Re: [asa] restrained accommodationism?

OTOH recognizing that there are historical data in the Bible doesn't make one a "concordist." Even fairly radical Christians scholars agree that Jerusalem really was destroyed by the Babylonians, that Jesus really lived & said some of the things in the Gospels & was crucified, &c. John Dominic Crosaan isn't a "concordist." Intrepretation starts to become "concordist" when parts of scripture which most secular historians don't regard as historical are interpreted in ways which map the events which they describe onto known - or conjectured historical events. In practice, the great majority of concordist effort is focussed on Gen.1-11.

OTOH it is only a very limited idea of "accomodation" to recognize that the sun doesn't really rise & set, e.g., That's something that trained astronomers still do today. Accomodation in a stonger sense means that the biblical writers held ideas about the world which were simply wrong - because of the limited knowl;edge of cultures of the ANE - & that God "accomodated" revelation to those limitations. I.e., where accomodation really becaomes an issue is not when it's just the human writers of scripture accomodating their language to the limitations of their contemporaries but when it's _God_ accomodating revelation to the general limitations of the biblical writers themselves (together with their cultures).

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: George Murphy
  Cc: mrb22667@kansas.net ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 7:07 PM
  Subject: 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 22:27:02 2006