Integral Hermeneutics ala Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorems

Integral Hermeneutics ala

Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorems

The Post-Structuralism of the

Hermeneutics of Belief or Suspicion

by R.E. Slater

Introduction

If I understand Godel's Incompleteness Logic correctly then it says that for any truth system to be used, or believed to be true, it's same system cannot be used on itself to prove its own system of beliefs and truths. All systems are self-reinforcing. Both large and small.

But this is the corollary meaning to Godel's fuller Incompleteness Logic which states that no truth system can be proven complete. That all truth systems are incomplete in-and-of themselves alone as single-ordered or multi-ordered systems.

"The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency." - Wikipedia

And again,

In hindsight, the basic idea at the heart of the incompleteness theorem is rather simple. Gödel essentially constructed a formula that claims that it is unprovable in a given formal system. If it were provable, it would be false. Thus there will always be at least one true but unprovable statement. That is, for any computably enumerable set of axioms for arithmetic (that is, a set that can in principle be printed out by an idealized computer with unlimited resources), there is a formula that is true of arithmetic, but which is not provable in that system. To make this precise, however, Gödel needed to produce a method to encode (as natural numbers) statements, proofs, and the concept of provability; he did this using a process known as Gödel numbering. Wikipedia

And semi-humorously - should we not learn to laugh at ourselves for being over strict in our personal assessments and valuations of other competing ideas and works (I think of Einstein and his cosmological constant that has been fussed and fumed about over the years), we might describe all instances of unknowing, or inability to prove themselves, as subsets of "fuzzy logic" deemed helpful in explaining the unexplainable:

"Fuzzy logic is based on the observation that people make decisions based on imprecise and non-numerical information. Fuzzy models or sets are mathematical means of representing vagueness and imprecise information (hence the term fuzzy). These models have the capability of recognising, representing, manipulating, interpreting, and utilising data and information that are vague and lack certainty." - Wikipedia

We might also think of incompleteness systems as asymmetrical to their intended design for symmetry. Similar to the bow tie which accompanies a tuxedo, bow ties are not meant to be perfectly straight but a bit off, a bit imperfect. Thus I had mentioned Einstein's Cosmological Lamba Constant. He purposely introduced it to account for the universe's vacuum energy densities and gravitation push-pulls on itself. The universe isn't perfectly in equilibrium throughout it's vastness. It's off a little bit here-and-there. It holds some asymmetry within it. To account for its imbalance Einstein pushed a variable into his relativity formula to help "balance" out its messiness so that it might become "perfect". In doing so he believed what he was doing was correct but stated later even he made certain assumptions, and held expectations, which do not conform to perceived truth. Science is still trying to work this out having now understood it was in Einstein's assumptions that he erred.

The Challenge of Pursuit & Discovery

And so, when I set out to write an updated contemporary and postmodern theology I began wondering many years ago about the helpfulness of the Protestant Reformed system of biblical hermeneutics using it's universally approved literal, grammatical, historical, and contextual applications to the biblical text.

Of course, this must also include any informed Protestant Reformed religious interpretations on the biblical text using only religiously approved externally confirming sources. To step out of one's religious system to approach a "truth-based system" would be anathema to the one who did it. Historical examples abound: Conipericus, Galileo, Einstein, Quantum Physics, Darwin, or even church figures such as Rob Bell, Emergent Christians, Progressive Christians, and such like. One places one's reputation on the line should it cross over to "the dark side" of unapproved speech, thinking, or act.

At the last, I finally decided that any kind of truth system such as the one I grew up under and was trained in must be stepped outside of if I were to consider other forms of information helpful to my writing project of post-structure Christian theologies. For the one I was living in had become its own self-contained system which was sealed from within-and-without, much like any unassailable fortress becomes its own self-insulating system protecting from criticism, contradiction, expandability, rejection, or improvability.

Consequences of Staying with Corruptible Older Systems

Thus and thus I could not use it's self-confirming system any longer if I were to discover an Integral hermeneutical system for all occasions of religious expression or moral/aesthetic novelty. It had become an insular system used to breed it's own religious vernaculars and biblically accepted cultures and I knew then that it would not be useful for any future study.

Which, in hindsight, I'm glad I did when viewing our my old line evangelical faith has now become overrun with unholy values of society and personages in its pursuit of discrimination against human beings differing from its beliefs. Or usages of denial, blame, slandering, and acceptance of duplicitous character such as is being seen in the pulpit and congressional leaders. Or its pursuit of the undemocratic ideals of personal liberties, freedoms, equalities and justice for all rather than for some.

But worse for me is it's lately incursion into Q-anony conspiracy theories which racks right up there with fragile theological systems uninterested in all other biblical or helpful "secular" systems (a word I abhor) unless it speaks of the harsher form of neo-Calvinisms with its judgments, wrathful God, and religious legalisms which all must submit to in order to be worthy of God's love. I find such speech and actions wholly untrue, unhelpful, worthy of condemnation of their God and beliefs, and intentionally divisional to a democratic society attempting to unify in difference around common cores of humane living and humanitarian cause.

Apologies for becoming sidetracked. However, these are the issues to any system which asserts itself over all other systems as being true and worthy of being followed. They can become corrupted in time and unuseful to the original cause of declaring in witness and testimony for a God of love who sacrificed Himself in atoning for the sins and evil of mankind - where secular or religious. Redemption is for all, as is God's unending streams of embracing love. Neither should the two be used as condemnation upon society or nature. These would be blasphemous offenses.

A Conclusion of Sorts

I then tried to discover a broader integrating system more open to criticism and reflection. Though there are many critical theories out there beyond an assortment of protestant Christian hermeneutics I decided in the end on two principles only, of which I now wish to add a third...

Principle 1

To construct allow Christian belief and action around a God of Love. God is always loving in all ways unimaginable to ourselves. By constructing a God who withholds His love is untrue and unethical. People should never live in fear of God who brings healing and beauty into the world by preaching a wrathful God of terror and fear of Hell. God is not this and cannot be this. It is only in our imaginations this kind of awful God lives. Sin is its own Hell but is isn't God who makes it or takes one there. God is a God of Love.

What does this mean? That we should structure our beliefs, lives, ministries, relationships, all around a God of Love. It's that simple. It's the most radical theology we could espouse. Take as illustration the two diagrams below then replace their centers with the Love of God. Then think about it. Every part of one's theology and beliefs about God would radically change. No biblical genocides. No murder and killing. No religious fiats for harm or theft of land. It all goes away.

We only see religious leaders and people doing unloving acts to one another. And why? Because the God they had envisioned acted like the other gods around them. And of course, is molded in the form of sinful man himself. I may now read the bible as a set of narratives of failed apprehensions of the God who loves. Rather than blaming God for sin and evil I may now understand that even religious man has a difficult time imagining a thoroughgoing God of Love.

Principle 2

As God's Love is in the center of Theology even so Jesus must be in that same center. There is no first or second here. Both are one and the same. Jesus pictures God's love to mankind in life, ministry, and death. What can be said of the one can be said of the other. If I, as a Christian, am to proclaim God's love than I, as a Christian, must learn to live as Jesus did in servitude to the benefit and welfare of those around me.

The acronym, WWJD, is just as true today as it was when it was first produced in the 1970s. "What Would Jesus Do?" It declares to the Christian and to the Christian Church that it is to act like the God of Love in people's lives. Which also includes in society's life. No more bad mouthing those who are sexually different, genderly-abled, or culturally oriented than ourselves. We are not the basis for judgment. All are loved by God. Only that which harms and does not heal or love is to be judged as fallen and corrupt. Let not the church join in with such harmful causes of unloving policies, discriminating acts, or foolish companies of angry mobs. Be done with these and place Jesus first in all that we do.

Principle 3

"If a truth theorem is complete, it's closed.

If a truth theorem is incomplete, then it's open."

I asserted in Integral Hermeneutics ala Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorems that there can never be a final hermeneutic to help interpret God or His Word fully (sic, the bible, nature, event, experience, or enlightened insight). Nor can there be a final hermeneutic for one's life. There are many systems out there. Some closed, some open. Some are preferred over others such as we are using now with Process Philosophy and Process Theology. They seem to address both the divine and the creational in expressive, uplifting terms of hope. These systems can inform us how God operates in the world and how we must live in symmetry with the world. Such helpful systems can help break other systematic modes of self-imposed, or religiously-imposed, constrictions we chain or bind ourselves and others to.

And like Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, no one system is ever enough in the infinite, open-ended streams of life. Or, processes of life. Some come and go while others stay and expand. But they can never be complete because the (cosmopanpsychic) process of evolving life is ever evolving towards a process future of becoming. All events and experiences are incomplete and it is best to learn how to flow with them while learning to unlearn our set boundaries in order to relearn and expand them if we are to be testimonies to the God of grace and mercy.

As such, all of life is a never-ending process and there will never be a time on this earth, or in the life to come, where process isn't bubbling forth newness, novelty, creativity, or redemption. It is who God is. It is how God's creation works. It is what God's Love means when enacted through the process creational system expressed from His ontic being and essence.

In conclusion, let me propose a new axiom:

"If a truth theorem in complete, it's closed. If a truth theorem is incomplete, then it's open." - re slater

Any formal dogmatic systems of religion, regardless of that religion, be it Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, or Christian, must always be rightly expanding and growing from all previous instances of itself. Thus, it would be wise to affirm that all religionists should be careful of what they plant in this world - be it good or be it bad.

As seems all too familiar with too many historical examples of good religion gone bad in this world. (I think of American evangelical faiths moving towards neofacism having lost its center in God's Love and Jesus' examples of service of ministry through grace and mercy, forgiveness and hope.

From this we can see that the former statement re closed dogmas have sealed themselves off from outside criticism becoming insular within itself alone shunning all other voices. Whereas the latter statement has attracted more open religions to examine themselves in healthy ways of reflection, revision, and enlightenment, much like the many disciplines of science attempting by their own assertions, explorations, and continual revisions of its set theorems, objectives, and momentary conclusions.

Open systems live in tension with themselves and are the better for it. Closed systems do not and are the worse for it. Learn to live in tension. And in the tension exploit your inner creativity towards goodness, love, and peace.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

February 15, 2021

I wrote a helpful parallel article some months back

which may be pertinent to the discussion here:

A Process-Based Reading of the Living God and His Word

* * * * * * * * *

Hermeneutics of faith, the counterpart to hermeneutics of suspicion, is a manner in which a text may be read. It was the traditional or predominant way of reading the Bible for at least the first fifteen hundred years of Christian history. Both interpretive approaches combined are necessary for a complete knowledge of an object.

Hans-Georg Gadamer, in his 1960 magnum opus Truth and Method (Wahrheit und Methode), offers perhaps the most systematic survey of hermeneutics in the 20th century, its title referring to his dialogue between claims of "truth" on the one hand and processes of "method" on the other—in brief, the hermeneutics of faith versus the hermeneutics of suspicion. Gadamer suggests that, ultimately, in our reading we must decide between one or the other. [re slater - or to both equally in tension...]

According to Ruthellen Josselson, "(Paul) Ricœur distinguishes between two forms of hermeneutics: a hermeneutics of faith, which aims to restore meaning to a text, and a hermeneutics of suspicion, which attempts to decode meanings that are disguised." Rita Felski posits that Ricœur's hermeneutics of faith did not become fashionable because it appeared dismissive of the work of critique that defined an ascendant post-structuralism.

In his early essay "The Universality of the Hermeneutical Problem" and especially his Wahrheit und Methode (Truth and Method), conservative German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer asserts that one is always deciding between a hermeneutics of faith (truth) or a hermeneutics of suspicion (method) when engaged in the act of reading.

* * * * * * * * *

Kurt Gödel - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del

Gödel's incompleteness theorems - 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Paraconsistent logic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

* * * * * * * * *

Types of Biblical hermeneutics:

• Allegorical interpretation of the Bible
• Anagoge
• Asian-American biblical hermeneutics
• Christian apologetics
• Biblical accommodation
• Biblical law in Christianity
• Biblical literalism
• Biblical studies
• Brevitas et facilitas
• Formulary controversy concerning Jansenius' Augustinus in the 17th century
• Jewish commentaries on the Bible
• Literary criticism
• Literary theory
• Narrative criticism
• Patternism
• Postmodern Christianity
• Principles of interpretation
• Quranic hermeneutics
• Summary of Christian eschatological differences
• Syncretism
• Trajectory Hermeneutics

* * * * * * * * *

Other Kinds of Hermeneutics, Globally:

1 Etymology

1.1 Folk etymology

2 In religious traditions

2.1 Mesopotamian hermeneutics

2.2 Islamic hermeneutics

2.3 Talmudic hermeneutics

2.4 Vedic hermeneutics

2.5 Buddhist hermeneutics

2.6 Biblical hermeneutics

2.6.1 Literal

2.6.2 Moral

2.6.3 Allegorical

2.6.4 Anagogical

3 Philosophical hermeneutics

3.1 Ancient and medieval hermeneutics

3.2 Modern hermeneutics

3.2.1 Dilthey (1833–1911)

3.2.2 Heidegger (1889–1976)

3.2.3 Gadamer (1900–2002)

3.2.4 New hermeneutic

3.2.5 Marxist hermeneutics

3.2.6 Objective hermeneutics

3.2.7 Other recent developments

4 Applications

4.1 Archaeology

4.2 Architecture

4.3 Environment

4.4 International relations

4.5 Law

4.6 Phenomenology

4.7 Political philosophy

4.8 Psychoanalysis

4.9 Psychology

4.10 Religion and theology

4.11 Safety science

4.12 Sociology

5 Criticism

* * * * * * * * *

Set Symbols

https://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/symbols.html

A set is a collection of things, usually numbers. We can list each element (or "member") of a set inside curly brackets like this:

Common Symbols Used in Set Theory

Symbols save time and space when writing. Here are the most common set symbols

In the examples C = {1, 2, 3, 4} and D = {3, 4, 5}

Symbol	Meaning	Example
{ }	Set: a collection of elements	{1, 2, 3, 4}
A ∪ B	Union: in A or B (or both)	C ∪ D = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
A ∩ B	Intersection: in both A and B	C ∩ D = {3, 4}
A ⊆ B	Subset: every element of A is in B.	{3, 4, 5} ⊆ D
A ⊂ B	Proper Subset: every element of A is in B, but B has more elements.	{3, 5} ⊂ D
A ⊄ B	Not a Subset: A is not a subset of B	{1, 6} ⊄ C
A ⊇ B	Superset: A has same elements as B, or more	{1, 2, 3} ⊇ {1, 2, 3}
A ⊃ B	Proper Superset: A has B's elements and more	{1, 2, 3, 4} ⊃ {1, 2, 3}
A ⊅ B	Not a Superset: A is not a superset of B	{1, 2, 6} ⊅ {1, 9}
Ac	Complement: elements not in A	Dc = {1, 2, 6, 7} When  = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}
A − B	Difference: in A but not in B	{1, 2, 3, 4} − {3, 4} = {1, 2}
a ∈ A	Element of: a is in A	3 ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4}
b ∉ A	Not element of: b is not in A	6 ∉ {1, 2, 3, 4}
∅	Empty set = {}	{1, 2} ∩ {3, 4} = Ø
	Universal Set: set of all possible values (in the area of interest)
P(A)	Power Set: all subsets of A	P({1, 2}) = { {}, {1}, {2}, {1, 2} }
A = B	Equality: both sets have the same members	{3, 4, 5} = {5, 3, 4}
A×B	Cartesian Product (set of ordered pairs from A and B)	{1, 2} × {3, 4} = {(1, 3), (1, 4), (2, 3), (2, 4)}
|A|	Cardinality: the number of elements of set A	|{3, 4}| = 2
|	Such that	{ n | n > 0 } = {1, 2, 3,...}
:	Such that	{ n : n > 0 } = {1, 2, 3,...}
∀	For All	∀x>1, x2>x
∃	There Exists	∃ x | x2>x
∴	Therefore	a=b ∴ b=a
	Natural Numbers	{1, 2, 3,...} or {0, 1, 2, 3,...}
	Integers	{..., −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}
	Rational Numbers
	Algebraic Numbers
	Real Numbers
	Imaginary Numbers	3i
	Complex Numbers	2 + 5i

* * * * * * * *

PART OF A 7-PART SERIES

1 - A Process Relational World in Pictures

2 - Is There Any Difference Between Process Philosophy & Process Theology?

3 - Examining Process Philosophy & Process Theology, Part 1

4 - Examining Process Philosophy & Process Theology, Part 2

5 - Relational Theology. What Is It?

6 - Whitehead's "Philosophy of Organism" Explained

7 - Integral Hermeneutics ala Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorems

* * * * * * * *

MORE RESOURCES

Relevancy22 – Home Page - https://relevancy22.blogspot.com/

Index - Open & Relational Process Theology –

https://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2020/04/index-open-relational-theology.html

Index- Calvinism v. Arminianism –

https://relevancy22.blogspot.com/search/label/Index%20-%20Calvinism%20v.%20Arminianism

Index - Process Philosophy & Theology –

https://relevancy22.blogspot.com/search/label/Index%20-%20Process%20Philosophy%20%26%20Theology

Index to Process-Based Integral Philosophy –

https://relevancy22.blogspot.com/search/label/Index%20-%20Process-Based%20Integral%20Philosophy

How Might We Interpret the OT for Today?

 

 

Suffice it to say that today's article would be a great beginning point in the postmodern Christian's understanding of how the OT might relate to the NT. However, at first blush it would seemed that there may be a few more things going on here than we might currently admit. Mostly, we must think about why certain societal rules or cultural norms appeal to us. A postmodernist will question everything, and one of the things s/he must question is ourselves, then our social group, our church fellowship, and lastly our society.

 

But rather than saying everything is relativistic we should be asking how the Bible might help illuminate us as we find ourselves in our time-and-place when re-enacting God's great love that He has shown to us through His Son Jesus. Not judgmental love even though proper love will judge both its challenger as well as its motivation to meet that challenge. But to love in the sense of bringing peace and justice, reconciliation and purpose, back into a person, a situation, or a society. Even so, it must all begin with Jesus even as He questioned everything, teaching an ethic that stood everyone on their head, and spun them around in their thinking, from what they thought He might say to what He was actually saying TO THEM.

 

Further, a good historian of the Bible knows that ancient biblical culture - both in the OT as well as in the NT - are mostly lost to us in the sense of knowing how people thought and behaved back then. Oh yes, we can make our conjectures based upon our comparative readings of ancient histories, but most of these histories were written much later after-the-event-had-occurred! Even in the Bible's recorded histories by the biblical writers themselves as they too wrote from their cultural-and-historical perspectives (sic, via an  enculturated boundedness, personal biases and judgments). In its present form the Jewish OT was written in the Second Temple era from records as much as a thousand years earlier, many of which had been lost to time and inattention. Truly, we mostly are at a lost as to what people were thinking back 2000 years ago (the NT period), let alone 4000 years ago (the Torah period).

 

Which also gets us to the idea of remembering that language by its nature is both fluid and ambiguous. Even today, amongst our literate societies news-events are continually questioned as to their correctness of interpretation! Whether they are punning towards a particular view, outcome, or bias - or whether, it is in sincere search of the truth - our words carry multiple meanings to multiple hearers and societies. How much more than has the church done the same with its own ancient records and traditions as demonstrated by the vernacular speeches and commentaries held forth by today's current crops of Christian writers, pulpiteers, and media outlets? Words carry meaning. But they also carry ambiguity. Words are not mathematical symbols with strict mathematical properties. The best words of poets know this. And those kinds of lucid poets will write in a way that will carry an idea as expressed in a poem on many levels of meaning to many kinds of ears and eyes. Even in the church's traditional creeds we find our postmodern thinking wanting more (or less) when reading those grand confessions of faith. Especially when couched in the newer terms of process theism, relational thought, open theology, and the emergent strains of radical theology in its pithy cores and poignant questions to Christianity's truer meanings.

 

For all these many reasons, and many more, today's articles by Christianity Today and Scot McKnight make for a great beginning point of conversation. But not an ending point. Why? Because CT's expression is couched in the church's traditions and classical creedal expressions. Whereas McKnight's is showing a more nuanced reading of those traditions and expressions which may help guide the street-level Christian in his/her's reading of the OT. But still, we may push forward by asking even more questions. Questions of our preferred hermeneutical interpretation of the Bible: whether it pushes us far enough from our comfort zone, or if whether it keeps us too smugly wrapped up in our biases and bigotries towards those whom we should share God's love with. Whom we should advocate and mediate justice for. Whom we should forgive and reach out to. If whether we might lay down our religions clubs and shields long enough to work together in irenic debate and peaceful argumentation.

 

At the last, it is a beginning point. And hopefully, as we have discussed here at Relevancy22 in previous articles about the Bible and biblical interpretations, we might have been asking the hard questions of how we might discover Paul's readings aright in light of his Jewish orientation and not his Calvinistic or Reformed interpretation that we have covered him in. Or his Americanized, Western dress that we see Paul in. But not only must we learn to rethink the OT, so even must we learn to rethink the NT. When making our brazen speeches that "Paul said this or that" we may only be marking ourselves by our own (biblical) shortsightedness to what Paul may or may not actually be saying (or not saying!). Issues of gender equality, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, political rightness, poverty, victimization, and injustice continue to challenge us by God's Word. Let's just say that it would be a fearful thing should Jesus return today within our lives and churches. Just how many of our judgments and biblical assurances might you think remain?

 

In Paul's day, even this great Rabbi of the Jewish faith (I'm speaking of the Apostle Paul) found his faith impoverished, his ideas conflicted, his ministries oppressive, his love hardened before he met the Resurrected Jesus on the Damascus Road. An experience that burned up the chattel of his life and reapportioned his livelihood to the re-righting of his earthly calling to public ministry. A ministry of love-and-reconciliation rather than of one of oppression-and-judgment. So too must we each must be confronted by our own Damascus Road experience beginning with how we might skew (or unskew) our interpretations of the OT text and NT principles we think we understand today in the postmodern sense. No, we do not speak of a relativism, but of a loving God's guidance of His church to err on the side of love, mercy, peace, and forgiveness. To do all in the name of Jesus as we are able or gifted by our separate callings. No more, and no less. And to abandon our guilt, and the oppression of our conscience, by taking all to the Lord as He gives us insight into our lives, our calling, our purpose here in this life when confronted by the crucified Christ.

 

At the last, how did Jesus answer his accusers? To Love the Lord Your God with all your heart, mind, body, and soul. And to Love your neighbor as yourself. Even so may this be prayer and admonition be in our lives this day, as difficult as it is. As challenging as it can be. To do good to everyman... and even more, to love in the power of the Holy Spirit by God's grace and mercy, peace and forgiveness. May this be so for you as God gives you strength and confession, repentance and trust. Amen.

 

R.E. Slater

July 25, 2013

 

 

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Chris Wright on Old Testament Law and Today

by Scot McKnight

Jul 25, 2013

Comments

 

Introductory comments from an article in Christianity Today:

But just as well, we should never say, “Oh, we don’t bother with those things because they are just Old Testament rules.” There are principled reasons why Christians not only need but also should not observe certain Old Testament laws simply as written. And regarding two kinds of law, the New Testament itself provides those reasons. 

The sacrificial laws: The New Testament makes it clear that the religious system of temple, altar, animal sacrifices, priesthood, and the Day of Atonement has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ through the Cross and Resurrection. He has accomplished once and for all what that great system pointed toward. The Book of Hebrews stresses that, whether we are Jewish or Gentile believers, we must not go back to that system, because we already have all that it represented through Christ’s sacrificial death and ascended life in the presence of the Father. 

The food laws: The distinction between clean and unclean animals and foods was symbolic of the distinction between Israel as God’s holy people and the Gentile nations (Lev 20:25–26). In the New Testament, that separation is abolished in Christ, as Paul says in Ephesians 2. Through the Cross, God has made the two cultures one new humanity. And as Peter discovered through his vision in Acts 10; before going to the home of the Gentile Cornelius, what God has called clean should no longer be called unclean. Today some Messianic Jewish believers choose freely to observe the kashrutregulations as a mark of their Jewish community and cultural identity. But in their unity, believers are free from food laws. 

But just because we no longer keep these laws literally does not mean they can’t teach us anything. We are called to present our bodies as a living sacrifice in the service of God. We are called to offer the sacrifice of praise. We are called to cleanness of life in a corrupt world. In fact, if we are tempted to mock Jewish fastidiousness over kosher food in the kitchen, we might ask if we have any sustained commitment to the moral and spiritual distinctiveness that the New Testament upholds. 

We can find principles even in Israel’s civil laws to apply today. The urban Christians in Corinth did not see oxen grinding corn in their city houses. But when Paul wrote to the Corinthian church, he took an Old Testament law about allowing working oxen to be fed from the product of their labors (Deut 25:4) and applied it to Christian workers in Corinth. He sees a principle in the case law—originally meant for the benefit of animals—and applies it to working humans. The principle: Work deserves reward. Later he applies another commandment about how manna was to be collected (totally irrelevant to Corinth, you might think), and applies it to the principle of equality between Christians (1 Cor 9:8–10; 2 Cor 8:13–15). These are biblical examples of creative application of biblical laws in nonliteral, but very appropriate, ways.

 

 

Additional Comments from Scott McKnight:

 

In Blue Parakeet, I advocated that we learn to read Moses’ laws as God’s ways in Moses’ days, and it seems Chris Wright gets close to this view by advocating a hermeneutic of questions that then get re-asked in our day:

The best way to derive principles from the Old Testament law is to ask questions. All laws in all human societies are made for a purpose. Laws happen because people want to change society, to achieve some social goal, to foster certain interests, or to prevent some social evil. So when we look at any particular law or group of biblical laws, we can ask, “What could be the purpose behind this law?” To be more specific: 

● What kind of situation was this law intended to promote or to prevent? 

● What change in society would this law achieve if it were followed? 

● What kind of situation made this law necessary or desirable? 

● What kind of person would benefit from this law, by assistance or protection? 

● What kind of person would be restrained or restricted by this law, and why? 

● What values are given priority in this law? Whose needs or rights are upheld? 

● In what way does this law reflect what we know from elsewhere in the Bible about the character of God and his plans for human life? 

● What principle or principles does this law embody or instantiate?

Now we won’t always be able to answer these questions with much detail or insight. Some laws are just plain puzzling. But asking questions like these leads us to a much broader and deeper grasp of what Old Testament laws were all about: forming the kind of society God wanted to create. 

Then, having done that homework as best we can, we step out of the Old Testament world and back into our own. Ask the same kind of questions about the society we live in and the kind of people we need to be, and the kind of personal and societal objectives we need to aim for in order to be in any sense “biblical.” 

In this way, biblical law can function sharply as a paradigm or model for our personal and social ethics in all kinds of areas: economic, familial, political, judicial, sexual, and so on. We are not “keeping it” in a literalist way like a list of rules. But more important, we are not ignoring it in defiance of what Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16–17. We are studying and using it as guidance, light for the path, in the joyful way of Psalms 1, 19 and 119.

 

Catching Up with Radical Theology

 

 

 

This summer, in my spare time, I thought it would be fun and interesting to join Tripp Fuller and Peter Rollins each Thursday night in a reading group centering on what Radical Theology is, and how it is important to the Christian faith. First, I wanted to know more about the subject itself, and second, to be with a group of Christians who are interested, like myself, in updating our thinking about God and Christianity. Especially as it relates to today's 21st Century's global communities.

 

Importantly, the reading group's discourses have been from a Christian philosophical approach whereas mine have come at it from a postmodern/emergent theological one, as I, and others, have tried to develop and underscore Christianity's relatedness to today's living churches and global societies. Especially since my own, personal faith has evolved out of an evangelic past once focused on a Jesus-faith and Spirit-movement, away from an evangelicalism that now seems to have become dogmatized, institutionalized, and rhetorically excluding to my ears.

 

I believe evangelic Christians who can adopt the spirit of a postmodern, emergent Christianity will find their fellowships and churches busier in the work of the harvest than if they were to remain content with their present-day church forms and teachings that are non-critical of themselves while remaining intensely critical of others. But to begin down this road is to let go (or undo) some of the things we have clung too tightly onto. Confusing worship forms, dogmas, and religious mindsets that have usurped centrality to the Christian faith but in hindsight seem filled with extra-biblical socio-religious boundaries holding the church back from progressing forward.

 

Over the decades it seems that the Christian faith has been broken into thousands of belief systems and centering doctrines, each one emphasizing a portion of Scripture that is thought most important to one's faith-fellowship. But according to the Lord, the church is one, and should utilize its unity as a strength, and not as an opportunity to point out how one group is closer to God than another because of what they believe or practice. Moreover, it seems that Christianity has gotten too defensive of itself rather than listening to the councils of the Spirit everywhere present through this world of ours - as harsh as they sometimes are. We are but burden-bearers and servants, and are not to behave as unthinking, strident voices protecting our dying cultures and decaying time periods. We cannot cling to the past simply because we feel comfortable there. But must allow others in, and in doing so, must learn to bear other's burdens and become servants to their spiritual needs.

 

After many long years of witnessing this state of affairs within the church I began more recently on a journey that would culminate in discovering a postmodern, emergent Christianity that was more expansive and progressive. One without denominational or institutional boundaries. That sought a new voice amongst the din of religious voices everywhere abounding. An assimilating faith that would try to put into words the gleaning processes necessary for an evangelic faith I believed had become irrelevant to a global society's needs and questions. Towards an historic faith that is in the process of becoming more relevant to both believers and non-believers alike. One that might uncover the heart-and-mind of our living God whose handiwork is everywhere present amongst us though our spiritual sight seems too foreshortened to recognize it. One that might allow the updating of a classically-expressed faith delved from its Medieval and Reformational moorings, towards a newer postmodern, emergent orthodoxy that would embrace the past. But would also be more willing to move beyond its classical limitations once culled from within the dark fires and suffering turmoils of the Dark Ages and that of the twin kindred ages of the Enlightenment and Industrial Modernity as expressed by their syllogisms, logic, and humanism. An orthodoxy that has become out-of-date with today's present scholarship and academic discoveries as it clings to fading transitory truths that no longer work but serve only to separate the church from its missional calling as well as from itself.

 

Enter Radical Theology, a philosophical approach that has been 200+ years in the making through the likes of Kant and Kierkegaard, Spinoza/Hegel and Nietzsche, Marx and Freud, in their good, and bad, and ugliness. To be translated and moved forward by this past century's existential and phenomenological philosophers by the names of Ricoeur and Heidegger, Bonhoeffer and Tillich, Caputo and Zizek (not to forget Derrida and Whitehead who turned it all around). Whose insights have now become the responsibility of today's newer Christian disciples in relating God's Word and Self, Spirit and ministry, to a sin hardened world-and-church become blind-and-deaf to the sonorous sounds of God everywhere abounding. And when combined with a postmodern, emergent theology searching for linguistic expression and fluidity of biblical message, Radical Theology seems to be a partial answer along the road of life as we live and die, suffer and laugh with one another. Thus my interest.

 

As Christ followers, we wish to bear forth as expansive a gospel message as is possible given today's social technology and expanding pluralistic, global communities of trade and commerce. A message that might resound from as many sources as is legitimately possible. Nor do we wish to qualify those avenues of help based upon previously built-in religious exclusionary thought. But to listen to all voices - both sacred and secular - while trusting the Spirit of God to lead and direct His Church throughout this period of seismic epistemic growth and assimilation. To begin, we need to look at our own faith and fellowship - both the good and the bad of it - and to judge where it has failed as well as where it has been a blessing. And upon this judgment move it forward towards a more holistic faith that would do justice to God's Word and Mission for this day-and-age.

 

As such, what messages have been bourne here upon the pages of Relevancy22 have not come easily nor without cost. It has been bourne through a very long process of evaluation and learning, research and listening. Of sharing a burden that might allow similarly burdened souls the Spirit's freedom away from the old epistemic boundaries that would bind and kill. That would legalize God's love as Law. A Law that would crucify again the Son of God upon the altars of human pride and religious zeal. That repented not of its judgmental spirit. Nor asked the Lord to open the doors of a closed-minded heart. Nor sought God's grace and mercy to fall afresh from the living councils of His Holy Spirit. An Incarnating God, who came as the Messiah/Savior Jesus to lift the sorrows we bear for the joy of the Cross set before Him.

 

These things have not come easily but at a cost... a cost of giving up old ways of thinking and doing. Of no longer clinging to the older doctrines intemperate of all things unlike itself. Of praying for spiritual wisdom and discernment so that God may again be seen as clearly today as He was eons earlier by Israel and the early church. Of learning to write a new language unlike the evangelic one I've grown too accustomed. A language that lives again under foreign names, tongues, symbolisms, and new theological categories; that is expansive, embracing, enjoining, and enlightening; that is reforming, reclaiming, renewing, rebirthing, and resurrected. May these things, and this mindset, become yours as well, as we pursue the Lord and His mission together by all the avenues made available to us by the Lord's Spirit. Amen.

 

R.E. Slater

July 23, 2013

 

*Side Note - Interestingly Bo Sander's article came out after mine own (Bo works with Tripp at Homebrew). So I have included it below, along with Peter's helpful outline, to help us better understand what Radical Theology intends or subtends.

 

 

 

 

High Gravity Radical Theology Reading List

http://peterrollins.net/?p=4657

 

by Peter Rollins

posted July 23, 2013

 

Recently I’ve been leading an in-depth, online reading group with Tripp Fuller that aims to introduce people to some of the seminal thinkers behind the movement often called Radical Theology.

 

With two hundred people having signed up for the six weeks the whole thing has been a great success and is something I’m keen to experiment with again. Anyway here is a list of what we covered in the course. If you sign up you can still access all the articles and video lectures.

 

Week 1 – Paul Ricoeur

 

“The Critique of Religion” and “The Language of Faith”

Union Theological Quarterly, 28, no. 3 (1973)

 

Week 2 – Martin Heidegger

 

“Phenomenological Explication of Concrete Religious Phenomena in Connection with the Letter’s of Paul”

 

The Phenomenology of Religious Life

 

Week 3 – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

 

Excerpts from Letters and Paper’s from Prison

 

Letters and Papers from Prison

 

Week 4 – Paul Tillich

 

“God above God” and “Two Types of Philosophy of Religion”

 

Theology of Culture

 

Week 5 – John Caputo

 

“Theopoetics as the Insistence of Radical Theology”

 

The Insistence of God

 

Week 6 – Slavoj Žižek

 

“The Fear of Four Words: A Modest Plea for a Hegelian Reading of Christianity”

 

The Monstrosity of Christ

 

Over Lent in 2014 we will be running another online reading group as part of Atheism for Lent. More information to follow.

 

 

 

For Additional Reading:

 

Paul Tillich's "God Above God" and, the "Restlessness of the Human Heart"

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2013/07/paul-tillichs-god-above-god-and.html

 

 

 

 

 

 Radical Theology Cliff Notes

http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2013/07/23/radical-theology-cliff-notes/

by Bo Sanders
July 23, 2013

Comments

 

Sometimes you stumble into something so wildly different than anything you have encountered before that it can give you a bit of whiplash.

 

When this happens in the realm of theology – it can cause a level of trauma to your faith that it feels as if it will never recover.

 

This is where translators and apologist can come in and play a healthy role.

 

I am not a practitioner of Radical Theology per-se. I am more of a practical theologian who is in dialogue with (or informed by) schools of thought that might be challenging to the population as a whole (or at least those who occupy the pews).

 

I received this week’s notes from one Mr. Tripp Fuller that he intended to utilize on the most recent episode of the High Gravity reading group co-hosted by the incomparable Peter Rollins. I took one look at them and thought to myself:

“Self… folks may not know what some of this stuff means. This is sad because much of it has deep implications on living out faith in the 21st century and even deeper implication on the cultural conversation that each of us finds ourselves caught up in the middle of.”

SO I thought it might be interesting to throw a few of the notes out there and to attempt to attach a helpful note on a few items.

 

Here is what I am up to: if you feel like you are interested in a Radical approach but find it out of reach or unclear … please respond in the comment section and we can either A) figure this out together or B) I will point you in a helpful direction if I know of one.

 

Before we start – a couple of overly-simplistic definitions: 

• Radical Theology – a theological approach that is not tied to a congregation, denomination or other sanctioning body. The freedom of not being anchored in a confessional approach allows thinkers to interact with daring, innovative and contemporary schools of thought without consequence of consideration of how the outcome will impact faith communities (at least not primarily). 

• Confessional Theology – a theological approach rooted in both historic tradition and local expression. Confessional theology takes classical perspective and either tries to update it for the current context or attempts to return to some previous incarnation with the hopes of a purer expression or acceptable orthodoxy/practice. 

• Theo-poetics – born out of an awareness that all of our god-talk is both perspectival and provisional. When we speak of god/the divine we do so in imagery, metaphor, and symbol. This awareness of our limitations of language release us to confess that our signifiers (symbols) can never fully or truly represent that which they signify. The result is a freedom to explore, innovate, ratify, renovate and adapt our god-language in order to both expose idolatry and inspire creativity in how we express our beliefs. 

• Big Other – The father-figure in the sky who watches over those [‘s/he’] loves and keeps track of who has been naughty and nice. This being can be called upon to bail one out of a jam or to intervene in some unpleasant situation. This Being also rewards those who live right with good things on this earth as well as eternal rewards and punishments as appropriate.

 

Here are some of Tripp’s notes:

Radical Theology v Confessional

 

 

1) Radical Theology is parasitic to Confessional Theology… on its behalf. Radical Theology is being faithful to what is harbored in the name of ‘God’ – the event & not the tradition on the tradition’s terms.

 

2) Radical Theology reserves the right to ask any question. Because Confessional Theology is accountable to a tradition & its institutions there will be places where questions-conversations-operating conclusions will serves as “conversation stoppers.” Places in which that activity of critical thinking puts one out of the building. (ex. Trinity or Same Sex Marriage)

 

3) Radical Theology seeks to be EXPOSED to the Event w/in the Confessional Theology tradition but not PROPOSE a new articulation of the tradition.

 

4) Radical Theology rejects both the apathetic silence about the Big Other & the theist\atheist debate about the Big Other. The Big Other does not exist.

 

5) Radical Theology displaces the boundaries & certainty of ‘belief’ w/in Confessional Theology – the “how” w/out articulating another ‘what.’ Why? Whatever the ‘what’ is w/in a tradition doesn’t correlate to ‘how’ it is enacted.

 

6) Radical Theology affirms the Event contained IN but not BY Confessional Theology.

 

7) Radical Theology is a material (therefore a political) theology. God’s insistence is about our existence, here in the world, in relationships, & not about our continued or reanimated existence elsewhere. Radical Theology is about faith enacted for this world, not faith in another.

 

8) Radical Theology leaves the logos of Confessional Theology behind for theo-poetics. For the Radical Theologian there is no divine-logic to be learned or sacred syllogisms to be mastered. When ‘words’ are used to close the circle around the truth, the poet protests ‘words’ enslavement… their demonic possession of the impossible possibilities that vanquished on behalf of the actual – the certain – the final – the verdict of Confessional Theology.

.....................

I thought it would be helpful at this point to outline how [John] Caputo frames the turn from Confessional to Radical Theology in his amazing and short book “Philosophy And Theology” . In chapter 5 he illustrates 3 turns that converge together to make the BIG turn:

 

 First up is the Hermeneutical Turn – this a confession we each read a text or interpret our experience from an angle [(e.g., "...from our own personal, socio-religious, point of view." - re slater)]. We all have a location and that means that we all see things from an angle.

Second is the Linguistic Turn – this is a recognition that every discipline and every tradition has its own set of vocabulary and [ideological] concepts that form the ‘rules of the game’ [(or, the rules of our religious faith or religion. -re slater)]. Just as one can not play ‘Sport’ but plays A sport (football or baseball) so one can not speak ‘Language’ but A language. One can not practice ‘Religion’ but A religion. One must learn and abide by the rules of language game that one is playing.

 

Third is the Revolutionary Turn – this is an admission that things change… or rather that the way we see things changes. Working off of Kuhn’s idea of ‘paradigms’ and scientific revolutions, we readily admit that even where the data does not change (the universe) the way that we conceptualize it does periodically alter in radical ways.

 

These three come together to form the Postmodern Turn. They are also helpful for illustrating the sort of thing that Radical Theology is up to [(e.g., Relational Theology will help one to "de-construct" his/her's images of God and faith so that it stands out more clearly, or more purely, against the idolatrous images we unknowingly would serve without thought or question otherwise. It is a form of deep spiritual insight or awareness.

A purity of aspiration or revelation to unlink from ourselves as religious beings, and to leave the "window-dressing" of our faith for its more singular elements of devotion, trust, belief and love. As example, its like becoming a monk without leaving the world; or becoming a more tolerant form of Christian without exposing more rules and confessional creeds; or becoming more devout in your heart, mind, and soul, without seeking the external dresses of devoutness so that others may see it about you. - re slater)].