 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > subjectivity and faith, duty and christ | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 12:59 PM (GMT -6) |   | Page 2 >>
boydreamer101
05/04/01 12:04 AM
subjectivity and faith, duty and christ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, my name is Adam, I have Boyd for Theology here at Bethel College in St.Paul, what a great class I would highly recommend hearing him speak, compelling and uplifting. Despite some incredibly rude comments made by John Piper and Bruce Ware I think that he's gaining more and more respect as a significant theologian everyday. I truly hope to tell me children of my experience some day! Now that i'm done sucking up for a good grade...just kidding! My question is this, and i'm not too sure where this will go, but lets go ahead and see. Let me start with a quick couple of verses to set a tone of mutual respect and love for each other as brothers and sisters in christ, I want this tone to be set specifically so that we would all be branded with an attitude of christ while we pursue a good discussion! Alright...the first verse is Hebrew's 13:1,2. "Keep on Loving each other as brothers.(and sisters!) Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by doing so some people have entertained angels!" I would encourage us to remember that these discussions are not a ventilation system for emtional release, it's to further eachother and our naturally inquisitive hearts towards a better relationship with our lord! The second is Matthew 22:37 Jesus tells us: "Love the lord your god with all your heart and with all your soul and with all you mind." This verse (to me) seems to say that there are three parts to our essence that need to fully love the lord, and our mind is the subject involved here! It is our duty and the greatest commandment to love god with all of our mind, so lets let our discussion be an edification to the church and to our lord! Amen...! Ok so here's my question. It's both philosophical and theological. My question regards subjectivity and it's relationship to faith, as well as the difference between duty and our relationship with christ!
I would like to suggest something, and hopefully we can discuss this! My suggestion is this. Alot of christians seems to focus their evangelism on trying to show a person that christianity is objectively satisfying. This is, of course, in the face of science and many other objective sorts of studies that deem "objective" truth the only truth that is noble enough to be assented to.
It is my feeling that this is a misled approach to evangelism. My favorite philosopher is Kierkegaard, although I do not know him inside and out yet! Here is a bit on him relating to my feelings, it took me a while to write this, so I hope that you read this and take the time to make some comments and hopefully get some good discussion going!
He thought it was important to recognize that our most important choices relate to our individual existence and do not usually involve universal sorts of objective truth. For example if a man gets poisoned, he is not immediately interested in what sort of poison was used or who gave him the poison or why it was given to him, but rather he is immediately concerned with removing the pain by getting to a hospital! This is more existentially important to him. And, so we can begin to see how Kierkegaard believed why subjectivity is truth.
A common objection to this claim is that, if truth is subjective than does anything mean anything? I believe that Kierkegaard would answer by saying of course it matters what you believe but the only important truths, the ones that really matter in life are the truths that are true for you. This is evident in Christianity where it is not a question that can be related to academically or theoretically. In the words of philosopher Jostein Gaarder author of the book Sophie’s World , "An important question is, for example, whether or not Christianity is true....for a person who understands himself in life, it is a question of life and death. It is not something you discuss for discussion sake, it is to be approached with the greatest sincerity and passion."(Gaarder p.380). It is in a similar way that Kierkegaard explains why subjective truth is the only truth that matters. It is not theoretically interesting to a person who falls in the Florida everglades whether or not there are alligators, but rather what is important is that they get out of the water.
In this way Kierkegaard begins to distinguish between what truths are important and what are not, also relating to our choices. For example, it is important to distinguish between the philosophical question of God’s existence and the same question in relation to an individuals life. The latter leads into what Kierkegaard explains to be "faith."
A common objection at this point is that certain objective truths certainly cannot be denied. Kierkegaard would agree. However, he would say that most of these objective sorts of truths are not important to individual existence. For example, he would not deny that an objective sort of truth is that 4 + 4=8, but he would say that it should be noted that when we say our prayers or come to our death we do not typically think of or ponder over these sorts of truths. This is not to say that objective truths don’t exist, rather it is simply saying that it is seemingly obvious that more subjective or personal truths are regarded as the more important ones in life. Kierkegaard would say, "hey are you thinking about cause and effect when you so softly reminisce about your first kiss?" There is something involved in this subjectivity, that to Kierkegaard, is fathoms more important than objective truth, this is what he calls "faith."
In the movie "Contact" based on the best selling novel by Carl Sagan a scientist is arguing to a minister that there is no objectivity involved in Christianity and hence it cannot be assented to. The minister kindly responds to his scientist friend, "do you love your father?" She replies, "yes, of course." He replies by saying, "prove it!" This is the sort of anecdote that I believe Kierkegaard would have employed. How do you know that someone loves you? How do you know that you are forgiven? These are the most important sorts of questions that are brought up in our short existence. These things cannot be shown objectively. These truths can only be known on the basis of faith. This was particularly important to Kierkegaard in relation to the Christian faith. He wrote, "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must be constantly intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water, still preserving my faith." (Gaarder p.381). If Christianity were intended to appeal to our rationale then faith would not be involved. The question of life should not be "is Christianity true, but rather is it true for you, can it be true for you?" Evangelism might do better with the second question than the first, because a Christian would tend to believe that what we have faith in can be good and true for everyone, everywhere.
So it becomes clear that Kierkegaards philosophy was actually a system in opposition to the philosophical tradition and in particular to his contemporary Hegel’s historicism which seemingly categorized humans so much into their particular historical situation that they lost individual, existential importance and meaning.
Kierkegaard believed that the public was becoming disillusioned into this sort of thinking. Saying things like, "the individual in modern urban society has become ‘the public‘." (Gaarder p.382). This leads into how Kierkegaard explains the stages that a person typically goes through in their individual existence.
The stages are the aesthetic stage, the ethical stage and the religious stage. The term stage is used in the sense that a person could be at two of the lower stages at once or they could live at one stage their entire life. The aesthetic stage consists of people who live for the moment looking only for pleasure. Good is defined as whatever is beautiful, satisfying or pleasant. This person Kierkegaard believed is a slave to their desires and moods. This, however goes for Romanticism as well. Since typically there is nothing more to Romanticism (Kierkegaard believed) than sensory enjoyment. This sort of stage will most often lead to a feeling of dread. This, however can be very good. Because a feeling of hope will usually follow that can push a person to jump to a higher stage. To Kierkegaard the jump to a higher level is an either/or type of thing. You either do it or you don’t. It’s your existential choice. But this sense of hope, tends to put people into an existential position, which Kierkegaard saw as positive. The jump must come from within. The best you can do to change is to choose a different style of life. This leads into the next stage, which is the ethical stage. This stage is characterized by seriousness and consistency of moral choices as well as, often times, a feeling of duty. This choice to have an opinion about what is right and wrong is much more important than only being able to be involved in what is merely exciting, as the aesthete does. The last and most important jump is into the final stage of faith. This final jump is to move beyond pleasure or reason’s call to duty and into a faith filled approach to truth and existence. This is the jump that Kierkegaard calls, "The jump into the abyss of the seventy thousand fathoms." (Gaarder p381). This path according to Kierkegaard may be seen as a "terrible jump into the open arms of the living God," but as Christianity promises and Kierkegaard also points out, it is the only path to redemption.(Gaarder p384). This subjective truth, he believed, is the most relevant to everyone’s life. And, hence it can be seen why its reward is redemption!
There is perhaps one large criticism that may be mounted, this is that, Kierkegaards subjectivity seems to leave too much room for relativism. For example, how can he suggest that Christianity should be what we put our faith into, if the only truth is personal truth? There are several things that can be said in response. One is that everyday we operate from the assumption that most truth is personal and very relative. This is not to say that there is no truth, it is merely to say that if there is a correct "way" it can only be come to by faith and not by some sort of objective standard. This also explains why people have such differences in what they feel is "true" for them. This should not upset Christians or anyone else for that matter. Kierkegaard simply points out that it seems quite obvious that the truths that matter the most to people are the subjective ones and he goes on to suggest that perhaps the ultimate truth, or jump that might make the greatest amount of subjective, existential meaning in a persons life is the jump into the "abyss of faith." This faith, he suggests, will find the most meaning and ultimately eternal redemption in Christianity.
Isn’t it obvious that everyday we live our life most concerned with love, forgiveness, joy, redemption, and life’s experiences? It seems obvious that the majority of people do. This does not mean that objective practices of science or mathematics cannot offer meaning to our lives, it only explains why in most cases these are not the truths that concern us deeply in our most important existential experiences. Kierkegaard has offered us a system that acknowledges objective truth, but pushes us to pursue the sorts of truths that will enrich our daily, subjective lives. These subjective truths when accompanied by faith can offer us a life that is well worth living. It is a system that intellectually explains our need for faith. Lastly and most importantly to the world it evangelistically urges people to not only take a leap of faith, but to leap into a faith with a savior who offers ultimate redemption!
Greg boyd offers a similar view, in his book "Seeing Jesus" he seems to suggest that our faith is not a matter of a mere intellectual assent but rather it is the sort of thing that must be experienced concretely. My suggestion is that this is subjective and not objective. I don't see this taking anything away from the truth of our belief in christ and I would also suggest that this sort of approach in regard to evangelism (or in our daily lives!) will lead us into a deeply, subjectively satisfying relationship with a savior who wants to actualize everything subjective about our world so that our "faith is truly rewarded" I imagine the power in thinking that christ stands for us (from his sitting) when he see's that our complex intellect has led us to him in the most thoughtful, yet completely subjective fashion. Is this not the closest thing to philosophy or theology that we can do objectively?
BLAST ME PEOPLE, I WANT TO KNOW GOD MORE EY! peace-adam
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
05/05/01 1:43 PM
RE: subjectivity and faith, duty and christ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam-
I’m not too informed about SK. I’ve read a smattering of his Journals and a few other things. I wanted to like what I read. Does that make sense? But having zero background in philosophy, I struggled to understand SK. He’s not easy to read. I heard somebody say once that he was intentionally difficult so as to ward off those less than intent on learning the truth. So, I’m not sure how much I can challenge you.
Having said that, let me open wide my maw and insert my foot into it by trying to interact with you! I’m not sure how well any of this will fit together.
I too believe the most important truths are existential ones. But I believe there are objective truths that make the existential “moment” even possible. I’m uncomfortable saying truth is “what is true to me” if that can be understood (and it is) to mean “all truth is relative.” You touched on this, pointing out the SK admitted the existence of objective truth. He would have agreed, for instance, that 4+4=8. However, what about the objective truths which are not universally received like mathematics is? What about the truth of Christianity, for example?
I don’t pretend to think the truth of the gospel can be objectively proved beyond all doubt. SK is right. Where would the faith be? But, can faith be “reasonable”? Do we have to turn our brains off into order to believe? Can there be objective reasons for believing the gospel to be true? I’m just wondering how/where “faith” and “objectivity” intersect (if at all).
In evangelism, I’ve found that people want to have “good reasons” for believing in something. If all is subjective, what then do you actually SAY to people to urge upon them the necessity of and advantages in choosing to believe a) there is a personal, moral, God who b) acted decisively in Jesus to remedy humanity’s sinful condition (as the gospels portray), and c) how they choose to relate to Christ has eternal consequences? I don’t see that we can put off reasoned pro/con discussion, including objectivity, over the reasonableness of belief in God and redemption through Jesus just because these truths are subjective. Evangelism becomes little more than simply declaring “what” we believe, not “why” we believe it.
You write:
It is in a similar way that Kierkegaard explains why subjective truth is the only truth that matters. It is not theoretically interesting to a person who falls in the Florida everglades whether or not there are alligators, but rather what is important is that they get out of the water. In this way Kierkegaard begins to distinguish between what truths are important and what are not, also relating to our choices.
It may be true that when we fall into the Everglades the truth we are most concerned with existentially is how to get out, but it is also true that the reason WHY we feel this existential urgency is because we simultaneously embrace the very objective truth that alligators exist in the Everglades and their teeth are objectively sharp. So, if subjective truth matters, in this case at least it is only because there previously exist objective conditions that make it so. Am I too far off here?
You mentioned Boyd. If he argues the subjectivity of truth in class, he doesn’t appear to do so in his Letters, a great example of evangelism in action. His Dad was very interested in knowing whether or not Christianity was objectively true—everywhere, all the time, and for everybody, and Greg rightly so dealt with the observable, testable, reasonable evidence of the gospel.
Let me know how far wide of the mark I am and if I’m misunderstanding you.
Ciao,
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
05/05/01 3:01 PM
RE: subjectivity and faith, duty and christ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a student workng on a dissertation involving SK, I simply could not resist this one! I have been off the beat here for at least a month, not sure if I'm back now, but THIS is really worth talking about...
Dear boydreamer101,
First of all, thanks for your insightful presentation of some important themes in SK's authorship. I have several comments to make:
1. The strength of your presentation of SK to most evangelicals will be bolstered substantially if you lean more heavily on SK's Anti-Climacus (Sickness Unto Death and Practice in Christianity) psuedonym. Here SK is writing with the highest ideality regarding Christianity...what it means, in the strictest sense, to be a Christian. This is where he goes beyond the subjective-objective distinction (in one sense) by pointing out that Jesus Christ IS the ABSOLUTE. Now, we have here the problem of indirect communication to deal with, but let's set that aside for the moment.
2. It is true that SK is a hardnosed existentialist, but what do you make of his idea that the most objectively true thing in all of existence, is Jesus Christ and it is this Truth, Way and Life that we must encounter personally? Objective truth is not set aside or even down played, it is rather relocated in the subjective moment of contemporaneity each person WILL have with Christ. As SK so eloquently puts it, regarding the God-man, "you WILL have an opinion!" In short, here I am calling attention to the claim that the most objectively true, AND most existentially relevant feature of reality is the Subject (person) Jesus Christ. To the extent that Christ is hailed as the ABSOLUTE. We also have yet to deal with the Chalceonian paradox central to this claim, the "God-man", as SK has it.
3. Another challenge to the subjective-objective split in SK has to do with eternal relations between God and each individual person. The goal of the self (individual person) for SK is that we each individually have a honest, humble subjective relationship to God through Christ. As for the others, he says, "Woe to the one whom God relates to objectively!" for to be related to objectively (as an object, rather than as a subject) by God amounts to destruction of such a person or anything finite, that stands in resistance to God.
Hope this serves up some food for thought. Look forward to more dialogue...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
05/05/01 3:09 PM
RE: RE: subjectivity and faith, duty and christ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes!
You're here! Great to hear from you. I don't think there's a single post that's achieved what it could have since you took a break!
I like what you said about SK!
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
05/05/01 6:15 PM
RE: RE: RE: subjectivity and faith, duty and christ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom,
Thanks for the vote of confidence. Life has been very good, but very full. I'd be curious to here your feedback on my recent conversion!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
boydreamer101
05/05/01 6:17 PM
RE: subjectivity and faith, duty and christ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey! Thanks for the responses, they leave me with several questions. Why haven't I read more Kierkegaard??! ha. Two, why didn't I think of some of the objections that you raised they were great. Being a younger undergrad student I admit that your scholarship is above my head in some respects, but more than anything it encourages me to learn more, and your tones did much to teach me about loving discourse between bro's and sista's in christ. Its good to know that ya'll are out there, truly an inspiration. How can we be discouraged with good convo like this?! Ok on to your objections, I don't think that I really disagreed with much of what you had to say.
1. How do we discern what is objective and what is not in regard to theology? Can we?
2. If we cannot, doesn't this admission present a difficulty for the practice of evangelism? If different answers to different questions regarding objectivity are bringing people to christ, then is there a third factor? If so could this be our subjective persuasion? Or this plus something else? (or course the pull of christ and the holy spirit!)
3. I think SK is right about christ being the absolute, (i need to read more) but, how do you show that? Isn't the only way to experience this sort of truth by entering into a subjective realtionship? In this sense, then, it doesn't seem that trying to evangelize by convincing a person that evolution isn't real based on some objective evidence is just non-sense. How do we know anyway?
4. If there are objective grounds (the everglades example) then they may be helpful to christianity. I know that I will die...so on. But isn't any choice we make in life about this sort of thing, our faith or religion based upon these assumptions? If so then the admission that they exist, still doesn't change the fact that the only thing that matters is that we make a decision!
5. Sorry, what I meant about what boyd teaches is this. "Life is christ, nothing else matters!" And in "seeing jesus" he tells believers that our faith must be actualized by experiencing christ. This is not to suggest that objective truth doesn't matter, but rather to suggest that christ and a relationship with him...the transforming power is all that matters! Perhaps there is a hierarch of what matters? But if there is, is this too subjective?
6. I am really confused about this, what can we know objectively, what can we only know that "is true for us?" How do we incorporate this distinction into how we evangelize? I really could use your help. Earlier this year I broke my arm and paralyzed my hand for 6 months. In this time I thought about alot, I was very angry at god. I came to the conclusion that through this, the only thing that kept me up was just my personal relationship with christ! Help me out here....how do I evangelize to people, while knowing in my heart that most of the questions people have do not matter? I am young, and confused, could use some insight...so fire away!
In christ, my bro's and sista's! adam
ps-how bout them twins huh! my subjective suggestion is that mn is full of fair weather fans! hehe...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
mary33
05/05/01 6:55 PM
RE: subjectivity and faith, duty and christ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam - so good to read your stuff, thinkers are a great asset to the world. Subjective/objective reality in Christ - I agree they are interlinked. As a Christian with a background in psychology who also wonders about absolutes, I am reminded of the multiple layers of meaning I have experienced over the years of my walk with God. When young in the faith (literally and figuratively) the answers were simple, absolutes everywhere, miracles in every moment (though not the Catholic definition) and anybody who didn't have the sensibility to accept Jesus was either covered by Romans chapter one or going to hell. Thank God for CS Lewis and The Great Divorce so at least hell was easier to reconcile with the loving God I embraced.
Now, at an older age (not to be revealed) I have less absolutes and more faith. I wonder what SK would say... I am less concerned with saving people from hell or labeling them lost than I am with bringing them into a relationship with the source of all healing and wholeness. It's too comfortable to say the scriptures out of context to make us comfortable (the narrow gate etc.) with the fact that close to 70% of the world are religions other than Christianity. Can we be so objective as to say they are all going to hell?? Truly would like some thoughtful discussion. Love in Christ! Seeker
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
05/05/01 8:05 PM
Subjectivity, Evagileism, Sainthood, and Levinas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four preliminary points: First why is Adam named boydreamer? Perhaps you should check out my post on homosexuality. It’s ok bro, I’m with you whatever way you go.
Second; Congratulations!!! You are entertaining angels. How do I know this? Because I am an angle. I’m a virtual angel. I have no body—I live in the ‘puter. It’s my area, my territory so to speak. And boy do I have my work cut out for me. It took me a few days to get this post to you because I was busy battling the Prince of Internet Porn but Michael came and is fighting him for me right now. I have to hurry so that I can get back quickly because soon the Prince of Internet Poor-Theology will join us represented by the Edgren Fellowship Homepage and the Jack Van Impe Ministries web-sight.
Third, way to go. Suck up to Boyd all you can. He should suck up to me a little bit if he wants his power-point to stop acting up on him in class. Shish what an amateur. But seriously folks, we’re all Boyd groupies here. It’s just that the rest of us don’t get extra-credit for it because we pick cool names and remain semi-anonymous Adam.
Fourth, props to you Sir Adam, for using “Sophie’s World.” It’s one of my favorites. I downloaded an e-book version of it to my permanent memory.
Now on to the good stuff.
Relativism, all who have advanced at all in philosophy agree, is self-refuting. But dealing seriously with subjectivity IS NOT THE SAME AS RELATIVISM! So the question is ‘how do we deal with subjectivity seriously without falling into relativism?’ And this question has generated some of the most creative answers philospophy has to offer. SK is a good example. Some most certianly do fall into relativism. One of my favorite answers comes from a man named Emmanuel Levinas. He is a Jewish philosopher who’s faith influences a lot of his thought but it sounds remarkably Christian. That is to say 99.328497% can be authentically embraced by a Christian thinker. But more about him latter.
I would like to argue, like SK did, that those who seek to objectify Christianity end up destroying, not only their personhood, but also Christianity itself. What does this objective agenda seek? It seeks an adequate ground, an arch from which to stand on. So what is at the base of Christianity? Lets do an archeology of it shall we? God is Love. Could anything be more subjective than that? Christianity is grounded on a love relationship. This is intrinsically subjective—even for God. In order for objectivity to be found one must BE both sides of the relationship.
This is where Levinas comes in. For him truth has two faces. One face is the Platonic kind—a nostalgia—truth is something you already know but are not fully aware of. You must be reminded of it. The other face of truth is alien. It exists outside of the ego. One must have an encounter, be surprised by it. Truth, in this sense is complete new. Levinas deals with subjectivity by noticing how we as selves, try to appropriate new things so that they become familiar, no longer new, in a way a part of the self. So objectivity would only be possible by appropriating all of reality, something we cannot do? Why not? Because part of reality consists of others. The Other resists our attempts at appropriation. According to Levinas it is in the Other that we ‘come face-to-face’ with God. (The idea of the face is a very important idea for Levinas but I don’t have time for it in this post. Remember the whole battle of the Princes thing?).
So that brings us to the whole topic of evangelism. If I may bring in my own Christian perspective while still respecting the face of Levinas (something that is sometimes hard to do) I would say that the trick to evangelism and subjectivity is the formula of St. John the Baptist: “I must decrease, He must increase.” Remember one thing that is true about all relationships is that whoever loves less is in control of how intimate the relationship gets. If we let go, if we do not resist holiness, we shall become like Him. And when people me us they will be encountering Him. In SK’s terms all the fear and trembling, all the existential dread, all the knowledge that we will someday be judged by Love, will be subjectively experienced by the other. Is this not the effect that the Saints had on people? I had the privilege to one of Mother Teresa’s best friends the other week. She said that Mother was so holy it made you want to hold your breath. Someone said of Gandhi that he was so holy one did not want to even think impure thoughts in his presence. They inspired dread, they inspired holiness. I believe that the single most effective thing we can do to become better evangelists is to ‘work out our own salvation with fear and trembling,’ to strive in the pursuit of sanctification, the pursuit of holiness ourselves. For by doing so Christ Himself will be encountered more potently by all we meet. If you are interested in holiness you might want to check out Dr. Alexander’s class on the subject offered by your fine institution.
But this relationship thing is, as most relationship things are, a two way street. It is not just the other who meets God in us, but we who me Him in the Other. This was the foundation of Mother Teresa’s ministry. She believed that each person, weather dying of AIDS, or suffering from malnutrition, or the much more difficult malnutrition of the Spirit, or Affluenza, was indeed Christ Himself made present through a disguise of poverty. Check out Mt. 25 and the parable of the sheep and goats. Chris IS present to us in the least of these. And who are the least of these? According to Mother we in the First-World are poorer than anyone in the slums where she spent her life. In Levinas’s terms we meet God in the Other. This God brings with Him a command. He holds us in His gaze, a gaze that holds us from within, that brings the command ‘you must take me into account. You must not kill me, you must allow me my place under the sun.’ In the end we must confront this command because this Other resists our attempts at appropriating Him/Her.
Don’t let the objective man get you down.
Lovers and Levinas
—Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
TGB
05/06/01 12:50 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: subjectivity and faith, duty and christ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes-
Recent conversion? To what? Did I miss something?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
boydreamer101
05/06/01 4:40 AM
RE: subjectivity and faith, duty and christ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boy=my favorite part in life...i liked being young and I still feel young, i wish most days that i could be young again...
dreamer=what i like to do...i like to daydream about things..for example..being young again. I think that dreaming is important..far be it from an intellectual to dismiss this as novice and then dream at night? Yea...but anyway, your comments about me were kind of rude don't you think? First of all, my sexual identity is my own, and although I too disagree with a homosexual lifestyle it is my feeling that for all the talk you did about evangelism, had I been gay,subjectively or objectively you wouldn't have shown much in your assertion...which was good! Joking is in line, but lets watch it huh, you don't know me, and I don't know you...and you know what assuming does right? *** out of u and me? that's right....nuff said
The second thing I would like to say is this, about my name or my method or how I feel about greg boyd...I kind of felt a little attacked there on another one of your assumptions?! Maybe it is because it was slightly true, but maybe b/c it was far-fetched as well!
I really enjoy greg's class...thats easy, he's fun! I really don't know what a "groupie" is, maybe you could subjectively define it for me? Secondly, it was my intention that he, or anyone else in my class know who I am, i'm proud of who I am. And, so, my identity does not need to be hidden, as a matter of fact it holds me accountable so that I don't make rude comments about peoples screennames, or personality. I see that as a vent for aggression and I want nothing to do with it, to be frank. I don't recieve extra credit for this, as a matter of fact...writing on this discussion board is a class requirement and he needs to know who I am when i'm writing! I hope this clears up some of the confusion that seemed to fluster you so much. I will check out your posting on homosexuality, maybe something needs to be said that isn't being said?!
Onto our discussion...I agreed with what you had to say AMEN! Mother Theresa was great...wan't to read some more about her...i remember the day in class when she died! My ma's really into her stuff as well.
So your an angel?! ha..thats funny. I used that verse for my lacrosse team, to remind us that when we play, we are entertaining angels! Or could be, really humbling isn't it?!
In regard to theology, what can we know and what do we have to admit as subjective? I realize, and already hold to much of what you said, but practically how do we apply what you said? You see I don't really see how what you said can be anything more than just your subjective "opinion" on these matters, smattered with what you've read...my observation comes from the fact that b4 you went into your plan, you made some rude comments as well as some uncalled for assumptions...does this not push the sense of "subjectivity" even more? Not that what you said didn't have it's good points, but how do we really, truly know what to embrace as far as these things go. Mabye I just have to figure it out for myself?! If so, this would simply further my feelings about the almost entirely subjective nature of christianity...we are so diverse. Why would I submit to your ideas when they are coupled with sarcasm and haughtiness? It doesn't seem that it's subjectively done much?? I ask these questions in the utmost respect and perhaps it is my goal to show that while you said some insightful things, you didn't do much to clear up my confusion b/c of the comments...like i said b4..it just furthers my thought (which i'm wrestling with) that christianity is a subjective mess, that involves relativism...I don't want to think that you know...I have this awesome relationship with christ, but i just can't put a finger on "why" or "how" to share this with others, in regard to evangelism especially..involving method...with issues in the realms of subjective and objective questions regarding scripture, reason,tradition and experience.
To sum it up...i agreed with almost everything you said, but how could i be convinced that what you said wasn't just a bunch of "whats true for me" especially considering the fact that it was coupled with the exact opposite sort of attitude that you so brilliantly spoke about...it was truly wonderful.
My question again, how do we evangelize, and what is the distinction within evangelism between objectivism and subjectivism? Is there one?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
05/06/01 9:57 AM
SK and Evangelism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a question. First, let it be known that my knowledge of SK is quite meager, so I probably won't stand up to you fellows in this regard. I admit my place. I would just like to ask this question:
How would a Christian existentialist like SK evangelize? On what basis would he convince others of the importance or meaning of his faith?
I figure this question would be great for Modes, but anyone else can join in. I hope that you don't mind if I interact with this as an atheistic devil's advocate. Should be fun.
Blessings,
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
05/06/01 11:43 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: subjectivity and faith, duty and christ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See the Mephi wants a convert deal...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
05/06/01 1:17 PM
Multiple responses to various participants...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a sweeping attempt to respond to the many points of input so far…
Meph, the short answer is this:
The Lutheran strategy still holds for SK: First the bad news, then the Good News. SK stands firm on the conviction that one can only enter Christianity through the consciousness of sin. His book “The Sickness Unto Death” reveals the many ways that we suck (actually SK uses the term “despair” [despair=sin] and there are three basic forms of despair: #1 in despair OF oneself—meaning not reflective enough to realize that one is a self—not properly despair in the strictest sense, #2 in despair by not willing to be oneself, #3 in despair by willing to be oneself. The dude’s got the bases covered, everyone is in despair). Once we realize this, then the good news is that there is hope, and help. The Helper is the Help, in fact. The apologetic is one of inwardness. The first call is from the aesthetic to the ethical, and then from the ethical to the religious. I could go into more detail, but the long and short of it is, SK is quite an apologist actually! He is a psycho-apologist, one could say ;) meaning “psycho” with reference to “soul” of course!
Boydreamer101,
Thanks for the positive feedback, I will try to respond in kind (following your enumerated questions):
1. For SK the question is not so much what is objective or not, the essential distinction is found in this assertion: the task of the self is to relate absolutely to the Absolute and relatively to the relative. I am not saying that you are asking the wrong question but that this distinction can prove helpful as well. With regard to SK on objectivity and subjectivity, we must realize that the moment of contemporenaity is the ultimate either/or point of tension for the self. We encounter Christ and we will either have faith or be offended. The breakdown is something like this: the moment is an encounter between two subjects, the self (you) and Christ (the Absolute). In that sense, the encounter is subjective. But in an equally important sense, Christ is the most objectively true/real thing there is.
The heart of the problem will lead us to a discussion of indirect communication sooner or later. To treat Christ, as a--no THE--ultimate Subject as though he were merely an object (that is, to speak of objective knowledge of Christ), is to fail to see the importance SK places on contemporenaity with Christ and the level to which that encounter involves the person. Objectivity takes the conceited position of judgment over objects. It “doubts” and finds itself in the position of “having doubted”. SK would say that such a one is insufficiently involved, lacks rigor and seriousness, when it comes to matters of ultimate concern.
2. We do not bring people to Christ, rather we try to help eliminate misconceptions which prevent them from encountering Christ themselves. We can bring them into the place of tension, where there hearts will be revealed, either they will have faith or they will be offended. WE do not engage in subjective persuasion, they must encounter Christ, in a moment of contemporenaity, for themselves. We can bear witness, we can preach the Word, but we do not coerce Christ or the person. We only facilitate the encounter at some level.
3. SK’s stategy for showing that Christ is the Absolute is by making an advance on Socrates. This is carried out in the book, “Philosophical Fragments”. Here the assumption is that one recognizes the importance of ethics, and Socrates takes one step forward is asserting that the unexamined life is not worth living. This moves ethics from theory to practice. The problem is that Socrates fails to realize that even when we know the good, we do not do the good. So what is needed is a definition of sin that is superior to the Socratic definition of sin as “ignorance”. Even after we overcome ignorance, we still fail to do the good. Christ’s definition of sin is taken up as disobedience. Now we are on the track, since we have surpassed the description of the problem, we are warranted in surpassing the description of the solution…and so forth…
4. True enough. All things relative will remain so. This is why the turn to Christ is necessary.
5. Cleared up, and agreed.
6. To know something objectively is not to know it in the most real or most true way. That is the point. MEANING comes only through APPROPRIATION. Yes, it is necessary that something be objectively true, but it is not sufficient. Even the demons believe and shudder. Christ does not want admirers, he wants imitators/disciples.
Mary33,
I liked your bringing in the recognition of multiple layers of meaning. That SK has that in spades. There is a maturing of faith that happens when one moves from early ideality into engagement with the real world. The ideality is retained in many respects, but it causes one to suffer, precisely because the world does not share in such ideals. Your questions about hell and damnation are helpful and sound like they come from experience. On the issue of salvation generally, this sentence of SK encourages me:
“The simple soul who humbly acknowledges himself to be a sinner, himself personally (the single individual), has no need at all to learn about all the difficulties that come when one is neither simple nor humble.”
There are people who think that perhaps SK was a universalist based upon an offhanded statement (in his “Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments”) where he wonders if not all will eventually be saved. I have not looked into this question sufficiently to say much more than that however.
Dear Wislawa,
Good thoughts on the distinction between relativism and subjectivity. What do you make of the discussion about regarding “relating absolutely to the Absolute and relatively to the relative?” I agree that apologetics in its most common form is not helpful to the cause, in many cases. To defend by three reasons, why I love my wife, would only be to disparage my wife.
It sounds very much like Levinas read SK to me. Will you check his bibliographies for me and see if you can confirm this?
I really appreciated your calling attention to the fact that the one who loves less is controlling the relationship, in terms of its depth/intimacy.
As a liberationist, I would resist you moving too quickly into the assertion that we are “poorer” than the physically poor and oppressed of the world. While in one spiritualized sense, this is certainly true, but let us not forget God has always been a defender of the poor and oppressed in the most concrete sense and we must do the same if we are to be regarded as faithful. I am sure you know that, I just felt the need to call attention to it. The Gospel is for this life as much as for the next. If it is not good news to the actually poor and oppressed, then I question whether it is good news at all. All this to say that our relation to God is only half of the task, we also are to love one another. Sin is almost always first against another person rather than intentionally against God. (Though it is always also against God—“first” in the ultimate sense.) These last ramblings are mine, not SK’s.
Thanks for the great food for thought. I hope to hear more from you on Levinas.
To All:
I love this thread!! Hope to see this level of interaction continue!
Blessings,
MoT
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
boydreamer101
05/06/01 8:19 PM
RE: subjectivity and faith, duty and christ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mot-hey loved what you had to say, really got me thinking and isn't that the point! I hope everyone understood my last post in general as a response to wislawa or whatever his name is. This line is really great, have learned a ton. THe first thing i've learned is that there is a whole lot more to SK than I have begun to learn about...i'm so excited to dig in on him this summer after finals here! I feel like i have learned alot about evangelism regarding existential thought as well as the subj/obj distinction. here's a couple more questions that perhaps you could answer, perhaps you did and I just need clarity.
1. When we evangelize if we are removing misconceptions, what are these misconceptions? Can our ideas of misconceptions vary? If so, doesn't this push the relative nature of evangelism? I'm not trying to be obnoxious and repetative, but this is what i'm stuck on! You say we can bear witness and evangelize, but what do we do when everyone has an opinion on it that is different?!
2. His approach to the absolute..love it...good stuff in agreement!
3. What is a disciple? what is an imitator, ? How do the demons believe? I think i understand the difference. Is it similar to sk's distinction between the ethical life and the life of faith? I loved what he had to say there! An intellectual assention isn't enough sort of thing? I think my question is, ok, i agree, but what defines the right sort of relationship?
Around every question, every corner I see countless opinions, questions, disagreements, yet we all have this central relationship..is there something that is there that we are all agreeing on? I am utterly confused, and this is the sort of atmosphere where I feel safest to ask these questions, free from shame of my knowledge or lack of...
A request...please no more sarcasm or personal attacks, if there is a joke in order let it be known that it is a joke...clearly...Im a wee sensitive lad..hehe..and I don't find too much sarcasm or rude wit as having a place in our conversations...this is mainly in regard to Wislawa and my last post in reply....keep it clean right!
peace people....this post was for everyone even though it is a dialouge started by MOT and a couple others....everyone jump in...!
(perhaps im getting away from the original SK stuff, but this is what was behind much of what i was thinking, plus i like to take it as it comes! )
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
05/06/01 8:24 PM
RE: Multiple responses to various participants...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes—
As far as I can tell Levinas did not interact directly with SK in any of his works. But there is so much I haven’t read. Levinas published over 900 things in roughly 30 years. I have no idea how many of these are in translation so maybe somewhere he does pick SK up to prove a point or something. I think it is safe to say that Levinas was well acquainted with SK’s work, he was a heavyweight who dealt with heavyweights. But nowhere do I find him dealing directly with Christianity. If you are interested though you might want to check out Derrida’s read of SK in “The Gift of Death.” Derrida appropriates much of Levinas and it might be the closest thing we can get to a direct SK Levinas exchange.
As for poverty I think we can pretty much shake hands in agreement. I don’t think there is anyway we can excuse ourselves from taking care of the materially poor just because we happen to be poorer in true poverty yet rich materially. I spend quite a bit of time thinking on poverty, maybe I should start a post on it sometime. But here is my working definition for the time being. I believe that any definition of poverty comes from a persons world view. We in the West are materialists, even us Christians have difficulty shaking it, and we usually define poverty in terms of materials. People are poor if they don’t have a lot of stuff or if they don’t have a lot of money. People are really poor if it effects their material body, i.e. if they are starving or sick or dying. Yet I don’t think this definition is adequate. We have everything we could ever want materially and it doesn’t satisfy. This too I would suggest is a type of poverty. We can hardly hope to help others who are in poverty by bringing them to where we are because where we are doesn’t satisfy either. My working definition of poverty is based on Jn. 10:10. I believe that the discrepancy between the life we are currently living and the life God wills us to live is the degree to which we are poor. Mother Teresa said that it was easier to fight the kind of poverty she was dealing with than it was to fight the kind that the West has. I think she was right.
Green plastic trees and yellow easy-bake-ovens™
—Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Wislawa
05/06/01 9:03 PM
RE: RE: subjectivity and faith, duty and christ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BD101 writes in another post:
I am utterly confused, and this is the sort of atmosphere where I feel safest to ask these questions, free from shame of my knowledge or lack of...
A request...please no more sarcasm or personal attacks, if there is a joke in order let it be known that it is a joke...clearly...Im a wee sensitive lad..hehe..and I don't find too much sarcasm or rude wit as having a place in our conversations...this is mainly in regard to Wislawa and my last post in reply....keep it clean right!
Wislawa:
C.S. Lewis writes in “The Weight of Glory” that we must play and we must joke, but our merriment must be the kind that takes place between two people who have taken each other seriously at the outset. BD I would like to apologize to you. I don’t think my humor has been of this sort. I am sorry and ashamed. I want this to be the kind of place where people can be free from shame and I want you to know that I wasn’t intending to shame you in any way but since I did I’m sorry. You must be able to see, can’t you, how someone might misunderstand boydreamer to be someone who dreams about boys instead of someone who dreams about their childhood? Anyway I will try to flag all appropriate jokes and take into account that you’re a sensitive lad. Sensitivity is a good thing and I hate myself if I’ve aided in drumming it out of you. KEEP IT. DEFEND IT.
About my post on the women in ministry thread I was just trying to highlight the ridiculous nature of the issue. It has been my experience that dialogue on the issue attempts to dress the topic up. If we pause and reflect on what is really being said = that the difference between captivating God given leadership and poor (not to mention boring) leadership is a penis, one single Y chromosome, the self-evidence of this ludicrous idea shines through.
On to subjectivity:
Knowledge is an interesting area for philosophy but its importance as, SK points out, pales in comparison to other things in life. Subjectivity in theology shouldn’t bother us as much as it does because theology is about God and God is fundamentally relational. So I think we should deal with subjectivity in theology the same way we do in our relationships with others. It doesn’t bother us that much to think that you and I relate differently to our parents than we do to our friends or our siblings or our teachers. It’s only natural. Knowledge may be threatened but Truth is not the same as knowledge. Some things you just can’t understand until they hit you. I never understood pop songs until I feel in love, then they all made sense to me all of a sudden. Truth is the same way. We can’t understand this world, ourselves, or God, until we’ve fallen in love with him.
“And we are put on Earth this little space that we may learn to bear the beams of Love.” –William Blake.
(Flagging my opinion----- Evangelism has been distorted to some degree by the evangelical tradition. Evangelism is not about getting someone to believe the same thing that you do! Nor is it getting someone to give intellectual accent to a list of core ‘truths’ or values. Becoming a Christian is not a matter of thinking or feeling but of willing. Modes is right, there can be intellectual and emotional obstacles that stand in the way of bringing someone to that existential point of choice in the will. We need apologetics, we need SOME information evangelists. But in the end all they can do is set the stage and bring them to the point of will. ALL THAT MATTERS IN THIS LIFE IS WHAT WE HAVE DONE WITH THE LOVE THAT WE HAVE, AND HOW WE HAVE RECEIVED THE LOVE GIVEN BY GOD AND BY OTHERS. What I was trying to say in my earlier post was that by loving others we force their hand. Love brings with it a command. They must respond in their will to love. And this response makes all the difference in the world because it is a response to God Himself. What do you think? Where does knowledge come into the equation if at all?
With repentance and the existential dread awaiting your forgiveness
—Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
boydreamer101
05/06/01 9:18 PM
RE: subjectivity and faith, duty and christ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey,its totally cool! Thankyou for understanding my sensitivity..it has a history as most things do! Reworking some things for myself! Of course you have my forgiveness, I could have not been so rude myself i'm sure, you know i can get defensive! Anyway in the women in ministry, my mother was one of the ones who posted and I felt rather defensive b/c she is voicing her opinion as a woman who is about to enter the ministry...who'd know!
Anyway i'm heading to a late night worship service here, but i'll write more later...thanks for the post...love our conversation and i really am being taught by what you and others are saying..lets keep it up...did you read my last post? I hope that you will answer some of my questions, maybe you did...i have to read your last post more thourougly..! peace-adam
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
05/08/01 9:40 AM
Continued responses...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, a response which takes up several posts in dialogue:
To Boydreamer101:
Here are some more responses. I will leave your questions in place so you know what I am referring to:
BD1. When we evangelize if we are removing misconceptions, what are these misconceptions? Can our ideas of misconceptions vary? If so, doesn't this push the relative nature of evangelism?
R1a: We, as Christians, are witnesses to the God-man, Jesus Christ. This is not a “direct communication” because it involves a paradox. This paradox solicits a response on the part of the hearer, if they are sufficiently aware of the seriousness of the matter. Their hearts will be revealed in the process. Indirect communication requires a decision of the hearer, what will they make of this crazy idea? Will it offend them? Will they believe?
BD: I'm not trying to be obnoxious and repetitive, but this is what I’m stuck on! You say we can bear witness and evangelize, but what do we do when everyone has an opinion on it that is different?!
R1b: There are only two opinions which are ultimately possible. Offense at the God-man, or faith in the same. For this reason, we should not spend most of our time trying to prove this or that about but move as soon as possible to declaring and expressing the love we have for this one who has changed our lives! Our faith is its own witness, we then become participants in the indirect communication, will they be offended by our faith? Or will they “taste and see”? Again, the goal is to facilitate the moment of contemporaneity between the individual person and Christ.
BD2. His approach to the absolute..love it...good stuff in agreement!
R2: Agreed.
BD3. What is a disciple? what is an imitator, ?
R3a: Simply put-a lover. But not just a dreamer, a lover who is first captivated by the infinite compassion of such a one as Christ, and then maintains love for Christ as she engages the world around her. There she will surely meet suffering head on for the world does not welcome true compassion. It chooses Barabas rather than Jesus.
BD: How do the demons believe?
R3b: Intellectually. They have head knowledge of the truth, perhaps even admiring in some ways, but they are not lovers of Christ, nor followers.
BD: I think i understand the difference. Is it similar to sk's distinction between the ethical life and the life of faith? I loved what he had to say there!
R3c: Actually no, those are stages on the same path, where the distinction between intellectual belief and lived faith is the difference between Hegel and Socrates. Think Socrates.
BD: An intellectual assention isn't enough sort of thing?
R3d: Yes.
BD: I think my question is, ok, i agree, but what defines the right sort of relationship?
R3e: An excellent question. SK’s answer is clear and succinct:
“The formula that describes the state of the self when despair is completely rooted out is this: in relating itself to itself and in willing to be itself, the self rests transparently in the power that established it.” (The Sickness unto Death, pg. 14.)
Boydreamer101 continues:
Around every question, every corner I see countless opinions, questions, disagreements, yet we all have this central relationship..is there something that is there that we are all agreeing on? I am utterly confused, and this is the sort of atmosphere where I feel safest to ask these questions, free from shame of my knowledge or lack of...
Modes suggests:
That Christ is the Absolute and all else is relative seems the most I can with complete confidence offer.
To Wislawa From Modes:
On poverty and so forth, I still maintain that we must recognize that the Gospel is for life as much as for death. There are many who are not simply “poor” but are dying. If a person can do no more than attend to issues of survival, than bringing them to our level of “leisure” is certainly a salvation of sorts. Whether then they become Christians is another matter. Too often we imagine the poor to be basically like us but without all our stuff. This would be a fine way to be poor indeed! But more often, death is always at the back door, the children are dying of diseases, no one is educated, etc. in the end, no hope.
I am not impressed with a relativizing perspective on defining poverty. Spend some time with these people and you will see that there is an absolute sort of situation going on here. They will absolutely die if something is not done about it very soon. Usually, they simply die. It seems that your detachment from this issue is provided by the idealized understanding you have of “poor”. Something like the unfortunate translation of Matt. 5:3 As “blessed are the poor in spirit” rather than as Luke 6:20 has it, simply, “Blessed are you poor”. Among MANY other references, a particularly strong one against relativizing this issue is Matt. 26:34-36.
Wislawa writes:
On to subjectivity:
Knowledge is an interesting area for philosophy but its importance as, SK points out, pales in comparison to other things in life. Subjectivity in theology shouldn’t bother us as much as it does because theology is about God and God is fundamentally relational. So I think we should deal with subjectivity in theology the same way we do in our relationships with others. It doesn’t bother us that much to think that you and I relate differently to our parents than we do to our friends or our siblings or our teachers. It’s only natural. Knowledge may be threatened but Truth is not the same as knowledge. Some things you just can’t understand until they hit you. I never understood pop songs until I feel in love, then they all made sense to me all of a sudden. Truth is the same way. We can’t understand this world, ourselves, or God, until we’ve fallen in love with him.
Modes responds: Agreed. Nicely put.
Wislawa writes:
(Flagging my opinion----- Evangelism has been distorted to some degree by the evangelical tradition. Evangelism is not about getting someone to believe the same thing that you do! Nor is it getting someone to give intellectual accent to a list of core ‘truths’ or values. Becoming a Christian is not a matter of thinking or feeling but of willing. Modes is right, there can be intellectual and emotional obstacles that stand in the way of bringing someone to that existential point of choice in the will. We need apologetics, we need SOME information evangelists. But in the end all they can do is set the stage and bring them to the point of will. ALL THAT MATTERS IN THIS LIFE IS WHAT WE HAVE DONE WITH THE LOVE THAT WE HAVE, AND HOW WE HAVE RECEIVED THE LOVE GIVEN BY GOD AND BY OTHERS. What I was trying to say in my earlier post was that by loving others we force their hand. Love brings with it a command. They must respond in their will to love. And this response makes all the difference in the world because it is a response to God Himself. What do you think? Where does knowledge come into the equation if at all?
Modes responds (hoping he’s not out of line since he has not been addressed specifically here!):
This is well stated, but will sound overly “emotional” or “wishy-washy” to many rationistic (by default, often) evangelicals. While I would disagree with such a judgment, perhaps some of the reaction could be curved by language about the Absolute. We do still maintain that Jesus Christ is the Absolute and should baldly say so.
Grateful for the good interaction…let’s keep it up!
Modes
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
05/08/01 10:34 AM
Meph Needs Help Here...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting stuff...
I've been trying to do some reading on good ol SK and his ideas. Fitting it in where I can. But I have some issues. Hopefully, I'm not too off base here.
Modes says:
"There are only two opinions which are ultimately possible. Offense at the God-man, or faith in the same. For this reason, we should not spend most of our time trying to prove this or that about but move as soon as possible to declaring and expressing the love we have for this one who has changed our lives! Our faith is its own witness, we then become participants in the indirect communication, will they be offended by our faith? Or will they "taste and see"? Again, the goal is to facilitate the moment of contemporaneity between the individual person and Christ."
Meph:
Let this be said. From what I understand of SK, I believe that I agree with him considerably. This is why I feel that any type of evidentialism in apologetics is COMPLETELY inadequate on it's own. It can only help clear the intellectual debris to facilitate someone encountering the Risen Christ. My biggest problem is with the notion of "paradox". Let me explain. It's clear that we have to accept "absurd" paradoxes to open ourselves to the Risen Christ. SK seems to mention this a lot. However, it's NEVER truly clear when we employ the following terms:
1. Paradox
2. Complementarity
3. Contradiction
Paradox and Complimentarity are ESSENTIALLY the same things. Both occur when all evidences of a subject available lead to accepting currently understood MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE claims simply because the evidence will not allow you to do anything less. The thing that I notice is that before we can even get to the point of calling something a paradox or complimentarity, we first have to have some context of EVIDENCE. I don't see how the experience of the Risen Christ is without context. Luke Timothy Johnson, in his "Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospel" speaks well on this, I think. He remarks that any phenomenological experience of the Risen Christ without some type of context could be reinterpreted any type of way. Perhaps this is why one has to HEAR the Gospel in some form before they come to saving faith. Otherwise, some could just interpret their experience with the Absolute as just another spiritual experience or something. The "stumbling block" of the proclaimed Gospel provides the evidence necessary for people to accept or reject.
My basic claim is that, contra Modes' thought as I understand it, we DO have something to prove. We have to show WHY something should be accepted as "paradox" or "complimentarity" and NOT rank contradiction. We run into this problem continuously in the discussions that go on in theology. Which "paradoxes" will be accepted and which "contradictions" will be rejected. To me, it often ends up being a matter of moral or existential convenience. At any rate, in providing the CONTEXT for one's encounter with the Absolute that leads to acceptance or rejection, it appears to me that NECESSARILY have to deal with the sticky issue of evidences and rationality. We have to use rationality and evidences to give us the boundaries from whence we can even attempt to separate paradoxes from contradictions. We cannot rely on our lived witness of the Absolute alone, for then the subjectivity of our witness would be centered primarily on the existential encounter itself. This would make it possible for the encounter to be reinterpreted in numbers of ways. (Note: This is why I believe the ALL Christian religious experience and spirituality is necessarily COMMUNAL, and best expressed in the community of faith) There MUST be some boundaries in this regard.
Having said all this, I guess my question is HOW does SK distinguish between what must be considered "paradox" and what must be considered "contradiction". He talks about accepting the absurd, but it's OBVIOUS that he doesn't accept all absurdities. So, how does he make the distinction of which ones to accept and which ones to reject? Referring to Christ as the Absolute seems VERY subjective to me. Couldn't I just call my favorite Goddess, LaQuanita, the Absolute and go by the same premises? Or is THIS the risk that SK is talking about...that we could very well be WRONG in all of this? Help me out, y'all?
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
05/08/01 10:46 AM
RE: Meph Needs Help Here...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph, Practice in Christianity addresses the questions you raised, particularly SK’s discussion on indirect communication. The function of Christ (the God-man) as the sign of contradiction is to force a choice between faith and offence--admiration and doubt are not legitimate responses to the Absolute, if it really is the Absolute. And SK is also pretty explicit about the context of this choice—it is in contemporaneity with Christ in his abasement, not encounter with the Risen Christ. GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Go To Page 2 >>
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:49 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|