From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. Conservative
Date: 17 Aug 92 07:05:54 GMT

Michael Maas writes:

>Let's, just for the sake of argument, assume that the ontic quality of
>"gayness" is in fact largely biologically determined.  If Paul had known
>that fact, would he have had the same attitude toward "gayness" that he is
>claimed to exhibit?

Well, in light of OFM's plea to stay away from homosexuality as a topic, let
me suggest the substitution of alcoholism as a topic (not that I think that
the two are essentially similiar, but the moral status of the latter, being
more clear cut, will help to clarify matters).  Alcoholism, pretty clearly,
has physical and even genetic determinants.  This does not, ultimately,
affect its moral significance; the person with a tendency towards abuse is
obligated to do everything in his power to resist it.

And it is not at all clear to me that a more modern awareness of alcoholism
would significantly change Paul's message in this regard.  That's really the
central problem here for me: it is difficult to see exactly what the changes
would be, and therefore it is extremely easy to read into Paul the changes
we would prefer to see.

Your next example, in fact, brings this point home quite strongly:
>Indeed, do you understand the world the way your spouse does?  I would guess 
>not, and if that is the case for two individuals living together and sharing 
>a similar mythos how much more difficult it must be between two individuals as
>far apart as Paul and a 20th century Christian.

But-- of the differences between me and my wife, they are not all without
attached value judgements!  My wife is much better organized than I, while I
tolerate a level of chaos which is ultimately too disruptive.  Her criticism
of my lack of organization is not just a difference in perspective; it is a
criticism which has merit in its own right.

>Your suggestion that "...if they (the writings of both Paul and the
>gospels) have any value at all, must have some value as criticism of the
>20th century by the first..."  I personally have a difficult time with.  I
>can understand how they could be used in this way, but I cannot understand
>it without the 20th century influence of the individual who is using it.  In
>other words, the hermeneutic is unavoidably tainted by the hermeneut.

I don't deny this; my complaint is that, rather, it is made too much of.  To
take a totally secular example, let us take Euclid.  We all know that real
space is not Euclidean; but it is very easy to make too much of this.
Space, in the vicinity of earth, is so nearly Euclidean that it requires
considerable effort to see the deviation from the Euclidean norm;
furthermore, it is difficult to understand non-euclidean geometry without an
appreciation of the euclidean basis.

To take a more extreme example, consider the fate of relativity.  Its
influence has vastly exceeded its physical significance, on the most dubious
of grounds.

>I think it was Ricouer who intimated that in a very real sense the answer is
>determined by the question and that is ever more true when trying to use a
>text outside of its own milieu or in relation to another widely differing
>milieu.

I have more and more come to dispute the value of this observation.  It has
become an excuse for rewriting inconvenient questions which give rise to
inconvenient answers.  If asking the "right" question is important-- as it
is--  this observation has tended to become the justification for making the
desired answer to be the standard of "rightness".  In this wise, Paul's
inconvenient criticisms are deemed irrelevant, not on an objective basis,
but because they fly in the face of what is already held.  Hence, there
would seem to be no value to be found in Paul; we are already sufficient to
the task of our own judgement.


>>I don't think this approach is valid.  

>I'm not sure which approach you are talking about.

This dichotomous approach to the issue.

>However, the really important point here, is not the "either/or" stance but
>the question of the bible being an "objective" source of truth.  For, even
>if not stated explicity, which it usually is in any case, to assume that the
>bible is inerrant is to assume that is is objectively true.  Having read
>the bible, books about the bible and having lived in two widely different
>cultures, I cannot assent to that proposition.

Well, this brings us to the same issue we skirted above: intellectual
context.  To talk of the objective truth of the gospels, to take an example,
is to take a certain vacation from meaning.  The gospels are not just story
telling (or history, if you prefer); it would seem hardly necessary that the
parables of Jesus should refer to actual events.  But at the same time, they
ARE historical accounts, of a sort.

When you say that
>In order to do so, I would have to deny too much of who I am as a product
>of my experience.

... it seems rather obvious to read much of Paul as a direct criticism of
one's conclusions from one's experience.  Indeed, the Gospel as "Good News"
must tell us what we do not already know.  It is characteristic of God's
Word that we must be told of it.

>and in the third place there is not reading of the text without interpretation
>of the text.  The idea of a text somehow "standing by itself" is as I 
>indicated above patently impossible. 

Far too much is made of this, however.  I believe I have said elsewhere that
communication relies on commonality; it a certain sense, the text MUST stand
by itself, or be valueless.  It IS possible to misunderstand a text, and
therefore, the text has some objective existence, the interpreter
notwithstanding.

>>But one might assert that, while there are specific defects, in *essential*
>>matters the text is correct.  This is a much harder and more substantial
>>position which, at the same time, is connected more loosely to the word of
>>the text.

>I am not sure what you mean by "correct."  If however you mean "true" in the
>way RexLex does, I must humbly disagree.  If on the other hand you mean that
>the "text we have today" is substantially the same as "the text as originally
>written" that is a possibility that will be more or less true depending on
>the text under consideration.

I was deliberately vague at this point because this is plainly an object for
discussion and debate.  However, I will clarify it to the extent that
"correct" implies "what the text is trying to impart is actually true".

>>
>>Criticism of the text, however, is extremely problematic.  In its extreme
>>form, one finds a skepticism so unassailable that it essentially assumes
>>that what is being criticized is wrong.  More subtly, criticism assumes that
>>the critic is indeed in a position to judge; this assumption is, I feel,
>>untenable in the metaphysic of theology.

>Are you proposing that we not read the text critically?  Your initial 
>statement about extreme criticism is well taken, one must allow the text
>and those who wrote the text their say, and one must also take seriously
>their subjective experience of their world/mythos which is contained 
>therein.  However, one does not do so in an uncritical manner.  One must
>evaluate that text in view of their world.

What I'm saying is that this schema is itself suspect, and therefore demands
its own criticism.  It seems very easy from this sort of perspective to
simply ratify the moral view of your social circle and then criticize
scripture on the basis of that assumption.  Such an approach is obviously
defective, since it places the text in a completely subsidiary position
without any real justification.  One simply must take the possibility of
criticism *by* the text seriously in order to have criticism *of* the text
be taken seriously.  Otherwise, one's interaction with the text is entirely
hostile, and one simply colonizes it.

The extreme conservative view falls into the defect of confusing criticism
of theology with criticism of the text.  Attacks on inerrancy are not
necessarily attacks on scripture; but many kinds of criticism cannot fail to
be attacks upon the text.

>I could not disagree with you more about the tenablness (tenability?)of 
>judging.  Each time you read a text and assume that you have understood it 
>you have judged that, in some sense, your understanding is true.  Were we to 
>hold to your viewpoint, we would be incapable of the dialectic of conversation
>that allows us to understand one another.  What theologian have you read who 
>does not judge the text?

Ah, but the judgement here is not of the text, but of onesself!  You have
looked upon yourself, and not found yourself wanting.  Again, this is an
easy trap to fall into, and it is particularly in conflict with the schema
you espouse.  If interpretation is so important, then it is a fundamental
fact that perceived meaning of the text is fundamentally of the reader; and
therefore, criticism of the text is, most properly, criticism of the
reader's approach to the text.

>But, Charley, you miss the point, who I am is a constantly changing imperfect
>child of God, and God has revealed to me through the "text" of my lived life
>with God that that kind of naivete is not something God desires of me.  Why
>do you assume otherwise?

But that is not what scripture says; it says "Be perfect, as your father in
heaven is perfect." (Matt 5:48)  At the same time we are called to be "wise
as serpents".  I do not think that scripture calls anyone to be credulous.
But judgement, in this wise, requires careful consideration of one's self.
If one is to take this whole line of reasoning seriously, one's first
reaction ought to be to suspect that one's imperfection taints one's every
conclusion.

>>If we cannot understand the world as Paul did, we cannot understand what he
>>said; thus christianity becomes a dead 1st century sect rather than a lively
>>20th century religion.  Denial of empathy here is surely a denial of
>>criticism, for one cannot effectively criticize what is not understood.

>In all things moderation!  This is reduction ad absurdum in its worst sense.
>I intended the example to be radical to bring home the point that there is
>a vast difference between some of the underlying assumptions of reality that 
>make up the world of Paul and other 1st century writers and those of our own
>20th century world.  This is undeniable.

Well, I intend to deny it.  The evidence is highly limited as to these
differences in perception, and even more limited is the connection between
these differences and the differences between (say) Paul's writings and
those of a modern secular writer.  Furthermore, perhaps the central issue in
all of this is whether these differences should be respected.  The radical
fundamentalist viewpoint is that they should not at all be respected, that
in every respect Paul's position is to be preferred.  I think this is far
too strong and conceals a great of prejudice.  On the other hand, I think
the position of someone like John Spong who seems to be interested in Paul
only as a ratifier of his own views is equally wrong.  Paul's writings are
plainly written to be critical-- their form and content is rather like an
apostolic Ann Landers, after all-- and a reading which refuses to admit them
as criticism is off the mark.  The more subtle form of this is to explain
away the parts you don't like.  I'm not saying that criticism is ipso facto
wrong; I'm just saying that it is perilous in an obvious way.

>There are many things to which we are privy today, and to which Paul was
>not privy.  When he explains these things in the terms he does we must ask
>ourselves from whence comes the explanation.  In the case of gayness, it
>is pretty clear that the information came from his own understanding of this
>behavior as both unnatural and sinful.  This is not my understanding and I
>feel quite free to reject that of Paul.  

This is exactly the kind of argument I'm saying is bogus.  It is not good
enough to say that your understanding differs from Paul's, and prefer yours.
A disagreement with the Word of God, however flawed it may be, should give
you pause.  It should be a signal to you to reconsider and criticise your
own understanding.
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."