From: jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu (Joel Norris)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. Conservative
Date: 3 Sep 92 04:04:46 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

I've followed a bit of this Liberal/Conservative debate here, and I've
also been involved in the same myself other times. But only now am I
beginning to realize what some of the real issues are. I never was able
to understand how I could argue flawlessly against a liberal (you can
call me conservative) and still not convince him or her.

The problem is that liberals and conservatives look at things completely
differently. Since we don't start from a common place, we mostly talk
past one another. I'm trying to understand the liberal view of the
Bible, but it's terribly difficult. It's alien to the way my mind
naturally works.

Michael brought up some points that I think are central to the liberal 
way of thinking, and I'd like to take this opportunity to make some
comments and ask some questions. Any responses are welcome.

In article <Sep.1.03.42.19.1992.13602@athos.rutgers.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>
>This is obvious with some parts of the letter.  It is not appropriate,
>for example, to ask "what is the text trying to say to me" in
>reference to Romans 16:1.  ("I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a
>deacon of the church at Cenchreae.")  I don't see any deacons named
>Phoebe, so I can't obey.  But even if there were, this would be
>irrelevant, even if the woman in question were actualy from Cenchreae.
>The text is simply not talking to me, in the direct sense.  But then,
>1 Corinthians 5:11 ("But now I am writing to you not to associate with
>anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral
>or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber.  Do not
>even eat with such a one.") comes into similar doubt.  Paul is not, in
>fact, writing to me, he's writing to the church in Corinth in the
>first century AD.
>
Normally I would see the first passage as not applicable to me, but the
second as applicable to me. But it's true that the second was written
to the Corinthians and not to Joel. Before, I always regarded such
passages to be directly speaking to me, I suppose because that is the
way it's always been taught to me. But why do we (conservatives) believe
that? After all, about everything in the Bible is written to or involves
people other than ourselves. What makes the Bible applicable or
authoritative to modern society?

I don't really have an answer to this, except that sacred writings are
traditionally considered applicable and authoritative by three major
religions of the world. Besides, if we deny the applicability of the
Bible, we cease to be Christians and the Bible will be only another
history or historical book.

>In the normal sense of the words, then, Paul isn't trying to impart
>*anything* to me through those letters.  His intentions were limited
>to his context.  Just as I don't have in mind readers centuries from
>now reading this post and trying to figure out what I'm trying to
>impart to *them*, Paul didn't have *us* in mind, trying to figure out
>what he was trying to impart to *us*.  
>
This is probably the case, but doesn't the Bible say somewhere that
prophets knew they were writing for people who would come after them?
On the other hand, while Paul would not have had us in 1992 in mind
while writing his epistles, would he still have people *like* us in
mind, such that if he were alive today he would write the same things
to us?

>God, on the other hand, did have us in mind in the Scripture, but this
>is more subtle.  Unless one subscribes to a theory of verbal
>inspiration, which I do not, and I'm quite sure you don't either, then
>what God is trying to get across to us might be very different from
>the surface meaning of the text, and Paul's intentions in the text in
>question, the "what the text is trying to impart" that you allude to,
>might differ from God's intentions for the same text.
>
I have a problem with this statement, as it's not clear to me what God
would be trying to get across other than the obvious. What would God be
telling us in 1 Corinthians 5:11 if not the surface meaning? Besides, I
can't see how you could figure out subtle, underlying meanings of a text
in an objective and convincing way.

>--
>Michael I. Bushnell             |		Benedictus qui venit
>+1 617 625 4518 (H)            -+-                       in
>+1 617 253 8568 (W)             |                      Nomine
>mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu              |                      Domini

Joel

--
Joel Norris			"The fear of the LORD
				 is the beginning of knowledge."
jnorris@u.washington.edu	 -- Proverbs 1:7