Lines of Definition

It is interesting how we describe things. I don't know if people have always done it this way or just since science has become so important over past few hundred years. Typically the universe is divided into two categories which are "subjects" and "objects". ( I am now borrowing from a favorite author of mine). There are possibly to broader categories or perhaps just more appropriate categories though, that the "static" and "dynamic", an idea which is partially the inspiration for this blog. Typcally when we try to define something, we give it definition based solely upon its static attributes. Because these are the attributes which can be recognized empirically gives reason for my belief that this trend is related to the rise of science. What if it is more accurate though to describe something by its dynamic qualities? I am think of the manner in which a given thing functions and relates to things in the universe. If this were this instance, the "thing we are discussing" would actually have to be understood only terms of its functions and relations. Kinda wild, huh? Most people probably would prefer not to invest the effort towards restructuring their ontology around relations rather than objects, but I think it may actually be the most accurate way of indicating what makes anything distinct from anything else, which seems to be what defining is all about. I'll see if I can come up with a good example and hopefully that will illustrate (have to be careful now about saying define) what I am getting at.

Propositional or Thematic?

An unfortunate trend in biblical interpretion is to understand the bible in terms of propositions as opposed to themes. This is a closely related idea to reading the bible in terms of a narrative. I assume this error is mostly related to the enlightenment, but very well may be able to be traced all the way back to middle-platonic influences on the early church fathers. Specifically what I am thinking of is that we tend to read the bible as a set of lots and lots of propositions, that we assume will all fit together. Well, upon further examination this type of reading renders many problems. How can God ask people to love one another as the greatest commandment yet command the destruction of entire cultures? How can God know us before we were in the womb yet still allow the birth of Hitler, Dahmer, and Osteen? (Probably slightly unfair) Well, for the propositionalist he cannot without having to make some very unsavory distinctions about God's character, i.e. that by virtue of being God that he can do as he pleases without guilt. But then, why does God command a type of justice entirely contrary to his own behaviour? Again, more complications for the propositionalist. What if the bible is not a "95,000 Theses" but instead a narrative of God's interaction with mankind that is held together by a common theme, not a loosely aligned confederation of assumedly agreeable yet ontologically isolated propositions? Ok, after writing that I see that sentence needs some unpacking. What I've been noticing for a few years now is that the Bible makes alot more sense if we look at the theme of the WHOLE story rather than assuming that any proof text can be removed from its context and still be just as coherent in the scheme of reality? This book is not a set of static reflections of reality, but dynamic fluxuations that consitute reality.
This morning at church I was surprised with several visitors. They were a group of three teenage girls and their leader, a woman who is helping procude a Christian sitcom called Heavenly High. You can catch it on SkyAngel if your satellite provider carries the network. The idea for their program is they take typical highschool problems and then scour the bible for verses that prove the bible answers all of today's questions and is still relevant. Really? When I was in highschool this thing rolled around called "cloning". Well Heavenly High, let me know when that episode airs because I am still pretty uncertain when the bible ever mentions the matter. You can see where I am going with this. The bible is not a set of propositions that can be ripped from their context and forced into ours. We think this though because we think of reality as this staticity which exist beyond our own existence. Maybe not though. The bible certainly is dynamic and tells a dynamic story, contingent upon the context in which the characters of the bible participated. Tired head yet? Me too. Try to sort some of this out later on...

Originum Peccatum Sola Adami

Original Sin By Adam Alone. Ever heard of that doctrine? (thats the name Dr. Brewer suggested) Me neither. But maybe we should have. Martin Luther, who is responsible in many ways for the contemporary conception of Christianity, discussed righteousness in a very specific way - that it is imputed by grace alone. By this, he suggest that men are in no part responsible for their salvation, but that it is from a source completely alien to them. He says in the same way, original sin is not the working of man either, but also imputed by an alien source. Luther has left the mark on Christianity that because of sola gratia, men are completely non-responsible for their salvation. But why has he left th eequation unbalanced? If grace and sin are contraries and both imputed by alien sources, why are humans responsible for one but not the other? It seems that Luther would necessarily have to conclude that if man cannot claim his righteous, due to its alien imputation, that man also should not have to claim sin either, due to ITS alien imputation.

Dialogue

Today's discussion in class spurred on some old thoughts that got mixed up with some new ones. In the discussion of interreligious dialogue and its role within Christianity, I was reminded of a portion of a book I read by Martin Buber a long long time ago. Buber describes dialogue as not even having to occur within the bounds of words, but can happen even when two people just barely meet eyes. Dialogue occurs when we encounter another person and are fully engaged with their "otherness". Ya, what in the world does that mean? I understand this to be that we are in dialogue with another when we are both participating in the same reality. But Grant, aren't we all participating in the same reality? I'm glad you asked that. I would say not necessairly so. The reality we each participate in is conditoned by and limited to our own surroundings. Of course we all share some same conditions, i.e., gravity, death, hunger. But there are others we do not share. Loneliness, the joy of having children, losing a spouse, wealth, poverty... There is a myriad of experience that people face giving their perception of reality a slight variance from the guy sitting next to them. This slight difference becomes even more particular when we realize that these differences are also compounded by their relativity to each of our other slight differences. What a tangled web of experience we all live in! Yet this is what distinguishes us each as unique. So, back to dialogue. What does this mean as a Christian. Well, Paul Tillich talks about the Gospel as the New Reality and of evangelism as being an invitation into this New Reality. Adding this up, I am believing that Christian Dialogue is evangelism, given the definitions we discussed here. No longer should we think of evangelism as propositional but instead, it is an invitation into participating in our New Reality of Jesus Christ. We do not need to corroborate propostional truth claims about historical, philosophical, or scientific Jesus. Our truth claim is the changed life which is the New Reality we participate in, and evangelism is to invite others into this with us by participating in their reality as well. Good Luck....