Worldview and Justification

When it is recognized that systems of rationality belong to worldviews themselves (what is seen to be rational is determined by the beliefs of the worldview), then it is hard to see how one may justify holding one over the other, or arguing for one over another. Though it is still often seen this way (as the modern worldview is still alive and kicking), there is nothing that privileges a secular worldview, one governed by philosophical naturalism, over any other. A simple unawareness or lack of experience concerning the spiritual, coupled with a heavy does of naturalist biology, lends credibility to the naturalist worldview. But it need not be that we must take it as our starting point, as shaping our system of rationality, and then see if we can prove or justify the Christian worldview according to its canons.

Nevertheless, we still wish to affirm that holding the Christian worldview is not simply a choice we make, or the tradition we inherit from our ‘community’. It is the Christian contention that we have the truth and that it is not just another option among the sea options offered in our pluralist society.[1] We do not hold to it because it suites us, it is not simply our preference. But the Christian worldview is adopted because Jesus Christ bursts into our “worlds” and demands that we account for him.

Indeed, it is the ability of a given worldview to make sense of all of reality that confers on it justification over rival worldviews. The worldview is thus a ‘hypothesis’ concerning the world, and is verified along the lines of its ability to take in as much data as possible, and to make sense of it in a coherent, simple, and perhaps elegant way. If it is rather weak at the above, i.e. failing to account for some crucial data, or producing an explanation that although apparently coherent, is complex and "full of hoops", then we may suspect that it needs adjusting, or even abandoning altogether in favor of another which has less trouble with the above.[2] But if it achieves a sufficient degree of the above beyond that of rival worldviews, then it seems reasonable for one to hold to it, and to live by it.[3]

And so, as noted before, all worldviews must account for Jesus Christ, both on a historical level and on a personal one when one comes into contact with the Lord of the universe himself. This may mean, indeed it will mean the abandonment of the pior held worldview and the adoption of the new. For the gospel cannot be assimilated into any prior worldview (unless of course it is a Jewish one, such as with the first Christians) because it brings with it an entire account of God, humanity, the world, and history.

---

[1] Nor is it just another dish at the buffet of postmodernism where one can quite rightly pick and choose aspects of this and aspects of that, to create a personal belief system. Such activity often results in a lack of coherency, a quality that is demanded by for a good worldview. A worldview encompasses all as an interpretative framework, and so isn’t in the same category.

[2] I use the phrase “less trouble” because it is not hard to recognize that no system (worldview) will immediately be worked out to the degree that it clearly explains everything. This is not a problem however, because it is principally the “ultimate things” which are of direct concern for a worldview, and it is the “consequent beliefs” and so forth that do the rest of the explanatory work. Worldviews at their basic level are “broad brush”. The ability of the consequent beliefs to provide adequate explanation is vital however. But sometimes failure to do so may merely be the failure to work out appropriate consequent beliefs.

[3] One still has the problem of what amount of evidence constitutes proof or a sense of beyond reasonable doubt.

Worldview - Draft # 1 (part 2)

The centrality of story

Human experience is inextricably tied to history, that is, we live out our lives along a continuous passage of time, readily distinguishable as past, present, and future. As such experience has a ‘narrative quality’. Although we can think in terms of prepositional beliefs, these abstractions find meaning only in relation to other beliefs. [1] This web of beliefs inevitably weaves a narrative, leading us back to where they began. We can never escape the narrative context of beliefs.

The narrative or ‘story’ element of a worldview is thus central. These stories or the story provides the answers for the questions that give explanation to the world and which give identity to the person. These answers are in turn come to historical and cultural expression in symbols, and give way to a general praxis, “a way-of-being-in-the-world”. Thus, stories themselves (as narratives), far from being mere child’s play, are “located, on the map of human knowing, at a more fundamental level than explicitly formulated beliefs, including theological beliefs,”[2] “stories are a basic constituent of human life.”[3]

These stories however must not be seen as unconnected myths, tales, or histories. Only a narrative that could take in ultimate events and realities such as the origin (or eternality) of the world and the reason for suffering and evil (although some systems deny evil or redefine it), would qualify as the narrative, the grand narrative or controlling story of a worldview. Those stories or the story that provide answers to the basic questions, in other words, stories that are told to make sense of the world and to give human life purpose, meaning, or sometimes a lack of it.

This idea of a grand narrative or controlling story (I will use the two inter-changeably) is central to what I propose in this paper. The controlling story through which Christians think and live cannot be that of any old worldview, it must be the controlling story found within the scriptures. It is the stories which I will/have argued form a set, which belong to one grand narrative, that the Christian must perceive the world and their selves according to. To some up this section, “Worldviews are thus the basic stuff of human existence, the lens through which the world is seen, the blueprint for how one should live in it, and above all the sense of identity and place which enables human beings to be what they are.”[4] Story finds the central place in this, and so it is to the bibles grand narrative (alternatively ‘biblical story’) that we must look.

---

[1] [events]This is true not only of events of significance but those of everyday mundane life. The event of pouring a cup of tea, for example, means something only in relation to a series of prior and subsequent actions. We understand such an action because we are familiar with the ‘stories’ of how tea is primarily for drinking and that a cup is primarily a means of assisting the act of drinking and not that of storing.

[2] People, 38

[3] People, 40

[4] ibid., 125

Worldview - Draft # 1 (part 1)

Here is the first draft of my section on worldview for my research paper. It must be remembered that the paper is only a measly 6000 words and so I am proposing a thesis concisely with little engagement with other positions, and little detailed discussion of any of my points. Nevertheless, its still fun and I would appreciate all the constructive criticism you guys can throw at me, from content to arrangment, flow, and wording. I will post it in two parts to make for easier reading.


Worldview

In this part I (1) define and outline the concept of worldview, and (2) discuss the centrality of ‘story’ to the concept of worldview, introducing the idea of a controlling story.

It has become popular both among evangelical academics and evangelical lay people, to brandy the term “Christian worldview”. I fear however that because of its great usage and the lack of clear definition that this has betrayed, the term has become somewhat unhelpful in popular discussion. Indeed I fear it has become a tool of oppression, a way of forcing beliefs and praxis upon Christians that is far from central to their faith, and which is often highly, and justifiably debatable. However, if defined clearly, the concept can be of great assistance. Hence I will outline a very clear and limited definition.

"Worldviews" are the presuppositional, normally pre-cognitive, framework through which we perceive external reality. Firstly, they are presuppositional. Worldviews as ‘belief systems’ are the taken for granted ‘facts’ about the world we live in. Thus when we enter dialogue about an issue (e.g. ecology), the beliefs that are constitutive of our worldview are assumed to be true, and built upon in the discussion. They constitute the perspective from which we look at the issue. Secondly, they are precognitive. They are rarely raised in dialogue because, being so central to our beliefs and being assumed to be true, we simply build upon them. Nor do we consciously seek to bring them to mind when we are ‘building upon them’, we simply make the move without any mental strain. And thirdly, worldviews are the framework through which we perceive reality. As a ‘belief system’, they form the beliefs most central to the interpretive process. It is through a worldview that we make sense of (interpret) the world.

The metaphor of “lenses” has popularly been employed to illustrate their function: we view the world through a particular set of lenses.[1] We do not look at the lenses themselves but through them onto the world, nor do we usually consider them but stare as if they don’t exist. Further, it is the color of the lenses that dictate how we perceive. In this sense they are presuppositional, pre-cognitive, and provide a perspective (worldview).[2]

In his insightful discussion of worldview, N. T. Wright outlines four elements to a worldview: (1) they provide the stories, particularly a controlling story, through which humans perceive reality, (2) these stories then provide the answers to a set of “basic questions that determine human existence” (who are we, where are we, what is wrong, what is the solution, what time is it?), (3) these beliefs are expressed in cultural symbols, and (4) give way to a praxis, “a way-of-being-in-the-world”.[3]

The beliefs that constitute part of a worldview concern the ultimate questions of life, those which all other intellectual and practical pursuits build upon. They are in this sense “foundational”, grounding and conferring justification on our thinking and living. They are not uninvolved beliefs however. They provide both an identity (who are we), and a general praxis (where are we, what is wrong, what is the solution, what time is it?).

---

[1] The illustration can be somewhat misleading, as worldviews cannot simply be “taken off” and exchanged for a moment, as a pair of lenses might be.

[2] It is both appropriate to speak of ‘perceiving’ and inappropriate to speak of simply ‘seeing’ because at a more fundamental level, worldviews are constitutive of the human person and hence human cognition. To extend the metaphor, we cannot use our eyes at all if we are not wearing lenses. Indeed, the lenses are our eyes. We might wish to speak of prescription lenses without which all is a blur, but when worn, things come into focus.

[3] The New Testament and the People of God, 124-5

the historical uniqueness of Christianity -quote-

"The uniqueness and the scandal of the Christian religion rests on the mediation of revelation through historical events. Christianity is not just a code for living or a philosophy of religion. It is rooted in real events of history. To some people this is scandalous because it means the truth of Christianity is inexplicably bound up with the truth of certain historical facts. And if those facts should be disproved, Christianity would be false. This, however, is what makes Christianity unique because, unlike other world religions, modern man has a means of actually verifying Christianity's truth by historical evidence.”

George E. Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection (Downers Grove: Eerdmans, 1975), quoted in Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan (Baker, 1998), p. 24 [im not sure which book this page number is from...]

Letting the scriptures shape us

Another lenghty post, brace yourself...

“What one already believes tends to make one disposed to accept what agrees with it or to reject what conflicts with it” [1], such is the nature of understanding. We can only understand events and objects in relation to other events and objects. Thus when confronted with new sensory experience or cognitive information, we attempt to fit it into what we already believe, specifically about other events and objects we deem relevant. Understanding is ‘assimilation’; we assimilate new information into our already existing belief system in order to make sense of it. If however we find that the new piece of data cannot fit adequately within our prior understanding, it may be arrogantly rejected or it may call aspects of our prior understanding into question. It may have to be reshaped to make adequate sense of the new data.

If a new piece of information (including experience) does not agree with what I already believe, there are two moves I can make: (1) I can reject it as false, or (2) Accept it as true. If I make the first move, (a) I can either just plain reject it cause I don’t want to believe it, (b) reject it on the basis of my confidence in the strength of my prior beliefs, or (c) reject it because I believe it is a misunderstanding, this is effectively to deny that the aspect or passage in question is actually making a claim at all.

When it comes to an aspect to text such as the Bible, we must adjust the two moves slightly, (1) rejecting that is has a claim on me, and (2) accepting that it has a claim on me, and acting accordingly. The Christian who wishes to be guided and shaped by Scripture is not likely to reject a certain aspect it on the basis of (a) alone. One may call (b) in for support, but even to do this leaves questions unanswered and would be inadequate for someone who is strongly set on of living by the Bible. Thus option (c) appears to be the only adequate option.

There is however a fourth option when the Bible is concerned, (d) account for it within my already existing set of beliefs. For this all manner of hermeneutical or interpretive moves can be made. I may claim that God no longer requires this sort of action (e.g. OT purity regulations), possibly appealing to a subsequent passage. I may consider a command to be specific to a culture or a situation that is not the case for me now (e.g. Paul’s command that women not be permitted to speak in church), or that subsequent scientific findings have shown a belief or attitude to be grounded in misconception (e.g. commands against homosexual practice).

(c) is problematic however when (a) is the motivation behind it. I may simply select the interpretation of the passage that effectively neutralizes the threat it poses to my prior belief and action. The only solution to this is a transformation of my character and understanding of Scripture. I must develop intellectual integrity, a desire to live by truth and not settle with anything else, and I must not see Scripture as a “threat” to myself, but as a gracious gift designed to bless. (d) can also fall to the same problem as (c). Numerous hermeneutical strategies are invented to justify the rejection of aspects of Scripture.

The impetus of course does not always come from a desire to reject; findings from biblical studies have shown that previous interpretation have been mistaken, and that certain commands do seem to be closely tied to the cultural context. Much fruitful work has no doubt been produced because of a dislike for a particular aspect of Scripture, but for the Christian who seeks to be shaped and guided by Scripture, a dislike should never motivate one to reject it or explore different interpretations. Any hermeneutical strategy must be developed with the desire to be faithful to God and what he has given us in Scripture.

But we are not to make move (2) naively. We are not t accept everything in Scripture at its face value. We need the careful, honest work of interpretation to discover what is actually being said and desired. We must also develop hermeneutical strategies, a flat agreeing with everything it says and doing everything it says to do does not work, nor is it appropriate to the nature of Scripture. Thus move (2) can be made in two ways. (a) Unquestioningly assent to the action or belief, or (b) through careful exegetical and hermeneutical work, establish what is said and in what sense it has or has not a claim on us here today, in our situations and contexts.

source critical dig -quote-

Biblical critics frequently assume, out of some dim preconception about the transmission of texts in “primitive” cultures, that the redactors were in the grip of a kind of manic tribal compulsion, driven again and again to include units of traditional material that made no connective sense, for reasons they themselves could not have explained.

Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (London, Sydney: George Allen & Unwin, 1981) p.20

"worldview" in dialogue

Over at Faith and Theology Myer has given some further thoughts in response to Jim. It is his comment about the gospel that interests me:

"I think this is partly right. Yes, Christian faith should speak about “the world, reality, life, eternity and death.” But is it our role to draw these things together into a “worldview”? Or is our role rather to speak of such things from the standpoint of faith, i.e., to speak the gospel? Should we be offering a cosmology (a “perception of the world”) or a metaphysic (a “perception of reality”) or even a religion (a “perception of eternity”)? If we did all this, would we have fulfilled our task and calling? Or would we in fact still have neglected our true task and calling—namely, to speak the gospel?"

My contention is that if we believe certain things about "the world, reality, life, eternity and death", then these will inevitably constitute our worldview, if we truly believe them. They will then inform our praxis (but not those listed above alone). The gospel encapsulates a cosmology, metaphysic, and a religion. The gospel, I would claim, makes little sense without them. For if we view the gospel through a cosmology, metaphysic, or religion foreign to it, we will not see it clearly, nor understand it aright. Indeed the gospel offers (as part of a larger narrative) a "perception of the world" and a "perception of eternity". No doubt our calling is to speak the gospel, but it is also to be shaped by it and to have others shaped by it. If theology stands in service of this task, then it cannot ignore worldview. The transformation and change that the gospel demands is at the deep level of worldview.

Thoughts please..??

Is there a "Christian Worldview"? I think so...

When people start talking about 'worldview' I cant help but join in the discussion. Benjamin Meyrs has asked the question Is there a "Christian Worldview"? He notes how it has become fashionable to speak of a "Christian worldview", but that the concept itself "drastically undermines the nature of faith". He states that the faith can exist "alongside and within a great diversity of worldviews", while at the same time reamining "something wholly other, something radically distinct from any such worldviews."

Jim West has followed on with a post affirming that there needs to be a "Chrsitian center" and it that "the failure to recognize a "worldview" and its inherent necessity is the most profound weakness of present day theology". I am inclined to agree with him.

What I think is happening though is that the term "worldview" is being used by all and sundry with no agreed upon defenition of what it actually is, which might be the reason for Jim's apparent hesitancy to use the term "Christian worldview"). What constitutes a worldview? I essentially follow N. T. Wright's outline in The New Testament and the People of God.

And so to offer a defenition in the hope of some clarity - "Worldviews" are the presupositional, normaly pre-cognitive framework through which we percieve external reality:

“There a four things which worldviews characteristically do, in each of which the entire worldview can be glimpsed…worldviews provide the stories through which human beings view reality… from these questions one can in principal discover how to answer the basic questions that determine human existence: who are we, where are we, what is wrong, and what is the solution? (p124; he later added a fifth, 'what time is it?') …[these stories and answers] are expressed… in cultural symbols… worldviews include a praxis, a way-of-being-in-the-world.” (p125) “Worldviews are thus the basic stuff of human existence, the lens through which the world is seen, the blueprint for how one should live in it, and above all the sense of identity and place which enables human beings to be what they are.” (p125)

Taking this defenition of worldview, it is clear that Christianity constitutes a worldview. Myer asks further however:

"Even if we did suppose for a moment that there is such a thing as a “Christian worldview,” how would we decide what kind of worldview this is? Is it the primitive worldview of ancient Israel? Or the apocalyptic worldview of the historical Jesus? Or the more Hellenistic worldviews of Paul and John? Or the Neoplatonic worldview of the fourth century? Or the Aristotelian worldview of the medieval church? What would be the criteria for choosing one of these worldviews over others?"

What I propose (and this will be part of my paper) is that the biblical story is to act as our controlling story or "worldview-story" (p135). In this way we dont have to arbitrarily choose between the worldviews of the various authors/characters and are able to still affirm the bible's place in defining the Christian worldview.

This worldview-story must be distinguished from all the other stories we tell ourselves, as the story which which gives a prespective and meaning to all of history and life. As Richard Bauckham explains:

“To accept the authority of this story is to enter into it and inhabit it. It is to let this story define our identity and our relationship to God and others. It is to read the narratives of our own lives and of the societies in which we live as narratives which take their meaning from this metanarrative that overarches them all.” (Scripture and Authority)

The "Christian worldview", I propose, at its most fundamental level is defined by the biblical story, which in turn provides answers to the five fundamental questions concerning life and the world. The details which constitute this story are of course open to varying degrees of debate. This I leave for another post. But we must be clear that beliefs about whether homosexuality is right or wrong (for instance), or the structure of church leadership, are not part of the worldview as such. It is when issues such as these are said to part of the "Christian worldview" that the confusion emerges. And I suspect that "worldview" has sometimes been used as a tool to force positions upon people or to condemn people over issues which arent truly so central and intergral to Christianity as supposed, and which are genuinely debatable.

Preaching Hermeneutics

To understand how Scripture is being used at the “grass roots” level, one need only look to the pulpit. This is often where creativity is stimulated forming new trends, and where strategies with a longer history are affirmed and kept in play. The Sunday sermon also shapes the way the congregation will read and use their Bible. We often uncritically pick up our strategies from the preacher.

For those of us who preach, this highlights a function that we will all inevitably fulfill. In expounding, reading, and applying the scriptures, we are teaching others how to. Is this perhaps a reason for making the process more transparent and viewable in our preaching? It is certainly a warning to us that we need to do so responsibly and well, and not to search for the quick application.

Truth and Propositions

An emphasis on the Bible as “truth”, I suspect, has led to the mining of it for theological propositions, the content of its “truth” that we can affirm and stand upon. This has in turn led to the neglect of the natural function of genres such as narrative, psalm, and apocalypse. Each is treated as a source for prepositional data, a treasure trove of theological truth to be abstracted and systematized. I do not deny that there are many theological prepositions presented as such in scripture, even within these larger genres. But the focus upon propositional truth has lead to the neglect of the scriptures other rich and varying functions.

Justification and systems of thought

Because answers to individual theological questions/issues belong to and obtain their rationality within larger systems of thought (theological, philosophical, and hermeneutical), to understand them and their justification we have to understand the systems to which they belong. Only then can we engage with the individual answers. However, if we do not agree with the system that gives them their rationality/justification, then the dispute lies with the system and discussion will get nowhere if it is restricted to the individual answer. It is essential to establish on what level the fundamental disagreement lies in order for any progress to be made.

Our first task then is to understand, then comes critique and retrieval.

reading against your grain

On Primal Subversion, Sean comments that we should "Read books by people that make you think, rethink and almost get mad because you can't stop thinking about their arguments, statements and positions."

I think this is of extreme importance. I often learn the most from those I disagree with. Why? because it is only then that I learn how strong my positions, and those whom I have read and taken on board, really are. It is then that I can nuance, or sometimes change my position altogether. But it always makes me humble, and treat the evidence fairly.

commited to the quest -quote-

Anyone who believes that in the life and teaching of Christ God has given a unique revelation of his character and purpose is committed by this belief, whether he likes is or not, whether he admits it or not, to the quest for the historical Jesus. Without the Jesus of history the Christ of faith is merely a docetic figure, a figment of pious imagination. The Christian religion claims to be founded on historic fact, on events which happened sub Pontio Pilato; and having appealed to history, by history it must be justified.

George B. Caird, Jesus and the Jewsih Nation, pg. 3

where books should not go...

A number of blogger's have been posting pictures of their desks, the most entertaining so far has been Michael Birds "interim office". Reading through the comments, Brandon Wason mentioned an episode of Sienfeild where an expensive book is taken into the bathroom and it looses its value.

And so I wondered how many of you out there share my opinion that taking a book into the bathroom to read as you do your business is simply wrong! How could you possibly take one of your precious books there?? What if one was to read something that would prove to be a significant turning point in your thinking, the memory would be forever tied to the crapper! And whats even worse, is when someone you lend a book to takes it to the bathroom, and then you see it waiting there for their next visit!!

There has to be some law against it...

fatih and the Jesus of history -quote-

As I perceive the theological scene today, we have far too many who want to agree that in Jesus Christ, that is, in history, God has acted definitively for the salvation of all people, far too many who think we do have faith in history, but who for various reasons are unwilling to subject history to a careful examination because it might tip their boat of faith. I am contending that such people believe in faith, not Jesus, not in what God did for salvation in Jesus, but in faith. Their creed then is: “I believe in faith, faith in the Christian interpretation of life.”

Scott McKnight, 'The Hermeneutics of Confessing Jesus as Lord', p. 14, Ex Auditu 14 (pp.1-17)

Top Ten book on my shelf

Since so many of the blogs I read have done a top ten book list for various subjects, I thought I'd do one of my own. But on a slightly different note, I'll give the top ten from my book shelf that if I had to choose between all of them, these are the ones I would keep. So if I was going overseas for instance, and I was on an extemely tight bugdet, heres what I would take:

• The New Testament and the People of God by N.T. Wright
• Jesus and the Victory of God by N.T. Wright
• The Dead Sea Scrolls by Wise, Abegg & Cook
• Jewish Life and Thought Among Greeks and Romans edited by Feldman & Reinhold
  
• The Jesus Movement: A Social History of its First Century by Stegemann & Stegeman
• The Parables of Jesus by David Wenham
• Old Testament Theology, Volume One: Israel's Gospel by John Goldingay
• The Theology of the Book of Revelation by Richard Bauckham
• Models for Interpretation of Scripture by John Goldingay
• New Horizens in Hermeneutics by Anthony Thiselton

I have listed some primary sources here that I do not read as much as I should. But I figure that if I put them on this list, then it will put my mind in perspective. I unfortunately dont have a copy of either the NT Apochripha or the OT Pseudepigrapha.

What is the Quest about for you?

For those engaged in the quest for the historical Jesus, what is it about for you?

For me its about understanding Jesus within his historical context. Understanding his words, actions, and intentions and how they were likely recieved by his contemporaries. For others it may be getting behind the sources to get back to the real Jesus. Or perhaps to authenticate Jesus' words and actions, vindicating the canonical gospel portraits in light of critical questioning?

Another interesting question to ponder is what you think the public perception of the quest is. How about in your church? What are the attitudes of students on your University or Seminary campus towards it?. I remember when the quest was mentioned once in a lecture. It was virtually dismissed through a not so flattering poke at how the Jesus seminar use marbles to decide whether or not a saying of Jesus was authentic. I knew their method, and the characteture was somewhat misleading. This incident just shows how one sided the quest is often seen to be.

For those who know little about it (or who are perhaps put off by what they have heard about it) but are interested, Jesus and the Quest by Tom Wright is a good place to start. It offers a concise introduction to its history and its possible future aswell as pointing out its importance for the Christian faith.

come now, share...

Is the Quest doomed to plurality?

Stiumulated by some comments Richard Hays made when discussing the place the "historical Jesus" should have in doing New Testament ethics (Moral Vision, pp.158-61), I wonder whether he is correct in assessing the results of the quest as highly subjective. [1] Yes, there is a great pluraility of portraits of Jesus, and yes, there does not seem to be an emerging agreement (consensus?) between scholars, most seem to like sticking to there guns.

But the great majority of disagreement arises, in my opinion, because of methodological differences. This is most clearly the case between radically differing portraits, such as the cynic sage and the restoration prophet. The pluarlity in this case doesnt really demonstrate an inescapable subjectivity or the near impossibility of the task. Rather it demonstratese plurarlity in historical method. One could always retort that this plurality demonastates an inescapable subjectivity, and that we cannot hope to gain agreement on this either. But I see no reason for this, other than the refusal or laziness that neglects engaging with other scholarship at not only a exegetical level, but more importantly at a methodological level.

So theres hope as far as im concerned. What do you think?

[1] I hope im not misrepresenting him here!

an ambiguous messiah -quote-

Whether it was his intention or not, his proclamation of the kingdom of God was inevitably heard as a revolutionary manifesto; the whole Gospel tradition is full of evidence for this. People wanted to make him king (John 6:15), and Peter's confession (Mark 8:29) means nothing other than this. it was this popular perception that finally proved his undoing: the inscription on the cross proves that he was executed as one who claimed to be "king of the Jews." And indeed, it would appear that he refuses to get himself off the hook by denying the charge. Thus, we have a situation pregnant with ambiguity. The whole shape of the tradition indicates that Jesus--in contrast to other figures in Jewish history of the era, such as Ar Kochba--persistently refused to claim that he was the Messiah (cf. John 10:24). His whole message entailed a rejection of violence and nationalism implied in the popular understanding of that title. Yet his words and deeds incited in the people a vivid expectation that he might, after all, be the one who would deliver Israel.

Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), p.164

A Coherent and Consistent Hermeneutic

If we are not applying a hermeneutical strategy consistently throughout the scriptures (will all the problems that applying scripture throws up from various texts), then it makes it easier to confirm our what we already believe/do or want to believe/do by selecting a method for a problem that will lead to our desired outcome.

A single method will probably not be able to deal with all the problems encountered, but there nevertheless must be a foundational hermeneutic upon which all subsequent moves must be established or be compatible with. Even by doing this, however, we cannot guarantee that bias will not interfere. But it does make it harder for us to do so, harder for us to adopt which ever method may result in the desired outcome.

Further, the over-arching method which I propose is grounded within the nature of scriptural faith, and so recieves justification from this. One cannot claim that the hermeneutical strategy is adopted merely to sidestep a challenge or to dismiss parts of the scriptures.

A note on "scriptural faith": By this I mean not an amalgam or harmonization of all teaching within the sriptures, nor all the beliefs of the authors of the scriptures. Rather, It is what ties them all together, the central/foundational beliefs, what they all to a degree share (some on the level of authors beliefs, some on the surface of the writing). By this I mean their following of the God as he acts with and for his creation within history. And so although I say "beliefs" i mean not only beliefs, but their enactment, because a set of beliefs alone does not constitute a "faith" or "religion".

Coherence and Contingency

Christiaan Beker proposes a two-part model for understanding the authority of the NT: Coherence-Contingency, and Catalytic. [1]

In the first part he posits that Scripture can be understood as containing elements of “coherence” and “contingency”. The coherent are the “normative elements of the gospel, which focus on the apocalyptic-eschatological interpretation of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ”. [2] The contingent “concerns those elements of Scripture that comprise the time-bound, culturally specific situations into and for which the gospel is addressed”. [3] There is a “dynamic interrelation” between the coherent and the contingent, and this is a necessary aspect of the gospel itself, “it is the very essence of the gospel that it inserts itself into the particularities of every human situation”. [4] As the nature of the gospel, this provides the key to how Scripture should act authoritatively. “The Word of Scripture can only be a lively word, a word on target, when we realize that its central message must speak to us within the particularity of our diverse situations”, [5] hence “Scripture is only authoritative when we obey its command to engage in the same risks of interpreting the gospel that it is itself engaged in all its parts”. [6] Scripture thus serves a “catalytic” function, the second part of the model. The Biblical text must undergo a “transferal” to our time, but in doing we must remain faithful to the normative coherence of he gospel. [7]

While Beker develops this model with the New Testament in mind (although to conclude his article he suggests how it could be extended to cover the entirety of Scripture, I do not follow him in how he does so), I believe that his proposal can helpfully be extended to the whole of Scripture by positing the grand narrative as the coherent factor. This can be done because the gospel is a part of and only makes sense within this grand narrative. Contingency is then extended to include not only cultural and historical specificity, but specificity within stages of the grand narrative. It’s catalytic function works in the same way, but now with the extra qualification found in contingent.

Notes
[1] Beker, J C. ‘The Authority of Scripture: Normative or Incidental?’ Theology Today 49.3 (1992), pp.376-382. This model of ‘coherence and contingency’ was originally developed inregard to Paul’s hermeneutic. See his Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).
[2] Beker, ‘Authority’, p.81
[3] ibid.
[4] ibid.
[5] ibid., p.82
[6] ibid., p.81
[7] ibid., p.82

Scriptures: Calvinist and Arminian?

I came across this interesting question in McKnights post Post-Calvinism: So what?

"is it possible that some biblical writers are more Arminian and some more Calvinist? If so, we'd have to ask in what the unity of Scripture consists. Does it consist in a systematic theology that somehow is behind everything said or does it consist in the essence of the gospel and the summons to live before God in the community of faith? That's for another time, but this is an area that deserves to be explored."

This struck me as interesting. I have had many debates over predestination and related issues, but never once considered that there may be a diversity in opinion among the biblical authors on this issue. I am of the opinion that scripture contains much theological diversity, and that we should not seek to locate unity "in a systematic theology that somehow is behind everything said". Rather it lies in the story the scriptures tell and follow. I wonder what implications this has for systematic theology??

The suggestion that unity lies in the essence of the gospel has much merit. But as I see it, the gospel encapsulates the entire biblical grand-narrative (in its bare borns) although possibly emphasizing the Jesus event. The Jesus event, Jesus himself, only makes sense within the greater story.

personal change -quote-

Many of us who grew up in the church heard conflicting things about personal change. On the one hand, we heard that we were miserable sinners and that sin would haunt us our entire lives. But we also heard that we should be perfect--that the Christian life is one of constant improvement. How do we reconcile those messages?
The Christian faith demands change, but it never begins in change. It begins in the devastating experience of God's graciousness toward us. The message of the cross is that God takes us before we change. Christians have found that we can't be in the presence of such sacrificial love and not change. The same is true for other relationships, including marriage.

Maudlin, Michael G., ‘Why Marriage Makes us Different and Why it’s Scary’, Marriage Partnership, Spring90, Vol. 7.2

Morality? Part 3

So how do we define morality? Our defentition will lead to how we decide what is morally "right" and "wrong". The answer I can give is that morality is grounded in the created order. But I do not think this is something that we can uncover by reason alone. Something is "right" if it agrees with God's design plan, and "wrong" if it does not. This plan can only be discovered through divine revelation because humanity has beem seperated from God. It is thus grounded both in the will of God and in creation itself.

This may pose an interesting answer to the question of whether violence is morally wrong. If it is contrary to the created order, which I believe it is as it resulted from humanities fractured relationsihp with God (see Gen 2-4), then one may say that it is morally wrong. But what of God commanding armies? It was in the wise service of the created order and purpose was it not? God is no arbitrary despot, but a merciful redeemer. Is violence inherently wrong? According to this train of thought, no. Not when used in wise service of the creation.

Morality? Part 2

Assuming that there is a distinction, [1] we may distinguish three factors that guide us when making decisions. [2] These can be illustrated through a situation:

Having just woken up from a good nights sleep, I wander into the kitchen to get some breakfast. Upon opening the fridge I discover that I am out of milk and need to go to the store to get some. So I make myself semi-presentable and wander towards the door. But do I take the car or just walk? My reasoning may go something like as follows.

Perhaps I should walk to the store because it is within walking distance and I do need to save gas (practical reasons). However, it is still dark, and I do live in Beachaven. Im more than a little worried that I might come home without wallet, shoes, or milk (emotional reasons). On the other hand, I dont really want to be unnecessarily pumping exhaust into the environment, that wouldn't be right (ethical reasons). In the end I decide not "skip" breakfast.

In any given situation we may consider only one of these or all of them and reasons within each may contradict each other. The factors may overlap each other, such as if I was to do something that I feel is immoral then this may result in emotional harm. But nevertheless, the distinction does exist between practical, emotional, and ethical factors.

We may postulate a person who does not hold ethical stances on anything, indeed who does not believe that we can make the moral/amoral distinction. Such a person would work within the practical and emotional alone. But does such a person exit? Can such a person exist?

Can we locate moral issues in their ability to pull at our heart-strings. When we do something we know is wrong, we feel guilty, when right, we feel good. The argument could run that moral issues are those that have an emotional factor attached. But not all people are emotionally attached to the same issues. It is the belief that something is a moral issue that then creates the emotional factor. When someone feels morally strong about something, they feel emotionally strong about it also. Morality comes before emotion.

Notes
[1] Although there need not be. Whether or not the distinction corresponds with reality, people still make decisions sefl-consiously for moral reasons, as the below illustration makes clear.
[2] I have taken these from Gareth Jones, 'The Authority of scripture in Christian ethics', p.16, in Gill, R. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge, 2001), pp.16-28

Morality? Part 1

What makes something moral? Indeed, what is "morality"?

I find this mind-boggling to ask as the answer is so clear. Morality concerns "right" and "wrong". But right and wrong about what? We odviously here dont mean right and wrong in the same sense that we mean true and false, so what do we mean?

When it comes to an actual issue, such as murder, it is clear to us that it is a "moral" or "ethical" issue. We can be quick to respond that murder is morally wrong. But when we say that this is morally wrong, do we mean that the action itself is wrong or that it would be a bad decision to make for whatever other reasons? More often than not I suspect that people intend the first, but this raises the problem.

Where does the line between a moral action and an amoral action breakdown or meet? [1] Can we make such a distinction between moral and amoral, indeed, do we pen the line? [2]

Notes
[1] We should also add states of affairs and attitudes of the heart and/or mind.
[2] I suspect that for some, this line will be much thicker than for others. Those who affirm a sharp distinction and those that are not so sure.

"Truth" and grammatical confusion

Some time ago I came to realise that much confusion occurs in discussions about "truth" because of bad grammar. People attempt to define "truth", they ask whether "truth" exists, whether we can know "truth", and whether there is "ultimate truth" or just preference, each having their own "truth". But to use the word truth in these ways is to abuse it grammatically [1].

Things become clearer when we look at the adjective true. Only statements that are making claims about reality can be deemed true or false. Thus, I am a male is 'true', it is a true statement. But if someone was to claim that I am a women, then their statement, their claim, would be 'false'. 'Truthfulness' and 'falsity' are linguistic phenomena alone. The problem occurs when people begin to use truth as a synonym for reality. To say that "reality is truth" may sound cool but it is problematic grammatically. Reality cannot be true, it just is. Only statements about reality can be true or false. You cannot point to something (a non-descriptive action of communication) and say "that is true" [2].

Notes
[1] I now face the problem of arguing that we should follow some proper grammar and not just move with the times, accepting the new usage. I find the new usage unhelpful however, which is why I wish to return to its tradition grammatical use.
[2] Unless you point to a statement of course.

A defenition of hermeneutics -quote-

This is my favourite defenition of hermeneutics proper.

Hermeneutics entails critical reflection on the basis, nature and goals of reading, interpreting and understanding communicative acts and processes. This characteristically concerns the understanding of texts, especially biblical or literary texts, or those of another era or culture. However, it also includes reflection on the nature of understanding human actions, sign-systems, visual data, institutions, artefacts or other aspects of life. In biblical studies it applies traditionally to the interpretation of texts, but also the interweaving of language and life both within the horizon of the text and the within the horizons of traditions and the modern reader.

Anthony Thiselton, ‘Biblical studies and theoretical hermeneutics’, p.95, in John Barton (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge, 1998) pp.95-113

addition to blogroll

I have added another blog to my blogroll, namely, Benjamin Myers Faith and Theology. I simply love his blog and my favourite posts so far have been Creation and the beginning of the universe, Speaking matter-of-factly about God: Robert W. Jenson, and his two posts on resurrection. He also has some extremely helpful and resouce(full) links.

Subsequent to being added to Alan Bandy's blogroll, Michael Bird has now added me to his at Euangelion. So my thanks to both of you for taking an interest in my thoughts and getting me some exposure. Its a privilege.

Carson on Jesus' words -quote-

I have decided to start posting the many interesting and important quotes that I have collected and continue to collect over the course of my studies. Donald Carson gets the privilege of being the first. I would appreciate any thoughts concerning them.

In what other field of historical research would the most influential sayings of an extraordinary influential individual be denied on the ground that because they were believed and repeated by the individual’s followers they could not have been authentic?

D.A. Carson, ‘New Testament Theology’, in (eds.) R.P. Martin and P.H. Davids, The Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments (Downers Grove: IVP, 1997), p.800

a hearing

I have to say, im excited! Alan Bandy from CafeApocalypsis has placed my blog on his blogroll. Now this is probably just because I posted some comments on his blog, but nevertheless, perhaps now he will read my blog every now and then, and perhaps even comment! This is encouraging as my enthusiasm has been waning. I plan to increase blogging!