Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

fyodor
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179

Posted 2/18/2003 10:58 AM (GMT -6)

Has anybody read this book by William C. Placher?

It's a historical approach, by someone who's not a historian, to tracing the path by which the "other-worldly" nature of God became commonplace starting in the 17th Century. Certainly doesn't support the open view, but I thought it was an excellent read.

†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard

Edited by - fyodor on 02/18/2003 3:59:21 PM

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 2/19/2003 4:57 AM (GMT -6)

I haven’t read this book, but I have heard both positive and negative reviews of it.

The pejorative use of domestication intrigues me. Jesus does not seem to be concerned about domesticating God in his parables—in which the kingdom of heaven is described as a woman kneading yeast into a lump of dough, and God’s joy over repentant sinners is compared to a shephard who leaves his flock behind to find a stray sheep, or a woman who sweeps the house looking for a lost coin, finally finds it, and calls her friends together for a party. If Jesus’ willingness to refer to God as his “daddy” isn’t a domestication of transcendence, then what is?

I think the doceticism of transcendence has historically been a greater issue than its domestication. God does not seem to be too threatened by domestication. E.g. Christ’s incarnation as a carpenter who got sawdust in his eyes and slivers under his fingers—for crying out loud, he was born in a stable, a paradigmatic symbol of domestication! In coming to serve rather than be served, Jesus showed the powerful dignity in bearing burdens, getting our hands dirty, and laboring for one another.

I wonder what concept of God compells some people to come to God’s assistance in this way? I’m sure they have good intentions, but so did Peter when he tried to keep Jesus from going to Jerusalem. Rather than seeing domestication as something disparaging and somehow threatening to transcendence, we should consider domestication something to strive for as we follow Christ’s example.

There is one conception of God that does not seem to be tolerated in the Bible: The use of the freedom Christ brings to further our own interests rather than to serve one another in love (this is the cheap grace Bonhoeffer criticized, in which sin is baptized rather than sinners). “Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow” (Gal. 6:7).

Well, that was quite a rant considering I haven’t even read the book! Imagine if I read past the title! My comments are probably irrelevant to Placher’s thesis, so these thoughts merely reveal my own prejudice evoked by his title.

Peace,
Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Edited by - Electra on 02/19/2003 09:59:52 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 2/20/2003 3:41 AM (GMT -6)

I have read Placher's book and interact with it a bit in Satan and the Problem of Evil. I don't see that he advances the discussion on Providence and Free Will at all. He takes sort of a post-liberal language-game analysis of the writings of classical theologians (Aquinas, Calvin) to argue that they were not so much trying to resolve metaphysical issues as they were advocating certain attitudes toward the transcendence of God. I think he is wrong historically. But, in any case, his whole case presupposes a certain metaphysical view of transcendence (e.g. that God can be all controlling and humans nevertheless free and morally responsible).

In the end, I would contend that we don't "domesticate" (in a pejorative sense -- thank you Electra) the transcendence of God by trying to speak meaningfully about it. And, for my part, I just don't see the meaning in confessing things like everything happens according to God's will and yet we are free and morally responsible.

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Edited by - GregBoyd on 02/20/2003 08:43:29 AM

fyodor
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179

Posted 2/20/2003 5:39 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
And, for my part, I just don't see the meaning in confessing things like everything happens according to God's will and yet we are free and morally responsible.

That's what I don't get either? I felt like Placher put a significant arguement together based on language not theology. Certainly language is transformative and changes over time. Which is why I felt like it was an excellent read. Placher historically traced(although self-admittedly is not a historian) the thought which provoked a change in the way we describe God. I don't know very much about church history in the 16 and 17th centuries, (even though I have a religion degree from a Lutheran school where they can't stop talking about that darned reformation), but it seemed fluid. Great book until the last three chapters when he made the transition from language to theology or better yet, how the change in language has changed theology. The same incomprehensible arguement appeared again. For some reason we shouldn't be able to talk about God because God somehow transcends our ability to communicate about God?

I agree with the notion that Reason is revealed in Revelation, but what good is the revelation without the means to share, know, and communicate it? The anthropomorhisms make the revelation understndable.

So, in response to Placher, I guess I'll ask you Greg since you've read it, isn't it more true that after the early church, we took the human out of Transcendance and are now, as Placher argued putting it back in since the 17th Century. I'd really appreciate some discussion on this if possible.

†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard

Edited by - fyodor on 02/20/2003 10:41:31 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 2/20/2003 1:55 PM (GMT -6)

Fyodor: isn't it more true that after the early church, we took the human out of Transcendance and are now, as Placher argued putting it back in since the 17th Century. I'd really appreciate some discussion on this if possible.

Doc: Can you flesh out what you when when you say "we took the human out of transcendance and are now...putting it back in..."

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

fyodor
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179

Posted 2/20/2003 6:03 PM (GMT -6)

Sorry, I don't even understand what I wrote....This is what I meant....

Transcendance is such that people have understood God to be more transcendant at times and rather immanent at other times. Starting in Genesis, we see a God who "walks in the garden." Thus, being close persomal, and intimate with the creation, the immanent nature. Then, for instance we find God talking to or speaking through single people like Moses, but not often to all people, a somewhat transcendant nature that God assumes, by not being personal even speaking through burning bushes rather than directly. Then we have Christ and once again we find God walking amongst humans in the most personal and direct way, immanent in most respects. It seems to me that the early church could have no other concept of God than one that is "domestic" or immanent.

At what point did the idea that God is transcendant and wholly other re-emerge after the early church?

Was it the onset of Docetism in the 3rd century that made the immanence of God come into question or had it already been an issue? It seemed like the instituion that was the church until the period of the 16th and 17th century was the force that held God to be transcendant. Holding services in Latin when very few spoke or understood it. When the Bible was never mass produced and if it were few were even literate to read it. How could God be anything other than transcendant and wholly other in this period after the early church until the 16th and 17th centtury?

Placher basically said that God is too complex, for us to talk about, and 17th century metaphysics attempted to deconstruct that complexity and make God simple, almost human. Isn't the reversion to a simpler, more interactive God actually a progression from the reversion that took place after the early church? We returned to the God who created in his image and communicates and responds to humans in ways that we can sometimes grasp. Whereas, Placher seems to assert that this understanding of God did not exist prior to the 17th century. I really like this book, because it has really challenged my thinking about my conception of God and how I define God...

Hope this helps you understand what I wanted to get at earlier???

†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard

Edited by - fyodor on 02/20/2003 11:28:34 PM

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:01 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual