Author Archives: a3w275

Is Objectivity lost, or just playing hide-and-go-seek? Smith, Derrida, Carson, and maybe even Sailhamer

[This is a guest post by Tim Hankins and is part of a series that the Th.M. students at Western Seminary are doing this semester on understanding the relationship between philosophy and theology.]

In the second chapter of Who’s Afraid of Post-modernism, Smith argues that Derrida‘s assertion “there is nothing outside the text” is not the villain that the caricaturization by some in the Church have made it out to be. He does so by examining “whether Derrida’s claim that everything is interpretation is antithetical to orthodox Christianity.” Indeed he posits that Derrida’s assertion is appropriate and useful. His argument can be framed in the contrast between his fictional renditions of the events of the cross as seen by two fictitious natives of Jerusalem. The first is from the perspective of a Jew who saw Jesus as a pathetic Nazarene whose followers were deluded, the second from the perspective of a Roman centurion who proclaimed that truly this man is the son of God. He argues that both saw the same events and yet each had differing interpretations of those events. From this model, Smith argues that the Gospels themselves are interpretations and that is a good thing.  Conversely, Smith disagrees with Carson’s argument in Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, that if the Gospels are only an interpretation then we can’t know if they are true. Smith pronounces that Carson’s argument “simply conflates truth with objectivity”. He posits that truth does not require objectivity.

I will readily admit that I have not read a translation of Derrida’s On Grammatology in English much less in Derrida’s French, so I have to assume that Smith accurately represents Derrida. Having said that, Smith presents Derrida as arguing against the trend to get at the events behind the text, that the reader’s access to those events is through the text itself, so that “there is nothing outside the text” (p.38). At this point it seems that Derrida is in cahoots with Sailhamer, so that Sailhamer’s Text or Event argument in Introduction to Old Testament Theology is simply a biblical application of Derrida’s principle. Yes the events themselves happened, but scripture is the divine interpretation, the “God’s Associated Press” news articles on (then) current events. This idea does have much to commend it. First and foremost, as Derrida and his sidekick Sailhamer profess, attempts to reconstruct the events from the accounts given in the text miss the point, it is the text that informs us, the text that is inspired, the text that we learn from, not the events. We cannot access the events themselves. We have no window, no fourth dimensional rewind to use to go back and watch the events of which the Bible speaks for ourselves. What is more, even if we did, we might have a very different take than what is written in scripture!  So we necessarily are to rely on the text because it is God’s interpretation on those events, and thus by definition TRUE. Apologetically then this view might provide Christians a way to refute differing claims, other interpretations of the events depicted in scripture; that just because someone else interprets the events differently does not invalidate the divine scriptural interpretation or make it any less TRUE.

I am quite comfortable with Smith’s argument thus far, at least assuming I am correctly understanding and representing him here. But within the larger discussion of subjectivity and objectivity, Smith is identifying the events as the objective, and interpretation of those events as subjective interpretation. Yet it is at this point in his argument that I find Smith’s argument to become a bit . . . squirrely. Up to this point he has pretty solidly used the events as the object, text as subjective interpretation, but without warning he shifts the object to the text (scripture) and the subject to the readers of scripture (p.51 Texts in Community). He suddenly starts “applying” his principle in interpretation of scripture, a distinctly different subject than scripture as the interpretation of events. Yet he does not even camp out here, but the shifts once again (p. 54 Seeing the World through the Word) so that the object is the world and we are the subjects interpreting the things we see, which he argues should be through the interpretive lens of scripture. While objectivity is not necessarily Smith’s main point, he makes enough of an issue about it that I am surprised that he abandons it without much ado.

While I agree that scripture is a TRUE “subjective” interpretation of “objective” events, when we shift things to look at scripture as the object, would scripture not then be “objectively TRUE”? It would seem that Carson’s argument is not necessarily antithetical to Derrida’s (as presented by Smith). They simply have differing objects. Carson (again as presented by Smith) seems to be arguing that when it comes to scriptural interpretation, reading and understanding the Bible, that the authority lies in the object, the Bible. which is TRUE. This means that scripture can be both the subjective divine interpretation of events, without threatening its truth as the object of Christian study. Thus the Bible remains objectively TRUE and subjective interpretation simultaneously.

Don’t forget the Logos giveaway

I  know that most of us are financially set since our Father owns the cattle on a thousand hills. But for anybody who needs a new computer . . .  Logos is having a giveaway! I have been using the Logos for Mac as a beta and have been very impressed with it, and Logos version 4 is a fabulous study tool for studying God’s Word.

Logos Bible Software is giving away thousands of dollars of prizes to celebrate the launch of Logos Bible Software 4 Mac on October 1. Prizes include an iMac, a MacBook Pro, an iPad, an iPod Touch, and more than 100 other prizes!

They’re also having a special limited-time sale on their Mac and PC base packages and upgrades. Check it out!

Logical Fallacies

In arguing for a doctrine of resurrection in the OT, I find that I must disagree with other previous scholars. I found this great page which describes in detail the different logical fallacies. I have been trying to use the proper terminology to be precise in how I disagree with someone’s argument, and am trying not to commit the same errors myself!
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Assistance for the Citation Challenged

For those of you who may be like me and are challenged by citations here are a couple resources to assist you.
This is a link to a citation generator. It feels like cheating its so easy. 🙂
http://www.palomar.edu/dsps/actc/mla/
Here is Western’s document on on writing standards:  writingstandards_thesis_dissertation

Gregory Nazianzen’s Trinitarian Relationship

Here’s the abstract for my paper on Gregory of Nazianzen’s understanding of Trinitarian Relationship

Gregory Nazianzen used very specific terms to demonstrate the deity of the Son and Spirit by showing their relationship to the Father. He based his proof in the unquestioned deity of the Father, and then used relational terminology to explain how the Son and Spirit both shared in the deity of the Father and were distinct persons in and of themselves. The two terms which he primarily used to do this were begotten and procession. These terms were biblical and expressed the essence of their relationship, yet Gregory drew a sharp distinction between the two. Begetting is not procession and vice versa. To interchange the two would invalidate only-begotten and create either 2 Sons of a Son/Grandson relationship. But in his use of Begotten and procession Gregory described the Father as the Source of their divine nature and simultaneously refuted Sabellian Monarchism by establishing the presence of separate persons within the Godhead.

Karl Barth’s doctrine of Israel

It should be unsurprising to anyone who has read Barth that, like any other aspect of theology addressed by Barth, his writing on Israel is both complex and controversial. Perhaps it is a result of his dialectical approach to theology, or perhaps it is simply because of the often confusing nature of his discursive style, but different theologians have come to very different conclusions regarding Barth’s view of Israel. If one wants to understand Barth’s view of Israel, it is necessary to not only study his Church Dogmatics, but also to examine his public life to see the practical aspects of his treatment of Jews, especially in light of the Holocaust. By studying Barth’s theology and practice, one can see that his doctrine of Israel has both positive and negative aspects, and that in practice Barth’s treatment of Jews showed that he too was human, with both strengths and weaknesses.Barth Paper