God & Story
Posted by Paul | Filed under uncategorised
A few random thoughts meshed together over the last few days:
The first came from the famous realisation by Pascal that
the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, and not the God of the philosophers…or the men of science
Having been thinking about narratives, I wonder if we can say that the difference is story — the God of the Bible is a God with a story, who interacts with history.
Then I read this in ‘Story and Biblical Theology‘ by Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen:
The primary difference between [the two main worldviews in western culture] is the location of reliable truth. The biblical story locates truth in the story of God’s deeds and words in history, centred in Jesus Christ, while the classical humanist story finds truth in timeless ideas that can be accessed by human thought.
Finally, I jotted this down in a coffee shop last week. Not sure if I 100% agree with myself, but here goes (how’s that for having your cake & eating it 
:
We always worship based on story, based on what God has done. This may be our own story and normally is for modern people. Alternatively, it is the larger story of what God is doing in the world.Probably in the end it is both — we worship based on our own story embedded in the larger story. This stops egotism — focussing on what God has done just for me — and results in a larger canvas and richer worship.
Certainly, it is true for me that getting the bigger picture of new creation, etc. expands the way I worship considerably…
Schaeffer quote
Posted by Paul | Filed under uncategorised
I came across this quote from Francis Schaeffer’s letters. I thought it fitted well with a number of things I’ve posted recently, so…
Doctrinal rightness and rightness of ecclesiastical position are important, but only as a starting-point to go into a living relationship — and not as ends in themselves.
Tags: church, hermeneutics, L\'Abri/Francis Schaeffer
certainty
Posted by Paul | Filed under uncategorised
Scott McKnight includes an interesting quote from Flannery O’Conner in a post today:
Don’t expect faith to clear things up for you. It is trust, not certainty.
This reminds me of something similar that Walter Brueggermann said, ‘What we want is certainty, what we get is fidelity’ (not a direct quote). This has been haunting me for a while…
I guess it can be pushed into many particulars: What I want is God to give me a 5-year plan, what I get is day-to-day relationship. What I want is God to pay off my mortgage, what I get is daily bread.
With certainty, the temptation is to go off and live on our own based on that, but the point, in the end, is relationship.
Identity and art
Posted by Paul | Filed under uncategorised
Richard Mouw has an interesting article on his blog about Catholics and evangelicals ‘talking past each other’. He gives examples of a failure to communicate because the two sides talk with a different focus:
…where evangelicals think soteriology, Catholics tend to think ecclesiology—and so we proceed to talk past each other.
This reminded me of something I was pondering a while ago. I was trying to figure out why it was that Catholicism tended to produce more great artists than Protestantism (I may mean ‘writers’ rather than ‘artists, but lets see how we go…). While reading Flannery O’Conner’s letters I came up with one possibility: For Catholics, the main focus of identity is the church and being a member of the church; on the other hand, for protestants (or evangelicals, specifically?) the main focus of identity is, perhaps, doctrine.
For great art (at least novels?) there has to be some exploration of ideas; some experimentation. If not, then we slip into propaganda. But if your primary identity is doctrine — the intellectual ideas you hold about your faith — then any exploration runs the risk of undermining your identity. Consequently, there is a strong incentive not to take such paths. On the other hand, if your identity is based on membership of a community first, then the same risk is not present. Even while experimenting, you have a safe haven to return to.
Provocations: If you’ve read Shusaku Endo’s Silence, then you might like to ponder whether a evangelical could write such a book. Similarly Flannery O’Conner’s stories. (I’m pretty sure she would say, No.)
Those who actually know what they are talking about are invited to comment…
Tags: art, culture, imagination
This changes everything…
Posted by Paul | Filed under uncategorised
I went to see Tom Wright talk about ‘Can a scientist believe in the resurrection?’ last week (put on by the Faraday Institute). He had an interesting point about epistemology. The context was apologetics and the question: can we prove the claims of Christianity? Or alternatively, are the claims outside the realm of proof?
Wright took a middle-ish ground: If the resurrection is true then we are forced to re-shape our epistemology around it. However, our existing epistemology can get us to the point where the resurrection becomes a historical possibility; at that point we have to chose whether we accept or reject it. So, there is overlap between the two epistemological systems – our historical investigation gets us to the resurrection, but if we take the step of accepting it as truth then we are forced to re-build our entire view to accommodate what we have accepted.
You know what, he said it a lot better than that…
Anyway, this made two connections for me.
The first is Michael Ramsden’s emphasis that becoming a Christian is a ontological change — it changes who we are, rather than simply being an intellectual shift, etc. As Paul says — ‘if anyone is in Christ – new creation!’. He draws an interesting conclusion: it is often said that to be honest in apologetics, we have be prepared to be proved wrong. But if the change is ontological not intellectual, then perhaps this is not true. Once a Christian, I do not conitnue to believe because I am persuaded, but because I am changed. Intellectual argument is not going to reverse that. As a poor example — if I have develop the power to see through walls, I may have to work to persuade you of this, but I am I being dishonest if I am not open to the possibility of being proved wrong? Of course, this may lead to the question of our confidence in the claim that we are changed.
Connecting this with Tom Wright — in both views new creation (of me or the resurrection) produces a fundamental re-structuring, which impacts the very basis of the process that got me there in the first place.
The second connection was back to a previous post. I was playing with the importance of having our worldview framed not just by creation and fall, but by incarnation and new creation. Again, when the resurrection comes in, it changes everything…
Tags: apologetics, worldview
Hermeneutics and, umm, hermeneutics
Posted by Paul | Filed under uncategorised
There are currently a number of controversies bubbling around evangelicalism (e.g. atonement theories, ‘what is justification?’, etc.) At some level or another these are interwoven with issues of hermeneutics. Given the discussion in my last post, I wonder if we can ask ourselves the following question: Leaving aside the precise content, do the discussions themselves act as a good hermeneutic of the text? Does our performance/acting correctly interpret the Bible? The astute reader will, perhaps, guess from the fact that I ask the question that I wonder if we really handle disagreements well — especially now that the web allow us to wind one another up swiftly and with ease.
Given that we live with a text that includes the following…
Phil. 3:15 All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.Eph. 4:15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.
1 Pet. 3:8 Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.
…what do we think a good lived-hermeneutic is in the face of disagreement?
Or, on the other side, perhaps when we act we should ask ourselves which text our actions are interpreting?
Coincidentally, I’ve just started reading The Mission of God by Chris Wright — which also considers hermeneutics (for some reason, I’m suddenly surrounded by it!). He starts by considering the diversity of interpretation coming from the movement of the Christain centre away from the West. This emphasises our need to learn how to deal with differences between us. If we can’t do it well amongst western Christians, what are we going to do when we realise that 75% of Christians live outside the west — and not all see things the same way as us?
Wright:
The plurality of interpretive stances requires that we speak and listen to one another with respect and love, affirming our common humanity and out common commitment to the same biblical texts.
Not that we are saying anything goes. We need to find the appropriate centre. Wright also quotes James Brownson:
Once we have affirmed plurality, however, we need also to grapple with how the Bible may provide a centre, an orienting point in the midst of such diversity. What does it mean to speak the truth in love?
Tags: hermeneutics
A random walk over culture, art, christianity, etc. with occasional photographs...