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....

the content of reality

what composes reality? maybe this should be the beginning. it seems like our reality is what we perceive as true, although, truth does also seem to be that which we find to be most consistent with reality, or perhaps that which most accurately reflects reality. maybe the two are mingled such that they are dependent upon each other, intrinsically related. maybe they are the same, or maybe they are non-existentent in the manner in which most understand them (or semi-understand anyways). as best i can tell, reality and truth are reflections of values we develop into systems. we follow these systems to their logical ends using the value sets as parameters by which the patterns are dictated or designed.

long day

so, 12 hour days at work should be avoided as "regular"... especially when you are working on the the same salary my grandad sam offered his lawnman jamie in 1987....

i am currently sitting in a coffee shop in waco texas listening to what i assume is open mic night. there is a man of most likely 40 plus but not more than 50 years old... and as i type is hanging up his guitar... probably for the better. he has been giving us his own commentary on truth in song form, which i can respect even if i do disagree, but i do ask that my respect be rewarded with thoughtful insights and a thorough investigation of that which you may be commenting on. this man, for instance, is claiming that he has found the spiritual in all types of religion - i have not quarrel with such statement - but then claims that they are all saying the same thing jesus said (thats verbatim). i then have found quarrel. the exclusivity of the claims of jesus lie within several factors. standing out to myself is the personal interest and investment you ought associate with christ that is not found in other modes of belief. this thought leads me to some thoughts i had earlier today regarding the determinism found in some lines of christian thought. anyone who knows me probably knows of my disapproval of calvinism and it is this undermining of christ's personal investment into his creation that causes me to be so. the calvinism that claims a loving creator, if completely honest with themselves, ought admit that the description they prescribe to god is much more similar to tolerance. well, we arent talking much about truth now, but remember grant, this is a record for yourself to sort thoughts... ok, back on plan. is it still talking to yourself if it is typed into the public arena?

Note to self....

Well, self, i fully anticipate you to be the only person ever to read this, which is fine. hopefully this space will help you collect your thoughts about reality, truth, the composition of these things, and also what they are not. right now, i am thinking that reality is mainly patterns. this is subtley different from the normal conception. i think this is more like imagining reality as not being the bricks we often imagine it to be, but rather the mortar between the bricks. it also suggest reality as a contigency, a purely relative situation.

as far as what reality is not, pirsig has thoroughly convinced me that the common subject-object perspective of reality is inaccurate. that is maybe why i have dismissed the bricks and focused on the mortar... well, as far as i can tell, reality and truth are directly related. the nature an extent of this relationship is yet to be determined, but hopefully some thought and a place to express though with help create some informative questions... back when my mind needs unloading again.