Re: cosmology & polygamy

From: george murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Apr 15 2002 - 17:40:50 EDT

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: cosmology & polygamy"

    Robert Schneider wrote:

    > 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.

            Agreed - but one first has to identify the "central message that runs
    through scripture". I would say that it is christological (though not in the
    naive sense of finding predictions about Jesus throughout the OT) & when the
    implications of that are worked out it comes pretty close to saying that the
    central message is "God is love."

    Shalom,

    George

    George L. Murphy
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    "The Science-Theology Interface"



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 15 2002 - 17:38:03 EDT