blt to go

jbernier - I told you I like the way you post. (After the numerous esoteric discussions, it nice to see pragmatism!)

I agree with Sven - your comments do seem to be the most reasonable post so far.

However, my question would be: How did you limit it to the Bible as being the word of God? Why not the Torah? (for you dado) or the Koran? or the Book of Mormon?

Do you think it simply boils down to the world in which you were brought up?

jbernier

Yeah, it probably does, when you get down to brass tacks. Truth is that the only reason I am passionately interested in Biblical studies today is because the Bible was such a central part of my childhood and adolescence. And, no, I would not limit "the Word of God" to the Bible, especially since the "Bible" itself is an ambiguous term - are we talking about the English Protestant Bible, the German Protestant Bible, the Catholic Bible, the Orthodox Bible, the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, etc.? Are we going to go by the Septuagint or the Masoretic text for the Hebrew scriptures? Are we going to include variant readings from Qumran? Etc. It cannot just be the Bible as there is not just one Bible to begin with.

Truth is, though, that the relationship of Christianity to other faiths is an area that I have not explored as fully as I would like. This has largely been a function of time - I have been so busy learning about the Christian Biblical texts that I have not had the time to look seriously at the texts from other faiths. Most of what I have looked at has to do with Jewish-Christian relations, partially because this relates to my historical research interests (the relationship between Christianity and Judaism in the 1st through 3rd centuries) and partially because, for the last year, I have worked in a college at which about 80% of the faculty is Anglican and about 40% of the students are Jewish (it started out as an Anglican seminary 140 years ago, hence the overwhelming number of Anglican faculty members). I really like John Howard Yoder's thoughts on this: That both Christianity and Judaism are inheritors of and witnesses to the ancient Hebrew faith centred upon the worship and veneration of YHWH. Thus they are equally "YHWH's people." This is a stand against the Christian tendency to see Judaism as obsolete since the time of Jesus, which is important given the tragic effects of such tendencies (i.e. the anti-semitism which culminated in the Holocaust and continues into the post-Holocaust world). The unfortunate problem with Yoder's work is that he is only concerned with Jewish-Christian relations; Islam, Hinduism, etc., never show up. Indeed, his work could be read as downright hostile to faiths other than Judaism and Christianity. This makes it difficult to fully apply his arguments in any practical sense.

Cross Examiner

jbernier,
How do your views on biblical errancy impact your understanding of important aspects of orthodox Christian theology. Take soteriology and christology, for example.

Regards,
BGic

funinspace

Hey you left out the Syriac flavors... Just teasing. Coherent, rational, consise, forthright... A nice change.

DK

jbernier

Well, if that is not the 6 million dollar question. Okay. Will try to answer.

I think that the relationship between the scriptural text and Christian doctrine is very complex. It is not simply "The Bible says thus and therefore I believe thus", as is all too common in much contemporary Christian discourse. I think that Christian theology rests upon a constant dialectical relationship between present experience within the Christian community and the received traditions and history. In other words, Christians should make sense of their lived experiences in light of the memories, stories and practices embodied in the tradition; simultaneously, they should make sense of these memories, stories and practices in the light of their lived experiences. It is this constant dialogue between contemporary experience and historical memory upon which Christian thought should be based. In short I see the history of Christian thought as a series of sustained conversations about various aspects of Christian lives and I see the role of the contemporary Christian largely as participation in that ongoing conversation. Note that by calling it a "conversation" I am emphasizing the social aspects of this process: Christian theology is always worked out in community.

This idea of an ongoing dialogue or conversation between the received tradition and contemporary experience is the frame for much of my views of Christian theology. For instance, take Christology. What is the Christian community but that community of people who claim to model and centre their lives upon the life and work of Christ Jesus? Take soteriology. What is the Christian community but that community of people who claim to have, in some sense, been redeemed by the life and work of Christ Jesus? My understanding of these categories of Christian theology are not rooted in a literalist reading of the Biblical text but rather in the lived experience and memories of the Christian community.

Note, btw, that I am careful to refer to "received traditions", "received history", "memories", "stories", etc., not "Bible", "sacred text", etc. That is because I think that the Christian tradition is much more than the scriptural texts; the scriptural text may occupy an important part in the Christian tradition but not necessarily the single defining part. Where, then, does scripture specifically fit in? As a primary repository of memory. However, I think that, since it is also a dialogue partner, I have the right to respectfully disagree with things that are recorded in scripture - just as I have the right to disagree with any other dialogue partner. For instance, as a Biblical scholar I will say up front that St. Paul is less than thrilled with people who engage in sexual relations with people of their own biological sex; however, as a person who has seen the detrimental effects of homophobia and Christian anti-homosexual rhetoric upon people's lives first hand I feel the need to disagree with St Paul on this one. Indeed, I look at the ideas that seem to be the centre of his thought (primarily the idea that in Christ Jesus and by extension the Christian community all social categories are effectively dissolved) and note that he appears to have been unable to follow through the logic of his own ethical pronouncements about the radical equality that should exist within the Christian community. I see it as my job to "finish the job", so to speak, and say "Yeah, Paul could not get beyond his own prejudices on this one. But I can."

In summary, I frame the work of Christian theology within a dialogue between inherited tradition and memories and lived experience. I locate that dialogue within the Christian community. Thus I see Christian theology as being primarily about the ethics of life together - how should people within the Christian communities treat each other and those outside the community in light of the life and work of Christ Jesus, as the community understands this life and work in light of the tradition and lived experience.

Sven

Hello HGic, I see that you are indeed reading this thread. Would you like to provide an answer to the OP?

ceinwyn

jbernier:

Thank you. I despaired of ever meeting a thoughtful, intelligent Christian, and there you were. Excellent posts.

Maybe there is a god after all

blt to go

Talk about opening Pandora's Box! Are you saying that theology changes over time? or, more to the point, Evil changes over time?

You mention an appropriate example of Paul and homosexuals. To continue that line of thought, isn't it true that it is not important what Paul thought or (with all due respect) jbernier thinks, but what God holds as wrong? And if a christian cannot hold the bible [whichever one is handy, cute and accurate response above :notworthy ] as the ultimate authority, but rather consensus (majority?) over time, then is Evil changing? Or is evil always evil, we are simply "learning" more as a society what is right and what is wrong.

I guess my question is, is God creating christians, or are christians creating God?

Which revleation of God? The ogre of the old testament? the loving (yet with a hint of spite) of the new testament? the mythos of the gnostic? or (to use your own tactic against you ) the protestant? catholic? lutheran? eastern? western?

blt to go

Sven, the tally is as follows:

Those that initially assumed inerrancy:

2 - "born" into it (blt to go, jbernier)
1 - "acquired" it (RobertLW)
1 - conspicuous by his absence (name concealed)

Interestingly, of the 2 "born" into it, both are no longer inerrantist. Makes you wonder why more churches do not introduce classes on how the bible came to be. NOT.

The one that acquired it freely admits that he maintains it completely on circular reasoning.

Question - RobertLW, as simply as I can put it. We all understand that you are in a circle (as stated previously) of veracity -> inerrancy -> veracity -> inerrancy, etc. The $64,000 question (I am cheaper than jbernier) is how did you get into that circle in the first place?

I admit I was born and raised into it. I did not "rationlize" my way in. You have stated you were an errantist and in fact argued for errancy. How did you rationalize into inerrancy?

dado

everything changes over time - including G-d.