[asa] Re: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?

>
> Is such interpretation arbitrary? It seems highly subjective, and that it
> could justify just about any viewpoint.

To some extent, the discussion of specific examples has lost sight of the
basic question. Anything could be dismissed as accommodation to the views
or knowledge of the day; conversely, one can readily be unreasonably
literalistic in many ways. How do you achieve a balance?

On Genesis 1, Calvin's point is perhaps more akin to the invoking of
phenomenological language rather than accommodation (the moon having greater
prominence in the account even though astronomy in Calvin's day knew that
the planets were actually bigger than the moon-Calvin explains this as Moses
putting things in lay terms and not addressing technical details of
astronomy); however, he elsewhere criticizes specific laws as accommodations
to the culture of the day, out of accord with more fundamental principles of
God's will.

Both accommodation and concordistic approaches can serve as ways to write
off the passages or issues that we don't like. I believe that a more
fundamental issue is whether we are seriously trying to determine what
Scripture teaches and whether we are willing to change in response to it,
rather than whether our approach is more concordistic or accommodational.
Nevertheless, a sincere approach is no guarantee of a correct answer, and
keeping in check through the opinions of others is very valuable. (This is
also why "Christians disagree on this" is not adequate justification for a
viewpoint-it is possible to acknowledge someone's faith as valid and yet
maintain that they're clearly off base on a particular point.) It's also a
good idea to bring out weaknesses as well as strengths of the approach that
you like. For example, accommodationist approaches will get a better
hearing among those more sympathetic to concordism if they focus on how to
control the subjective aspect of deciding what is or is not an accommodation
in addition to noting problems with specific concordisms.

One difference between the elements of ancient near eastern cosmology in
Genesis 1-2 and Paul's citation of Adam in Romans is that the ANE cosmology
provided the words, issues, and imagery available. It seems more akin to
our use of phrases like sunrise or the ends of the earth in this way.
Conversely, it seems as though Paul could word his argument a bit
differently and still convey the same theological point without giving the
impression that Adam was a historical individual in the distant past who
accurately represented us by erring, the consequences of which afflict all
humans. (In another sense, Jesus represented humanity more accurately.)

-- 
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.