Re: question

At 09:14 PM 6/5/2006, David Opderbeck wrote:
>What you call "middle of the road", others call
>a "nihilistic approach". Whoa! :)
>
>Well, I guess you can always find somebody to
>call anything some sort of name. I certainly
>don't agree with everything Sunstein says. I'm
>sure I'm to the right of him on lots of
>things. But I think his fundamental instinct is
>right -- both the extremes of originalism and
>"liberal" constitutional interpretation are
>wrong. I don't see how avoiding such extremes
>is "nihlistic," but maybe that's just me.
>
>As to tying constitutional "originalism" to a
>rigid use of "historical-grammatical" Biblical
>hermenuetics, yes, I'd agree that there's a
>similar mindset there. And again, though I
>self-identify as an evangelical, I think a rigid
>use of the "historical grammatical" method can
>be as much an unhealthy extreme as the
>"critical" scholarship that denies any validity to the text.
>
> I mentioned Seely's "Inspiration and
> Incarnation" book a while back, and I'm find it
> a healthy corrective to some of the
> hermeneutical boxes we evangelicals have put
> ourselves in over the past 50 years or
> so. Just as I wouldn't discount the importance
> of the "original intent" of the constitution's
> framers, I wouldn't discount the "original
> intent" of a Bible author determined through
> the grammatical historical method. But at the
> same time, I wouldn't view either text as
> merely a static set of propositions lacking any
> genre conventions or possibility of historical
> development -- the scripture by the Spirit
> speaking in and through the Church, and the
> Constitution by the American people speaking in
> and through their shared experience and social contract.

@ I haven't read his book, but everything I've
seen regarding Seely on the apologetics sites I
frequent on web hasn't been flattering to him. Here is merely one comment:

December 28th 2004 , 04:07
PM Post
#<http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?tshowpost.php?p=845710&postcount=6>6
George Murphy http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=44458

The 'accomodation' argument is very weak to me.
Quoting Holdings' debate with Seely: "It does not
do to say that ‘God has sometimes allowed his
inspired penman to advert to the scientific concepts of their own day.’

Seely confuses adaptation to human finitude with
accommodation to human error ­ the former does
not entail the latter. As I know all too well,
having spent several years confronting critics of
the Bible, such ‘allowances’ as Seely asserts
easily open the door to ridicule of the inspired
Word, and the critics are correct to see such
rationalizations as Seely’s as totally invalid.

It also opens the door to those who claim that
the Bible writers’ teaching on morality was also
a reflection of ‘the scientific concepts of their
own day’. For example, was their teaching against
adultery and homosexual acts in ignorance of the
modern scientific ‘fact’ that such behaviour is
‘in the genes’, programmed by evolution?"

Therefore.. " [snip] ~ Shalom, George

>One of my great problems in life is that I tend
>towards the "middle" position on just about
>everything, so that the conservatives villify me
>as liberal and the liberals discount me as
>conservative. Oh well, probably that means I'm doing something right.

@ Most everything you've written has given me
the impression that you have strong opinions and
that doesn't equate with "middle of the road".

I would have never taken you to be one who would
disagree with these non-middle-of-the-road
sentiments: "Extremism in the defence of liberty
is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice
is no virtue." ~ Barry Goldwater

I still don't think you would disagree with them. :)

~ Janice

>On 6/5/06, Janice Matchett
><<mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Sorry for the late response, but haven't been able to get to email for days.
>
>At 10:10 AM 6/2/2006, David Opderbeck wrote:
>Excellent questions, Janice, and I appreciate
>the link between Biblical and Constitutional
>"hermeneutics." I remember in my first year of
>law school thinking how similar the fields of
>law and theology are in this regard -- both are
>concerned with interpreting and applying
>authoritative texts. And so now you've gotten
>me rolling instead of finishing the final exam
>grading I'm supposed to be doing right now! :-)
>I think I'd consider myself closer to the
>"middle road" school of constitutional
>interpretation promoted by folks like Cass
>Sunstein (see his book "Radicals in Robes"), ....
>
>
>@ What you call "middle of the road", others
>call a "nihilistic approach". Whoa! :)
>July 23, 2005 Ken Masugi |
><http://www.claremont.org/weblog/003488.html>06:16
>AM
>|
><http://www.claremont.org/weblog/2005_07.html>http://www.claremont.org/weblog/2005_07.html
[snip]
Received on Mon Jun 5 23:10:44 2006