 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Principle of complementarity and biblical interpre | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 5:22 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message
ghost-dog-girl
01/11/01 3:22 PM
Principle of complementarity and biblical interpretation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we're on the subject of paradigm-shifting principles, the principle of complementarity goes something like this: identical phenomena can sustain alternative theoretical explanations and theory-bound descriptions.
What are the implications of the principle of complementarity for biblical interpretation? Is the biblical portrait of God univocal? If not, what are the implications for biblical authority and missiology (proclamation)? If so, what are the implications for those who fail to realize the correct view, why do so many sincere seekers (presumably most) fail in spite of God's promise that those who seek him will find him, and how do these seekers know when they have grasped THE biblical view of God?
Some other thoughts: does the Bible have to agree with itself completely in order to be authoritative? Is it possible that our attempts to harmonize apparant discrepancies distort rather than clarify meaning? Is it possible that our attempts to identify the singular meaning (often under the rubric of "authorial intent") of a biblical text alienate those who have benefited from a different meaning or who do not have the technical expertise (i.e. knowledge of biblical languages, ANE and 1st century hellenistic culture, etc.) to arrive at the meaning? and limits the ministry of the Holy Spirit in our hearts and minds as we contemplate and meditate on the scriptures? and blinds us to the extent that we are limited in our capacity to access THE meaning of the text by our cultural/philosophical/theological presuppositions, not to mention our age, race, gender, economic status--in short, our finitude?
OK, that's enough for now. Anyone/everyone who feels so led is welcome to comment.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
01/13/01 6:02 PM
RE: Principle of complementarity and biblical interpretation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. And you assumed you weren't included with the egg heads?!! ha
not likely. I had to read it three times to grasp it. If I have.
I think if we seek we find because we find the spirit. Perhaps our skills at seeking vary but God is just. One of my sister's doesn't like to discuss philosophy or theology. She says she prefers a simple faith. I think God honors that.
I realize this little sentiment doesn't address the breadth of your
post. I'm not sure I could. Lots of good ideas.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/13/01 8:17 PM
RE: Principle of complementarity and biblical interpretation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear G-D-G,
Interesting. I guess that I was so caught up with "anthropomorphism" that I guess I didn't really notice some of the questions you posed in this thread. There's some meaty stuff in here! Pretty cool. Mind if I take a bite? (Admittedly, a BIG bite)
***************************
You said:
"While we're on the subject of paradigm-shifting principles, the principle of complementarity goes something like this: identical phenomena can sustain alternative theoretical explanations and theory-bound descriptions."
Mephi:
I'll take some of this from Alister E. McGrath's work, "Science & Religion" (pages 165-174), because he specifically deals with "complementarity" as it regards theology. Basically, its about holding two mutually exclusive theories that explain a complex phenomenon in a dynamic tension because the evidence of said phenomenon will allow nothing else to be done. As McGrath notes well, one of the primary uses of this "dialectical method" (Barth) can be seen in our christology about Jesus Christ, the God-Man. [As a personal note, check the Chalcedonian creed (a.d 451) about the person of Christ. This displays exactly what we are talking about] In my opinion, this would also hold very applicable to the divine sovereignty/human agency discussion.
**************************
You asked:
"What are the implications of the principle of complementarity for biblical interpretation?"
Mephi:
I would say a number of things...
1) We should expect some people to come down on different sides of the continuum of the concept in question. I will use the christological debates to exemplify my point. On the discussion of the natures of Christ, there were some people who came down on the side of Christ's deity to the exclusion of Christ's human nature. On the other hand, there were those who did just the opposite. It was decided that both Christ's full divinity AND humanity were necessary to do justice to the biblical evidence about Christ. Thus the two nigh-infathomable belief of Jesus being fully God and at the same time fully man developed. With respect to our discussion about the divine sovereignty/human agency thing, we should also expect the same type of trend. Some people favoring divine sovereignty to the extent of pancausality where human agency truly has no meaning, while others favor human agency to the extent that divine sovereignty is almost a byword that is nearly analogous to chance, pragmatically speaking. We should wisely be able to acknowledge the wealth of scripture for both positions and seek a way to hold these two very important things in dynamic tension.
2) Different circumstances are going to press people from one extreme to the other in a see-saw like fashion. If we will be honest, there are some times that knowing that Jesus is God himself in all his majesty gives us great comfort. There are other times when it's just good to know that God was actually one of us and knows exactly what we go through as human beings. (Heh. That Joan Osborne song rocked, didn't it? ) I believe its the same way for the DS/HA discussion. Sometimes people like the idea of knowing that everything's in God's hands and He has it all under control. Other times, people like the feeling that they are working WITH God in order to combat evil and the sense that their personal actions, no matter how small, actually make a difference to the world and to God himself. I personally witness this a lot in the lives of simple believers. It never amazes me how many thoroughly Arminian (darn near Pelagian) ministers will, with a straight face, get up before an audience and tell them "You may think that you came here just because you wanted to. But I'm here to tell you that you are here by divine appointment according to God's will!" Obviously they haven't really thought about the full implications of their statements.
3) Tolerance IS necessary, but care must be shown not to promote outright heresy. The bottom line is that there IS an orthodox view, I believe. I have a hard time dealing with this but I believe it's true. I believe that some heretics who had some jacked up view of the person of Christ will actually find themselves at the feet of the Master. (I most notably think about Nestorius) Why? Because though their theological perspectives were a bit off base, this was not generally to the extent of obvertly trying to promote idolatry about Christ. They just got off base. I believe that historically speaking a LOT of heretics actually had saving knowledge of Christ even though their beliefs were screwy. However, the Church was right to assert that a standard according to biblical necessity HAD to be asserted. I feel the same thing should apply here. Christian hyper-Calvinism that breaches the line of become a type of fatalism is to be rejected JUST as much as a (just being honest) an excessive openness view of God that does not fully encompass all the biblical data about God's sovereignty.
4) We must keep the main things the main things. I've said so much about this in the past, I don't even think I need to say anything about it here.
************************
You ask:
"Is the biblical portrait of God univocal?"
Mephi:
I believe so. Truth, by definition, is exclusive. Even with respect to complementarity, the dynamic tension that in which two mutual exclusive theories are held is said to be the "truth" outside of which is falsehood. (Notice how the Chalcedonian Creed about Christ does a better job of providing boundaries for recognizing heresy than it does to explain itself)
************************
"If not, what are the implications for biblical authority and missiology (proclamation)?"
Mephi:
Two words: Epistemological humility
*************************
"If so, what are the implications for those who fail to realize the correct view, why do so many sincere seekers (presumably most) fail in spite of God's promise that those who seek him will find him, and how do these seekers know when they have grasped THE biblical view of God?"
Mephi:
I think I'd partially explained this above in the first section. But let me hone in on something. Here's where the non-negotiables of the faith are indispensible. The non-negotiables should be based SOLIDLY on the biblical evidence primarily, as well as on church tradition, reason, and experience and filling out the primacy of Scripture (I hold to a modified version of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral) Bottom line: Christians have to be willing to accept the biblical evidence as our rule and guide for "knowing" God in whatever conception the evidence takes us! It appears to me that some are willing to subjegate the text to theological agendas and some are willing to subjegate the text to some type of moral dispositions. I believe that both methodologies are ultimatly faulty. [Note: I do realize that total objectivity is illusory. However, we can be firmly aware of our own inclinations and presuppositions in order to provide ourselves with more objectivity] Here, I would say, as Philip Yancey had in his latest work, Jesus is the key. But as we have seen historically (and possibly on this board), we have to be careful that we don't fall into the trap of creating a Jesus in our own images that suits our own moral sensibilities, letting the epistemologically honest historiographical and exegetical analysis predominate.
*************************
"Does the Bible have to agree with itself completely in order to be authoritative?"
Mephi:
This goes back, in a way, to the discussion on inspiration and revelation. In my view, the primary assumption of Scripture is that there is a divine unity within the separate pieces of literature that compose it. A unity of meaning and purpose. It is THIS assumption, indeed, that I think presses us toward using dynamic tension and complementarity in the first place.
*******************************
"Is it possible that our attempts to harmonize apparant discrepancies distort rather than clarify meaning?"
Mephi:
Only if we've forgotten the entire purpose of the Church's application of Scripture.
********************************
"Is it possible that our attempts to identify the singular meaning (often under the rubric of "authorial intent") of a biblical text alienate those who have benefited from a different meaning or who do not have the technical expertise (i.e. knowledge of biblical languages, AND [sic] and 1st century hellenistic culture, etc.) to arrive at the meaning? and limits the ministry of the Holy Spirit in our hearts and minds as we contemplate and meditate on the scriptures? and blinds us to the extent that we are limited in our capacity to access THE meaning of the text by our cultural/philosophical/theological presuppositions, not to mention our age, race, gender, economic status--in short, our finitude?"
Mephi:
I'm familiar with the Midrashic approach to Scripture where some people believe the Scriptures to be pregnant with meaning, even above and beyond the direct, more literal interpretation. I'm also familiar with the aspect of God "speaking a scripture to one's heart", where Scripture though possibly taken COMPLETELY out of context, can provide useful direction for a believer's life. I'm not saying that God cannot use such methods to lead and grow a believer's spiritual life. Indeed, I have personally experienced times like these myself. However, I have ALSO seen this type of methodology taken to absurd, nay blasphemous, levels where the Bible is approached atomistically like a book of incantations and private interpretation of Scripture consistently overides the broad themes of Scripture as recognized by the Church historically (In this portion, I've probably revealed a lot about myself, if the reader thinks about it. LOL) We should always be open to the work of the Spirit in our lives, and to keep ourselves spiritually receptive so that we may receive from God at any time through any means. However, the tether of our faith is uncontravertibly the Bible and its precepts are normative for our faith as Christians. Remember, Christianity came from the "People of the Book" (qua Q'uranic depiction) and their book is our book. Though our faith is in the man Jesus, HIS faith was based on the Scriptures, and he affirmed their invaluable worth to us as well. We should WITH TOLERATION and PATIENCE weigh all things by Scripture, while remaining epistemologically humble.
I also understand your concern about theologizing. Paul Tillich dealt with the fact that theology was an inextricably human enterprise. Proper hermeneutics, in my view, demands that one engage not only the authoritative biblical text and also the present culture to which the authoritative word is to be applied. G-D-G, since you are thinking about seminary. I would recommend two books to you. "Christ and Culture" by H. Richard Neibuhr and "Christianity in Culture: A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-Cultural Perspective" by Charles H. Kraft. (God has given me a heart and deep appreciation for missions)
Well, I hope that these answers have at least partially answered your questions. I'm sorry about the length, but....well, you know ME... LOLOL!
Yours in Christ,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/13/01 10:39 PM
Something Completely Unrelated!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Say, G-D-G,
Have you read the graphic novel "Sin City" by Frank Miller? If so, what did you think of it?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
01/13/01 10:46 PM
RE: Something Completely Unrelated!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, but I've read all his Batman stuff, some Daredevil stuff, and I'm a big fan of Electra Assassin.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Shine150
01/14/01 8:01 PM
RE: RE: Something Completely Unrelated!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just want to say thanks to Mephi and G-D-G for all your interesting questions and reflections on this thread. Meph, when you talk, i learn... even though i think you're way off on points. (see the anthropomorphic thread). but thanks.
related to this whole topic... seems there's two extremes to be avoided. One is refusing to accept any paradox. The other is wallowing in contradiciton. i is so nasty when people just hit the "got to accept mystery" button.
mephi, i like you're style.. but it seems to me you keep you're finger close to that button. i'm thinking mainly of your view on the freedom/predestination issue, so far as i can tell.
is this mystery or contradiction for you?
skater
shine150
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
01/20/01 1:48 PM
RE: RE: Principle of complementarity and biblical interpretation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Springs,
Your second paragraph in response to GDG is exactly right. It is so refreshing to see that some recognize the connection between the Spirit of God and our appropriation of God's Word in our lives. Your sister's sentiments are shared by many and are to a large degree justified. One thing that I would add is that while simple faith is laudable and even commanded by Jesus, we ar not thereby entitled to simple judgment. This is the problematic move that FAR too many evangelicals make. Though my saying this is aimed at evangelicalism generally, not you, Springs. You have been exemplary in your humility and encouragement of edifying discourse. Thanks for offering this "Spring"-board. Sorry, that was really lame.
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:52 AM (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 |
|
|