See my comments below.
----- Original Message -----
From: "george murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@novagate.com>
Cc: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: cosmology & polygamy
> "Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
>
> > >From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
> > >
> > > Augustine applied what he called "the rule of charity" to the
reading of
> > > a text. If the literal sense of the text seemed to violate that rule,
he
> > > asserted that the text was to be read allegorically. I believe his
example
> > > was God ordering Saul to totally wipe out the Amalekites, every man,
woman,
> > > child, ox and ass. Augustine said that this and like incidents
recorded in
> > > Scripture enjoin behavior that is contrary to this rule of charity,
and
> > > therefore should not be interpreted literally as a guide to Christian
life.
> > > Rather, they are to be pondered and interpreted allegorically: the
truth of
> > > these passages for the Christian lay there rather than in the literal.
> > >
> > > Whatever one thinks of Augustine's hermeneutic on these matters,
it is
> > > clear that he is wrestling with a real problem, the same problem many
of us
> > > wrestle with on such passages, and he recognizes that there is some
behavior
> > > described in the Bible that is not to be taken literally as
prescriptions
> > > for Christian life.
> >
> > Another option: "The (Christian) Bible is
> > a thoroughly human testimony to the authentic human experience of the
> > presence of the Sacred -- specifically, God, as experienced by the
ancient
> > Hebrews and the early Christian community."
> >
> > Therefore, some of those human perceptions of God (or humanly
constructed
> > portraits of God) could have been seriously deficient and, while they
were
> > authentically representative of historic beliefs (not allegories) they
need
> > not be taken as normative in our time and culture.
>
> & by the same token any of the perceptions of God that Howard Van
Till,
> George Murphy, or anyone else finds particularly attractive - "merciful
and
> gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love" &c - can be
dismissed by
> someone who has in mind a group of Amalekites to be slain.
> There are indeed ways in which the pictures of the
Amalekite-slaying God
> in scripture can be subordinated to those like the verse I cited from
Ps.103 -
> especially the character of God revealed in Christ. But that requires
some
> positive hermeneutic principle, not an approach that, whether one intends
it or
> not, diminishes the authority of the whole of scripture.
>
> Shalom,
>
> George
>
Bob's comment:
While it is true that some might dismiss "merciful and gracious, etc."
to justify their slaying Amalekites, they would do so at the peril of
dismissing this central message that runs throughout Scripture, and in doing
so would render the heart of the biblical message of God's *agape* null and
void, "especially the character of God revealed in Christ." We can't stop
anyone from creating their own canon within the canon and claiming IT to be
the "word of God" they will follow. But we can challenge them on a variety
of grounds, and while my intention is not to make a case for allegorical
interpretations of narratives that are ordinarily interpreted as historical
(whether in fact they are unvarnished history or not--often the narrative
form screams "folklore" rather than "history"), I do think "the rule of love
(i.e., caritas, agape)" is a cogent one to challenge other interpretations
with; in fact I would consider it a positive hermeneutical principle,
perhaps the most important one.
Bob Schneider
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 15 2002 - 15:20:20 EDT