Picking up from the post below about Knowing God, two questions probably do not challenge us on an everyday basis when we read the Bible, listen to a sermon or have a theological conversation over coffee. But every so often we should consider:
"(a) if 'reason' is impaired through sin, how can we make any claim to know the truth?
(b) how can Scripture be the only valid guide to doctrine when there are disagreements over its interpretation and the doctrines that are derived from it?"
One possible answer to both questions is that Christians are nuts. That is, a Christian claim to know God is irrational. There is something of a respectable history to that answer, running through the theologies of Kierkegaard and Barth (for instance but at risk of over simplifying the sophistication of their work), so that the Christian claim to know God is focused on God disclosing God to us, independent of any rational apprehension of God, and disagreements over interpretation are a fog created by trying to understand the Bible with our fallen minds. One difficulty with heading along such a line of reception of revelation is that it can work quite well among generally level-headed Christians and it can have disastrous effects among Christians prone to following a leader who turns out to be, well, nuts.
Actually, the answer I want to propose is arguably not deeply different from the above paragraph. If our reason is impaired then it needs repair. Reason can scarcely repair itself (since we would not know, in the nature of things, whether the repair was successful) so the repair needs to come from outside of ourselves and from a source capable of fixing it. In short, reason can be repaired by God and the mender is the Holy Spirit. (We could also use language of redemption: reason has fallen into slavery, serving sin but Christ has redeemed it for free service in the kingdom of light). Our claim to know the truth of God is a claim that our minds are able to be renewed by God working within us so that our reasoning faculty truthfully comprehends God - this is what is disclosed to us about the working of the Holy Spirit in Romans, notably and summarily in Romans 12:1-2. But this theological claim looks philosophically irrational as a foundation of knowledge comes from beyond reason. Fallen rationality plus gifted spirituality equals true knowledge.
In turn, this claim smacks against the second question above. If God has repaired our minds why do we not all think coherently and harmoniously, as, indeed, Paul urges in Philippians 2:1-5? Surely, on the analysis advanced here, continuing disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture are testimony to God's inability to completely heal our minds? Further, do such disputes not call into question the purity of divine revelation through Scripture. No one disputes clean water when all drink it. Disputes arise over brackish water. One claims it is salty, another that it is dirty.
That will do for today. More whenever I can come back to the matter.
26 comments:
The following is moderated, from Ron:
"Father Ron Smith has left a new comment on your post "Are Christians nuts?":
I guess, Peter, that one ways of knowing whether or not the Holy Spirit informs one's life - to the degree that it bears positive fruit - is to test it, by Paul's definition: Galatians 5:13ff :-
"My brothers, you were called, as you know, to liberty; but, be careful, or this liberty will provide and opening for self-indulgence." (We do not have the liberty to judge others. lest we too be judged by the same criteria)
"Serve one another, rather, in works of love, since the whole of the Law is summarised in a single command (from Jesus, also) - Love your neighbour as yourself. If you go snapping at one another and tearing each other to pieces, you had better watch, or you will destroy the whole community".
...
What 'liberal' Christians want to major on, in the propagation of the Gospel, is the infinite extend of God's mercy, and the availablity of grace to meet our need - both of repentance and the fruit of good works.
...
It seems to me that the 'sola scriptura' school is completely dependent upon the revelation of God in the Scriptures, whereas the rest of us are ever open to what God may be revealing to us, through the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit - not only in our own lives but also in the lives of others in the world of today.
"Behold, I am doing a new thing!"
"
Dear Ron
I am not going to publish comment here which divides the world or the Communion on an inaccurate basis. It is very wrong of you to castigate another part of God's family in the way you do while also claiming to be on the side of love.
What about learning to love those you disagree with rather than berating them and thus in comments here writing in a manner which shows more appreciation of the 'other side'?
Peter
In answer, Peter, to your last question - and in protest at your continual censoring of my remarks, on the grounds of their critical faculty - I disagree with many of your friends because they seem unable to appreciate their need, as Christians, to 'live and let live' as fellow sinners in need of compassion and redemption.
When the GAFCON and its associates are in right now in imminent danger of separating out from the rest of the Anglican Communion - on grounds of their opposition to opening up the Church to the LGBT community - I can surely refer to this as a tragedy for the Church, can I not?
If not, then I see no point in my further engagement with you on your blog. Which would be a pity!
Hi Ron
I am not censoring 'critical' remarks; I am censoring name-calling (the Righteous), sly digs and put downs. Make critical remarks about issues, themes, topics, and arguments and I will publish your comments. Put fellow Christians down, and I will not.
Please advocate for the LGBT community, for a liberal and open theology, for Anglo-Catholicism and I will publish your remarks.
Please do not offer negativity against those who do not share your views. I will not publish such comments. Critique their views but do not denigrate the view holders. Play the ball and not the man.
Hmmmm, I don't know really. To someone who is an atheist I can see it might seem that Christians are "nuts" or at least are irrational. After all, "the gospel is foolishness to those who do not believe"- and we should always remember we believe in a supernatural being, so the scepticism of unbelievers is not so surprising. I always try to take this into account when trying to see the point of view of unbelievers. Yet many sane and rational people hold a belief system. As for the disparity and differences in belief amongst us and the different interpretations and approaches we bring to scripture and tradition, well, it has always been thus really, hasn't it? I am not sure that makes us nuts, more just that it makes us human.
Hi Peter,
Reason is only impaired, not destroyed. Truth can be known even if we can't know it exhaustively.
Reason is impaired because we are sinners and because we don't know the truth exhaustively. God, of course, does know the truth exhaustively which is why Scripture, being God-breathed, is the only valid guide to doctrine. I don't know of any good reason to doubt that. The reasons I have heard of suffer from their own poor reasoning and lack of exhaustive knowledge.
In a dispute over the meaning of a section of text it's easy for sinners, being sinners, not only to plump for the interpretation that seems to serve their interests best but also to delude themselves that this is not what they're doing.
The Holy Spirit's repair of our reason is an ongoing process which, in my experience, can have to go over the same ground several times before the lesson sinks in and my reasoning about that particular issue is repaired. Again in my experience, the more personally painful is the outcome of failing to heed the Spirit's promptings, the quicker one is to learn the lesson and the easier it gets to hear and respond to the Spirit's "voice" the next time an interation of that temptation comes into my life.
Having disagreements over the interpretation of texts can be part of this repair process, particularly if the disputants are willing to ask themselves how much their own interests are invested in being correct and whether protecting those interests would be proper for a Christian. I think this must be very hard for scholarly types interested in protecting their prestige and prospects for career advancement. Otherwise I don't understand why it is, for example, that subordinationists continue to describe a post-Fall situation as being part of the "created order". That's just plain illogical and therefore qualifies as demonstrating a serious impairment of reason. It makes me wonder what's in it for them.
I like your reasoning, Janice!
To pick up just one aspect of your comment, I think that the journey to wholeness, for the individual and the church, is a journey towards repaired reasoning which, in the case of the church, is necessary for a true unity of mind, agreed on what God is telling us.
"I think this must be very hard for scholarly types interested in protecting their prestige and prospects for career advancement. Otherwise I don't understand why it is, for example, that subordinationists continue to describe a post-Fall situation as being part of the "created order"."
Believe me, there is NO 'career advancement' for holding a 'subordinationist' position - or complementarian, as they would prefer. Or if you are referring to subordination within the Trinity, please understand that this has always been the (Eastern) Orthodox position, and is depicted in Rublev's icon of the Trinity.
As for reason, it is quite possible for an unbeliever to understand accurately enough what the Bible and Creeds teach. But that is only intellectual knowledge and not faith-knowledge, which involves faith (fiducia) and repentance (metanoia), which only the Holy Spirit can provide.
The wider (and recurrent) question which Peter brings up is that of doctrinal authority in the Church, the power to arbitrate among different interpretations. Alas, western Anglicanism, under its liberal hegemony, is collapsing as a result of its intellectual strip-tease.
Martin
I too thoroughly enjoyed reading your post Janice, but could I ask for some clarification of your last point please. To begin with, I’m none too sure what a ‘subordinationist’ is, but if I may I’m going to refer to someone who has seen/understood before God, that God has asked them to be a servant. Nothing more, just a servant. I don’t know if that is what a subordinationist is, but if I may, that is the definition I choose to use. If that recognition that one is called to serve is genuine, it is impossible to consider what is in it for them, because the answer is nothing other than the approval of their God. I’m not talking about the person who sighs to him/herself as they wash the dishes, I’m talking about the person who has genuinely realised that their role is to serve. Could you perhaps show me why that is NOT part of the ‘created order.’ For everyone, not male or female, but everyone?
a) interation should have been iteration.
b)Believe me, there is NO 'career advancement' for holding a 'subordinationist' position - or complementarian, as they would prefer.
Well, no, Martin. I can't believe that. In some parts of the Anglican world (such as, oooh, say, Sydney diocese) anyone not holding a subordinationist/complementarian position won't get far up the ecclesiastical heirarchy ladder.
I know nothing about the Eastern Orthodox position on the Trinity, and don't much care. Too many other things going on at the moment or I'd look it up and think about it. But thanks for the information.
Also, I have to say that it is quite possible for a believer to understand accurately enough what the Bible and Creeds teach, but only intellectually. It took me about 8 years of struggle and a major depression to understand, with blessed faith-knowledge, that we really are all sinners, born that way, not born good and made bad by circumstances, but naturally bad/selfish/egocentric. What a relief and end to recurrent disappointments that was!
Janice, most Anglicans are not in Sydney - although Sydney is one of the few parts of Australian Anglicanism that are actually growing. Why this might be is an interesting question. For my part, I am unconvinced that women rectors and bishops is the leading of the Holy Spirit, but I hold fairly "radical" (i.e., not institutional) ideas about the sacraments and communion. Many people malign Sydney, with the implication that they are better Christians. I know I'm not.
If you don't care about 'the Eastern Orthodox position on the Trinity', then you profess no interest in the profoundest and subtlest reflection on the central mystery of our faith. Can't help you there, I'm afraid. But how will you know the answer when you don't know what the question is?
Believers go through different levels of understanding their faith. That's how it was for John Wesley: he was a believer before his Aldersgate experience in 1738, but he described this as the faith of a servant, not a son.
Martin
Martin, I wasn't referring to the Trinity. Nevertheless, having been stung by the accusation (not unfair given my earlier remarks) that I have no interest in "the profoundest and subtlest reflection reflection on the central mystery of our faith" when, actually, I am just tired and short of time to revisit all the reading I did some time ago while trying to understand the pro-subordinationist Trinitarian position, I did go back and have another briefish look. I found nothing that indicates that the Eastern Orthodox church believes in subordination within the Trinity.
the Church proclaims that even though the Father, Son and Holy are distinct from one another, there is nevertheless a perfect and harmonious identification of the three persons in one and the same essence so that there is no confusion, division or subordination between them. ... The Church's conviction regarding the monarchy of the Father has been based on the interpretation of the words of Jesus that "the Father is greater than I" (Jn 14:28), which was always interpreted, by the Eastern Patristic tradition, to be a reference to the Father's 'unoriginated' hypostatic quality; and not to any greater moral or functional importance of the Father in relation to the Son and Holy Spirit. See here.
One thing I found that I like very much is point 1 under the heading, "Joint statement of Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians," in the Wikipedia entry for Filioque.
That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
Our limited ability to understand (correctly, let alone exhaustively) the mystery of the Trinity is partly why I don't much care about discussions on the subject any more and am content to affirm the Nicene Creed. Another reason is that I don't believe the new pro-subordinationists have any better evidence than the Fathers had or that they are any more intellectually able (or less reason impaired) and yet they are so sure their position is correct. And that makes me wonder, what's in it for them?
I'm guessing from your recent remarks, and the fact that you have declined to reply to me, that the argument you're having is with those of the male gender. I'm also presuming that you somehow feel that it is only the female gender that is as you put it, 'subordinate' or should be subordinate. However, the fact is that ALL should be subordinate .. so I cannot say that I understand what you're talking about when you keep repeating, what's in it for them. What could possibly be in it for anyone who is subordinate .. doesn't make sense.
Rosemary, as you probably know, when people talk about the creation order they're talking about what happened in the beginning, before the Fall, before sin entered the world and mucked everything up. Before the Fall there were only two human beings around and work hadn't become a chore so I can only presume that if Adam and Eve had had any dishes to wash neither of them would have been sighing over it. In writing this I'm not being flippant.
In Christ we are all called to serve one another in love (Gal 5:13). Therefore, there is nothing special about being called to serve.
There are as many ways of serving as there are needs for service. None of us can serve in every way because none of us has all the gifts, talents, knowledge, time, money, energy, authority or other needed attribute to perform every
service that might be needed just by those we know, let alone by everyone. For that reason I don't think it's helpful to say about anyone that "their role is to serve". Serve by doing what? Me, I'm not good at looking after other people's small children (they bore me but my husband gets on very well with them) but I do a bunch of other things including washing up when I'm rostered, and even when I'm not rostered if the rostered person needs help or hasn't turned up.
Serving, by itself, does not necessarily imply subordination which Google says means, "subject to the control or authority of another". It was after the Fall that God said to Eve, "And he shall rule over you." That is the outcome of sin breaking their relationships - with God and with each other. It was a description of what would happen because of that brokenness, not a prescription and certainly not related to the "creation order". But the subordinationists refuse to see that because, I presume, for whatever reason, they have some sort of investment in the idea of being in control and having authority.
Many people malign Sydney, with the implication that they are better Christians. I know I'm not.
Martin, I was in Sydney diocese for a long time. I do not doubt that the people there love the Lord. However, if you think that only people outside the diocese think they're better Christians then I've got news for you. When we let people in Sydney know that we were moving north I was told, in no uncertain terms, that we should avoid the Anglican church up here because of its liberalism. What I found instead was a bunch of people who also love the Lord. They just worship a bit differently and, thank God, have given me an appreciation of the treasures of the Prayer
Book because, here, they use it all the time. There are better Christians than me, I'm sure, all over the place.
And Rosemary, as you might realise by now, I was not declining to reply to you. I just have a whole lot of other stuff going on and, also, I try hard to take care about what I submit for publication. It takes time, of which these days I have little. Pray for me.
This debate between Letham and Giles may be of interest:
http://www.equip.org/articles/is-the-son-eternally-submissive-to-the-father/
I don't know how representative of Orthodoxy is the statement which Janice cites. Rublev's icon depicts the Son going at the Father's bidding.
Martin
" For my part, I am unconvinced that women rectors and bishops is the leading of the Holy Spirit, but I hold fairly "radical" (i.e., not institutional) ideas about the sacraments and communion." - Martin -
Not your average Anglican, then?
In order not to be accused of allowing an ad hominem to pass the moderation process, Ron, it would be good to hear from you what you understand an 'average Anglican' to be ...
Otherwise 'Not your average Anglican, then?' might be viewed as an ad hominem put down of Martin.
No, no, Peter, in the words of David Guetta's haunting song, I want to say:
'Shoot me down, shoot me down,
I am titanium....'
In my pride/delusion I've never thought I was 'average anything'. I've always liked Garrison Keillor's Lake Woegebon, where 'everyone is above average'.
But as for Anglicanism, the 'average Anglican' is an African woman in her 30's, and I fail on all three counts.
Martinus (Aerea Mediocritas)
Thank you, Martin. You see, Peter? Even Martin thinks you're being a wee bit over-zealous in your moderation.
Have a go at me, by all means, Ron, but do not have a go at others.
Janice, I’m beginning to understand more clearly where you’re coming from, although perhaps that’s just wishful thinking. Sure we are all called to serve, but that’s HUGE Janice, and it’s VERY special because I suspect that few actually recognise that .. they just THINK they’re serving, I know I did for years and years.
For your information, my definition of serve doesn’t equate with anything as mundane as the dishes, it’s growing to be more like Christ .. the ultimate servant.
You said .. “Serving, by itself, does not necessarily imply subordination which Google says means, "subject to the control or authority of another". I’ll go along with that definition. But you also said, “It was after the Fall that God said to Eve, "And he shall rule over you." That is the outcome of sin breaking their relationships - with God and with each other.” Again, true, but that only deals with half of the equation surely. Here we have the curse placed on the male half of the population, they will continually ‘fall’ into domination rather than holding to the dominion they should have ‘in Christ.’ What will women ‘fall’ into?
That is my understanding, consequently, I have no understanding of your last sentence, which is .. “But the subordinationists refuse to see that because, I presume, for whatever reason, they have some sort of investment in the idea of being in control and having authority.
Rosemary, I'm absolutely fascinated by your conversation with Janice, on the subject of 'election'.
I'm also intrigued by your last statement that: " . they just THINK they’re serving, I know I did for years and years."
I wonder what was the miracle that actually changed you - from just 'thinking you were serving God' to actually serving God? This must be of interest to all of us. I'd really like to know your secret.
I will break a committment not to answer your posts Ron, even though I can hear your 'snideness' as I have heard it towards me in public. The reason I realised that what I thought was service, wasn't really, is that God the Father, in His mercy, showed me the depths of my pride.
Rosemary, the Bible says the we should serve one another (Gal 5:13), submit to one another (Eph 5: 21) and count others better than ourselves, doing nothing from selfishness or conceit (Php 2:3). It doesn't say that all should be subordinate to one another. In fact we can't all be subordinate because then there would be no one to be subordinate to. You can serve without being subordinate and you can be subordinate without serving though, in the latter case, you would only be safe from the charge of insubordination if your superior never told you to do anything.
The point I was trying to make originally is that many who believe that women should be subordinate to men (i.e., may not be allowed to take any position in which they have authority over men) justify their position by saying that male rule over females is part of the creation order. Yet it is not. It is part of the post-Fall disorder. That they can fail to see something that should be obvious to anyone capable of simple logic indicates that something has blinded them. Whatever that is is what's in it for them.
You say that, for a time, you thought you were serving but were not. What blinded you during this time so that you did not realise you were not serving? If I understand you correctly, you say it was your pride. That, then, is what was in it for you at that time.
Here we have the curse placed on the male half of the population, they will continually ‘fall’ into domination rather than holding to the dominion they should have ‘in Christ.’ What will women ‘fall’ into?
There was no curse, as such, placed on the man. The ground was cursed for his sake. If men fall into domination it is largely because of the physical and economic vulnerability of women, particularly women with children. Note that when God said "have dominion," he said it to "them", both the man and the woman, not just to the man.
What will women 'fall' into? Considering what God said after the Fall ("your desire shall be for your husband") I think it's that women turn to their husband rather than to God so that they fail to be the sort of 'helper' that God envisaged.
Janice, I’m so sorry to be so long in replying. Loved your first paragraph, I don’t even LIKE the word subordinate, because it doesn’t at all describe what I believe .. so why go past the word submit? Never mind what others think or say, why would YOU go past the word submit? On to your second paragraph ..
The point I was trying to make originally is that many who believe that women should be subordinate to men (i.e., may not be allowed to take any position in which they have authority over men) justify their position by saying that male rule over females is part of the creation order. Yet it is not. It is part of the post-Fall disorder. That they can fail to see something that should be obvious to anyone capable of simple logic indicates that something has blinded them. Whatever that is is what's in it for them.
I’d like to discuss these things, but nowhere here are you starting from the premise that men and women are completely equal .. and I think that must be agreed first. Men who do not see that the curse [in other words POST Fall] means they will dominate rather than have dominion as they ought, should be ignored, they have not in my opinion understood anything. However, just as it is up to men to see that, it is up to women to discover just what equal role God intends for them, and to do so trying as hard as they can to see past their post Fall disorder. You further said ..
You say that, for a time, you thought you were serving but were not. What blinded you during this time so that you did not realise you were not serving? If I understand you correctly, you say it was your pride. That, then, is what was in it for you at that time.
You are certainly half right, I basked .. positively basked [pride] in the achievements of my husband, believing with total certainty that in serving my husband, I was fulfilling God’s commands. As I said, in His mercy, He showed me otherwise.
[continued]
You said .. There was no curse, as such, placed on the man. The ground was cursed for his sake. If men fall into domination it is largely because of the physical and economic vulnerability of women, particularly women with children. Note that when God said "have dominion," he said it to "them", both the man and the woman, not just to the man.
No curse? ???? Well true in one sense, in that I don’t consider it a curse but rather something that God in His mercy gave us the opportunity to ‘see’ .. ‘ understand’ .. and try to correct in Christ. However how correct of you to notice that ‘have dominion’ is said to both sexes. In what way do you consider women can achieve ‘dominion’ over men?
What will women 'fall' into? Considering what God said after the Fall ("your desire shall be for your husband") I think it's that women turn to their husband rather than to God so that they fail to be the sort of 'helper' that God envisaged.
Maybe you’re right, and it’s that simple. I have always thought that the fact that women, terribly downtrodden by their husbands, beaten often, killed even .. and yet they keep going back and for more and trying harder .. is an obvious result of the curse and the Fall. I suppose you could say that they are listening to their husbands and not God .. in fact that’s quite obvious now that I consider it. But it pre-supposes yet again, that women are not completely and totally equal to the male gender. We ARE .. and our every thought must be captured by that truth.
Post a Comment