I found your last post very helpful. For one thing, it gave me some sense of having clearly communicated what I was attempting to communicate and having been understood. My goal in this exchange isn’t to win you over, but to help you understand what I believe and why to the degree I am able. If I’m right in what I believe, then the power to win you over is in the thing itself. So the most helpful thing you can do prior to disagreeing with what I have said is to first give some reflection that indicates you are at least disagreeing with what I have tried to say, which is what you’ve done. So thanks.
Here’s what I think you’re saying. There is a large and influential group within Christianity who insist on a young earth creation model. This group is committed to the inerrancy of scripture (we have yet to define this and so I have yet to voice my stance), and I think we both agree on what “they” mean by this phrase. This group dismisses any scientific evidence that would challenge their view. They do this primarily for theological reasons and any scientific evidence or argument they use to challenge an old earth model is thus tainted by their theological bias. It seems this is the group and the stance you are in disagreement with. It remains to be seen whether you are in disagreement with me, for I have not indicated my view on the old earth / young earth discussion and have not weighed in on the science and very little on the theology. I think this is why you still feel unanswered.
My only point so far has been to define the playing field as I understand it. The text of Genesis 1 does not demand a young earth or an old earth view. It remains to be seen if any other texts do and what their interpretive issues might be. For the sake of simplicity, I am limiting the scope of what I’m discussing at this point to Genesis 1.
1) Genesis 1 tells us nothing about the literal span of time involved in Creation.
2) Many Christians interpret Genesis 1 to demand a young earth / 6 literal day interpretation.
3) You disagree with (2).
4) Your disagreement is with their interpretation not the text itself.
This leads me to what I think is a parenthetical idea very relevant to our present discussion. It is at this point that I am taking the role of a critic of Christianity from within Christianity, not that I’m criticizing Christianity as it ought to be and sometime is, but rather as it often is in actual expression. The history of the biblical inerrancy discussion is fascinating. I’m less familiar than I should be with all the details and the details I’m aware of would bog us down. To simply summarize, I believe this discussion is an outgrowth of the liberal/fundamentalist discussion from the nineteenth and early twentieth century. The error of liberal theology (and here I have admittedly shown my hand) sparked a reaction within non-liberal Christian academia and the pastorate. This reaction is called fundamentalism. It is my observation that a reaction to error often directly produces more error. Fundamentalism can be somewhat simply understood through the mantra (referring to scripture): God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
This approach to scripture and faith has had a few benefits but has been quite destructive overall. It is good in that it is true and right so far as it goes. It is naïve in that it leaves out a key part of the process. In actuality, a conservative, even a fundamentalist approach to scripture always actually includes this process: God said it. I interpret it. I believe it. That settles it. By folding “I interpret it” into “God said it” we equate our understanding with the voice and authority of God. Much harm has come from this. The real problem here is epistemological. It assumes a positivism that just isn’t real.
Though we can trace the modern expressions of this dilemma back to specific events in recent history, it is by no means a new dilemma. Those who provided the primary opposition to Jesus himself were, it seems, motivated by a similar fundamentalist agenda. Jesus heals on the Sabbath. God said you can’t do that. You have therefore violated God’s law. But God never said any such thing. More than that, they had assumed something fundamentally incorrect about the purpose of Sabbath and this wrong assumption couldn’t help but lead to error in interpretation and application. They assume that God made the man for the Sabbath when in fact the reverse is true. This doesn’t mean the Law was wrong. It simply meant they were interpreting it incorrectly both in general purpose and intent as well as in the particular meaning and application. Those trapped in this way of thinking will usually be deeply offended at an approach which takes the form “You have heard it said x, but I say to you y.” This because the “You have heard it said” bit has taken the form of creeds, catechisms, denominational doctrinal distinctives, and the like. Many who claim a commitment to the inerrancy of scripture are actually committed to these and scripture itself no longer has the authority to adjust them.
A man named Aquinas (a man much smarter than me) once wrote a book called Summa Theologica. He became, succeeding Augustine, the most influential theologian in the Catholic Church. This so much so that my non-catholic understanding of catholic orthodoxy is that “if Aquinas taught it then that’s what we believe.” But this does not represent a commitment to the authority of scripture. It simply evidences a commitment to Aquinas’ interpretation, an interpretation I’m convinced was right on many points and perhaps wrong on some others.
The genius of the Reformation (admitting some idiocy as well) was in the return to sola scriptura. Scripture, not Church teaching and tradition, is alone authoritative. The present difficulty is that we are now faced with a need for new reformation, for now Reformation Theology is, in many instances, authoritative in such a way that Scripture can no longer be used to adjust it. If Calvin said it (or Luther, or Wesley, or…) then I believe it. That settles it. We have made Calvin (or insert your theological guru here) god and his Institutes scripture.
In my opinion, the root of all this, even in me, is The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. For we are always looking to define the Knowledge of Good we can commit to and die for and looking for this from a book that was designed to offer something more. But that’s Genesis Chapter 2 and 3 and I won’t let you talk to me about that yet!
No comments:
Post a Comment