Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!duke!nlt From: nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Hunting Phantasma in the Christian Tradition Message-ID: <6447@duke.UUCP> Date: Thu, 10-Oct-85 16:51:28 EDT Article-I.D.: duke.6447 Posted: Thu Oct 10 16:51:28 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 08:21:41 EDT Organization: Duke University Lines: 100 [*] The story so far... Charli Phillips raised the question of changing ancient creeds (in particular, the "Athanasian Creed") to reflect modern insights. I replied that the creeds are of value as they are, since they state what the church considered "orthodox" at the time they were written, and that by comparing these views with each other and with present views, we can attempt to compensate for some of the cultural biases implied in the documents and in our own views, in order to discern objective truth about God and his work. Gary Buchholz has suggested two major ways in which my observations can be extended: 1) to consider the biases contained in Scripture as well as in the creeds; 2) to dismiss the possibility of discovering truth about God, since all we have is (to quote Gary) "a history of biases". I will consider these points in order. Regarding Scripture, Gary states the following: > The response from Koester might be this. Why exclude anything from > the critique ? Extending Tinkhams insight one might say that a culture > in any particular time has an "idiom" (=interpretive system) for > construing Reality. If as Tinkham says, these "idioms" are in question > then why limit the criticism to post-biblical times. Why not center > the critique on the NT itself. I did not intend to exclude the New Testament from the "critique". These problems should be addressed for canonical writings as well as for creeds and other non-canonical writings. I omitted mention of the Scriptures only because Charli Phillips' original question dealt with creeds rather than Scripture. Since Jeff Gillette's research field is early church history and mine is not, I refer the reader to his recent article which gives more information regarding the formation of the canon than I can present. Regarding the possibility of discovering truth by comparing biased accounts, Gary asks the following: > What does Tinkham have after his survey of history tells him "what, > in a given time and place, was considered to be orthodox by the church". > What I think he has is the history of Christian thought (modern academic > discipline of Historical Theology). But does he have any "truth". He > has only succession of one thing replacing another. > >>... One way to try to compensate for these biases is to compare our >>present understanding with the beliefs held by the church in different >>times and places... > > What does one do with a "history of biases". Can we extend it to the > NT. Is "to believe" a bias ? What does "compensation" mean here. The claim that I make but have not yet stated is that the Spirit of God is and has been working in the life of the church. God transforms and is revealed in the lives of those who follow him. If I may be so bold as to claim some truth for my own religion, I would state that God is revealed particularly clearly in the lives of those who have been transformed by God in Christ, both individually and, in the church, collectively. It is this work of the Spirit in the people of God that we are trying to discern when we examine the history of Christian thought. It is not, of course, as simple as looking at the beliefs and deeds of Christians and saying "everything that Christians do or think reflects the will and truth of God". Because of cultural biases, because of tendencies to equate one's own wishes and loyalties with the will of God, because, sometimes, of errors people make even when they are trying to do what is right -- because of all these human imperfections, we cannot simply equate human perceptions with either "the" truth or the will of God. And thus we have writings (Scriptures, creeds, and other theological writings) which do not always agree, which may even directly contradict each other. So: Because God is at work in the church, we have hope of finding some truth about God by looking at the history of the church; at least, there is some truth to be found. Because the church is not God and reflects God imperfectly, we have to look at the history of the church in a way that allows us to detect some of the errors in Christian thought. The process of comparing writings from different cultures against each other is intended to aid in this error-detection. I realize that if one is not willing to assume that God in some sense guides the church and transforms the lives of those who follow him, then the position taken in the preceding paragraphs will not be acceptable. An alternative argument which does not use this assumption is that the process comparing points-of-view in order to extract "the truth" from a variety of viewpoints is a method used by non-theologians in domains other than Christian thought. I use a similar process, for instance, in trying to obtain accurate reports of current events. Since most or all of the news sources to which I have access are written with some bias, I read or listen to several sources which I believe have differing biases, and then extract what seems to be objectively the truth. This method of comparing reports with differing biases, while not infallible, is a good method in domains where first-hand observation is hard to come by (or where, for some reason, one cannot wholly trust one's own observations). It does require the assumptions that 1) there is truth to be found and 2) the reports contain at least some truth, but it does not require that the reporters have had any "divine guidance" and so avoids, in part, the awkwardness of assuming that God works to preserve the accuracy of church tradition. N. L. Tinkham duke!nlt