From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. Conservative
Date: 4 Sep 92 06:53:01 GMT
Organization: FNAL

In article <Sep.3.04.26.09.1992.29391@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@cs.rutgers.edu
writes:
>This is addressed to Joel Norris, who was responding to a posting
>by Michael Bushnell.
>
I certainly agree with Mike's caution that the Bible is not a human
>being and thus doesn't have an intention, and that the original
>authors were addressing a different audience than us. 

Heb. 4:12 For the word of God is *living and active* and sharper than any
two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of
both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the
heart.
1 Pet. 1:23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but
imperishable, {that is,} through the *living and abiding* word of God.

You're all wrong when you overshaddow the true authorship of the Scriptures. 
It is of God who stands outside of time and who communicates to all peoples in
all ages.  Does everything written apply to everyone of every age.  No of
course not.  Lets not be foolish.  But the Word of God is alive.  It's ALIVE! 
That means it has as much implication and application to me today as it did to
Christ 2000 years ago.  As He said, He didn't come to contradict the Law (a
Jewish term) rather to fulfil it. 

>Paul's letters, which he uses as an example, are probably an extreme.
>After all, they were letters addressed to specific people or groups.
>Thus I think Paul had a more specific audience in mind than most of
>the other writers, and his work was more tuned to the specific needs
>of that audience.  This makes me tend to be more willing to make
>allowances for differences in situation with Paul's letters than with
>other parts of the Bible.

And yet it is my theory that the book of Romans is what Paul started out to
expound on Mars Hill but got interupted.  Romans it that logical treatise of
the 1) intelectual validity of the faith (1:16) and 2) the practical validity
of the faith (5:5).  THis is timeless and can not be relegated to the 1st
century.
>
>On the other hand, I think the intended audience of the Gospels
>includes us.  They seem to have a fairly clear intent of showing
>Jesus' life and teachings, so that the reader can believe in him.

Thank you.

>While the authors no doubt envisioned readers with a rather different
>cultural background than ours, still it seems to me that what we want
>to get out of the Gospels matches fairly well what they were thinking
>of.  We, like the audience they originally envisioned, are Christians
>who want to learn more about Jesus.  It's important to understand that
>there are 2000 or so years between us.  That's why we read books that
>teach us about the 1st Cent background, and read commentaries.  Yet I
>don't think I'd agree that the Gospels weren't addressed to us.

They weren't primarily.  But they do have secondary and tertiary application. 
The "Lords Prayer" for instance is not for the Church.  1) It had not yet been
revealed.  2) the Church has no claim to "Thy Kingdom come".  The Jews fully
understood, and the Messiahic Jews of today fully understand this to refer to
the kingdom promises in the OT covenants.  In Mt. 25 the signs of the end times
are not primarily to the Church. Signs never are primarily to the Church.  The
signs are for the Jews who, if you take the time to catalgue in the OT,always
asked for signs. The whole wilderness thing is about signs and yet what benefit
was it.  We are shown time and again that "experiences" aren't worth a hill of
beans.  THey had tremendous signs, yet they continued in unbelief.  
   To continue with this thread, however, we do have the sign of the Son of Man
being raise up on the cross.  THe OT Jew only have the foreshaddow of the
serpent on the brazen staff.
>
>Other books seem to fall somewhere between.  The prophets seem more
>specific than the historical and wisdom books.  Most of the prophets'
>messages are directed to very specific historical circumstances.  When
>the prophets say that Jerusalem is going to be destroyed, in some
>direct sense that message isn't directed to us.  Yet the ideals that
>show through in their judgements are central to the development of the
>faith of Israel, which underlies ours.  Other books, e.g.
>Eccelesiastes and Job, seem aimed more directly at me.

This is the fundamentalist view of literal interpretation of inerrant
Scripture!  Well put.
>
>It may be that there is some major chasm separating liberals and
>conservatives, and that Mike and I are both on the liberal side.  I
>certainly agree with him that we can't just take the Bible as being
>directly addressed to us.

Here's were we part company

>  There's an extra step we have to go through
>-- beyond simply understanding what the passage means in its original
>context -- where we ask what God would have us learn from a passage or
>book.  But I think in most cases some relevance is fairly easy to see.
>Good interpreters may of course be able to point out additional
>things.  

Wait a minute.  You seem to be saying two different things in as many
paragraphs.  The fundamentalistic, inerrant (FI) view is that though it had
primary application for those to who it was directly written, it still has a
very strong secondary application for us today.  As an example, Proverbs. 
These are truths that are as applicable to man today as 3000 yrs ago.  Books
like Daniel & Ezekiel wrote of historical happenings, but much of it has
primary application today in their prophecies. 


>My concern about his posting is that although in some sense I
>don't disagree with anything he says, somehow it managed to leave an
>impression of a larger separation from traditional hermeneutics than I
>feel applies to me.  For example, when I read Calvin's commentaries I
>feel that he really knows how to draw out contemporary meaning from
>the Biblical text.  Thus at least for me, I don't think there's
>anything particularly liberal about the process of seeing how the
>Bible addresses me.  To get the full meaning out of the Bible
>certainly involves some historical study, and some use of historical
>imagination.  But I think all parties to these discussions understand
>that. 

I hope you include FI's in there also.

> It may be that at times we have to reemphasize the fact that
>Paul was speaking in a context that's different than ours.  But I
>don't want people to think that by doing this I'm somehow
>understanding the Bible in a way that's radically different from the
>way others understand it.
>
>One of my major theses is that the kinds of methods that lead to
>"liberal" conclusions on moral issues are not peculiar to liberals.
>Everyone uses similar methods.  There's simply a disagreement in a
>couple of cases over which method applies.  Inerrancy itself is a
>major theoretical difference.  But I think it has much less of an
>effect on Biblical interpretation than most people imagine.

mmmmm, possibly.  But when we think of specific areas of Christian theistic
ethical implications, then I disagree.  It has a LARGE effect on Biblical
interpretation, both individually and collectively.  

Rex 

[I'm not sure exactly where the disagreements are here.  I'm tempted
to say that we are in violent agreement.  You seem to agree with some
statements and disagree with others, when the statements were intended
to say essentially the same thing.  I agree with your analysis that
the primary application was for those to whom it was directly written,
but that there are strong secondary applications to us.  I thought
that was what I was saying when I talked about a second step beyond
understanding what the passage meant in its initial context.  We need
to understand what readers Paul or one of the prophets had in mind in
order to understand why they said what they said.  But we shouldn't
stop there, or we have just an historical document.  We also need to
look at what God is saying to us through the passage.  Do we disagree
that there are in fact two separate steps?  One of the reasons I like
Calvin as an interpreter is that he stands out among others during his
time for his insistence that first we must use all the historical
knowledge we can get to see what the passage meant in its original
context.  Once we have done this, we are in a position to ask what is
being said to us.  If we don't keep these separate, then there's a
tendency to let 20th Cent. arguments and assumptions unduly influence
our understanding of what is being said.  On the other hand, there is
certainly a clear connection between the message in its original
context and the message to us.  Otherwise the Bible gets turned into a
sort of Rorshach ink blot.

I was not of course trying to do a detailed analysis of every book in
the Bible.  I agree that Romans is much less oriented to specific
problems of the recipients than, say, I or II Corinthians.

--clh]