Many of the members are now are burnt out and have joined a post-modern emerging type group which is the reverse of all that went before. I got out at the shepherding stage but the pain and scares that it left are sometimes still evident.

Beware, many ‘prophets’ will arise in order to lead astray!

Many of the members are now are burnt out and have joined a post-modern emerging type group which is the reverse of all that went before. I got out at the shepherding stage but the pain and scares that it left are sometimes still evident.

Beware, many ‘prophets’ will arise in order to lead astray!

Many by now are burnt out and have now joined a post-modern emerging type group which is the reverse of all that went before. I got out at the shepherding stage but the pain and scares that it left are sometimes still evident.

Beware many prophets will arise in order to lead astray!

“Sorry, this is a weird conversation to hear. Like I am a fly at a synod meeting to decide who gets excommunicated again.”

That was hilarious =D.

But yes, I understand your point. I think a lot of the reason it seems so counterintuitive is because Christians (and philosophers) have such a radically different notion of “freedom” than our liberal democracy culture promotes. In which case, this all sounds very strange indeed. This is what Simon’s recent comment above was mentioning.

Short version:
In liberal democracy, we value “negative” freedom: freedom from external influence/pressure/coercion etc. In Christianity, and in philosophers stemming from Plato to Kant to others, freedom is articulated in a “positive” respect: freedom towards acting according to your true nature, some sort of telos of what it means to be human.

So for example, our culture would say that being “free” is “doing whatever I want,” or some such thing. But Plato, for example, proposes that humans are rational animals. Freedom, then, is acting according to reason, and not giving into the whims of “whatever I want” at any given moment. So they have very different results.

The discussion over “orthodoxy” and Tony’s comments above highlight this exactly. Jesus and Paul both take care to note the importance of proper “belief”, not just practice. Our Protestant churches are shaped more by liberal democracy and the free market economy than the New Testament. As such, we have psychotic hyper-independent “churches” running amok, without any accountability whatsoever.

So, the church is a radically counter-cultural social gathering. While our culture demands “freedom,” we promote becoming slaves of righteousness.

Yawn…Perhaps you should just tell me all about Jesus?

I would see Nicene Orthodoxy as the “minimum” “required” for recognition.

Required in order to do what?

I remember Jesus’ list of required being much smaller and not nearly as complicated.

Hierarchy !

Sorry, this is a weird conversation to hear. Like I am a fly at a synod meeting to decide who gets excommunicated again.

Seriously, I think your Jesus would have laughed.
Sorry, I know this is an in-house conversation, but hell, a speak from the fly now and again can be too bad.

I think an account that is thoroughly sensitive to the topic of this post (embodiment and therefore “tradition”), would lean toward a plurality of voices in such matters.

I’m absolutely there with you that the point isn’t total uniformity, as if such a thing were even possible let alone desirable. For the most part there shouldn’t be a “thought” police out there attempting to slash down all creative, innovative, and even revisionist theologies. I would see Nicene Orthodoxy as the “minimum” “required” for recognition.

But I would look at what is going on in the Anglican Communion right now. We have decided that what is or is not appropriate for “local” churches to practice is not something that a “local” (here thought of loosely as “Provinces”) church can decide on it’s own.

While this is initially thought of as a possibility for “oppression” I have rejected such a false mode of conversation. It is just as oppressive that there are hundreds of churches out there saying things about “our” God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in which I have absolutely no say. Indeed, because we are not connected by a hierarchy it is the epitome of totalization. They are free to determine on their own what is and is not appropriate to say. The “Free Church” in the “free market” economies of infinite denominational pluralization is the ultimate dictator.

The second question concerns how that adjudication, or intervention, by authorities is then carried out in practice, given of course that church authorities have historically acted oppressively, and have themselves, looking back now, been in error.

These are really tricky issues, I think, but they need to be thought through … and I totally agree that some kind of adjudication between interpretations is necessary, in some way, by someone. The idea that any interpretation is valid is what has given us the religious right and numerous other dodgy “Christian” phenomena which seem quite a long way, ideologically, from the (particularly social) thrust of the gospel. The alternative to adjudication is to jettison any interest in “orthodoxy” altogether, which I personally have no interest in doing (it seems absurd to me that people want to hold on to some concept of “Christian”, while jettisoning any concern for “orthodoxy”, why bother? Not to mention that there’s a huge, gaping aporia at the heart of that notion anyway…), but for which there remain well-reasoned arguments.

@Aaron, re. the irony thing… agreed, I noticed that myself. In fact, the whole thing was planned as an illustrative proof of the original post.

Ha! re: the Bishops. I would point out though, the exchange between Simon and Scott. Who will adjudicate competing interpretations? That is where “Church hierarchy” comes in, in my opinion. And it can just as well be a Presbytery or whatever, though I’m partial to a “catholic” ecclesiology.

Certainly in the day to day reading, reflecting and acting, we all “get along” with the interpretations that we feel are most appropriate. But it’s when whole parishes or wings of churches begin to seek approval for innovation (be it good or bad) that the “leadership” is responsible to provide direction faithful to the Word handed down and the Word received.

Here’s an interesting observation in the “Simon & Sabio” dialogue above (that sounds like a sitcom title, by the way): your conversation galvanizes exactly what Kerr was on about. Our own hermeneutic traditions govern our perception, and they are indeed incommensurable. That is pretty ironic, indeed! =)

Matt, I think Rorty would agree one-thousand-percent =). Rorty is, after all, simply articulating “hermeneutics for analytic philosophers” .

Scott, I agree that Grudem & Co. are well-intentioned. But you know what they say about good intentions… ;-D.

I’ve also been meditating recently on Jesus’s words on “faith of a child.” And ironically, essentially the big project of Continental philosophy is having to relearn all of the things that we take for granted — it’s almost like being a child again. Continental philosophy explores how in the imagination, a stick in the hand of a young boy can become a sword. What to us looks like a fork, to the Little Mermaid is a “dinglehopper.” So you are right that they are not only “not opposed,” but they may in fact be the same project. And I agree with you with reading the text with an open heart and mind, because essentially this is where the Holy Spirit illuminates the text. I should write an article on that — “Continental Philosophy as Childlike Faith” .

Simon, yes, analytic philosophy is still a foundationalist bastardization of proper philosophy. This is exactly what Rorty’s project was: trying to show analytic philosophers (of which he was one) that they are all wrong about epistemology as a foundationalist Cartesian project, and that instead we should appropriate a Wittgensteinian pragmatism (and in his later writings, even a Continental swing).

Sabio, you would be very sympathetic with philosophical pragmatism, although I should note that what Matt surely meant to say was that Brandom calls himself a “rationalist pragmatist,” rather than “realist.” Indeed, epistemic “realism” is exactly the problem here. Rorty is also an atheist, but he is very sensitive of the fact that his atheism is simply another faith, alongside Christianity. It’s just the story that he narrates his life against, but he is very consistent, to argue that Christians are just as legitimate in their belief as he — and indeed, we might be right ;-D.

You can beta-test any video I come up with ;-D. Simon and I are separated by a large ocean at the moment, so it makes collaboration harder.

Gee, I wish I could understand what you wrote. It looks packed with stuff I wish I understood. I have recently thought it might be helpful to try and categorize my philosophical stances. Epistemology seemed to be a good one to start with. But as I read the classic positions, one, I didn’t really get them, two, I wasn’t sure I fit into any of them. But mostly, I didn’t feel I really had an epistemological position in the normal sense and that was because my philosophy of mind did not allow for it.

Anyway, what you write about “Realist Pragmatism” — sounds like those guys may be my camp. So, for the philosophical unskilled would you recommend a reading or two to help clarify this form me. BTW, here is a link to another site where another Philosopher like you writes about a “Zen Epistemology” that I sympathize with too.

Hey, thanks if you have time.

PS– I was composing this reply to Matt before all these other great replies appeared. All you guys continue to broaden my perspective. Anyone else that can contribute to my curriculum, would be appreciated.

A list of the various epistemological stances would be nice — maybe Simon could partner up with Aaron in his YouTube project — that would be fantastic. Can I be a beta-tester screener?

I think this epistemology issue needs rounding out in the Atheist community, as you say. I just listened and commented today on one of my favorite Atheist sites (Luke’s Common Sense Atheism) where he posts the interesting You Tube videos of Theramin Trees.

You guys are often over my head — Simon’s last sentence, for instance — since I am academically naive, so I appreciate your patience.

OK, I am rambling. Love to hear from you boys.

I think there’s an argument in all this too for charging Grudem et al with an underlying gnosticism.

Funny Kerr quote, I just read something almost verbatim out of Merold Westphal actually! Good thoughts, I’ve been thinking about doing a blog series on the basics of hermeneutics lately as well.

I would assume that RC Sproul and the Thomistic apologists would all be epistemologically naive realists, as well.

Related to this, I’ve also been thinking about these themes with the New Atheists, especially the flock of followers, rather than the talking heads. These people are heavily invested in “objectivity” and the Enlightenment “prejudice against prejudice,” rather than realizing that it is inescapably human. I’m thinking about drafting a simple YouTube video to try and explain elementary hermeneutics and epistemology to these folks, since they are growing increasingly vocal. They claim to be the epitome of “reason” and “logic,” and yet they are still repeating the same problems from Descartes 400 years ago.

On the theme of tradition, there are some neat biblical commentaries that piggyback on such themes. I forget their proper name at the moment, but there is a series of commentaries that are strictly Patristic exegesis, and other volumes of specifically historical exegesis on various passages.

On a similar note, it’s funny to observe the die-hard Truly Reformed types in their hyper-protestantism and anti-Catholic-ness with regard to tradition. They are so anti-tradition with regard to anything prior to the Reformation, and yet if you look at the movement as it is now, they have their own “canonical saints” in the Puritans and their own authoritative texts, such as Calvin’s Institutes. These are great sources, but these folks have nigh-deified them to biblical status, much as they accuse the Catholics of for church tradition.

(B) Thoughts on various comments in the thread:

Adhunt, the authority of the bishop in things theological only works when you are yourself the bishop ;-D.

Sabio, I’ve missed you, I should start blogging again ;-D. You make a good observation with those that pit orthodoxy and praxis as opposed. However, drawing on Wittgenstein here, he emphasized that “meaning is use” — and perhaps I could paraphrase Wittgenstein a bit here to say that “orthodoxy is praxis,” or some such thing.

I’ve only read a couple comments so far, I’ll have to post more as soon as I can.

So I wonder what Rorty would say to Grudem and Carson, considering that his epistemological behaviorism submits to a limited rationality (to the extent that people won’t stop debating whether or not he’s a realist). What are your thoughts?

By the way, check out my new blog. Nothing much on it yet. It’s http://www.blogminsterabbey.blogspot.com

As one who thinks of these things from a pastoral-theologian perspective, I wonder how we get this balance of approaching the text faithfully (which includes realising our presuppositions) but also with that child-like (almost ‘foolish’) perspective. I don’t want to pit the 2 against one another, as they can be complimentary, going hand in hand. But there is a part of me that says not even I want to study the text to N.T. Wright’s level so I can more faithfully understand it in its historical context, but I want to approach it with child-like trust and simplicity, even if I’m not able to realise that Genesis 1-11 is myth or a real and actual historical accounting of the early days of humanity. Or even if I don’t realise the political perspective of first century Judaism. Sometimes the good balance between the two is difficult. I hope you understand a bit of my concern and question.

Cheers

Sabio, you have this habit of incessantly asking meta-questions as if people can just give you quick answers in the comment section of a blog post. I’m starting to doubt whether you actually are interested in the issues that are raised on blogs like this, given that you very frequently bring everything back to the same kind of issues i.e. “evidence” for or against God’s existence, actions or whatever. You are an atheist, we get it. You used to believe in God but have since discovered it is a load of guff. Fine. I appreciate that you tend to ask your questions with a good degree of respect, but they are the same questions all the time. And they are questions the “answers” to which you will never except because they don’t fit with your chosen worldview. “Dude, it comes down to being that simple”. We’re not talking here about bare facts, or some neutral “rational” discussion as some of your comments seem to imply. We’re talking here about two completely different ways of seeing the world, which are utterly irreconcilable because they’re embedded in infinitely complex structures of thought and being.

Here’s another well-known meta-question: “why is there something rather than nothing?” Any answer to this question is not objectively provable, it is beyond science, and it is far more important than science, ultimately, because if the *something* exists for a reason, that is surely the key to our existence. You and I answer this question differently, though neither of us would be as proud or pompous as to say we are completely certain about our answers and don’t have doubts and reservations. Indeed, neither of our answers to that question will be satisfactory to the other. I frankly find it absurd that you can look at the world, both its beauty and its ugliness, and say there is nothing but what we see, that there is nothing more than the material. You will find it absurd that I posit a divine creator with whom I believe men and women can have some kind of relationship. In either case, we would have to completely deconstruct and rebuild our respective worldviews in order to even make proper sense of the others arguments. As I was trying to say in the post, this is where are all, inherently and incessantly, subject to our own traditions and prejudice, even “rational, objective” atheists.

I can say you don’t really understand Christianity well enough to really know what you are rejecting. You can say I don’t understand science or psychology well enough to know how silly I am to believe my little ‘fiction’. I can say many high profile scientists and philosophers are orthodox Christians, and they know science better than you. You can say they’re as deluded as I am. I can say you lack imagination. You can say I lack sense. None of this gets us anywhere because we are talking past each other. And that’s not your or my fault, it is just the nature of things when you’re writing quick comments on a blog with someone with whom you fundamentally disagree on perhaps the most basic questions of life.

But please, and I don’t mean this harshly, can we stop with the polemical meta-questions as it is a waste of both of our time. I’m not asking you to justify what you believe, though I do have an interest in what you have to say. I am interested in learning from you, not challenging you to an intellectual dual, or convincing you that you’re wrong and I’m right. That doesn’t change the fact that I do disagree with you on the most basic of levels. Again, I’m not being obstructive or mean-spirited, I just think discussions such as these have very limited use, as we always seem to be coming back to these same kind of questions, we can never really be answered in the way you seem to want.

P.S. If you really are interested in the questions your asking, there are books on the subjects and have been for centuries. They would do more than I or anyone else can in the comment box of a blog post.

(2) ISRAEL

[This book summarize the Bible as a] 6 act play consisting of the following acts: Creation, Fall, God Chooses Israel, Coming of the King, Spreading the News (Church), The Return of the King.

Are you pointing me at this book for more of a reason than this? You do not find it odd that:
(a) Many countries see themselves as choosen specially by their god. You really think Israel got it right and all the other countries were delusional
(b) A God actually chooses one country, when he could incarnate in many simultaneous. Yeah, yeah, “Gods ways are a mystery.”, “Who are we to question God?”

So what is your evidence that the GOD of the universe chose on country in the Iron age to redeem all of humanity. Dude, it comes down to being that simple. All the “epistemology”, “ontology”, “hermeneutic” chatter and knots in the world make it no more “nuanced”.

(3) Lastly, I prefer not engage the Wheaton conversation, or the other elements because they are all red herrings. Let’s stick to the conversation at hand. [...] Such talk would amount to Red Herrings in logic (specifically, the Genetic Fallacy family).

This is the point, Sabio, whenever they are “brought out” it’s not possible to separate what is being brought out from the person who is bringing it out. No book in the Bible gives you, barely, a theology, so it is always a matter of interpretation. Yes, you can extract contradictory theologies from the Bible, but those are contradictory interpretations of some texts, it does not automatically imply the texts are themselves fundamentally contradictory. There is not enough formal theology in them for that to be the case. This only appears to be the case when working from an overly literal mindset, in my opinion. And that mindset, oddly, has seemed to afflict both conservative and liberal theologians equally (even though that distinction is now largely defunct) over the last few hundred years. In any case, I think narrative theology offers a better defence to those kinds of “the bible is self-contradictory” arguments than I can here. If you’re really interested THIS might be a good place to start.

Obviously the Wheaton comment irritated you, as you said you wanted leave it alone and then proceeded to mention it sarcastically throughout your comment. It wasn’t meant maliciously or in a patronising way. I’ve just noticed that a number of the discussions I’ve had with you are oddly similar to ones I’ve had with quite conservative Christians, and you come up with some of the same arguments they do. They tend to think that this “limited rationality” thing is a threat to “good, biblical Christian truth”. Paradoxically you seem to be making the same kind of argument here, suggesting that it undermines orthodox kinds of belief.

Great, so we don’t agree that the Bible is a mix of contradictory theologies. I am surprised. Many bright bible scholar (unbound by the fetters of Wheaton and who don’t read superficially and are not silly) disagree with you.

So, that is good, we understand our disagreements.

So, when you said,

There are ways of thinking and epistemologies and theologies which undergird those texts …, which perhaps need to brought out

That if those are “brought out”, they don’t ever contradict each other? That would be very surprising since humans wrote them — unless, you believe in some influence in their mind by a spirit [holy or otherwise]. In this post, did I list all the ways someone could hold such a inspired view? Did I miss your view?

Again, if you happen to look, let me apologize ahead of time for my Wheaton perspective, silly thinking, superficial readings and overall weirdness.

That was another weird comment. You seem to presume that for Christian thinking to be valuable it has to be a direct representation of whatever the biblical authors did. Quite often in your comments I get the impression that your view of the bible, or at least of how Christians view the bible, is still very much informed by your time at Wheaton. I would take a guess that the criticisms I level in the post may well apply to a lot of people at Wheaton, at least when you were there, if not as much now, though I can’t really say. Robert Webber would probably have been an exception to that general rule.

Do you think they share the same epistemlogy and philosophical bases even though they have different theologies?

Do you think those guys back then even considered these things?

Re. your second question, the answer is in the quote at the top. I wasn’t really critiquing Rollins in the post, I was critiquing a bunch of American Reformed guys who make the mistake Kerr describes in that first quote. In their work, these gentlemen tend to ignore philosophical questions completely, and instead go straight to the biblical text, presuming they can interpret it directly and systematise it somewhat exhaustively. But because they ignore philosophical questions, they’re thinking is in many ways a mere product of their philosophical presuppositions, which they’ve picked up unconsciously and uncritically (and of which they claim, at least implicitly, to be free), and which are very Cartesian. Rollins is, in my opinion, in a much better place than they are on this score. He has a PhD in philosophy! I just think ultimately with Rollins you end up with nothing – no story, no way of building deep community, no proper accounting of the world, suffering etc. etc.

By the way, I didn’t mean to shoo you away with my first comment. I like talking with you, and I appreciate you taking the time to read and write here. It’s just inevitable that stuff on this blog will be more accessible for people studying the same kind of areas as we are. But the comment sections are good for this other kind of dialogue.

Rollins shoots for praxy! Paul for orthodoxy and Jesus for praxy (if I must argue within the system).

Communities are more commonly defined by practice than by dogma, aren’t they. So if your object is community, then practice should be the aim.

If you practice is truth, then I can’t enter the dialogue because I don’t buy into the propositional truths though I can buy into the functional truths.

You guys could always make this post private for in-house echoing. But until then, here I am asking, “What did that mean?”

Hmmmmm, one question…. I know why epistemology is important for the social science and medicine, why do you think it is important for theology (and what elements do you feel are crucial, that Rollins is missing)?

Ooooops, that was two wasn’t it.
Remember, my questions may be odd simply because I am pretty ignorant of this stuff. But geez, isn’t it suppose to be stuff that can save humanity?

(I get the “inclination” and “time” thing — no need to respond)

I always find your comments funny (as in unusual, and I don’t mean that harshly, it’s just an observation). This post was written in about 45 minutes at 1am yesterday morning while I was reading. It’s not a post for “common folk”. Just some thoughts for discussion by people who are interested and reasonably familiar with the area. I think Tony’s short response suggests that for those who are familiar, the point of the post is clear. I am certainly not making any original points, or saying anything especially creative that hasn’t been said before.

You’re comment seems to ask for a whole new post, which I have neither the time nor inclination to write. Is there a more specific question you have that we could discuss? Just one will be fine

I was all excited and expected clarity at the end. But option 2 tells me nothing. Seems like as much “spiritual mush” as number 1 so far. What are the epistemological options that change theologians? What is your goal? What dangers do you see? Please write a post for us common folk. I have no clue what you are talking about.

This all seems so careful, so hidden, so polished.

I would also here posit the authority of the Bishop to shepherd in things theological, so that Tradition but also the “Overseer’s” play into faithful interpretation.

Historically I would have been hesitant about such a proposition—theologically. However, I think exegetically it does indeed reflect the text.

And interestingly, it reflects a similar reading of OT passages that forbid the practice of magic and witchcraft. As a child I was fascinated with magic, much akin to today’s children with Harry Potter et al. I was always taught that magic wasn’t real, and that the references in the Bible forbidding magic were saying “don’t do this, [because it's not real].” But as a child, I was always struck by the fact that it actually says “don’t do this,” but not necessarily “because it’s not real.”

Just a curious question that this first sentenced piqued: Would you be comfortable saying that perhaps parts of the Old Testament reflect a henotheistic worldview, rather than monotheistic? And perhaps over time developed into monotheistic?

I think many scholars believe such to be true. Doesn’t Vos pick this up in his Biblical Theology?

On that note, I agree, Aaron, that the study of the OT canon is fascinating. I find Walter Brueggemann’s take on things most compelling at the moment. He proposes the notion of ‘imaginative remembering’ to describe the long, complex and varied traditioning process that eventually resulted in the OT canon (this is partially distinct to the more rigid proposal of specific documents). He goes so far as to say that the way in which memory was passed down, always invested with the possibility of future re-imaginings, invited this continuing process even post canonization. Does this idea touch on what we are saying with regard to multiple readings of biblical narratives?

My own view with regard to the Pentateuch is that elements of it must originate from quite early times (certainly as early or earlier than David), but that much remembering and passing along together with later, significant exilic editing and theologising all played a vital part. You could say that the touch of a single human voice could taint the process. If you allow one (i.e. a Moses figure) why not add another few hundred over the span of several hundred years? Our faith must be in the Divine element of the canon rather than in the human person/s involved. I’ve read in various OT books that historically Moses’ connection with the Pentateuch has been, at least in large part, in the notion of authority rather than authorship in the modern sense of the idea.

Aaron, I’m quite comfortable with the idea of a henotheistic worldview present in some of the OT. I have no doubt that the Hebrew people’s understanding of their God developed over a great deal of time and there are a number of diverse qualities in the OT. Enn’s deals with this issue of theological diversity in the OT in his book…which I have picked up and have found very helpful.

Daniel wrote:
“…there are good grounds to view much of the prologue of Genesis (chapters 1-11) as an appropriation and radical reshaping of stories and traditions present in the broader cultural context.  “

Gordon Wenham uses this reading, which I am sympathetic with, exegetically—and explains some parallelisms we find with other ancient Near Eastern literature, such as the Enuma Elish. These are God’s authoritative and inspired “versions” of the ancient myths (and are indeed still myths in the literary sense, just rightly-ordered ones).

Scott wrote:
“But the scribes and priests probably felt it important to make the inspired text real hundreds of years later.”
Yeah, this is why the canon formation is so fascinating to study. And I think this also brings to light the importance of tradition alongside sola scripture—or indeed, contra to the “sola” part. It’s not scripture “alone,” but rather scripture in a governing and interpretive community of believers—community and tradition.

Simon wrote:
“How far can this reading sit alongside other narrative readings of those chapters? For instance, the one William Cavanaugh provides…as a social narrative of continual and deepening human division…”
I think for the biblical scholars, there is usually a “correct” interpretation, which is found in the exegesis. However, I think the theologians are more correct to emphasize multiple readings and perspectives that can be drawn from a text. And as you indicate at the end, to what degree does authorial intent matter? It’s slightly more complicated for the Bible, as Christians maintain that there is human authors and the Divine Author, so this also makes it have more wiggle room for multiple authorial intents, and therefore, multiple readings/meanings.

Daniel wrote:
“Peter Enn’s model of incarnational inspiration (the scripture is both fully divine and fully human) has proved very helpful to me.”
Daniel, have you picked up his book on it yet? Or just familiar with the thesis?

Daniel wrote:
“In the ancient world (and arguably still today), the credibility of a nation’s gods tended to depend largely on the prosperity and success of that nation.”
“I think without deeply appreciating the more human aspects of the OT canon, one does not really grapple with what is there.”

Just a curious question that this first sentenced piqued: Would you be comfortable saying that perhaps parts of the Old Testament reflect a henotheistic worldview, rather than monotheistic? And perhaps over time developed into monotheistic?

Great post and comments.

How far can this reading sit alongside other narrative readings of those chapters? For instance, the one William Cavanaugh provides in Theopolitical Imagination, where he presents Gen. 1-11 as a social narrative of continual and deepening human division from the Fall to Babel (from division between Adam and Eve [Adam blaming Eve for the fruit incident]; to division between man and woman generally with the curses; to them being kicked out of the garden; to Cain killing Abel, and then being sent into exile; to lots of people being killed at the flood cos of evil; and then to Babel…). Cavanaugh contrasts that narrative of division in Gen. 1-11, against the narrative of (essentially) the rest of the Bible, which describes of how, post-sin, God is attempting to redeem a people for himself, beginning with Abraham, through Israel, to the church, to the holy city in Revelation. Volf and several others have made similar points in this regard.

Now, that also is a very convincing narrative. Do you think it can sit side-by-side with the Babylonian one? Presumably it could in the sense that this understanding might have helped the Jewish people realise their importance as a set-apart people/community. But even if this narrative didn’t sit well with the one you’re proposing, how far can we say there are multiple layers of meaning in these kinds of passages? And how far does it matter whether or not these were intended by the authors or editors?

Thanks again.

Scott, I agree that the overarching story of the OT is so important to grasp. It is truly epic and beautiful in what it portrays. More recently I have been gripped by how stunningly human it is (an aspect that evangelical Christianity seems loathe to give much focus). Peter Enn’s model of incarnational inspiration (the scripture is both fully divine and fully human) has proved very helpful to me. I think without deeply appreciating the more human aspects of the OT canon, one does not really grapple with what is there. The traditioning and formation of the texts and canon is a key aspect of this humanness and looking at it is a big part of what has lead me to track with Brueggemann on the points I made above concerning exilic influences in the Torah.

As to the “difficult” issues you mentioned, I think each of these needs to be examined in its own right, but I must admit that I am not now eager to simply try to explain away some of the more troubling aspect of the OT. Perhaps there could be a future post in there somewhere (?). I do agree though that it is possible to get caught up on the more troubling (or complex) aspect of the OT and miss the bigger, deeper picture.

It is a redemptive drama, telling a story of a God moving history along to capture the hearts of people, even a hard-headed people. In his book, The Blue Parakeet, Scot McKnight challenges us to see the Bible (the whole Bible) first and foremost as story. Therefore, I turn to the Torah and see a beautiful story being told of the beginning of God’s intent for humanity, even after we seriously messed it up. For me, even without all the answers, I am drawn in to it.

Thanks again for sharing this article.

By the way, are you enjoying your time at Nottingham? That is one of my choices for a M.A.

Imagine, for example, a woman who seduces men and attempts to get them to break apart their families, expend all of their money, and eventually commit suicide. She’s very good at this, achieving a 90% suicide rate among 10 men that she seduces. Only one man resists the snares, and this particular man becomes a much better person for having gone through the trials.

This woman could defend herself by explaining, “The other 9 guys were spiritually diseased pieces of garbage, and I sent them to their judgment. The 10th guy was proven righteous only by my test, so he has me to thank for his just happiness.”

Of course, neither we nor God would accept such a defense. We would condemn the woman.

Therefore, I think this would be the essential algorithm for an “evil being”. To the best of your knowledge (and perfect knowledge is not necessary — only intent matters), do all within your power to trip up other actors and cause them to do whatever they know to be wrong.

Even if Bringsjord doesn’t make “pure” evil (and even if it’s not Augustinian), it’s still pretty twisted to “create” an “evil” “person.” But strangely, I do think it is actually worth doing, for the interesting research that could be done with it. But it’s still pretty sticky stuff!

The original Scientific American article references the virtual world “Second Life.” It’s an online community but you interact in a 3D world and create a complete avatar-character representative of you, etc. It certainly would be interesting to see what this A.I. would do in that environment .