From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Fri Apr 25 2003 - 14:21:14 EDT
I take theology to be a human construct - basically our efforts to
understand and relate to God - and as such, limited and subject to
error, even with inspiration and revelation simply because we seem to be
imperfect receivers.
I would not argue that both of any two given theologies are right. It is
more about being humble enough to acknowledge that in all probability
both are in error in some greater or lesser particulars. That
presumeably is the driver of the continuing discussion and search for a
more coherent, and (I like your word "authentic") authentic theology.
For me, at least, that includes a congruence with personal experience as
well - but not "experience only". Experience is an unescapable component
of our existence. It, and our rationality, along with intuition and
sensitivity to inspiration and revelation is about all that we ourselves
bring to the game.
Re: "If theology were derived only from personal experience, then true
theology for me would be different from true theology for you, as you
and I have had different experiences."
I think that's precisely why the theologies that we internalize must
differ in some measure. [Hmmmm - internalization is an important
distinction that I did not make clear in my earlier comments.]
Re: "Obviously, the truth of who God is and how He relates to and saves us is absolutely true, apart from either of our opinions. Consequently, there must be an absolutely true theology."
But, I would suggest, THAT theology (as God internalizes it?) is not likely to be known perfectly by us after filtering through our experience and limitations. It seems to me that we are using a process not dissimilar to successive approximations to arrive at theologies that hopefully with time are more congruent with God's perspectives. That means that everything is subject to examination and re-examination with each new insight. BUT, as in the processes of science, I see this as a progression of refinement (not "fabrication") in our understanding, and specifically NOT throwing everything up for grabs anew with each new idea that comes along.
This is essentially why I come to a full stop at many assertional statements in our present context. I am clearly less comfortable than you are with making strongly assertional statements about details of the nature of God. Those assertional statements are founded on underlying beliefs (which I think are shaped in part by experience - who taught us some of our strongly held beliefs?). I'm interested in those beliefs and their foundations.
Re: "The only foundation for a common, shared theology is scripture. Not personal experience."
We probably just differ here. I understand scripture as an introductory vehicle - a window, if you will - even as it is a facilitator for understanding through inspiration and revelation.
Even if we have the role of President of the United States of America defined in a compilation of everything written on the subject, and have a complete library of the most excellent biographies of a given president, they are an inferior substitute for truly knowing and experiencing personally the one who occupies the office.
There is no more effective teacher than experience. Scripture provides us with a "standardized" set of insights, allowing us to have a "shared theology" in some measure. But, my sense is that a good authentic internalized theology is a vibrant, living, breathing, learning, expanding, evolving thing that is modulated and nurtured by both experience and reflection - and as such, it will always be intensely personal and unique in its details. The upside is that we will always have "stuff" and the accompanying tensions that allow us (and our theology) to profit from mutual exchanges concerning those details and differences.
Regards - Jim Armstrong
igevolution@earthlink.net wrote:
>Don wrote:
>Theology likewise has no basis except to the degree that it derives from actual experience of God.
>_________
>Jim wrote:
>Theology is essentially a man-made construct (or rather, a gajillion of them!), even if informed by revelation. It's not monolithic. Rather, it is unique for each of us, with some aspects shared with others to a degree that allows us to fellowship and build community...much as we are doing here!
>_________
>
>Holy screaming alarm-clocks, batman!
>
>Theology is a human construct (as my friendly opponent- for-the-moment, Jim Anderson has stated), but that does not negate the veracity of it. Theology is about authentic exegesis of the divinely inspired and inerranct word of God. The cannon of scripture is the foundation, not personal experience. If theology were derived only from personal experience, then true theology for me would be different from true theology for you, as you and I have had different experiences. Obviously, the truth of who God is and how He relates to and saves us is absolutely true, apart from either of our opinions. Consequently, there must be an absolutely true theology. The only foundation for a common, shared theology is scripture. Not personal experience.
>
>You and I are free to differ on our interpretation of scripture; this discussion is justifiably academic and authentic, but we must agree that the discussion of such matters is based on interpretation of scripture, not experience. We must also agree that there is an absolutely true answer to such questions. We can banter all day about what we feel that answer is, but we mustn't think that your answer and my answer, being different, can both be right. Let us not slide into post-modernism with regard to theology. God is absolute, and His truths are likewise. We must struggle to discover them, not fabricate our own.
>
>Jason
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Burgy wrote:
>
> > I think God
> > does NOT see the future -- at least not in detail -- but can and
> often is
> > surprised by what we, his created yet partially autonomous beings,
> choose
> > as courses of action in certain circumstances.
>
> I like this as part of a plank of a theological platform. For one
> thing, if God could
> see the future in detail, why wouldn't he have inspired his prophets
> to make
> some of their messianic prophecies a bit clearer? Why do some of Jesus'
> prophecies seem not quite on target? And why is the Revelation
> not interpretable in any detail?
>
> There are two related principles I insist on, however:
>
> 1) God is strongly goal-oriented and knows in fair detail what he
> wants his
> final outcome to be. History has a purpose and is headed
> towards some fulfillment.
>
> 2) God has superb intuition about how to achieve his goals, and he has the
> ability to implement his intuitions.
>
> Any view of God that makes him something like a humongous
> supercomputer does
> not resonate with me at all. To me God is a person with an
> extraordinarily good feel
> for even the finest details of the world who works to influence it
> mostly by
> seat-of-the-pants intuition (if you can imagine seats of spiritual pants).
>
> All this stuff about God seeing past and future simultaneously, that he's
> omni-this and omni-that, is mostly pure philosophy sometimes justified by
> misusing devotional sentiments expressed in the Psalms, etc. Jim Armstrong
> in another post has done a good job of challenging these platitudes. We
> should all be aware by now of how little philosophy by itself has been
> able
> to deduce about the real world. Theology likewise has no basis except to
> the degree that it derives from actual experience of God.
>
> On the basis of such experience I believe there's justification for
> saying God, like all spiritual persons, exists in some sense outside
> space-time; but what the ramifications might be I have no idea. I
> don't believe that it means he sees all time at once.
>
> Don
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Apr 25 2003 - 14:21:34 EDT