“But rather the “authority” and the “truth” comes from the local community that is situated in the universal community, as opposed to the other way around.”

This doesn’t lead to relativism, it is relativism.

Your logical process has a problem. You’re missing a critical step between the last two. You say that God didn’t create scripture robotically, therefore “human people like me and like you wrote it.” That’s logically wrong and completely ignores the way God works with people through the Spirit. Scripture can written by both God and man.

I’m curious to see where you are going with this. But you’re dangerously flirting with the line of relativism. Authority and truth are just that. They do not depend on context or application.

i could argue that you’re dangerously flirting with absolutism, dogmaticism, foundationalism, and rationalism, as well as various other modern formulations. all things that would have been foreign to the hebrew community of the old testament and the jewish/gentile community of the new.

although i understand the classical orthodox position of inspiration (and by classical i mean the last 400 years of church history and the history written by those with the loudest voice and by orthodox i mean the position that is held now as opposed to the orthodox positions of the earlier church) . . . would you mind describing how scripture can be written both by god and man?

i mean even orthodoxy is somewhat of a sliding scale. the things that we deem orthodox today weren’t always orthodox back in the day. that’s not to say that they can’t be orthodox, authoritative, or truthful. but rather their orthodoxy is found in the community, in a place.

the orthodox position of inspiration and inerrancy of scripture wasn’t even something that was formulated until recently in history. what then was the “orthodox” position before this orthodoxy was generated? the orthodoxy of jesus as both man and god wasn’t even around until 400 years later? what then before that?

even a cursory reading of church history will show that orthodoxy has always taken an evolutionary trajectory as it find its itself situated in specific contexts and specific places.

it’s not to say that the inerrancy debates weren’t important 50 years ago. they were important to the context then of a christian community trying to articulate their faith in an apologetic, scientific way. the early hebrews never would have fooled with such distinctions.

augustine’s development of plato’s thought of a “city of god” that is both removed from and separate from earth is another “orthodoxy” that was extremely relevant and much needed in his day and time. however, today, we realize just how platonic and dualistic that is. so the orthodoxy or the interpretation of scripture has evolved.

thus my point.

Not to cut in and be a conversation terrorist, but, have you read Plato’s The Republic or Augustine’s City of God? My ladyfriend put me on a collision course that will lead to my devouring of both of those books, and a whole bunch of others (117 to be exact).

Will be posting on my blog (fragged) about such things soon, was just wonderin.

yeah. i’ve read all of city of god. and the cliff notes to the republic. i mean i was in college what do you expect?

I like how you use the word ‘logically’ when you are refering to these writings.

Looks like you are coming to my side. Want an honorary Jr. Jesus Seminar button?

“Captain, we’re picking up some rumblings on the asinine meter!”

“Keep your wits about you, soldier. We’ve seen greater asininity than this!”

oh eric. i missed you old chap. dinner this week? call me.

nick.
logic is valuable as is mystery and the supernatural. any group that totally and wholly dismisses certain parts to the detriment of the other is suspect to me. which is why i think the jesus seminar is just as extreme and foundational as their fundamentalists counterparts. but if you want me to give me a button, i won’t decline it.

derek. i started thinking about relativism too. i think too often it gets confused with nihilism. or just or the denial of all truth. i don’t believe that. but i do hold to wiki’s definition . . . .

“Relativism consists of various theories each of which claims that some element or aspect of experience or culture is relative to, i.e., dependent on, some other element or aspect. For example, some relativists claim that humans can understand and evaluate beliefs and behaviors only in terms of their historical or cultural context. The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture.”

relativism is different than nihlism.

nihlism being defined as

“there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a “true morality” does not exist, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action can be preferable to any other.”

that’s just foolishness.

i should also say that i don’t see how the above definition of relativism is antagonistic to how we approach the text. it seems like a perfectly plausible framework for our hermeneutics.

What if the text means today what it meant back when it was written (even in its cultural context) and the “application” is simply contextualized to today’s cultural context. Wouldn’t it still be “God’s word?” Because of context, doesn’t orthodoxy necessarily have to be dynamic? Dynamic Orthodoxy….maybe I just coined a term?!

that’s a great question john and a great idea with dynamic orthodoxy.

i’m definitely not saying that there isn’t any application for us today. i definitely think the bible is applicable to us. but moreso as we begin to understand the dynamic and relationships between god and his people and his people to him. these dynamic interplays are what are important and where we learn and are molded. ultimately allowing the community to shape us as we shape it.

i would just say that the locus of scripture is on the community, god, and the story.

not black and white answers that are binding from conception until the very end.

and i was thinking about this on the way to dinner . . . but the authority that i’m talking about is much different than the traditional approach.

i’m not talking about authority with a top-down approach. or a hierarchical authority where rule is exercised as power from the top. but rather a flattened authority. one that does not exist by power and control, moving from the top to the bottom.

but rather an authority that is flattened and moves from the edges to the center. one that is communal and decentralized in nature.

more to come on this idea when i develop in my authority section.

“would you mind describing how scripture can be written both by god and man?”

It’s the same as the Spirit leading you in how to speak in a situation God has put you in, but you’re not equipped to handle. It’s the same as how some people can know, through the Spirit, what problems someone is going through and how to address them.

It’s not something you can prove, or explain easily. You can choose to not believe in it if you want, but you’re still skipping it as a possibility.

“i mean even orthodoxy is somewhat of a sliding scale. the things that we deem orthodox today weren’t always orthodox back in the day.”

And some things that were orthodox back in the day were downright heretical. Without a standard of truth established in scripture, there’s no way to evaluate whether something like indulgences was heretical or not. The “evolutionary” aspect of theology in church history is primarily heretical - for well over a thousand years. The degree to which things have evolved since Luther is the degree to which they are returning to the authority and primacy of Scripture vs. an evolving church.

As far as comparisons with the Israelites and the Jews of the early Christian church, they did see scriptures as truth. And absolute. God made a covenant with them, and it was what it was. It didn’t change. And the idea of an unchanging God was a Hebrew idea, expressed many times in the Old Testament, even reflected in the name of God. Which is what the writer of Hebrews is making a reference to. (Haven’t we been through this one before?)

If you’re talking about how our understanding evolves, I can go with you there. But when you put quotes around “authority” and “truth,” and talk about them coming from the context of the community, that’s taking a relativistic approach. And I don’t think you’re going to find anything in scripture to back you up on that.

agree to disagree. sound familiar?

Josh,

I’ll admit it…as I read your thoughts, I was frustrated by the direction you took and the conclusions you came to. But I’ve been finding over the last several years that my frustration does not mean your (supposed) subjectivism is running into my (supposed) absolutely truthful grasp on reality…. so I read it again. And I think there’s some good stuff here.

I’d side with Derek a bit more here though, even as I agree with you that orthodoxy has taken place on a sliding scale of sorts. I’d add a word to his thought (I’ll italicize it) that; (Authority and truth) do not necessarily depend on context or application. I added the “necessarily” because I think the Bible presents itself as a collection of books about how universal truth has been (and is) relayed through particular actions, persons, and communities. So God has called Israel and the church in their particular lifestyle and commitments to show the universal truth that all humans have been created for…the process of how this is worked out sometimes shows up further on the universal side of the spectrum and sometimes more on the particular (and thus more relative) side of the spectrum.

I think where scripture relays universal truth is through the structure of expectations it sets up as boundaries for the good life God has called us to; now, the structure is up for discussion and interpretation, but a foundational aspect of discipleship is submission to God’s revelation as given to us, not what we’d like it to look like.

For example, as we follow the narrative arc of the Bible, while it is true that the Bible can be read to show that females should mindlessly submit to males in leadership of families and God’s people, we could more faithfully say (I think) there’s a movement in the text toward women being given more respect and freedom in their humanity and leadership…the same applies to slavery. So the church can faithfully take the step to endorse women in leadership positions and reject slavery as an institution that dehumanizes folks.

However, this sort of narrative approach reveals a different conclusion within the structure of Scripture when speaking of homosexuality, for example. In fact, while the NT doesn’t call for the death sentence for homosexuals, it intensifies the righteousness and lifestyle expectations of heterosexuality in ways the OT doesn’t address. So the movement is towards more rigorous, monogamous heterosexuality in the narrative arc rather than an open inclusiveness regardless of one’s sexual lifestyle. One could say God is establishing an absolute standard here in expected conduct that isn’t open to our choosing, as the expectation is consistent from OT to New.

Therefore, examples like slavery and the status of women reveal truth isn’t always universal and unchangeable for all time, but examples like homosexuality reveal the situation is not as simple as your comment that “they (Scriptures) only work insofar as they are local.”

So I think Derek’s so far on the other side of the spectrum that he reads reality through the lenses of “objectivity” and “absolute”; and thus says

As far as comparisons with the Israelites and the Jews of the early Christian church, they did see scriptures as truth. And absolute. God made a covenant with them, and it was what it was. It didn’t change. And the idea of an unchanging God was a Hebrew idea

Derek doesn’t make the distinction I consider necessary to separate between God’s unchanging character and steadfast love and the reality that God’s revealed expectations of the faithful life have clearly changed; and were radically changed by Himself as revealed in the life of Jesus.

Derek makes a deeply important point, I think, though; if the only way you approach truth is through the context of community (outside of the deep guidance God gave to the development of Scripture), then you’re gonna find yourself in a community without a solid foundation.
Maybe you’re ok with that kind of community, and that’s fine…just don’t call it church.

In some ways, it’s scandalous that we would have the audacity to suggest in our evangelism that universal truth was revealed most fully through a particular Jew at a particular time in a particular culture for all time and cultures; but that doesn’t mean we should shy away from that proclamation.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that there’s a universal/particular paradox going on here that creates a tension necessary for the church to faithfully represent God’s desires for the world.

And Josh, come on now…don’t do the underhanded move of “agree to disagree” before you’ve had a chance to wade deeply into the issue at hand. If you write about a topic, you should be prepared to hear other perspectives that challenge your ow.

That phrase makes me angry, because it often castrates a conversation that holds the potential to change those involved in it. It has a place in conversation, but only as a last resort.

nate. i made that comment because i’ve approached the conversation with ambiguity and humility. not speaking in absolutes but just proposing.

some continue to speak in absolutes and are negative in their responses. over and over again.

thats why i made the comment. i wasn’t passing or blowing things off. i’m just not going to argue with someone when i prefer conversation. and i’m not going to continue the same 3 arguments over and over again. when both are fundamentally opposed.

Ok, I see where you’re coming from now. I guess I was speaking more out of my frustration with the frequent use of that phrase in the past as an end-all phrase than understanding the context that you wrote it in. I apologize.

What do you think about my suggestions on the post topic?

no worries. i understand.