tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post711677986022506623..comments2023-10-31T07:23:17.922-04:00Comments on The Theos Project: Biblical MetanarrativeJonathan Erdmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-74206527460261787082011-09-04T00:21:31.312-04:002011-09-04T00:21:31.312-04:00Guys and gals Ya'll are some high talking wind...Guys and gals Ya'll are some high talking windbags that don't know come here from sic em, and ya'll really need to stop smoking pot! Plus do not let the culture determine your views on the Bible but let the Bible determine your views on the culture. Remember Colossians 2:8 Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ.<br />2 Tim 3:16 is another good passage to look up.<br />Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.<br />Clinton StephensAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-70971368625241787152007-11-13T11:25:00.000-05:002007-11-13T11:25:00.000-05:00Bible NarrativeI heard the whistle of the damnatio...<B>Bible Narrative<BR/><BR/><I>I heard the whistle of the damnation train<BR/>Dat pulled out from the Garden of Eden loaded wid cargo goin to hell<BR/>Ran at break-neck speed all de way thru de law<BR/>All de way thru de prophetic age<BR/>All de way thru de reign of kings and judges<BR/>Plowed her way thru de Jordan<BR/>And on her way to Calvary when she blew for de switch<BR/>Jesus stood out on her track like a rough-backed mountain<BR/>And she threw her cow-catcher in<BR/>His side and His blood ditched the train.<BR/>He died for our sins.<BR/>Wounded in the house of his friends.</I></B><BR/><BR/>Sermon transcribed by Zora Neale Hurston in Florida in 1929. Quoted in Stanley Crouch 2006 <I>Considering Genius - Writings on Jazz</I> (p189)daniel hutchinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02874414229531959571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-31864753170085888122007-11-12T13:40:00.000-05:002007-11-12T13:40:00.000-05:00One doesn't need to be very vocal. Just a decent r...One doesn't need to be very vocal. Just a decent reading list should do the trick and if that doesn't generate discussion... or is honest discussion itself out of bounds - in an institution of learning???<BR/><BR/>Seminary bashing used to be the in thing 3 decades ago when I last had these discussions with friends. Fuller was already a 'gone case' (meaning sold out liberal) and Gordon Conwell was following it down the old slip slidey slope of European Liberalism-Existentialism. But even in those days I remember that seminarians generally had to struggle through with their required readings.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-65279122513024588402007-11-12T12:59:00.000-05:002007-11-12T12:59:00.000-05:00Sam, It's something that I have wondered about qui...Sam, <BR/><BR/>It's something that I have wondered about quite a bit: Are professors selling out their convictions? Is this "a level of intellectual dishonesty," as you suggest?<BR/><BR/>I don't know that I can say, and to some degree it would depend upon the person. I know some good Profs. who sign statements they don't really believe because the ends justify the means. They make an impact on students in smaller numbers: Don't disturb the institution too much in class, but impact a few more open-minded students on a personal level.<BR/><BR/>There is a balancing act of priorities that I can sympathize with. For me, personally, I couldn't cut it, and honestly in the back of my mind I classify the above Profs. as "sell outs" to a large degree. But that doesn't mean they aren't making a difference by battling the institution from within. They just have to hold their nose sometimes. The problem with this is that after a while you can get used to the smell, and it affects your sensibilities.Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-12901623783726547032007-11-12T07:41:00.000-05:002007-11-12T07:41:00.000-05:00Jon, I was just looking at what you said about the...Jon, I was just looking at what you said about the professors and it struck me that it's possible that students could go through a BD and perhaps not even realise that the state of the art in bibklical studies is something totally different from the metanarrative that they are blissfully allowed to keep believing. This is a level of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the Profs that makes signing a 'faith disclaimer' look inane.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-73036916192042749672007-11-11T21:34:00.000-05:002007-11-11T21:34:00.000-05:00One would have to be particularly insensitive and ...One would have to be particularly insensitive and selfunconscious, to convince oneself that in spite of it all one has retained one's faith <I>in the metanarrative</I>.<BR/><BR/> Certainly seminaries will successfully reinforce the candidate's faith in the institution and in the "mission" and these are then used as props to carry one through when the harsher realities of the truth dare to intrude. <BR/><BR/>Finally those with a better ability to do mental gymnastics and who have a less sharp conscience will find themselves sailing blissfully on to a career of keeping the sheep as sheep and the more the merrier.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-534910000661250352007-11-11T20:21:00.000-05:002007-11-11T20:21:00.000-05:00I agree that the metanarrative becomes a means to ...I agree that the metanarrative becomes a means to and end, but come on, Sam! The Seminaries are pumping out plenty of wide-eyed little preachers every spring who buy into it all.....when harsh reality sets in things might be different, though....<BR/><BR/>It is interesting, though, b/c there are many instances where faculty at conservative seminaries will sign on to doctrinal statements that include out-dated statements about inerrancy, inspiration, or other things that the profs. might not really agree with, but they end up signing on, anyway. Heck, its tough to find teaching jobs these days!<BR/><BR/>Gotta' love the institution!Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-55572454397549170032007-11-11T15:52:00.000-05:002007-11-11T15:52:00.000-05:00To be very cynical, the institution does not belie...To be very cynical, the institution does not believe the metanarrative but uses it to keep the followers in line. No one who has gone to seminary comes out really believing the metanarrative.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-8079273803300118612007-11-11T13:31:00.000-05:002007-11-11T13:31:00.000-05:00Ktismatics:I thought you were making a general cla...Ktismatics:<BR/><I>I thought you were making a general claim that metanarrative always serves institution. In that case, the Biblical narrative would have been serving the Church as a universal corporate entity holding the keys to the Kingdom and to the treasury at the same time.</I><BR/><BR/>I do think that the biblical narrative has - in most cases - served the the corporate church institution, as you suggest.<BR/><BR/>Which comes first? The institution or the metanarrative? In Modernity the two just seem to be joined at the hip in many (though not all) cases. At least, as far as I can see it.<BR/><BR/>Let me just throw out my speculations here in regards to the questions you raise:<BR/><BR/><I>So I'm wondering: if metanarrative serves institution, does the scientific metanarrative serve global Western capitalism? I.e., which is the master and which the servant in this relationship: knowledge or money?</I><BR/><BR/>What do you mean by "scientific metanarrative"? Is there one scientific metanarrative, if so which one is it? Marxism or Capitalism, etc.?<BR/><BR/><I>Or are they both subsumed under power? Money certainly wields power. Foucault shows how they hang together through history and in the contemporary scene.</I><BR/><BR/>Tentatively, I think I would tend to say that they hang together.<BR/><BR/><I>And similarly, does the church's alternative form of knowledge support the Western capitalistic metanarrative of money and power? Are church and science alternative knowledge purveyors, both subject to capital?</I><BR/><BR/>At this point I would say "yes." I think this is particularly true as the Institutions expand and grow in power. Money and knowledge are inseparable from the objectives of the Institutions, which is to support the metanarrative. But what typically seems to happen is that, ironically, the metanarrative itself gets lost in the pursuit of capital. At least, that's my observations from my perspectives. The Christian Institutions in the U.S. are impotent and unable to respond to the shifting culture, at least not until the urgency and need to change has passed.Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-55048566710566801222007-11-11T13:18:00.000-05:002007-11-11T13:18:00.000-05:00Sam:i think this is very true, only somehow, the C...Sam:<BR/><I>i think this is very true, only somehow, the Church never seemed to realise it. I'm a great admirer of Schaeffer but even Schaeffer didn't really seem to get at this. He saw that the Enlightenment was a secular rebellion against Christianity but he located the problem really in Kant.<BR/><BR/>How the Church was able to embrace modernity, while schizophrenically ignoring where modernity leads, really is a mystery.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree 100%, and I am as confused as you are. It makes for a fascinating study. Much of Modern Christian philosophical thought, as I see it, seems to be a god-of-the-gaps thing. They criticize the Modern tendency to eliminate God from philosophical thought by suggesting that all non-god systems are somehow rationally inferior. Yet Modern Christian thought still uses the same general framework and demonstrates the superiority of Christian thought when you plug God (and possibly biblical revelation) into the equation.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Kant, I have my doubts as to whether he was as much a villain as some Christians make him out to be. I haven't read Schaeffer on this issue, but I have read his Professor and fellow presuppositionalist, C. Van Til. Van Til even went so far as to develop a Kantian-like Transcendental Argument for the existence of God, all the while claiming that Kant had gotten things horribly wrong because he tried to philosophize as an "autonomous" subject without reference to God as the Ultimate Presupposition.Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-48957113889711747962007-11-11T08:26:00.000-05:002007-11-11T08:26:00.000-05:00I was referring to your prior observation about Ch...I was referring to your prior observation about Christianity: "here is what seems to be the constant: Metanarrative used as a tool to preserve the Institution." I thought you were making a general claim that metanarrative always serves institution. In that case, the Biblical narrative would have been serving the Church as a universal corporate entity holding the keys to the Kingdom and to the treasury at the same time.<BR/><BR/>So I'm wondering: if metanarrative serves institution, does the scientific metanarrative serve global Western capitalism? I.e., which is the master and which the servant in this relationship: knowledge or money? Or are they both subsumed under power? Money certainly wields power. Foucault shows how they hang together through history and in the contemporary scene. And similarly, does the church's alternative form of knowledge support the Western capitalistic metanarrative of money and power? Are church and science alternative knowledge purveyors, both subject to capital?john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-55097431289157426042007-11-11T00:24:00.000-05:002007-11-11T00:24:00.000-05:00Ktismatics: "Modernity almost can be defined as th...Ktismatics: <I>"Modernity almost can be defined as the attempt to find an alternative to Christianity"</I>. i think this is very true, only somehow, the Church never seemed to realise it. I'm a great admirer of Schaeffer but even Schaeffer didn't really seem to get at this. He saw that the Enlightenment was a secular rebellion against Christianity but he located the problem really in Kant.<BR/><BR/>How the Church was able to embrace modernity, while schizophrenically ignoring where modernity leads, really is a mystery.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-73793087768035446432007-11-10T19:07:00.000-05:002007-11-10T19:07:00.000-05:00K: What institution is science trying to prop up? ...K: <I>What institution is science trying to prop up? Is it capitalism, with science's instrumental rationality keeping the engines of production running smoothly? If so, then surely Christianity has also served this institution too; e.g., Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.</I><BR/><BR/>For me, it is not that "science" is propping up the institution, but that the various metanarratives of Modernity each had to take account of science and in doing so they established institutions. The establishment of an institution in order to perserve a particular metanarrative is primarily a religious inclination, at least, as far as I can see. The exception would be if a secular institution in Modernity establishes itself to preserve and fearlessly pursue "science," but they also simultaneously perceive science to be at odds with religion, and so by default religion would be eliminated or marginalized. In postmodernity, of course, these lines are not so sharply drawn: So Christians are pursuing secular thought for its own sake, not just to defeat it. Also, secular thinkers are exploring religious ideals for their own sake.<BR/><BR/>For Lyotard the various "sciences" seek to "legitimate" themselves by making reference to the metanarrative. The metanarrative seems to be the legitimizer. But maybe L is using the word "science" slightly different from myself.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure, though, if I am getting at your question.Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-73298216420470539642007-11-10T18:02:00.000-05:002007-11-10T18:02:00.000-05:00What institution is science trying to prop up? Is ...What institution is science trying to prop up? Is it capitalism, with science's instrumental rationality keeping the engines of production running smoothly? If so, then surely Christianity has also served this institution too; e.g., Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-54689551431464662002007-11-10T11:20:00.000-05:002007-11-10T11:20:00.000-05:00Yes, I thought it might tie in with your "biblical...Yes, I thought it might tie in with your "biblical" metanarrative thought: <I>What do you think? Is it a fair move to separate "Christian" metanarrative from "biblical" metanarrative?</I>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-61433600067527191302007-11-10T10:07:00.000-05:002007-11-10T10:07:00.000-05:00I've always been sympathetic to Childs' approach, ...I've always been sympathetic to Childs' approach, though I have never studied it extensively. He has a wider criticism that I can appreciate: the origins of a text should not be privileged as the primary area of study/criticism, but also the process of canonization and how a work might fit within the wider canon.<BR/><BR/>How might this relate to the discussion of metanarrative? That many "little narratives" i.e. books of the Bible might fit within a metanarrative of Scripture as a whole?Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-63489640709664268112007-11-10T09:16:00.000-05:002007-11-10T09:16:00.000-05:00Jon, Brevard Childs tried to do something a little...Jon, Brevard Childs tried to do something a little different with his canonical approach. He was basically a higher critic but thought that the conclusions for what a text from within the canon means is finally modulated by its presence within the canon or something like that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-54016945865586598652007-11-10T08:45:00.000-05:002007-11-10T08:45:00.000-05:00Don't toze me bro!Don't toze me bro!john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-32107498542142245152007-11-10T05:43:00.000-05:002007-11-10T05:43:00.000-05:00Sorry for incorrectly spelling Tozer's name! Embar...Sorry for incorrectly spelling Tozer's name! Embarrasment!<BR/><BR/>Yeah, he is a true prophet of the age.<BR/><BR/>This is another great thread Jon, and the links were great to. Much food for thought. Hope you and Ktismatics keep it up, I'll keep reading and if anything good comes to mind I'll throw it into the mix. Started to get the drift of your tag "play what isn't there"... very clever.<BR/><BR/>I've also been reading on your blog Kt, excellent writing there thats for sure. Enjoyed an old post about narcissism and education - very topical.daniel hutchinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02874414229531959571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-69093608399981845502007-11-09T20:59:00.000-05:002007-11-09T20:59:00.000-05:00Daniel,Thanks for posting those excellent comments...Daniel,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for posting those excellent comments from Tozer. Very timely.<BR/><BR/>One thing I also appreciate when I read Tozer is his ability to identify and expose idols. He had a good deal of wisdom in this area.<BR/><BR/>I also heard a recording of him speaking. He also had something of a sharp tongue! I recall him saying (remember, this was back in the earlier part of the 1900s) that he didn't want to get a car. After all, he joked, everyone he knew had a car and he could always get a ride! Interesting, isn't it, to consider that when vehicles were driving people apart and beginning the process of isolation so characteristic of Industrial/Post-Industrial America that Tozer would prefer to walk or hitch a ride!??!Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-86502138170212037282007-11-09T20:49:00.000-05:002007-11-09T20:49:00.000-05:00Ktismatics: And as science gets more and more spec...Ktismatics: <I>And as science gets more and more specialized and sophisticated it gets farther and farther away from ordinary discourse. Nothing has come along to equal medieval Christianity as a metanarrative in the Western world.</I><BR/><BR/>Ktismatics: <I>Modernity almost can be defined as the attempt to find an alternative to Christianity as the Western metanarrative. The Enlightenment and capitalism came together in the wake of medievalism's slow disintegration.</I><BR/><BR/>Let's follow through on your thoughts of Modernity's development and then work back to Lyotard. Let's tell it like this: In the Medieval era we have a totalizing metanarrative called "Christianity." It was institutionalized and the institution grew in power and prominence, dominating all areas of life and becoming a political machine unlike any other. Religion and state were one.<BR/><BR/>Then comes along Modernity. Science begins to solve the mysteries that were formerly reserved for the God, with the Church cashing in on holding the keys to heaven. But science can now improve life and solve the mystery. Philosophers realize this. They also realize that there may be more a more objective playing field for religious and philosophical discussion to take place: Reason and Rationality. The Modern experiment may deserve the benefit of the doubt: Let reason/rationality or even revelation take the place of a dominant religio-political machine.<BR/><BR/>Back to science. Science begins to loose the human mind from its captivity to the church via mystery. Now we go back to Lyotard's comment:<BR/>"I will use the term modern to designate any science that legitimates itself with reference to a metadiscourse of this kind making an explicit appeal to some grand narrative, such as the dialectics of Spirit, the hermeneutics of meaning, the emancipation of the rational or working subject, or the creation of wealth." (xxiii)<BR/><BR/>In Modernity we are seeing a shift to take account for science and reason via the metanarrative. The metanarrative legitimates what we have come to know through science. The Church is out of the picture. No more institutional "say so" to provide the framework for people's lives. So, we now must develop something to take its place. A narrative on a grand scale. One ring to rule them all. A theoretical construct with exhaustive explanatory scope. Hence Marxism, Capitalism, Hegel's Spirit, etc.<BR/><BR/>The old Church Institution is out. No longer does the Church's saying it make it so. Christianity now must legitimate itself as a metanarrative on other grounds. But why must it develop a metanarrative? Because it lost its power. It is gradually feeling itself back peddling. Everyone else has a metanarrative with exhaustive explanatory scope, so why not Christianity? After all, we've got a great big book with a great big God! So, Christianity now enters the marketplace of ideas with a metanarrative all its own. A totalizing view of history: Creation-Fall-Redemption-Glorification.<BR/><BR/>But here is what seems to be the constant: Metanarrative used as a tool to preserve the Institution.<BR/><BR/>But I'm something of an Anabaptist, and I'm also a postmodern child, so I'm not so much into preserving the Institution.<BR/><BR/>With no institution to preserve, why do I need a metanarrative? As far as I can see, the only reason would be if it were integral to interpreting Scripture. But I see the metanarrative as a human construct, now a self-evident Divine idea.<BR/><BR/>How does the issue of "institution" figure into your interpretation of the Pre-Modern, Modern, and Post-Modern?Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-92090362776500841672007-11-09T20:42:00.000-05:002007-11-09T20:42:00.000-05:00Agamben is another one I've heard of but haven't r...Agamben is another one I've heard of but haven't read.<BR/><BR/>The emerging position seems to be that Scripture, community, and subjective belief cluster together as a sort of 3-legged stool that's foundational to the Christian narrative. The Biblical narrative separate from the other two is "modernist," or so I've heard.john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-85716302588837283012007-11-09T20:25:00.000-05:002007-11-09T20:25:00.000-05:00Ktismatics:The Christian story as ordinarily told ...Ktismatics:<BR/><I>The Christian story as ordinarily told certainly qualifies as a metanarrative -- a grand overarching narrative in which all other smaller narratives are embedded and by which they must be interpreted.</I><BR/><BR/>Is it fair for me to dichotomize the Christian metanarrative "as ordinarily told" and the biblical scriptures? My question in this post was whether or not there was a "biblical narrative." You raise some intriguing points, so I ask you: Is there a difference between a "biblical" metanarrative and a "Christian" metanarrative? The latter would suppose that it has based its metanarrative upon the biblical Scripture, however, I'm not so sure (1) that the Scriptures were intended to function as a metanarrative and (2) I'm not convinced that metanarrative is the best use these days for Scripture.<BR/><BR/>What do you think? Is it a fair move to separate "Christian" metanarrative from "biblical" metanarrative?Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-54870652909216765442007-11-09T19:40:00.000-05:002007-11-09T19:40:00.000-05:00There's lots of d&g in h&n.They are not Marxists i...There's lots of d&g in h&n.<BR/><BR/>They are not Marxists in the conventional sense, rather they ground themselves in subjectivity.<BR/><BR/>Its a very clever book and I should probably read it again myself. Its a good sociological application of pomo ideas. Still to get the fame it deserves I gather.<BR/><BR/>Another kindred Italian is Giorgio Agamben. Heard of him?daniel hutchinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02874414229531959571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-2409423169572981132007-11-09T19:27:00.000-05:002007-11-09T19:27:00.000-05:00Thanks for the scoop on Hardt and Negri, Daniel --...Thanks for the scoop on Hardt and Negri, Daniel -- I'll have to have a look. "The multitude" as in immanent force emerging out of the Empire interests me. Have the Marxists given up on revolution? It sounds like H&N have some commonalities with Deleuze & Guattari's immanence. It'd be interesting to know whether the Radical Orthodox crowd cite H&N.john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.com