Paul said 10/26/99:
>... Many so-called conservative evangelicals have an ultimate commitment to an
a
priori rationalistic philosophy which demands that the Bible be historically
and scientifically inerrant. If there is even one error, they say, you
cannot trust anything. This is Rationalism. ...
Glenn said 8/31/99:
>... I spent my graduate school days in philosophy. I remember being disgusted
by each philosopher assuming the previous philosopher out of relevance and
then setting up his logically consistent view. THen the next guy came along
and did the same thing. Each theory was internally logically consistent
but incompatible with the other views. How was one to chose between the
competing philosophical schools of thought? There is no experimentum
crucis. But when it comes to observational data, there are experimentum
crucis--plenty of them. The problem I saw in philosophy was what drove me
to the belief that the empirical is the only objective basis of deciding
certain matters. ...
My comment:
What are some of the questions raised by the comtemplation of these two
statements,
together, as expressions of two thoughtful Christians?
I think that the phrase "logical consistency" is one key. It seems that
"logical consistency" acts like a figurative knife that divides the world
in certain ways. What is "logically consistent" is given priority over
that which is not. This division may become pathological as one applies
the 'selected logic' to those parts of reality that were initially excluded.
Paul argues the "logic" of Biblical interpretation has changed with history
and those changes were incorporated into the Bible itself. However, I
think that he continues to apply that logic (of relating text to historical
contexts) to creative attempts to "see" the evolutionary record in the
Genesis text. I believe that concordism as art has a certain logic
(in this case aesthetic) and speaks to the modern and postmodern world.
Christians have always looked at the Book through the eyes of their
times.
Glenn argues that the "logic" of inerrancy demands that both the Biblical
text and the evolutionary record pertain to the same reality. However, I
do not believe that it is the "logic of inerrancy "that demands this as much
as the "logic of our yearning to see all things in Christ". The evolutionary
record presents an "origin story" that demands assent because it is
based on observational data. Concordism is one way to explore this origin
story through the "logic of our yearning".
Which leads to Bill's post on 10/26/99:
>Sometimes I worry that creationists have stressed historical accuracy to
the point that they neglect the personal touch of Jesus Christ in people"s
lives, which after all is the spark that ignites everything else.
>Glenn rightly worries that a faith which tries to force-fit science into a
particular view of Scripture will not be credible to a scientist. And he
rightly worries that a faith that must gloss lightly over chapters of
Scripture is in danger of glossing over ever more Scripture every year.
But the answer does not, I believe lie totally in rigorous scholorship.
Mostly it lies in our acknowledgement that the Lord has done something in
our lives that the world doesn"t undersand and living according to His
direction.
My comment:
By adopting the attitude that concordism speaks, not to the "logic of
inerrancy", but to the "logic of our yearning", we can look at the "match
between the Genesis text and the evolutionary record" in a very different
way. To take Glenn"s ideas as an example, which is more important?
The hundreds of details depicted in the story of Noah"s flood - or - the
single fact that the Sumerian tradition contains an almost identical story?
To me, it is the latter. Why? Because the Sumerian flood story is a
legend - just like the story of Noah and the stories of Adam and Eve -
and we are aware that legends are often stories of actual events,
just like the "Iliad". It is this awareness that inspires one
to look for a local - civilization changing - flood behind
the story of Noah (as Dick Fischer has done).
Does this mean that the hundreds of details in the story of Noah's
flood are lies? Not according to the "logic of legends". The "logic of
legends" differs from the "logic of historic and scientific consistency".
This is why I say that concordism desires to present two things;
a perspective showing that the Genesis text aesthetically
complements the evolutionary record and the idea that the perspective
does not violate the social or literary context of Genesis.
Ray