My wife and I went to a Farmer's market recently and I found someone selling books at a table, used books of various kinds. I bought two. Both were $2.00. They were by J.P. Moreland and they were on Christian apologetics. I guess it was good that I got a deal. But it was discouraging in another way. When I buy a quality book, I keep it. When good books that challenge the mind are casually discarded, it makes me wonder who let them go and why.
On the way home, I leafed through the book "Love Your God With All Your Mind." At the beginning of each chapter there were various quotes from different figures. Three in particular aroused some old passions in me.
"False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and succeed only in winning a straggle here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion." - J Gresham Machen
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
PBS Indoctrination - Some thoughts
So the PBS Nova presentation on the Dover Intelligent Design case was about what I expected.
The defendants looked like dishonest idiots. The ACLU Lawyers looked like knights in shining armor. Michael Behe was conspicuously absent, PBS claimed he "refused" to be interviewed, which was false. They highlighted the "establishment clause", well, half of it. "No law respecting the establishment of religion." They left out the part about prohibiting the free exercise of it. The usual stuff.
But all that is what we've come to expect. I did note Behe had a response at the Discovery Institute site which pertains directly to the decision of Judge John Jones.
"The Court’s reasoning in section E-4 is premised on: a cramped view of science; the conflation of intelligent design with creationism; the incapacity to distinguish the implications of a theory from the theory itself;"
The defendants looked like dishonest idiots. The ACLU Lawyers looked like knights in shining armor. Michael Behe was conspicuously absent, PBS claimed he "refused" to be interviewed, which was false. They highlighted the "establishment clause", well, half of it. "No law respecting the establishment of religion." They left out the part about prohibiting the free exercise of it. The usual stuff.
But all that is what we've come to expect. I did note Behe had a response at the Discovery Institute site which pertains directly to the decision of Judge John Jones.
"The Court’s reasoning in section E-4 is premised on: a cramped view of science; the conflation of intelligent design with creationism; the incapacity to distinguish the implications of a theory from the theory itself;"
Sunday, November 11, 2007
PBS Indoctrination on Origins Continues
PBS has a long history of presenting a pretty one-sided view of the evolution vs. design controversy. From Carl Sagan, ("the cosmos is all there ever was and all there ever will be") to Donald Johanson to Steven Jay Gould, folks who believe everything about origins must be explained by purely natural processes in order to be "scientific" explanations get lots of airtime and those who don't get the "dunce" treatment.
This Thursday the trend continues with a program on NOVA this Thursday about the Dover Pa. case in which a single statement about Intelligent Design which did not mention anything religious was found to be an unconstitutional promotion of religion.
World Magazine reports that the program is less than a stellar example of objective reporting:
"Because no cameras were allowed in the courtroom during the trial, NOVA created dramatic reenactments of the proceedings with actors quoting lines from the case transcripts. Filmmakers also interviewed attorneys, school board members, scientists, and local teachers and parents. Conspicuously absent: interviews with fellows of the ID-advancing Discovery Institute, several of whom testified at the trial."
The article claims that Intelligent Design advocates wanted to be included but PBS would not allow for a bit of checks and balances:
"...negotiations over interview procedures broke down when Apsell (Nova Executive Producer) refused to allow a Discovery Institute representative to record the exchanges for public release should NOVA use any statements out of context..."
Seems like a reasonable request to me. Consider the CBS Westmoreland lawsuit, the Dan Rather forged documents episode, the NBC staging of exploding gas tanks... Journalists these days have a reputation not much higher than that of lawyers and politicians. People do not trust them. PBS made a counter offer:
"Apsell instead offered to provide Discovery officials with complete footage of the interviews provided they signed away any right to make it public. "
So, if Michael Behe were to catch PBS in an outright lie, he would be bound not to tell anybody about it? That's an option?
So PBS will go forward with its "report", with not a single representative of ID, apparently, presenting their side of the story. It will, no doubt, give all the impression of being an objective, factual, news program, but will likely be an all-out indoctrination that materialist views of origins are "science" and anything that suggests nature might not be all there is has to be "unscientific", "religious", and therefore a matter of mere "belief" severed from fact and reason.
Your tax dollars at work.
This Thursday the trend continues with a program on NOVA this Thursday about the Dover Pa. case in which a single statement about Intelligent Design which did not mention anything religious was found to be an unconstitutional promotion of religion.
World Magazine reports that the program is less than a stellar example of objective reporting:
"Because no cameras were allowed in the courtroom during the trial, NOVA created dramatic reenactments of the proceedings with actors quoting lines from the case transcripts. Filmmakers also interviewed attorneys, school board members, scientists, and local teachers and parents. Conspicuously absent: interviews with fellows of the ID-advancing Discovery Institute, several of whom testified at the trial."
The article claims that Intelligent Design advocates wanted to be included but PBS would not allow for a bit of checks and balances:
"...negotiations over interview procedures broke down when Apsell (Nova Executive Producer) refused to allow a Discovery Institute representative to record the exchanges for public release should NOVA use any statements out of context..."
Seems like a reasonable request to me. Consider the CBS Westmoreland lawsuit, the Dan Rather forged documents episode, the NBC staging of exploding gas tanks... Journalists these days have a reputation not much higher than that of lawyers and politicians. People do not trust them. PBS made a counter offer:
"Apsell instead offered to provide Discovery officials with complete footage of the interviews provided they signed away any right to make it public. "
So, if Michael Behe were to catch PBS in an outright lie, he would be bound not to tell anybody about it? That's an option?
So PBS will go forward with its "report", with not a single representative of ID, apparently, presenting their side of the story. It will, no doubt, give all the impression of being an objective, factual, news program, but will likely be an all-out indoctrination that materialist views of origins are "science" and anything that suggests nature might not be all there is has to be "unscientific", "religious", and therefore a matter of mere "belief" severed from fact and reason.
Your tax dollars at work.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Red Letter Inconsistency
Interesting exchange between Stan Guthrie and Tony Campolo in CT under the banner When Red is Blue. Guthrie makes his case that the term "Red-letter Christians" seems to refer to those who hold two problematic views. One is that the "red letters", that is the words of Jesus in some translations of the Bible implies that Jesus' words are somehow more canonical than other portions of scripture. The other is that the "red-letter" Christians seem to decry the entanglement of the "religious right" in politics, but then turn and embrace political views that are almost entirely in agreement with the views of the left. Writes Guthrie...
If you believe ending poverty requires more government spending and a higher minimum wage; if you believe in a manmade global warming crisis; if you oppose school vouchers; if homosexual marriage is no big deal (and in fact a civil right); and if you are tired of talking about the 50 million unborn human beings lost to abortion since 1973, then you know which lever to pull.
Guthrie's critique may or may not be 100% correct, but Campolo's response was a bit of a surprise.
If you believe ending poverty requires more government spending and a higher minimum wage; if you believe in a manmade global warming crisis; if you oppose school vouchers; if homosexual marriage is no big deal (and in fact a civil right); and if you are tired of talking about the 50 million unborn human beings lost to abortion since 1973, then you know which lever to pull.
Guthrie's critique may or may not be 100% correct, but Campolo's response was a bit of a surprise.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Rethinking Robert Webber - Part 4
Robert Webber grounds authority in the apostolic teaching, and most Christians would of course agree. The apostles were given authority by Christ, and all other authority derives from that. Here Webber veers ever so slightly into the “tradition is equal to written scripture” view.
"Authority in the early medieval era, like in the ancient church, was rooted in the apostolic tradition and succession….while the apostles were the original authority in the church, a writing of Augustine or another Father of the church, or a creed or council that extended or expounded an idea in keeping with apostolic teaching enjoyed a kind of apostolic authority." P177
I do not mean to read too much into that. His view is likely not equivalent to what Catholicism is often accused of by Protestants. One has to nuance one’s objections in this regard. The problem with tradition is not that it exists, but centers around the question of when it begins to bend the scripture, when it begins to add to or take away from what the apostles clearly wrote. And Augustine was one who indicated quite strongly his own writingw were not as authoritative as scripture.
Webber makes much of tradition though, and finds the horrible culprit to be convicted in recent evangelical thought to be reason.
"Authority in the early medieval era, like in the ancient church, was rooted in the apostolic tradition and succession….while the apostles were the original authority in the church, a writing of Augustine or another Father of the church, or a creed or council that extended or expounded an idea in keeping with apostolic teaching enjoyed a kind of apostolic authority." P177
I do not mean to read too much into that. His view is likely not equivalent to what Catholicism is often accused of by Protestants. One has to nuance one’s objections in this regard. The problem with tradition is not that it exists, but centers around the question of when it begins to bend the scripture, when it begins to add to or take away from what the apostles clearly wrote. And Augustine was one who indicated quite strongly his own writingw were not as authoritative as scripture.
Webber makes much of tradition though, and finds the horrible culprit to be convicted in recent evangelical thought to be reason.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Rethinking Robert Webber - Part 3
I don't know how to reiterate enough that I really liked the writings of the late Robert Webber, his irenic tone, his gentle and calm voice. How I hate to critique him for that reason, but precisely because I was rather fond of his "ancient-future" approach, I feel I need to point out what seems to me a significant problem. Webber's epistemology leans just a bit too far toward the postmodern for my comfort, and in that I am genuinely disappointed.
Turns out that in Ancient Future Faith Webber also had a modified evangelical stance on scripture. He says scripture is inspired. He says it is authoritative. He does not like the notion of inerrancy. But most troubling to me is that he concluded scripture is ultimately not foundational, restating a common distinction that the true source of authority for faith is a person, not a book.
"I have not started where evangelicals usually start-with the scriptures. Rather, I begin with the work of Jesus Christ, the primordial event of the living, dying, rising, and coming again. I have attempted to unfold the Christian faith in a phenomenological manner…. Not starting with the Bible does not represent a lower view of Scripture than that which is generally held among evangelicals,. Instead, Christocentric method acknowledges the place of the scriptures in early Christian tradition." P31
Of couse it sounds very good to insist that Christ is the ultimate reality and that the book that contains teachings by Him and about Him is not, ultimately, God. Still, I can only think that this distinction between the “person” of Christ and the scriptures is a false dichotomy. I’ve been hearing that one for three decades. It is nothing new to me. It usually came from the mouths of those who wanted a tie to a domesticated Christ without much commitment to his moral teachings. I'm sure that is not the case with Webber, but I have to ask, how do we know the person of Christ apart from the testimony of those who walked with him? How do we know Christ apart from the gospels? Ultimately, the answer is experience.
I would object that my own faith is not in “scripture” as an inanimate object that somehow has a magical power. It is not in rationalistic axioms or systematic theology. Of course my faith is in a person, but that faith could not exist apart from content about that person, content that has its roots in scripture. Jesus was Jewish. He was born in Bethlehem. He preached in Jerusalem and Samaria. He was crucified under an historical figure named Pilate. He claimed to be one with the father. He claimed authority to forgive sins. We know this from a book that contains writings claimed to be "God-breathed". One cannot know Christ truly apart from scripture.
But Webber unfortunately sees an overdependence on scripture as a problem to be solved. “The primary problem we evangelicals have inherited from the enlightenment is its emphasis on the foundational nature of Scripture.” P45
What Webber will ultimately argue is that the foundation for Christianity is the "rule of faith" forged by the church and that scripture is a part of the "handed down" teaching of the apostles. It is a milder version of what the Catholics and Orthodox argue. So he is not without company. But I have to disagree with his suggestion that seeing scripture as foundational is a "problem" inherited from the 17th Century Enlightenment. I can quote plenty of 16th century figures about the foundational nature of scripture. I can quote several early church fathers about the foundational nature of scripture. No doubt Webber meant something more subtle:
“The book-oriented approach to the Christian faith, which dominated during the Enlightenment, makes several presuppositions: (1) the Bible is the mind of God written; (2) the mind is the highest faculty of our creation in the image of God (3) truth is known as the human mind meets the mind of God in the study of Scripture. The Bible as observable data is an exact science that leads to rational answers. These answers are objective propositional truths." P 45
He sees this a problematic. But I think he knocks down a straw man. Exact science? Do most evangelicals really believe that? Is there no nuance, no room for humility in typical evangelical theology?
“Catechetical training from the Reformation to the present has been based on the notions of reading, writing, linear sequence, analysis and memory…a shift occurred away from a mystical view of the Christian faith experienced in the liturgy to an intellectual understanding of the faith."
Here is a truly false dichotomy. It is so common these days to read of two alternatives, the first negative one being a wooden, rationalistic and ultimately naturalistic approach to the text and the second positive one an experiential, mystical, communitarian approach. But it is not so cut and dried. Do all "rational" approaches to scripture rule out experience? Did the early church never read scripture rationally?
Clearly, according to the last statement above, he favors a “mystical” view over a “propositional” view. This is because he sees truth a a "communitarian" construct. The truth value of the faith is determined not by correspondence to reality but by the fidelity to a way of life, an embodied reality. He makes a bold claim.
"… In the postmodern world, education will shift from the passing down of information to the passing down of wisdom through experience. Christian truth, which was regarded as propositional, intellectual and rational, will be experienced as an embodied reality. Faith will be communicated through immersion into a community of people who truly live the Christian faith.”155
So the truth of the faith is not made clear by rational argument, but by allowing a seeker to "experience" the life of Christ in a community. I think most Christians would agree with that up to a point. People do want to see righteousness, to feel love and compassion, to experience forgiveness in tangible ways. I'm not sure secular non-believers will universally sense the presence of God in liturgy, but his point is well taken.
If he means that post-moderns who don't listen to rational arguments need to be reached by other approaches, I'll agree. But if he means that rational arguments are no longer valid at all, then I have a problem. If he means that the concept of "objective truth" can no longer be applied to the claims of Christianity, then I have a problem.
And here is the crux of it. Muslims live their faith, much more so than most Christians. Is Islam therefore the truth? Mormons likewise live their faith. Shall we prefer Mormonism to Christianity with no regard for the historical verifiability of Joseph Smith’s audacious claims? In separating Christianity from history, rationality, from correspondence to reality, Webber unwittingly makes Christianity nothing more than another option on the smorgasbord of ideas. Without a rational (as opposed rationalist) tie to objective truth, why should Christianity be seen as in any way more inviting or true than any other notion?”
I'm don't believe Webber went all the way through that door of runaway subjectivity and mysticism, but he cracked that door open. Once the objective historical content of faith is lost, there is no longer an anchor to hold faith in place, and it inevitably will drift. Webber believed that the consensus of the history of the church would be a sufficient anchor, but even consensus needs a cornerstone. He believes authority lies not in the text of scripture, but in something else, in the community. To his view of authority we will turn last.
Turns out that in Ancient Future Faith Webber also had a modified evangelical stance on scripture. He says scripture is inspired. He says it is authoritative. He does not like the notion of inerrancy. But most troubling to me is that he concluded scripture is ultimately not foundational, restating a common distinction that the true source of authority for faith is a person, not a book.
"I have not started where evangelicals usually start-with the scriptures. Rather, I begin with the work of Jesus Christ, the primordial event of the living, dying, rising, and coming again. I have attempted to unfold the Christian faith in a phenomenological manner…. Not starting with the Bible does not represent a lower view of Scripture than that which is generally held among evangelicals,. Instead, Christocentric method acknowledges the place of the scriptures in early Christian tradition." P31
Of couse it sounds very good to insist that Christ is the ultimate reality and that the book that contains teachings by Him and about Him is not, ultimately, God. Still, I can only think that this distinction between the “person” of Christ and the scriptures is a false dichotomy. I’ve been hearing that one for three decades. It is nothing new to me. It usually came from the mouths of those who wanted a tie to a domesticated Christ without much commitment to his moral teachings. I'm sure that is not the case with Webber, but I have to ask, how do we know the person of Christ apart from the testimony of those who walked with him? How do we know Christ apart from the gospels? Ultimately, the answer is experience.
I would object that my own faith is not in “scripture” as an inanimate object that somehow has a magical power. It is not in rationalistic axioms or systematic theology. Of course my faith is in a person, but that faith could not exist apart from content about that person, content that has its roots in scripture. Jesus was Jewish. He was born in Bethlehem. He preached in Jerusalem and Samaria. He was crucified under an historical figure named Pilate. He claimed to be one with the father. He claimed authority to forgive sins. We know this from a book that contains writings claimed to be "God-breathed". One cannot know Christ truly apart from scripture.
But Webber unfortunately sees an overdependence on scripture as a problem to be solved. “The primary problem we evangelicals have inherited from the enlightenment is its emphasis on the foundational nature of Scripture.” P45
What Webber will ultimately argue is that the foundation for Christianity is the "rule of faith" forged by the church and that scripture is a part of the "handed down" teaching of the apostles. It is a milder version of what the Catholics and Orthodox argue. So he is not without company. But I have to disagree with his suggestion that seeing scripture as foundational is a "problem" inherited from the 17th Century Enlightenment. I can quote plenty of 16th century figures about the foundational nature of scripture. I can quote several early church fathers about the foundational nature of scripture. No doubt Webber meant something more subtle:
“The book-oriented approach to the Christian faith, which dominated during the Enlightenment, makes several presuppositions: (1) the Bible is the mind of God written; (2) the mind is the highest faculty of our creation in the image of God (3) truth is known as the human mind meets the mind of God in the study of Scripture. The Bible as observable data is an exact science that leads to rational answers. These answers are objective propositional truths." P 45
He sees this a problematic. But I think he knocks down a straw man. Exact science? Do most evangelicals really believe that? Is there no nuance, no room for humility in typical evangelical theology?
“Catechetical training from the Reformation to the present has been based on the notions of reading, writing, linear sequence, analysis and memory…a shift occurred away from a mystical view of the Christian faith experienced in the liturgy to an intellectual understanding of the faith."
Here is a truly false dichotomy. It is so common these days to read of two alternatives, the first negative one being a wooden, rationalistic and ultimately naturalistic approach to the text and the second positive one an experiential, mystical, communitarian approach. But it is not so cut and dried. Do all "rational" approaches to scripture rule out experience? Did the early church never read scripture rationally?
Clearly, according to the last statement above, he favors a “mystical” view over a “propositional” view. This is because he sees truth a a "communitarian" construct. The truth value of the faith is determined not by correspondence to reality but by the fidelity to a way of life, an embodied reality. He makes a bold claim.
"… In the postmodern world, education will shift from the passing down of information to the passing down of wisdom through experience. Christian truth, which was regarded as propositional, intellectual and rational, will be experienced as an embodied reality. Faith will be communicated through immersion into a community of people who truly live the Christian faith.”155
So the truth of the faith is not made clear by rational argument, but by allowing a seeker to "experience" the life of Christ in a community. I think most Christians would agree with that up to a point. People do want to see righteousness, to feel love and compassion, to experience forgiveness in tangible ways. I'm not sure secular non-believers will universally sense the presence of God in liturgy, but his point is well taken.
If he means that post-moderns who don't listen to rational arguments need to be reached by other approaches, I'll agree. But if he means that rational arguments are no longer valid at all, then I have a problem. If he means that the concept of "objective truth" can no longer be applied to the claims of Christianity, then I have a problem.
And here is the crux of it. Muslims live their faith, much more so than most Christians. Is Islam therefore the truth? Mormons likewise live their faith. Shall we prefer Mormonism to Christianity with no regard for the historical verifiability of Joseph Smith’s audacious claims? In separating Christianity from history, rationality, from correspondence to reality, Webber unwittingly makes Christianity nothing more than another option on the smorgasbord of ideas. Without a rational (as opposed rationalist) tie to objective truth, why should Christianity be seen as in any way more inviting or true than any other notion?”
I'm don't believe Webber went all the way through that door of runaway subjectivity and mysticism, but he cracked that door open. Once the objective historical content of faith is lost, there is no longer an anchor to hold faith in place, and it inevitably will drift. Webber believed that the consensus of the history of the church would be a sufficient anchor, but even consensus needs a cornerstone. He believes authority lies not in the text of scripture, but in something else, in the community. To his view of authority we will turn last.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Rethinking Robert Webber - Part 2
I wrote in the last post that I was a fan of Bob Webber. However, his underlying assumptions begin to come out in Ancient Future Faith in a way I hadn't seen. One of Webber's suggested methods for dealing in a postmodern world incorporated the ideas of George Lindbeck. This means, unfortunately, that Webber is hinting he agrees with the rejection of the very notion of "propositional truth", that rejection being the hallmark of postmodern thought. It involves the rejection of the idea that there is an objective reality that can be known and described and replaces that with the idea that truth is formed by a community. That community's unique set of beliefs become truth in that context.
According to Webber, Lindbeck “…posits the ‘cultural-linguistic’ concept of conceptualizing the significance of classical theology for the postmodern world. This approach to theology is an alternative to the modern conservative insistence on propositional truth and the liberal view of doctrines as expressive symbols. Lindbeck regards both conservative and liberal constructs of truth as ‘extratextual’ because they search for the ‘religious meaning outside the text or semiotic system either in the objective realities to which it refers or in the experience it symbolizes. The propositionalists insist the language of doctrine corresponds with an exact objective truth while the expressionists locate the value of the truth of the doctrine in the subjective experience of the believers without any need to correspond to an external objective truth. Rejecting both of these concepts, Lindbeck describes the ‘cultural-linguistic’ view of doctrine as ‘intratextual’. That is, the meaning is constituted by the uses of a specific language rather than being distinguishable from it. In other words, its truth value is determined by how it ‘fits into systems of communication or purposeful action, not by reference to outside facts” p30
I am curious here. Lindbeck seems to be saying that "liberal" and "conservative" are equally misguided in terms of epistemology. They are one and the same, in fact. They formulate different conclusions, but begin with the same misunderstanding of reality. I find that a bit disconcerting and I think, inaccurate.
But the last pharase, that meaning is "constituted" by how it fits into a system of communication "not by reference to outside facts" raises an eyebrow. Is Lindbeck saying, and is Webber agreeing, that a "fact" such as the empty tomb in the first century is not something on which meaning can be built? If the empty tomb were not a fact, would it still provide genuine meaning for the community? Is meaning completely divorced from objective reality?
This is the problem that seems to be creeping into theological thought in almost every tradition, mainline, evangelical, emergent. It is the idea that meaning is a sort of corporately held subjective social contract. All "facts" are "interpreted", so it is not the facts that really matter, only the interpretation. Webber applies this kind of thought to the Creed:
“For example, the truth value of the Nicene Creed is not to be found in words that correspond with an exact reality, but in words that truthfully signify the religious reality of the Trinity in the system of thought…in which it is articulated.” P30
I have an immediate problem with the term "exact reality". I doubt any traditional conservative believes words correspond exactly to reality, that "Trinity" adequately describes the nature of God. But most people, (I think it safe to say, for most of human history) work from the assumption that there is a measure of reasonable correspondence between language and an external something that is real. When I say "tree", nobody who heard my voice will likely conjure in their minds an image of "rock". Words do not convey exact reality, but neither do they convey nothing at all about reality. There has to be a connection.
Webber seems to buy into Lindbeck's distinction between that which is "extratextual" or objective and that which is "intratextual", or consistent within the inner logic of the community.
“In modernity, we always sought for truth that could be somehow verified outside the community of faith. Lindbeck refers to this quest as 'extratextual’. That is, using reason and logic, we expected to prove that the framework of faith could be demonstrated to be true through historical or scientific research. Both liberals and conservatives wanted statements of faith to have a proven correspondence with reality.” P185
I think he misses a mark with this connection of "objectivity" to liberalism: “This led liberals to the process of demythologizing Christian doctrine and relegating doctrines to pious experiential expressions of faith” p185
Come now. It was reason that "led" liberals to deny the supernatural in scripture? Could there not have been something more involved? Unbelief? Negative moral influences? Faulty logic? Naturalistic assumptions?
At any rate, for Webber, what ultimately matters is not the Scripture as a historical record of Apostolic teaching that can be objectively grasped, what matters is the community which defined the "rule of faith" which the scripture supports and serves. As long as that rule is consistent and has a history of guiding the community, we do not need, nor should we desire, evidence. Truth is found not in objective reality, but in the shared heritage of the community of faith.
"Lindbeck identifies the ancient regula fidei as ‘intratextual’. That is, it makes sense within its own story. Its sense is not determined by outside factors, but by the system of thought it intends to communicate. The point is that Christianity is not provable outside itself through the scientific method. One must come to the Christian faith believing that it is true and embrace it as such without any dependence on data outside the faith. Christianity requires trust, a believing embrace, a willingness to step inside its story apart from any dependence on historical, scientific, or rational persuasion. Once a person steps into the stream of faith, the community introduces that person to the rules of discussion." P185
This is precisely why I cringe a bit whenever I hear Christian leaders speak of scripture as a “narrative” these days. Of course scripture is a narrative. Of course it tells the story of salvation. But I always fear they mean that Christianity is “story” only, and has no tether to history.
To say Christianity “makes sense within its own story” is to say nothing that would require any concept of faith that I have ever understood. Internal consistency is not necessarily related to truth. Humpty Dumpty is internally consistent, but not true, not historical, nor salvific.
Faith, as Webber seems to be describing it, is not a "conviction of the truthfulness" of something as suggested in my lexicon, and understanding is not a prerequisite for faith. Rather one "just believes" by being immersed in a community, being exposed to its symbols and traditions, and understanding comes later after that non-rational "faith" is rooted. It is this subtle severing of the connection between faith and reason that I have, in my own small way, battled against for 25 years. And now it seems to be overtaking the Western Evangelical church. I did not see that strain in Webber earlier, now it greatly troubles me.
According to Webber, Lindbeck “…posits the ‘cultural-linguistic’ concept of conceptualizing the significance of classical theology for the postmodern world. This approach to theology is an alternative to the modern conservative insistence on propositional truth and the liberal view of doctrines as expressive symbols. Lindbeck regards both conservative and liberal constructs of truth as ‘extratextual’ because they search for the ‘religious meaning outside the text or semiotic system either in the objective realities to which it refers or in the experience it symbolizes. The propositionalists insist the language of doctrine corresponds with an exact objective truth while the expressionists locate the value of the truth of the doctrine in the subjective experience of the believers without any need to correspond to an external objective truth. Rejecting both of these concepts, Lindbeck describes the ‘cultural-linguistic’ view of doctrine as ‘intratextual’. That is, the meaning is constituted by the uses of a specific language rather than being distinguishable from it. In other words, its truth value is determined by how it ‘fits into systems of communication or purposeful action, not by reference to outside facts” p30
I am curious here. Lindbeck seems to be saying that "liberal" and "conservative" are equally misguided in terms of epistemology. They are one and the same, in fact. They formulate different conclusions, but begin with the same misunderstanding of reality. I find that a bit disconcerting and I think, inaccurate.
But the last pharase, that meaning is "constituted" by how it fits into a system of communication "not by reference to outside facts" raises an eyebrow. Is Lindbeck saying, and is Webber agreeing, that a "fact" such as the empty tomb in the first century is not something on which meaning can be built? If the empty tomb were not a fact, would it still provide genuine meaning for the community? Is meaning completely divorced from objective reality?
This is the problem that seems to be creeping into theological thought in almost every tradition, mainline, evangelical, emergent. It is the idea that meaning is a sort of corporately held subjective social contract. All "facts" are "interpreted", so it is not the facts that really matter, only the interpretation. Webber applies this kind of thought to the Creed:
“For example, the truth value of the Nicene Creed is not to be found in words that correspond with an exact reality, but in words that truthfully signify the religious reality of the Trinity in the system of thought…in which it is articulated.” P30
I have an immediate problem with the term "exact reality". I doubt any traditional conservative believes words correspond exactly to reality, that "Trinity" adequately describes the nature of God. But most people, (I think it safe to say, for most of human history) work from the assumption that there is a measure of reasonable correspondence between language and an external something that is real. When I say "tree", nobody who heard my voice will likely conjure in their minds an image of "rock". Words do not convey exact reality, but neither do they convey nothing at all about reality. There has to be a connection.
Webber seems to buy into Lindbeck's distinction between that which is "extratextual" or objective and that which is "intratextual", or consistent within the inner logic of the community.
“In modernity, we always sought for truth that could be somehow verified outside the community of faith. Lindbeck refers to this quest as 'extratextual’. That is, using reason and logic, we expected to prove that the framework of faith could be demonstrated to be true through historical or scientific research. Both liberals and conservatives wanted statements of faith to have a proven correspondence with reality.” P185
I think he misses a mark with this connection of "objectivity" to liberalism: “This led liberals to the process of demythologizing Christian doctrine and relegating doctrines to pious experiential expressions of faith” p185
Come now. It was reason that "led" liberals to deny the supernatural in scripture? Could there not have been something more involved? Unbelief? Negative moral influences? Faulty logic? Naturalistic assumptions?
At any rate, for Webber, what ultimately matters is not the Scripture as a historical record of Apostolic teaching that can be objectively grasped, what matters is the community which defined the "rule of faith" which the scripture supports and serves. As long as that rule is consistent and has a history of guiding the community, we do not need, nor should we desire, evidence. Truth is found not in objective reality, but in the shared heritage of the community of faith.
"Lindbeck identifies the ancient regula fidei as ‘intratextual’. That is, it makes sense within its own story. Its sense is not determined by outside factors, but by the system of thought it intends to communicate. The point is that Christianity is not provable outside itself through the scientific method. One must come to the Christian faith believing that it is true and embrace it as such without any dependence on data outside the faith. Christianity requires trust, a believing embrace, a willingness to step inside its story apart from any dependence on historical, scientific, or rational persuasion. Once a person steps into the stream of faith, the community introduces that person to the rules of discussion." P185
This is precisely why I cringe a bit whenever I hear Christian leaders speak of scripture as a “narrative” these days. Of course scripture is a narrative. Of course it tells the story of salvation. But I always fear they mean that Christianity is “story” only, and has no tether to history.
To say Christianity “makes sense within its own story” is to say nothing that would require any concept of faith that I have ever understood. Internal consistency is not necessarily related to truth. Humpty Dumpty is internally consistent, but not true, not historical, nor salvific.
Faith, as Webber seems to be describing it, is not a "conviction of the truthfulness" of something as suggested in my lexicon, and understanding is not a prerequisite for faith. Rather one "just believes" by being immersed in a community, being exposed to its symbols and traditions, and understanding comes later after that non-rational "faith" is rooted. It is this subtle severing of the connection between faith and reason that I have, in my own small way, battled against for 25 years. And now it seems to be overtaking the Western Evangelical church. I did not see that strain in Webber earlier, now it greatly troubles me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)