Re: [asa] restrained accommodationism?

I don't really like the "concordist" and "accomodationalist" labels. Like
most labels, they tend to oversimplify and divide. All "concordists" accept
the principle of accomodation to some degree, whether they will admit it or
not (e.g., no one thinks the Sun "rises" or "sets"). And all
"accomodationalists" who call themselves "Christians" are concordists at
least some of the time, since they believe there are at least *some* things
the Bible describes in ways that concord to *some* extent with what actually
happend (e.g., at least some of the sayings of Jesus are "authentic"). So
I'd rather see it simply as a matter of seeking to receive, live and
understand the text, in the framework of the historic context of the
Christian tradition, the knowledge we have from both scripture and general
revelation, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the community of the Church,
and the ultimate self-revelation of God in Christ. It's neither the pole of
of "concordance" nor the pole of "accomodationalism"; it's merely
faithfulness to God's revelation of Himself to us.

On 6/30/06, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
> Merv -
>
> I can only speak for myself & can't give any statistics on who "we" are
> collectively, though I suspect that the distribution on the list is more
> heavily weighted in the "concordism" direction than you 1st thought.
>
> I would hesitate to describe myself as an "accomodationist" since
> "accomodation" isn't a principle which I hold, & I don't immediately
appeal
> to accomodation in order to solve any & all problems of biblical
> interpretation. My more fundamental (really _most_ fundamental)
theological
> position is a theology of the cross, & my appeals to the idea of
> accomodation are based on that fundamental position. In support of this
> arguments I've referred a couple of times previously to my brief essay
> "Couldn't God Get It Right?" which can be found at
>
http://www.elca.org/faithandscience/covalence/story/default.asp?Copyright=06-03-15&Author=murphy&Pages=1)
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mrb22667@kansas.net>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 3:19 PM
> Subject: [asa] restrained accommodationism?
>
>
> >
> > My early impression of this [ASA] list was that most of you are TEs, and
> > that
> > with that you are probably accommodationists of varying degree. Yet
since
> > I've
> > been lurking over the last months, the most active threads have always
> > involved
> > concordism of varying flavors. (i.e. debates over Adam as Neolithic,
or
> > ancient, etc. -but always as a historical person) so much so to make
me
> > think
> > my impression was mistaken.
> >
> > Are most of you actually concordists who just differ over the
details? Am
> > I
> > alone in my thoughts that my faith would not be much affected if, for
> > example,
> > Jonah, Job, NT parables, (or even early Genesis) was not completely
> > historical -
> > in fact, some of it maybe not historical at all -- but yet is truth
> > without
> > having to be so in the modern/historical sense?
> >
> > Granted the difficulties much expressed about messy transition between
> > early
> > Genesis mythology (NOT to be taken as a demeaning term here) and the
> > necessary
> > historicity in later Genesis, that problem seems no less messy than
> > awkwardly
> > forced concordisms.
> >
> > Or is my original impression correct, and you just find yourselves
engaged
> > with
> > a vocal group of well-researched and persistent concordists (who do
> > indeed
> > bring a great wealth of knowledge and perspective to the debate - don't
> > get me
> > wrong.)
> >
> > As always, I'm sure my inquiry is the umpteenth of its nature on this
list
> > history, and any patience you all choose to extend is always
appreciated.
> > You
> > have every right to start saying: To your inquiry (#23) we respond
with
> > devastating reply #219 and for penance read "you idiot" #64. Or you
can
> > just
> > refer to earlier posts. But I do mostly appreciate the exchange here
> > from all
> > sides be they concordist or accomodationist -- or at least the ones I've
> > taken
> > time to read out of the volumes written.
> >
> > --merv
> >
> > Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet
engines. --Steven
> > Wright
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 30 19:07:59 2006