-----Original Message-----
From: Shuan Rose [mailto:shuanr@boo.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:53 AM
To: douglas.hayworth@perbio.com
Subject: RE: Scripture and the ASA; Robt Rogland's post
Welcome, Douglas,
The issue is not exactly pain and suffering, but whether God approves of or
condones murderous behavior. Still, you have made a thoughtful contribution
on pain and suffering. I will now have to add George Macdonald to my ever
lengthening list of books to read. The Bible definitely thinks of suffering
as a method of training used by God, ("The trying of your faith worketh
patience", Jas 1:2), but the book of Job warns against thinking of this as
an all-sufficient approach. One of George McDonald's protÈgÈs was C.S.
Lewis. In his book "The Problem of Pain" he agreed with that approach. In a
later book "A Grief Observed", however my understanding is that he rejected
that approach in coping with the loss of his wife
http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/lit-med/lit-med-db/webdocs/webdescrips/lewis434-
des-.html
( I have not read that book , so those who done so can weigh in on that
observation.
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of douglas.hayworth@perbio.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 7:11 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Scripture and the ASA; Robt Rogland's post
Hello all,
It's been over a year since I was subscribed to this list. I'm sort of
testing the waters again to see if I can handle the daily deluge of
comments. The shear volume of messages is often overwhelming, but the
daily challenge of such topics of discussion can be good for my lazy mind
and spirit. I sure picked a doozy (sp?) of a time to re-subscribe, though!
I will miss Allan Harvey on the list.
Anyway, as I understand it, the current thread of discussion concerns
whether or not God could condone/allow/stop/will suffering and death. I
don't have any neat theology that makes sense of this issue, but personally
I find greater peace and security (not only for me, but for those that
suffer at the hands of destruction, even those who individually have never
heard the name of Jesus) that God is completely Sovereign (i.e., fully able
to intervene, save the souls of or condemn to everlasting judgement
whomever he so wills).
I mostly responded to recommend a reading of George MacDonald's children's
book classic "At the Back of the North Wind". In that story, North Wind is
a sort of angel who does God's bidding to effect growth in people's lives
by inflicting suffering and even death (she sinks a ship at one point) as
well as blessings. The small boy, Diamond, who meets North Wind because he
is sickly and passes back and forth between death and life, questions North
Wind about how she can be both good and an agent of destruction and
suffering. She does not attempt to explain herself to him, but rather
answers him in remarkable ways that seem to communicate that the question
is rather naive -- that goodness is not really in conflict with suffering
and that it is somewhat absurd of us humans to think so.
Humbly submitted,
Douglas Hayworth
george murphy
<gmurphy@raex.co To: J Burgeson
<hoss_radbourne@hotmail.com>
m> cc:
robert.rogland@worldnet.att.net, asa@calvin.edu, burgytwo@juno.com
Sent by: Subject: Re:
Scripture and the ASA; Robt Rogland's post
asa-owner@lists.
calvin.edu
06/19/02 08:47
AM
I've been a bit reticent about weighing in on this important topic
because an adequate statement could become very lengthy. I'll try to
condense
it in thesis form & will expand only if requested &/or
challenged.
A) God's fundamental revelation is God's action in history
culminating
in Christ. Scripture is the indispensable witness to that revelation but
is not
in itself that primary revelation.
B) One can hold that God told Israel to do things like exterminate
populations of some conquered cities without believing that we are
commanded to
do such things today. In fact this has been the mainstream view of the
Christian church with respect to many aspects of the Mosaic law since the
1st
century.
C) Nevertheless, even the idea that God willed such actions in the
past
is very disturbing.
D) To Burgy's options with regard to disturbing texts:
1. The OT texts are in error, at least at this point.
2. The god they describe and the God of the NT are the
same,
and I'm too
slow of mind to understand this.
3. The texts are not in error, but they describe the
PERCEIVED commands of
God by the persons writing.
a 4th should be added: These texts can be read allegorically. E.g.,
commands
to exterminate unbelievers really mean that we should get rid of fleshly
lusts
&c. I am NOT recommending this interpretation but it was very widespread
in
earlier centuries. (See, e.g., the Epistle of Barnabas.)
E) One must be very careful about saying that the God who
commanded
extermination &c is not the Father of Christ. The danger is that one will
conclude that the OT _in toto_ is a record of a different God, & that
Christ was
not sent by the creator of the world, thus cutting off Christianity from
creation & leading to a type of gnosticism.. This is not a straw man: It
is
exactly what Marcion did in the 2d century.
F) If one is going to take this approach it's necessary to say
carefully that the God who was _perceived_ to command extermination &c was
not
the Father of Christ. I understand this to be Burgy's view.
G) To take a different tack, if creation is fundamentally dynamic
&
evolutionary, it's not surprising that the ethical sense of human beings
would
also evolve. & if God limits divine action to what is within the capacity
of
creatures, then ~3000 years ago God had to work with people for whom
massacres,
slavery, &c were the way things were done.
H) That there is ethical advance within scripture is shown by the
progression from Gen.4:23-24 (unlimited vengeance) to Ex.21:23-24 (defined
&
limited retribution) to Mt.5:38-39 (non-resistance).
I) Luther's distinction between God's "proper work" and God's
"alien
work" may be helpful here.
J) The suggestion of G) above is still disturbing, but the problem
it
presents is similar to that of God's creative action through natural
selection.
& as with that, an adequate answer has to be sought in the cross - where
God
experiences execution as a breaker of the law. (N.B. I say "an adequate
answer
has to be sought ...". I am not claiming that this just makes the problem
of
exterminations, slavery &c in the OT go away.)
K) How do we know that these disturbing practices are wrong &/or
are
not in accord with the deepest expression of God's will? Fundamentally
from the
teachings & example of Christ who is the fullest revelation of God (cf.
A)).
L) An important though subtle distinction has to be made. Here I
quote
Burgy from memory & I trust he'll correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that
he
said in an earlier post something to the effect that the OT commands of
extermination &c are "not in accord with my moral sense as informed by
Christ."
& this is somewhat risky. Of course we're always dealing with our
understanding
of what the teachings & example of Christ imply, but it is in fact Christ,
& not
our moral sense, which is authoritative. There are plenty of example in
history
of Christians who have waged holy wars &c, following quite sincerely what
they
believed to be a moral sense informed by Christ. Conversely, some
Christians
might allow innocent people to suffer because they believed, on the basis
of
Jesus' teachings, that _any_ resistance to evil was wrong.
M) The terms "heresy" & "heretic" are tossed around far too
easily.
Christians who are always accusing those they disagree with of "heresy" are
a
pain in the butt. OTOH, Christians who glory in being called "heretics"
are
also tiresome. This represents a serious imbalance between "protestant
principle" and "catholic substance".
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
J Burgeson wrote:
> Robert Rogland wrote, in part:
>
> "It's time to quit lurking and help Terry Gray (I hope I'm helping) do =
> the heavy lifting."
>
> Welcome to the active users list, Robert.
>
> Robert wrote: "I am in complete agreement with Terry's recent posts ...
As
> members of the ASA we all subscribe to a Statement of =
> Faith. It is quite minimal.... Nevertheless, the ASA Statement =of
Faith
> does make affirmations that exclude some who profess the =Christian
faith.
> One must be as orthodox as the Apostles' and Nicene =creeds. And, of
> significance for the recent exchange of postings on =Scripture, one must
> "accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness, and =authority of the
Bible
> in matters of faith and conduct." ... we have had participants on this
> list deny that the Scriptures are =inherently inspired, maintaining that
> inspiration is the work of the =Holy Spirit in speaking through the
> Scriptures to me. One recent =posting states, "I'd say that the
scripture
> is reporting faithfully what =the writer PERCEIVED to be the voice of
> God-and that he was wrong." =Another contributer terms inerrancy a
> "horribly slippery word." ... views of the =Scripture are expressed
which
> are not consistent with the Statement of =Faith to which we all
subscribed
> when we joined the ASA.... ."
>
> Well, I'm the one "guilty" of the first examplle and while I did not say
the
> second, I'd probably agree with it.
>
> A view if scripture as "inspired by God," a view which I hold, does not
mean
> that all parts of scripture are of equal value, or are to be taken as
> normative. Slavery was normative in scriptural times; the scriptures
which
> refer to it (many) are, while part of the inspired text, written there
by
> persons as fallible as any of us, and we must use our minds to decide how
> they are to be interpreted for our day. Or, to take a more prosaic
example
> -- the apostles threw lots (dice) to make an important (to them) decision
> about who was to take the place of Judas. That does not mean that
practice
> is therefore enjoined upon us for our decision making. Nor does it even
mean
> that the decision to choose a replacement was in God's mind!
>
> Given the obvious fact that some parts of scripture are, through copying
and
> recopying, surely in error, when I find OT texts that do not, in any
> conceivable way, square with the God Jesus talked about and called
"father,"
> I must conclude one of three things:
>
> 1. The OT texts are in error, at least at this point.
> 2. The god they describe and the God of the NT are the same, and I'm too
> slow of mind to understand this.
> 3. The texts are not in error, but they describe the PERCEIVED commands
of
> God by the persons writing.
>
> I submit that any of the above three positions is consistent with a view
> that scripture is "God-breathed." I also submit that all three positions
are
> worthy of respect and study, and that any person holding one of the three
is
> "OK."
>
> My own position, BTW, is almost always that of an academic on issues like
> this; I have a personal view (#3) but see merit in #1 also and even a
small
> probability that #2 could be correct.
>
> What I have seen are rather good arguments for #3, fair arguments for #1
and
> almost nothing but arm-waving (or silence) for #2. Checking a number of
> "conservative" commentaries, I was amazed to read that none spent any
> appreciable space discussing the problems. Position #2 was simply taken
for
> granted. I am unwilling to go there.
>
> Robert asks: "Is it coherent to affirm the "divine inspiration,
> trustworthiness, and authority of the Bible in =
> matters of faith" and also pick and choose which parts of the Bible to =
> accept on the basis of some other criterion (e.g., one's perception of =
> what a good and loving God would say or do)?"
>
> I'd answer, of course, "yes." I'd also point out that every Christian I
know
> does this. WE all "pick and choose," it is our God-given nature to do
this;
> else we do not use our intellects. How many of us eat pork? How many of
us
> wear clothing made of two kinds of substance? How many of us would allow
our
> neighbors to murder our child because said child says bad words? Any
hands
> out there? We have "picked and chosen" these parts of scripture to
disobey.
>
> Robert also askes: Can one coherently affirm =the inspiration of the
Bible
> and deny inerrancy? If words have any =objective meaning, the answer is
> no."
>
> I obviously disagree here. So do most Christians. The only responsible
> position to take, for someone who holds this position, is that, since the
> scriptures are demonstrably errant, they must therefore not be inspired.
> "Inerrancy in the original autographs" is a laughable copout. Even if one
> agrees, for argument's sake, that such is true, it is an assertion
without
> usefulness. It also implies God was too inept to preserve His word.
>
> Robt continues: "some of =the heretical comments have been posted by ASA
> members. Does not intellectual =integrity require one to give up one's
> membership in an organization =when one no longer is in accord with its
> basic principles?"
>
> I previously agreed that I (along with all humans, past and present) are
> "heretics" in the usual meaning of the word. And I cheerfully say "yes"
to
> the question posed. I re-read from time to time the ASA statements of
> principle. I see no place I am not in agreement with them. If I did, I
would
> resign my 31 year membership. I make the tacit assumption that my fellow
ASA
> members would do likewise.
>
> Robert concludes by writing: " I offer =these observations to stimulate
> personal reflection by all concerned. "
>
> I appreciate (really) the challenges you offered. These are serious
issues,
> and like many such, are too often swept under the rug so as not to
embarrass
> people. I have no reluctance to discuss them openly. And once again, I
> repeat my question, originally made to Terry -- tell me, in reasoned and
> possible academically respectable terms, the message God is telling you
in
> the Psalm of infant head-bashing, in the direct commands of "god" to
commit
> genocide, in the direct advice to Israelite soldiers telling them how to
> rape a captive girl-child after murdering her parents. There are other
> texts; try those three. I will give you some advice though -- don't look
for
> help in the conservative commentaries.
>
> Regards
>
> Burgy (one heretic among many)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 24 2002 - 01:14:44 EDT