<< But I think I understand Glenn's perspective,
and it is really the only kind of history there is in terms of actual
history. You seem to want to make distinctions based on different
types of historical writings. The question is whether Genesis 1 is
historical in the `actual history' sense or not.>>
This is indeed the difference. Glenn and you don't accept it; I and Donald
Bloesch do. We will probably have to agree to disagree on this point.
<<You cannot make Longfellow's poem
equivalent to history by noting a historical aspect. He was telling
a story, based on a historical event. But though his invention was not
out of `whole cloth,' there was indeed invention. Do you see this yet?>>
That's exactly what I pointed out last time. It's called "poetic license." You
and Glenn want to LIMIT history to one kind of history (VCR, journalistic
detail). I do not.
But you do agree with me that it was "based on a historical event." That's
just what I've been saying all along about Genesis 1. And you also agree with
me that Paul Revere is different in KIND from, say, Frodo. You just don't seem
to think there is any significance in these contentions, while I do. The poem,
we agree, was based on history. So we must ask: What was Longfellow's purpose
in using poetry to describe history (author intent)? It was, I believe, to
INSPIRE (based on the cultural context to which he wrote). Hey! Just like
Genesis 1! It was to actually ELEVATE a REAL historical event, to heighten its
MEANING to his audience. Hey! Just like Genesis 1!
This is my view of it.
<<I have never heard GWTW called historical fiction. Historical fiction
purports to retell a historical event, but does so with embellishment
for the purposes of adding entertainment value. >>
This will come as a shock to the folks at Barnes & Noble and B. Dalton. Look
in their fiction sections. You'll find subcategories: Romance, Mystery...and
Historical Fiction. Here you find authors like John Jakes. They take a
historical period and put invented characters and families into the events.
That is a literary genre...one I do not use in this discussion, because it's
irrelevant.
<<BTW, I think I was wrong, and that you indeed see Genesis 1 as historical
fiction (though perhaps you would say `historical saga'). If this *is*
true, then it does make your view clearer. It also puts you squarely
in the corner of Glenn's diagram that he expected. Perhaps you didn't
accept the term because you had a different definition of `historical
fiction' in mind?>>
Glenn had me in the "Non-Historical" corner, meaning, I think, no "actual"
history in space-time terms. That's not where I should be. In fact, only
atheists who don't believe in evolution would be in that corner, wouldn't
they? And aren't there about 0 of those around?
Side note:
<<I actually teach in favor
of a view of the church which I call `Christian anarchy'. It is the
model that I believe the Scriptures teach, and the God is taking us
back to.>>
That wouldn't be the "Open Church" concept of people like James Rutz, would
it? If it is, there is a lot I like about it.
I was thinking about this last night, and I think you have contributed a major
corrective point to the discussion--a corrective to Glenn M., too. What is the
"importance" of Gen. 1 understanding APART from the total witness of the
Spirit through the Word? Not much. I think you'd say that. You don't have to
be a fancy hermeneutical teacher to have the Word opened to you by way of the
Spirit. Bloesh would say as much, so did Calvin, so does Clark Pinnock,
espousing what he calls "The Scripture Principle," with which I agree. The
main purpose of the Word is to bring people to Christ, through the Spirit.
Again, this is why I think you and Bloesch are closer than you suppose.
I'm not sure I would go as far as you toward "spiritual anarchy," but I do
agree with you about the danger of, what did you say, "worshipping the ink"?
Apart from the Spirit, the ink is just ink!
So there, we do agree on something!
Jim