he didn't start this thread and may not even know his comments are on here.
I didn't quote it in agreement. I quoted it as part of the background to the main idea.
It's mostly irrelevant to my question of biblical authority.
Your point?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I think the authority of the bible is based on a definition; that being the infallible word of God.
That seems more like a claim subject to scrutiny and challenge than a definition. I don't expect anyone to believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God simply because someone has defined it to be so. I would only expect them to believe it if they see the truth of it for themselves.
I can understand and sympathize with your goal, but because of the word 'redefinition' it starts to sound somewhat arbitrary to me. Finding a way to reach the postmodern world sounds like something that will take a lot of work and a lot of time from a lot of people, whereas finding a definition sounds relatively simple in the scheme of things. What is it you're hoping for?
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I think the authority of the bible is based on a definition; that being the infallible word of God.
I think the authority of the Bible was around a lot longer than the word "infallible". And it is derived not from a definition but from the recognition of the Church of the mark of the Spirit*.
——————————————————
*For the NT; substitute "nation of Israel" for the OT.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Your point?
Similar to W Hyatt.
If you were arguing that the traditional position was in terminal decline then you might have some impetus to discuss the inevitable.
Since you aren't, the task you suggest is very vague - you are basically asking for a redefinition without being clear why you think we need one in the first place.
You've got to come up with a better reason than just 'I think we need to'. Why is it so important that we do this?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gargantua
Shipmate
# 16205
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I think the authority of the bible is based on a definition; that being the infallible word of God.
That seems more like a claim subject to scrutiny and challenge than a definition. I don't expect anyone to believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God simply because someone has defined it to be so. I would only expect them to believe it if they see the truth of it for themselves.
I can understand and sympathize with your goal, but because of the word 'redefinition' it starts to sound somewhat arbitrary to me. Finding a way to reach the postmodern world sounds like something that will take a lot of work and a lot of time from a lot of people, whereas finding a definition sounds relatively simple in the scheme of things. What is it you're hoping for?
Che brava, Evensong, that you have the inner fortitude (acronym: GUTS) to place this subject on the table! Hyatt is right -- this is at best a "claim subject to scrutiny and challenge," that the Bible (which Bible? which books? in which language? which readings of disputed texts? etc.) is "the infallible word of G-d". But if one must simply "see the truth of it for oneself" -- then the logical corollary of that is that religion even within the Church must be entirely a personal, private, individual matter. If that be so, then it spells an end to confessionalism. And that may in fact be exactly where we find ourselves as latter day Christians.
I have said before that I cannot in good conscience stand and recite any of the Creeds. I believe that almost any *thinking* Christian these days might make that same statement if pressed to the point of complete frankness and honesty. We are better educated, far more widely read, than the laity of the first millennium CE, or of the Middle Ages.
I just posted a new thread (Non-Dualism and Christianity) in which two non-canonical scriptures figured prominently -- A Course in Miracles and the Gospel According to Thomas. Arbitrary ecclesiastic authority, in the form of the Fathers and the Councils, determined the canon of orthodox scripture as we know it today, and it was not an entirely settled matter until the XVII century, actually. There were winners and losers in the battle for the canon, just as there are winners and losers in the battle for the high ground in Anglicanism today. Despite the somewhat questionable assertion that the decisions of the Councils constitute the "Mark of the Spirit," these days not all Christians are likely to accept that judgment (after all, the Roman Church says the same thing about the decisions of the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra).
Even Rome has just about reached the point of acknowledging that it is no longer possible to enforce an Index Librorum Prohibitorum or to ensure that the faithful will read only those books graced with the Imprimatur of some "Prince of the Church."
So where does this leave us? It leaves us in the happy or unhappy position, as you will, of having to think for ourselves -- of having to seek the "Mark of the Spirit" whenever we read. I have seen the Mark of the Spirit in certain poems of Wallace Stevens; in some passages of Annie Dillard's Pilgrim at Tinker Creek; in the writings of Sri Ramana Maharshi and Sri Nisargadatta; and many other distinctly uncanonical sources. To discern the Mark of the Spirit is a task of spiritual maturity. Perhaps G-d is telling us that after two millennia it is high time for us to grow up and stop expecting our spiritual nourishment to be spoonfed to us.
--------------------
Fraternally,
Gargantua
Posts: 84 | From: Rossburn MB, Canada | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You've got to come up with a better reason than just 'I think we need to'. Why is it so important that we do this?
Because "progressives" who mostly battle with "conservatives" of the evangelical kind may wish to defuse the primary weapon of con-evos at a fundamental level. It seems much easier to answer a multitude of "but the bible says..." with "you are doing this wrong in principle" rather than addressing their arguments point by point, or indeed verse by verse.
However, no hope lies this way. We already have that situation with con-evos vs. trad-caths, where the latter will precisely answer "biblical authority" claims with a (well-defined) different one, namely roughly "apostolic authority of interpretation". Nothing particular ever happens at this point. The actual task is not to convince yourself of some source of authority, but to convince the ones you are arguing with to adopt the same. And that's the point where the Holy Spirit has to step into the game, or possibly a shotgun...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Some attempts to redefine biblical authority are, in truth, attempts to redefine what being 'authoritative' means.
I agree with some of the points already made that regarding the Bible as 'authoritative' can mean a few different things, depending on whether you attempt to prooftext verse by verse or whether you're looking for the overall principles.
But the one thing that 'authoritative' can't mean is 'not actually authoritative at all actually, just a cracking good read'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
while the traditionalist view dies out (as I think it eventually will
This is the assumption that precedes everything.
On what is it based? Anything more than wishful thinking?
Erm, just to be clear, I didn't post that. I quoted it.
And even if it is a false assumption and the traditionalists don't die out, a radical redefinition for the "postmodern" Christian is still required in my opinion.
I don't agree.
The last thing we need is to interpret the Bible in a way that satisfies the world or is acceptable to it.
The problem - if it is a problem - is that the Bible has never been acceptable, its message has always been an offense.
Biblical authority is inherent, it speaks authoritatively; we do not give the Bible its authority and neither do we redefine or reinterpret it. Who do we think we are?
The theory is that those who recognise Biblical authority, the so-called 'traditionalist' view, are dying out. Let me tell you that evangelicalism is on the rise across the world and that if any view is dying out it's the more liberal view of the faith and of Biblical authority.
One thing liberalism and modernism failed to realise (and hence their own demise) is that people want Christians to believe what their book tells them; and indeed the churches that grow are those who are solidly Biblically-based and which preach and teach a clear Gospel message.
There is no one so scornful as a non-believer who is criticising the church for no longer believing its own teachings. If Christianity wants to disappear, all it needs to do is tell the world, "we don't believe the Bible has its 'traditional' authority; we don't believe what we used to believe."
The growth of the church - the conservative church - around the world shows that people respect certainty and traditional views. Those who want to redefine Biblical authority - i.e. those who don't want to believe what the Bible clearly teaches, are in the dying western church. A church that is dying for want of belief in Biblical authority.
Yes, if the Lord tarries, the liberal church in Europe, and maybe the US, may die out, but the worldwide church - evangelical, conservative, not necessarily Pentecostal but certainly 'charismatic' (note the small 'c') will grow and grow. Anglicanism, for example, might tear itself apart but Canterbury is not all there is.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The idea that the Bible is infallible because slomeone has decided it should be isn't how I see it.
The Bible is 'wholly trustworthy' (my church's official definition) because it has proved itself to be. It carries within itself its own authority that cannot be gainsaid.
The church in the early centuries didn't
give the Biblical books their authority, they recognised their authority and therefore included them in the canon. It is not for the church or any council or individual to remove from those books the authority that is self-evident.
Once the church sees itself as above the Scriptures instead of subject to them, then we are in deep trouble. The final arbiter of authority is the Spirit-inspired Scriptures, not the Church, not tradition, and not any Western theologians.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The actual task is not to convince yourself of some source of authority, but to convince the ones you are arguing with to adopt the same.
Yes. That was what I feared, and why I asked my question.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
This thread will do well to avoid morphing into the Dead Horse of biblical inerrancy. Some comment on inerrancy is inevitable, but please try to avoid that becoming the primary focus.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Maybe the progressive way needs to focus on discovering a radical new approach to understanding the Bible?
Perhaps authority is the wrong word.....perhaps you are more correct in your statement above W Hyatt.
Not sure <mumble...mumble...>
The reason this suddently struck me was because of Mudfrog's posts.
It's Mudfrog's ilk that believe they don't have a viewpoint, a way of understanding the bible, a hermeneutical premise.
The postmodern christian understands that absolutely everybody has a viewpoint or a particular way they understand the world and the bible....
I come from the historical-critical school......but it's not 100% satisfactory. This is perhaps where Ingo's shotgun comes in. Or whoever shouts loudest....
quote:
The growth of the church - the conservative church - around the world shows that people respect certainty and traditional views. Those who want to redefine Biblical authority - i.e. those who don't want to believe what the Bible clearly teaches, are in the dying western church. A church that is dying for want of belief in Biblical authority.
[/QB]
Now see this is where I believe you are essentially wrong Mudfrog.
In my opinion, "liberals" take the bible much more seriously than the "traditionalists".
We don't ignore the discrepancies, the contradictions and the influence of language, culture and history.
To do so is the easy way out.
And people are ever trying to find the easy way out.....
It's not what Jesus did. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[cross posted with Barnabas....ran out of time to check see if I'd talked to much about DH territory. sorry]
[ 10. February 2011, 07:17: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This thread will do well to avoid morphing into the Dead Horse of biblical inerrancy. Some comment on inerrancy is inevitable, but please try to avoid that becoming the primary focus.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Um but yes, thanks Barnabas. The OP is not about innerancy.
Thanks for getting us back on track.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Maybe the progressive way needs to focus on discovering a radical new approach to understanding the Bible?
Perhaps authority is the wrong word.....perhaps you are more correct in your statement above W Hyatt.
Not sure <mumble...mumble...>
I have to confess that I missed this aspect of W Hyatt's post before making my own. And I think I was trying to point out much the same thing, just in a less skilful way. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
The reference to 'authority' came from the material you quoted in the OP, so I wouldn't chastise yourself for using it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PS Whether your idea of redefining 'authority', Evensong, and Lothiriel's idea of redefining it are anything alike is something we can't know unless Lothiriel comes to this thread.
I appreciate what you said about not ignoring the contradictions (or apparent contradictions ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) and the influence of language, culture and history.
To me that seems a middle road. What bothers me is when some people go further, and take 'redefining authority' to mean that parts of the Bible can't possibly be true because, for example, miracles and resurrections can't happen. There's a big difference to me in attitudes between looking at difficulties, language, culture and history, and negating the text as soon as you don't like something about it.
The latter seems to deny the Bible any authority at all - it's entirely subservient to the reader's point of view. It's ruling out some of the range of possible meanings just because they're not acceptable.
[ 10. February 2011, 07:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
quote:
It's Mudfrog's ilk that believe they don't have a viewpoint, a way of understanding the bible, a hermeneutical premise.
That sounds rather like painting a picture of "the opposition" that you want to believe because it bolsters your position, not one that's accurate. At the very least you have a very broad brush in your hands there ...
There's no conflict between Mudfrog's position (as I read it) and a hermeutical approach. Indeed, hermeneutics is vital and central to supporting such an understanding/approach to the Bible. Unless you're equating having a high opinion of Biblical authority/sufficiency with a simplistic belief that it's all literally true in the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" school. In which case you've got a problem, because the two are not inevitable, or even common, bedfellows in my experience.
[ETA: x-posted with orfeo]
[ 10. February 2011, 07:52: Message edited by: Snags ]
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
It doesn't do to caricature con-evo's as having no hermeneutic principles. I'm studying for a BA(Hons) in Theology and Ministry with York St John Uni, taught by The Salvation Army - and therefore catching up 20 years late on most of you ![[Smile]](smile.gif) and I can say that there is a strong element of hermeneutics.
It is true that there are those who take the Bible's verses at face value and read everything literally but in my experience as a Christian and as a minister for 23 years, there are not really very many...
...tangent, I knew a woman who thought the colour pictures in her Bible were just as inspired as the text! but there you go!...
...anyway! Most evangelicals will look at the historical background to the texts and derive great meaning. They will look at the author's intent, the context, the people to who the texts werew writeen, etc. And that is wonderfully inspiring.
Evangelicals will also ask, what does this say to me, what meaning do I bring, does my chiurch bring?
They will also ask what does it say to a different world today? How do we communicate this truth in a way that a child, a worker, a woman, a refugee, will understand.
All this is very much a part of evangelical theology - whilst retaining, of course, the inherant authority of the text as being of divine origiun and not mere human construct.
It seems to me that the evangelical has an edge, in some ways, to the liberal because the evo will look at so many aspects of the text and see that, for example, the historical situation explains and reveals so much truth that can then be used to clarify difficulties and alleged contradictions. My expoerience has been on occasion that sometimes it is the liberals who are the literalists and because they disagree with the literal reading, they no longer believe what truth lies behind it.
Evangelicals believe the text and the meaning behind it. And because we recognise its inherant authority we can find a way of applying it to every modern situation, either in principle of in its direct teaching.
In a 'post-modern' situation what must be realised by those who deny Scriptural authority, is that the world will not accept the meaning if the text is not believed to be authentic.
The obvious one - the elephant in the room - is the resurrection. Why would a modern world believe in Christ and his offer of life today if the resurrection is not as the Bible describes and as the church believed? The atheists are deliughted to use this as a weapon aganst us. They 'know' we don't believe Jesus walked out of the tomb, so, they say, you don't believe your own Bible - why should we!?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Nobody can claim to be detached from traditions. In fact, one sure way to be swallowed up by traditions is to think that one is immune to it [...] The question, then, is not whether we have traditions, but whether our traditions conflict with the only absolute standard in these matters: Holy Scripture.
[...] All Christians are at once beneficiaries and victims of tradition - beneficiaries, who receive nurturing truth and wisdome from God's faithfulness in past generations; victims, who now take for granted things that need to be questioned, thus treating as divine absolutes patterns of belief and behaviour that should be seen as human, provisional, and relative.
-- J. I. Packer.
(Not exactly known as the most liberal Evangelical in the directory)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Mudfrog, I'm not sure that your use of 'the evangelical' and 'the liberal' is any less of a caricature.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Mudfrog, I'm not sure that your use of 'the evangelical' and 'the liberal' is any less of a caricature.
well, as an evangelical I would find it hard to caricature myself and those who are of this 'persuasion'. It might be helpful if you could define a liberal viewpoint.
I think that, as far as Biblical authority is concerned, have gone some way to illuminate an evangelical position. It is that of a high view of divine inspiration and biblical authority, it has a high Christological viewpoint, it is a viewpoint that stresses the immediate and personal presence of God by grace through faith, in a responsive believer's life, it is a view that stresses personal salvation and holiness.
It is a view that believes that all authorities, including Tradition, reason and experience are valuable but are ultimately subject to the final authority - Scripture.
What is the liberal view, in your experience?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...tangent, I knew a woman who thought the colour pictures in her Bible were just as inspired as the text! but there you go!...
I know you labelled this as a tangent, but to me it's pretty pertinent as far as it shows a particular mindset.
It seems to me that there are two opposite dangers here - a mindless acceptance without any engagement of the brain on the one hand (vividly demonstrated in the tangent!), and a kneejerk rejection on the other. The kneejerk rejection arguably doesn't require much brain engagement either - it tends to be based on circular reasoning or prejudice, and you could argue that the mindless acceptance is as well.
To me, regarding the Bible as authoritative means taking what it says very seriously, while recognising that understanding what it really says is not a simple task.
If that's a 'redefinition' then I'm all for it! But the whole idea of 'redefinition' presupposes that we know what the current definition is.
While I hope there aren't too many people that go as far as your tangent, I suspect that the secular world's image of Christianity veers in that direction. Blind, unthinking obedience. Doesn't mean the image is accurate, but I think that's often what the image IS.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Caricaturing is always a problem here. I'm an evangelical who is entirely comfortable with historical-critical approaches to scripture and Tradition and is pretty uncomfortable with much of what passes for evangelicalism in the US.
I guess our arguments flow from whereabouts we sit in a truth triangle which has three apexes.
Truth revealed by Scripture
Truth revealed by Tradition
Truth revealed by Reason
I think I'm in favour of some redefinition which recognises that in all our theologising we'd do a lot better by recognising that Christians live and move about somewhere within that triangle. In short, and in practice, most of us recognise truth at all three apexes. Just not all of it.
Plus I reckon we'd do better to be honest in stating that wherever we find our authority we still have to deal with knowing in part.
I hope this is not too much of a caricature.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...tangent, I knew a woman who thought the colour pictures in her Bible were just as inspired as the text! but there you go!...
I know you labelled this as a tangent, but to me it's pretty pertinent as far as it shows a particular mindset.
well indeed. I think I also need to tell you that this lady was a new convert from Catholicism, and it was us in our evangelical church who informed her that she was incorrect.
It's not evangelicals therefore who have unthinking mindsets.
At least, historically, evangelicals have actually read their Bibles!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What is the liberal view, in your experience?
That would depend entirely on who is a 'liberal'.
I mean, to bring in another DH, there are people who regard me as 'liberal' just because I think that homosexuality is acceptable in God's eyes. But the same people who think that cannot fathom anyone coming to that conclusion in any way other than by ignoring the Bible.
Conversely, there are people who think I'm a thoroughly unliberal fundamentalist because I continue to insist that the Bible is 'the word of God' and 'true'. Those people usually can't fathom why I even care what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.
There have been a few threads in recent times discussing just how unsatisfactory a word 'liberal' is, and how many different meanings people are able to pile on top of it. By some definitions I am liberal and proud of it. By some others I am emphatically not one.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I guess our arguments flow from whereabouts we sit in a truth triangle which has three apexes.
Truth revealed by Scripture
Truth revealed by Tradition
Truth revealed by Reason
I think I must be sitting a long way away from 'Truth revealed by Tradition' and near the baseline between the other two. I have a quote from Cyprian on my office door (one of several quotes there):
"Custom without truth is the antiquity of error."
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Threads like this always manage to descend into the language of battle at a remarkable rate; the lines are drawn, the camps are fixed and the conversation is essentially ended as each grouping involved tries to figure out who has scored the most points and is therefore the likely winner. Into such a melting pot I posit a starting point at looking at the nature of authority when it comes to the scriptures!
There is a movement (that has been steadily building since early-ish in the 1900's) that posits an authority in a top-down mode. There may have been very good reasons for this in a history and time that was pretty upsetting and unstable. In some ways it looked like it might have united all the little splinters that were coming out of Protestantism around a shared, common understanding of the nature of scripture. Sadly, it was not to be. Each little grouping argued its own case with separated agenda's and particular issues that focused them, but they dis so, cut off from the root of Christian tradition and history. From the 1950's on there is a real revival of trying to either see your own tradition as being in keeping with the tradition of the early church or an attempt to get back to a 'golden era' of early church understanding. Personally, I think both of these approaches have failed, but haven't been without theological consequence.
Today, the issue is centering on concepts of the authority of scripture, and in some sense is a backwards step (through history), going back to old arguments and schisms, however this time, it is not having an effect on Protestant splinter groups. The favoured method of understanding scripture at the moment is a top-down model of authority, with scripture placed over us and us being subject to it, which contains an inherent idea of scripture as having a revelatory authority. In part that comes from mis-readings of Barth, who would be pretty horrified at being read in such a way; but his basic idea of seeing an act of revelation at work in scripture has morphed and taken hold. The result is of course, that going back in time to where it all started means that we face further splintering.
In the words of a certain Williams, there must be some way that this can all hold together. I wonder if we can have a revival in Tillich? He proposed a view of scripture, not as a top-down authority, but as the ground of our being. It's very similar to what Mousethief stated earlier; life from God above, grounded in the scriptures, known in Jesus Christ, lived through the Holy Spirit (apologies if I have misunderstood or misinterpreted you!). So instead of seeing scripture as a revelatory authority akin to the authority of God (or given to scripture by God), it is instead our starting point, in a sense an incarnational act; the ground of our being. Rather than being a top-down affair, it is the rock on which we stand - a shared solid earth that reveals a rich landscape of our response to God.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Today, the issue is centering on concepts of the authority of scripture, and in some sense is a backwards step (through history), going back to old arguments and schisms, however this time, it is not having an effect on Protestant splinter groups.
Sorry - that should have read ....'....not ONLY having an effect on protestant splinter groups....'
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity and Miracles, argues for Christianity on grounds that look something like this:
- God must exist because [philosophical reason X],
- Christianity presents the most convincing description of God,
- Therefore Christianity is true.
ISTM the consequence of this view is that everything within Christianity must be subordinate to X, because otherwise the whole edifice collapses. If Christians propose a doctrine contrary to X, that doctrine must be rejected, because X is the reason for accepting God in the first place.
So does that make Lewis a liberal?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
About twenty years ago Tom Wright explored this question in a lecture delivered to what is now the London School of Theology and for the 1989 Griffith Thomas Lecture.
I think it attempts the kind of radical re-evaluation that is needed if a radical redefinition is to be achieved.
The major points (IMHO) are first that authority resides with God rather than with the scriptures, and secondly we need to be clear about what kind of thing the Bible is before we attempt to understand how it might be authoritative, rather than beginning with a view about what authority is and attempting to read the Bible so as to conform to that view.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
The Evangelical and Liberal approaches to reading the scriptures are surely not the only methods available. Both strike me as related to the culture that those movements grew up in. Both have a habit of proof texting.
Catholics and Orthodox Christians have their own approaches.
In my own reading of Scripture I endeavour to read the text in conversation with other scriptural texts , and in conversation with those who have read it before. I seek an interpretation that makes sense of scripture rather than one that is based on particular proof texts.
Theology by Venn if you like. If there is a breadth of interpretations on a number of texts related to a certain issue then I would look for the places where they overlap.
I would place meaning before literal historicity (indeed fretting over the latter can be a distraction) and the Spirit before the Letter. Both are I guess Why before What.
I don't think this approach is particularly postmodern or liberal.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
IMHO the reason why people resist the watering down of biblical authority is because they suspect that those who do it either:-
a. want to excuse something that they want to do, but suspect they shouldn't, or
b. are trying to tone down the sort of commitment the Lord might be calling on them to make, so as to let themselves off the hook.
The message 'we can't advocate X because post modern people won't accept it' looks too like 'we had better redesign God to suit people who find the real one too demanding'.
I am sure I am being grossly unfair to some people, but I think there are quite a lot of instances where these suspicions are only too true.
This may be Scylla. However, what we cannot do is pretend to ourselves that we understand scripture in a way that belies our own mental and spiritual integrity because the consequences of following those are too threatening to us. That is Charybdis.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IMHO the reason why people resist the watering down of biblical authority is because they suspect that those who do it either:-
a. want to excuse something that they want to do, but suspect they shouldn't, or
b. are trying to tone down the sort of commitment the Lord might be calling on them to make, so as to let themselves off the hook.
The problem is that as long as one side assumes bad faith on the part of the other, these discussions will always generate more heat than light.
Apart from anything else, bad faith isn't all that relevant in evaluating the worth of an argument. If I tell the taxman I'm entitled to a rebate, then the fact that I personally benefit from my arguments shouldn't in itself make those arguments any less valid.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I'm on the run but want to to say thank you to those that have described their particular view of authority or understanding of what the bible is.
That is what I'm after.
And if you can, say how you think this can be understandable or reasonable to non-christians.
My main interest is articulating faith to those of no faith in the modern world.
This thread has made me dig out my old hermeneutical textbook and made me recall I personally am a mix of Schleiermacher and Bultmann in terms of my biblical approach.
More later.....after collecting the fish n chips...
[ 10. February 2011, 10:23: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
About twenty years ago Tom Wright explored this question in a lecture delivered to what is now the London School of Theology and for the 1989 Griffith Thomas Lecture.
I think it attempts the kind of radical re-evaluation that is needed if a radical redefinition is to be achieved.
The major points (IMHO) are first that authority resides with God rather than with the scriptures, and secondly we need to be clear about what kind of thing the Bible is before we attempt to understand how it might be authoritative, rather than beginning with a view about what authority is and attempting to read the Bible so as to conform to that view.
I like that paragraph. I will have to read further.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
This thread has made me dig out my old hermeneutical textbook and made me recall I personally am a mix of Schleiermacher and Bultmann in terms of my biblical approach.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
What has that got to do with this?
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Have you got a working definition that you believe speaks authentically to the postmodern world?
If that is a serious question then your first step must be to chuck modernists like Schleiermacher and Bultmann in the bin.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
The Evangelical and Liberal approaches to reading the scriptures are surely not the only methods available. Both strike me as related to the culture that those movements grew up in. Both have a habit of proof texting.
Catholics and Orthodox Christians have their own approaches.
Was that an accident or did you mean to make it sound as if the Catholics and Orthodox are not tied to particular cultures and are not in the habit of proof-texting?
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
In my own reading of Scripture I endeavour to read the text in conversation with other scriptural texts , and in conversation with those who have read it before. I seek an interpretation that makes sense of scripture rather than one that is based on particular proof texts.
ISTM that you've just defined an evangelical approach to scripture here.
[ 10. February 2011, 10:59: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Edward Green:
[qb]In my own reading of Scripture I endeavour to read the text in conversation with other scriptural texts , and in conversation with those who have read it before. I seek an interpretation that makes sense of scripture rather than one that is based on particular proof texts.
ISTM that you've just defined an evangelical approach to scripture here.
That's what I was thinking too
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I was thinking it was a Schleiermachian one.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
This thread has made me dig out my old hermeneutical textbook and made me recall I personally am a mix of Schleiermacher and Bultmann in terms of my biblical approach.
What has that got to do with this?
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Have you got a working definition that you believe speaks authentically to the postmodern world?
If that is a serious question then your first step must be to chuck modernists like Schleiermacher and Bultmann in the bin.
You're questioning my use of the term postmodern I assume?
Technically quite right Johnny. Postmodern theology accepts no meaning but your own on the texts wot?
But nobody really lives like that.....Perhaps I should have said Modern. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Scheiermacher bases the authority of scripture on intent and religious "feeling" conveyed in the reading of scripture.
The Word is there behind the text.
The religious self consciousness is awakened. Some have a stronger "religious" feeling than others...
But historicity is not foremost because that is not where the Truth of the experience lies.
So actually, I think Scheiermacher has something to offer in his basis in pietism or the "experience" of religion or God.
Bultmann says such an awakening can be brought about only by God herself.
My trouble is, Bultmann was right in the begining but it's not cool to talk about revelation. People think you're nuts.
Schleiermacher's view nurtured the first in my case.
But I'm still stuck in talking about Jesus to all my non-christian friends.....I dunno where to start.....
The bible told me so I believe it doesn't wash anymore but like orfeo said....it's what most of my friends think I believe.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
While I hope there aren't too many people that go as far as your tangent, I suspect that the secular world's image of Christianity veers in that direction. Blind, unthinking obedience. Doesn't mean the image is accurate, but I think that's often what the image IS.
Yes.
Absolutely.
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
The major points (IMHO) are first that authority resides with God rather than with the scriptures, and secondly we need to be clear about what kind of thing the Bible is before we attempt to understand how it might be authoritative, rather than beginning with a view about what authority is and attempting to read the Bible so as to conform to that view.
Yup.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It doesn't do to caricature con-evo's as having no hermeneutic principles.
The opposite is true. They probably think more about hermeneutics than any other branch of Christians. Its just that they come to currently unfashionable conclusions.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The bible told me so I believe it doesn't wash anymore but like orfeo said....it's what most of my friends think I believe.
So what you are looking for is a way to explain the authority of the Bible to people who aren't Christians, rather than a radical redfinition?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I guess our arguments flow from whereabouts we sit in a truth triangle which has three apexes.
Truth revealed by Scripture
Truth revealed by Tradition
Truth revealed by Reason
I think you have to mean "experience" rather than "reason". "Reason" is how you think about both Scripture and Tradition, not an alternative to them.
[ 10. February 2011, 13:46: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
