Religious Language is the topic that completed this module.
Here we talked about the power of language and how it is used in religion- parables, poems, love songs etc. Language depending on how it is written can be interpretated differently by so many people. Take for example the English language; it has got symbolism, oxymoron, similes, and metaphors and so on. Language has so much power if used properly. Looking at the bible especially the King James versions, one cannot help but appreciate the beauty of the language used to communicate to the reader. The amazing parables Jesus told and how they were received by the crowds. Language can be used to express anything and arguable some languages sound more beautiful or are more powerful than others. For example the Victorian way of speaking as compared to the more Americanized English on now. The Victorians seems to speak eloquently and beautifully with very "flowery" English but of course it took them longer to say what they wanted to say but it did carry weight. It is my belief that any language can be used to express and communicate any feelings or beliefs.
If one is to read all the posts at once, it is easy I hope for one to understand how very interrelated they all are in the study of theology. Having studied this much of theology I have come to the conclusion that no text in religion is straight forward, they are all biased based on sources, tradition, faith, experience, interpretation and Language but I follow the post modernist view and as an individual can know my own truth and accept that it is different from someone else's and be open to receive the other persons truth acknowledging the fact that I will be biased based on my personality as a whole. So I conclude that it is indeed all very relative!
Monday, December 6, 2010
INTERPRETATION
INTERPRETATION
Is there any such that as fact?
The aim of the seminar was to explore notions of data, fact and interpretation
Is the bible a fact? What makes something a fact? Does a fact equal truth?
To fully understand these questions I think it is vital to define the word.
Fact-a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact
Having defined fact, how do we as humans or theologians interpret these so called ‘facts’?
Take for example the Bible, it is a truth known because people experienced and observed it happening but when they write it down, it then becomes their own ‘interpretation’
Interpretation/ or to interpret- To explain or tell the meaning of; to expound; to translate orally into intelligible or familiar language or terms; to decipher; to define; -- applied esp. to language, but also to dreams, signs, conduct, mysteries, etc.; as, to interpret the Hebrew language to an Englishman; to interpret an Indian speech. http://www.brainyquote.com/words/in/interpret179946.html
And then over the years scholars have ‘translated’ these interpretations
(Translate-to turn from one language into another or from a foreign language into one's own. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/translate ) and this must make you think that surely some things are lost in translation as it is impossible to produce something as it once was in one language to a different language as different words mean slightly and sometimes completely different things. The subject of language is one that will be explored further in the next seminar but for now, it is the act of interpretation I will be discussing.
To talk about interpretation, it is only natural to mention Hermeneutics.
Hermeneutics (English pronunciation: /hɜrməˈnjuːtɨks/) is the study of interpretation theory, and can be either the art of interpretation, or the theory and practice of interpretation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics
Hermeneutics is the art of interpreting. Although it began as a legal and theological methodology governing the application of civil law, canon law, and the interpretation of Scripture, it developed into a general theory of human understanding. http://groups.chass.utoronto.ca/iih/AboutHermeneutics.htm
I decided to pick out these two definitions because they are very connected to what was discussed in the seminar. What stands out to me in the two definitions is the ‘art of interpretation’ and ‘a general theory of human understanding’. The way I see it, Hermeneutics explains or tells the meaning of something in a way people can understand.
Hermeneutics recognizes the historicity of human understanding. Hermeneutics is in part the practice of historical retrieval, the re-construction of the historical context of scientific and literary works. http://groups.chass.utoronto.ca/iih/AboutHermeneutics.htm
Using hermeneutics to discuss the bible, we looked at accounts of the temptation story from 2 different sources- Mathew and Luke. One would think, they heard a story and therefore they wrote it down, simple. But is it that simple?
The primary importance there in relation to interpretation was the order in which the two stories were written. So bearing in mind that Matthew and Luke perhaps lived in two different villages with two different oral traditions, they ‘interpreted’ or edited these stories to sort of give out different meanings to the readers. Matthew seemed to be much more concerned with the relationship between Christianity and Judaism whilst Luke seemed to me more concerned with Christianity. One story- 2 interpretations. 2 different meanings.
The chain does not end there I don’t think. When we then read the words of the bible, we try to ‘interpret interpretations’ that is to say give it a personal spin and then you might ask yourself, then what right and wrung? What is the false? What is the truth? What is fact? As everything is clearly interpretive? I am exactly at that point, just wondering what makes sense and what doesn’t. I don’t think there is a right or wrung answer because: Nietzsche- everything is a matter of interpretation.
We all stand within a context and within a context we have a perspective from which to make an interpretation and that does not destroy a truth, I think in most cases it enriches it all we need do is to find a middle ground.
Is there any such that as fact?
The aim of the seminar was to explore notions of data, fact and interpretation
Is the bible a fact? What makes something a fact? Does a fact equal truth?
To fully understand these questions I think it is vital to define the word.
Fact-a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact
Having defined fact, how do we as humans or theologians interpret these so called ‘facts’?
Take for example the Bible, it is a truth known because people experienced and observed it happening but when they write it down, it then becomes their own ‘interpretation’
Interpretation/ or to interpret- To explain or tell the meaning of; to expound; to translate orally into intelligible or familiar language or terms; to decipher; to define; -- applied esp. to language, but also to dreams, signs, conduct, mysteries, etc.; as, to interpret the Hebrew language to an Englishman; to interpret an Indian speech. http://www.brainyquote.com/words/in/interpret179946.html
And then over the years scholars have ‘translated’ these interpretations
(Translate-to turn from one language into another or from a foreign language into one's own. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/translate ) and this must make you think that surely some things are lost in translation as it is impossible to produce something as it once was in one language to a different language as different words mean slightly and sometimes completely different things. The subject of language is one that will be explored further in the next seminar but for now, it is the act of interpretation I will be discussing.
To talk about interpretation, it is only natural to mention Hermeneutics.
Hermeneutics (English pronunciation: /hɜrməˈnjuːtɨks/) is the study of interpretation theory, and can be either the art of interpretation, or the theory and practice of interpretation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics
Hermeneutics is the art of interpreting. Although it began as a legal and theological methodology governing the application of civil law, canon law, and the interpretation of Scripture, it developed into a general theory of human understanding. http://groups.chass.utoronto.ca/iih/AboutHermeneutics.htm
I decided to pick out these two definitions because they are very connected to what was discussed in the seminar. What stands out to me in the two definitions is the ‘art of interpretation’ and ‘a general theory of human understanding’. The way I see it, Hermeneutics explains or tells the meaning of something in a way people can understand.
Hermeneutics recognizes the historicity of human understanding. Hermeneutics is in part the practice of historical retrieval, the re-construction of the historical context of scientific and literary works. http://groups.chass.utoronto.ca/iih/AboutHermeneutics.htm
Using hermeneutics to discuss the bible, we looked at accounts of the temptation story from 2 different sources- Mathew and Luke. One would think, they heard a story and therefore they wrote it down, simple. But is it that simple?
The primary importance there in relation to interpretation was the order in which the two stories were written. So bearing in mind that Matthew and Luke perhaps lived in two different villages with two different oral traditions, they ‘interpreted’ or edited these stories to sort of give out different meanings to the readers. Matthew seemed to be much more concerned with the relationship between Christianity and Judaism whilst Luke seemed to me more concerned with Christianity. One story- 2 interpretations. 2 different meanings.
The chain does not end there I don’t think. When we then read the words of the bible, we try to ‘interpret interpretations’ that is to say give it a personal spin and then you might ask yourself, then what right and wrung? What is the false? What is the truth? What is fact? As everything is clearly interpretive? I am exactly at that point, just wondering what makes sense and what doesn’t. I don’t think there is a right or wrung answer because: Nietzsche- everything is a matter of interpretation.
We all stand within a context and within a context we have a perspective from which to make an interpretation and that does not destroy a truth, I think in most cases it enriches it all we need do is to find a middle ground.
Knowledge, Faith and Revelation
In everyday living, how do we decide what is true?
Aim- exploring theories and sources of knowledge in contemporary West, including Christian notions of ‘revelation’
To properly understand this lecture, I think it is vital to define revelation, faith and knowledge.
Revelation
a. The act of revealing or disclosing.
b. Something revealed, especially a dramatic disclosure of something not previously known or realized.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/revelation
Faith is -Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
There are many theories of Knowledge and to explore them one must talk about Epistemology
Epistemology (from Greek ἐπιστήμη – epistēmē, "knowledge, science" + λόγος, "logos") or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge.[1] It addresses the questions:
• What is knowledge?
• How is knowledge acquired?
• How do we know what we know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge?
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EPISTEMI.html
How do we know what we know?
Whenever one wants to give information, its ones responsibility to give account of how one found out what one knows. How reliable is this account? Is there any such thing as 100 percent reliable? “The modernist and postmodernist contend that to count as knowledge a claim must be both absolutely certain and empirically demonstrable”
The question that must follow is, in how many instances can knowledge be absolutely certain and empirically demonstrable? The modernist say reason and scientific experiment meet such criteria but the claims of theology do not. The postmodernists on the other hand “despair of any claims meeting the criteria of absolute certainty” which I agree with and feel that we shouldn’t want to or have to prove everything. We must come to the conclusion that as humans, some things are beyond us and we must just relax and believe or not believe but we must set criteria for knowlegability and fact. Its extremely time consuming and sometimes does not lead to happiness but in my belief madness.
Why must knowledge be something that can be demonstrated or a 100 per cent fact? Why can’t you know things because you feel it?
Scholars say not all claims can be demonstratable and absolutely certain. In fact only a select few are and they are called analytic truths but even those need questioning at some level. Now truths that are related to history are called synthetic truths but even these truths have to be proven and one gets to a point where you must trust the testimony of the people who recorded these stories as eye witnesses or some sort of oral tradition so faith comes in to play here. Knowledge and faith always go hand in hand.
I conclude this blog with a statement made my Jesus from the bible about faith:
I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, "Move from here to there" and it will move.
Matthew 17:20
Aim- exploring theories and sources of knowledge in contemporary West, including Christian notions of ‘revelation’
To properly understand this lecture, I think it is vital to define revelation, faith and knowledge.
Revelation
a. The act of revealing or disclosing.
b. Something revealed, especially a dramatic disclosure of something not previously known or realized.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/revelation
Faith is -Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
There are many theories of Knowledge and to explore them one must talk about Epistemology
Epistemology (from Greek ἐπιστήμη – epistēmē, "knowledge, science" + λόγος, "logos") or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge.[1] It addresses the questions:
• What is knowledge?
• How is knowledge acquired?
• How do we know what we know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge?
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EPISTEMI.html
How do we know what we know?
Whenever one wants to give information, its ones responsibility to give account of how one found out what one knows. How reliable is this account? Is there any such thing as 100 percent reliable? “The modernist and postmodernist contend that to count as knowledge a claim must be both absolutely certain and empirically demonstrable”
The question that must follow is, in how many instances can knowledge be absolutely certain and empirically demonstrable? The modernist say reason and scientific experiment meet such criteria but the claims of theology do not. The postmodernists on the other hand “despair of any claims meeting the criteria of absolute certainty” which I agree with and feel that we shouldn’t want to or have to prove everything. We must come to the conclusion that as humans, some things are beyond us and we must just relax and believe or not believe but we must set criteria for knowlegability and fact. Its extremely time consuming and sometimes does not lead to happiness but in my belief madness.
Why must knowledge be something that can be demonstrated or a 100 per cent fact? Why can’t you know things because you feel it?
Scholars say not all claims can be demonstratable and absolutely certain. In fact only a select few are and they are called analytic truths but even those need questioning at some level. Now truths that are related to history are called synthetic truths but even these truths have to be proven and one gets to a point where you must trust the testimony of the people who recorded these stories as eye witnesses or some sort of oral tradition so faith comes in to play here. Knowledge and faith always go hand in hand.
I conclude this blog with a statement made my Jesus from the bible about faith:
I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, "Move from here to there" and it will move.
Matthew 17:20
Context: Post-Modern and Pluralist
Ludwig Feuerbach- our claims to knowledge reveal only the mysteries of our own nature.
Investigating content and coherency of Christian gospel within the cultural and intellectual context of it’s time.
So how has context shaped my understanding of theology?
What is context?
Context is the surroundings, circumstances, environment, background, or settings which determine, specify, or clarify the meaning of an event. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context
Having defined context, to start to explain the topic for today, it is also important to define modernism, post modernism and pluralism
Modernism, in its broadest definition, is modern thought, character, or practice. More specifically, the term describes both a set of cultural tendencies and an array of associated cultural movement
Postmodernism is a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by the rejection of objective truth and global cultural narrative or meta-narrative. It emphasizes the role of language, power relations, and motivations; in particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-modernism
Religious pluralism is a loosely defined expression concerning acceptance of various religions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism
In this lecture, the word context came up a lot. For theology and I suppose other sectors in life that have to do with history and thinking, context comes into play in the same way, tradition and culture does.
So what does it mean to take context seriously? We live in a world of context and consciousness but what does it mean to take context seriously? I.e. contextualisation?
Contextualization may refer to:
• Contextualization (Bible translation), the process of contextualizing the biblical message as perceived in the missionary mandate originated by Jesus
• Contextualization (sociolinguistics), the use of language and discourse to signal relevant aspects of an interactional or communicative situation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextualization
Before I carry on, I think it is important to refer back to modernism and post modernism and how this relates to context and pluralism.
Modernity encourages individualism. It encourages one to think for oneself and “test all things against the authority of reason” instead of just believing what people told you. Modernism is believed to have some relationship with science as science is a lot to do with proving things and it believes that the intrusion of personal faith and belief makes it impossible to make a fair judgment on what is true or not so it “hampers the quest for truth”.
Modernity works hand in hand with a Reductionism
Reductionism- is a habit of mind whereby a true explanation of reality is achieved by breaking it down into its smallest parts and identifying the laws by which those parts are related to each other.
Modernity uses science experiment and rationality and so does Reductionism.
Postmodenity on the other hand suggests a new culture that has completely left modernity behind. Completely may be a slight overstatement as Post modernity does have some if not very minor characteristics of modernity. For example it encourages individualism but it also discards reasoning and instead goes with the belief that a truth or a fact doesn’t exist as different things are true for different people- “we each see the world from our own point of view , and there simply is no truth which is true for us all”
Having briefly described defined and described the terms above one can see how they connect to theology and more particularly Christian theology. It is my belief that Pluralism or more particularly Christian Pluralism has evolved from modernity and post modernity because it has encouraged people to think for themselves instead of just following a very traditional institutionalized church that has laws, very strict rules and beliefs you can not question. Instead people have been encouraged to be different, to think outside the box and to question authority leading them to begin a community of people with simple interests, beliefs and personalities and forming a church that they can believe in and find more acceptable.
Investigating content and coherency of Christian gospel within the cultural and intellectual context of it’s time.
So how has context shaped my understanding of theology?
What is context?
Context is the surroundings, circumstances, environment, background, or settings which determine, specify, or clarify the meaning of an event. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context
Having defined context, to start to explain the topic for today, it is also important to define modernism, post modernism and pluralism
Modernism, in its broadest definition, is modern thought, character, or practice. More specifically, the term describes both a set of cultural tendencies and an array of associated cultural movement
Postmodernism is a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by the rejection of objective truth and global cultural narrative or meta-narrative. It emphasizes the role of language, power relations, and motivations; in particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-modernism
Religious pluralism is a loosely defined expression concerning acceptance of various religions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism
In this lecture, the word context came up a lot. For theology and I suppose other sectors in life that have to do with history and thinking, context comes into play in the same way, tradition and culture does.
So what does it mean to take context seriously? We live in a world of context and consciousness but what does it mean to take context seriously? I.e. contextualisation?
Contextualization may refer to:
• Contextualization (Bible translation), the process of contextualizing the biblical message as perceived in the missionary mandate originated by Jesus
• Contextualization (sociolinguistics), the use of language and discourse to signal relevant aspects of an interactional or communicative situation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextualization
Before I carry on, I think it is important to refer back to modernism and post modernism and how this relates to context and pluralism.
Modernity encourages individualism. It encourages one to think for oneself and “test all things against the authority of reason” instead of just believing what people told you. Modernism is believed to have some relationship with science as science is a lot to do with proving things and it believes that the intrusion of personal faith and belief makes it impossible to make a fair judgment on what is true or not so it “hampers the quest for truth”.
Modernity works hand in hand with a Reductionism
Reductionism- is a habit of mind whereby a true explanation of reality is achieved by breaking it down into its smallest parts and identifying the laws by which those parts are related to each other.
Modernity uses science experiment and rationality and so does Reductionism.
Postmodenity on the other hand suggests a new culture that has completely left modernity behind. Completely may be a slight overstatement as Post modernity does have some if not very minor characteristics of modernity. For example it encourages individualism but it also discards reasoning and instead goes with the belief that a truth or a fact doesn’t exist as different things are true for different people- “we each see the world from our own point of view , and there simply is no truth which is true for us all”
Having briefly described defined and described the terms above one can see how they connect to theology and more particularly Christian theology. It is my belief that Pluralism or more particularly Christian Pluralism has evolved from modernity and post modernity because it has encouraged people to think for themselves instead of just following a very traditional institutionalized church that has laws, very strict rules and beliefs you can not question. Instead people have been encouraged to be different, to think outside the box and to question authority leading them to begin a community of people with simple interests, beliefs and personalities and forming a church that they can believe in and find more acceptable.
Reason in Christian Faith and Theology
How might reason inform faith?
Definition of reason- Reason is a mental faculty (or ability) found in humans, that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises. In other words, it is amongst other things the means by which rational beings propose specific reasons, or explanations of cause and effect. In contrast to reason as an abstract noun, a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
Definition of philosophy- Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
How does our thinking help/or not help in justifying our faith?
Can faith and reason work hand in hand? (Medieval synthesis)
Justin Martyr tried to explain Christianity using a reasonable argument not just faith.
“I found this (Christian faith) philosophy alone to be safe and profitable. Thus, and for this reason, I am a philosopher” Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 8
Some people struggle to accept faith and reason together in Christianity, there’s the famous quote that goes “why do you need proof when the good Lord fills your heart with faith?” but Christians and non-Christians alike have the ability to question certain things in Christianity and faith can not answer all the questions, neither can reason but with I believe reason helps for a stronger faith
Aquinas taught and I paraphrase that by being able to think about things and question things we can know that God exists and is one but also faith is essential for such things as the holy trinity, Christ incarnation and life after death.
But there is the counter argument by Tertullian that “unaided philosophical enquiry, indeed almost any philosophical enquiry, is the source of error and heresy” and Calvin agrees with him and so do some theologians, they would argue that sometimes reason trumps faith and you must use intellectual questions to win people over to Christianity but if one believes that then you dismiss the most essential characteristic about the Christian faith which is that it is freely available to all, scholar or not, rich or poor, literate or illiterate. It is a “gift to the simple in heart”
I more or less agree that reason and faith go together; I think they have to go together. In the bible Jesus talks about blind faith- “Faith without seeing” when he rebukes “doubting Thomas” one of his disciples but when he was alive, the disciples asked him questions, they wanted answers, they wanted to know more who Jesus was and why he had come. God gave us the ability to reason for ourselves, he gave man free will so we could make our own decision.
Definition of reason- Reason is a mental faculty (or ability) found in humans, that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises. In other words, it is amongst other things the means by which rational beings propose specific reasons, or explanations of cause and effect. In contrast to reason as an abstract noun, a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
Definition of philosophy- Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
How does our thinking help/or not help in justifying our faith?
Can faith and reason work hand in hand? (Medieval synthesis)
Justin Martyr tried to explain Christianity using a reasonable argument not just faith.
“I found this (Christian faith) philosophy alone to be safe and profitable. Thus, and for this reason, I am a philosopher” Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 8
Some people struggle to accept faith and reason together in Christianity, there’s the famous quote that goes “why do you need proof when the good Lord fills your heart with faith?” but Christians and non-Christians alike have the ability to question certain things in Christianity and faith can not answer all the questions, neither can reason but with I believe reason helps for a stronger faith
Aquinas taught and I paraphrase that by being able to think about things and question things we can know that God exists and is one but also faith is essential for such things as the holy trinity, Christ incarnation and life after death.
But there is the counter argument by Tertullian that “unaided philosophical enquiry, indeed almost any philosophical enquiry, is the source of error and heresy” and Calvin agrees with him and so do some theologians, they would argue that sometimes reason trumps faith and you must use intellectual questions to win people over to Christianity but if one believes that then you dismiss the most essential characteristic about the Christian faith which is that it is freely available to all, scholar or not, rich or poor, literate or illiterate. It is a “gift to the simple in heart”
I more or less agree that reason and faith go together; I think they have to go together. In the bible Jesus talks about blind faith- “Faith without seeing” when he rebukes “doubting Thomas” one of his disciples but when he was alive, the disciples asked him questions, they wanted answers, they wanted to know more who Jesus was and why he had come. God gave us the ability to reason for ourselves, he gave man free will so we could make our own decision.
Experience of the human and transcendent: in Christian Faith and theology
Experience of the human and transcendent: in Christian Faith and theology
“I feel therefore I am” Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
For this topic I think it is important for me to recall the definition of theology and connect that to the definition of experience.
So what is Theology? Theology describes the study, writing, research or speaking on the nature of gods especially in relation to human experience. (This definition was taken from the notes of the very first lecture we had on theology)
What is Experience? Experience as a general concept comprises knowledge of or skill in or observation of something or some event gained through involvement in or exposure to that thing or event.
So the next question that follows is what is the relationship between experience and theology? More precisely what is the variety of models in which experience is employed as a source for the doing of Theology?
From the definition of Theology, it is quite obvious that there is a significant but also complex relationship between the study of Theology and human experience and that was explored further in the lecture.
“Christian faith is bound up in some way with the experience of the individual both as an individual and as a member of that community” Practice page 185
Experience is very important in Christianity because every Christian must go on a personal spiritual journey and every journey is different . This journey is important because it helps create or solidify the foundation of your faith- “I feel therefore I am”
Having said that, there are two questions one must ask here- is experience important to study Theology? And vice versa?. To answer that question, one must understand that because experience is so personal and different to each individual the role it would play in the study of theology is very tricky because you then have to ask yourself – is one persons experience more real than the other? Which experience is more important? What characteristics must these experiences have? Where do you draw the line? And who is in charge of drawing the line? When you start asking these questions, you realise the relationship is not so clear cut after all.
Going back to the bible it is quite obvious that most stories in the bible are in part stories of human experiences with God, this could then mean that “the experience of the people of God has shaped and critiqued theology” but this should not mean that theology should accept a claim of truth that is based on experience alone for the reasons just mentioned above. Theology should be able to respect this claim but also seek out a way to test this claim.
At the risk of making this essay monotonus and repeating myself, experience of God is very personal but also has many grey areas as St Augustine of Hippo tried to point out. In his autobiography Confessions, he questions his own experiences “Shall I call on God so as to know him or do I call on Him because I know Him? “, Does experience of God equal the knowledge of God or does knowledge give the experience?
I think individual experience is very important for theological enquiry and perhaps this might apply more to the Christian faith but that’s the gift of Jesus Christ. The personal experience is important at some point in ones journey for you to have some knowledge of God as it is my belief that “Every Christian is a potential theologian”( http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/EXTHEO.htm) but it is not mandatory that Christians study theology to become a more rounded Christian. That would be putting Christianity in a box and Christianity can never be put in a box.
“I feel therefore I am” Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
For this topic I think it is important for me to recall the definition of theology and connect that to the definition of experience.
So what is Theology? Theology describes the study, writing, research or speaking on the nature of gods especially in relation to human experience. (This definition was taken from the notes of the very first lecture we had on theology)
What is Experience? Experience as a general concept comprises knowledge of or skill in or observation of something or some event gained through involvement in or exposure to that thing or event.
So the next question that follows is what is the relationship between experience and theology? More precisely what is the variety of models in which experience is employed as a source for the doing of Theology?
From the definition of Theology, it is quite obvious that there is a significant but also complex relationship between the study of Theology and human experience and that was explored further in the lecture.
“Christian faith is bound up in some way with the experience of the individual both as an individual and as a member of that community” Practice page 185
Experience is very important in Christianity because every Christian must go on a personal spiritual journey and every journey is different . This journey is important because it helps create or solidify the foundation of your faith- “I feel therefore I am”
Having said that, there are two questions one must ask here- is experience important to study Theology? And vice versa?. To answer that question, one must understand that because experience is so personal and different to each individual the role it would play in the study of theology is very tricky because you then have to ask yourself – is one persons experience more real than the other? Which experience is more important? What characteristics must these experiences have? Where do you draw the line? And who is in charge of drawing the line? When you start asking these questions, you realise the relationship is not so clear cut after all.
Going back to the bible it is quite obvious that most stories in the bible are in part stories of human experiences with God, this could then mean that “the experience of the people of God has shaped and critiqued theology” but this should not mean that theology should accept a claim of truth that is based on experience alone for the reasons just mentioned above. Theology should be able to respect this claim but also seek out a way to test this claim.
At the risk of making this essay monotonus and repeating myself, experience of God is very personal but also has many grey areas as St Augustine of Hippo tried to point out. In his autobiography Confessions, he questions his own experiences “Shall I call on God so as to know him or do I call on Him because I know Him? “, Does experience of God equal the knowledge of God or does knowledge give the experience?
I think individual experience is very important for theological enquiry and perhaps this might apply more to the Christian faith but that’s the gift of Jesus Christ. The personal experience is important at some point in ones journey for you to have some knowledge of God as it is my belief that “Every Christian is a potential theologian”( http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/EXTHEO.htm) but it is not mandatory that Christians study theology to become a more rounded Christian. That would be putting Christianity in a box and Christianity can never be put in a box.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Tradition as an authority
“A tradition is a practice, custom, or story that is memorized and passed down from generation to generation, originally without the need for a writing system” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition
Its arguable to say that tradition helps build a religion, take for example Christmas, Hanukkah, Easter, Sallah. Different religions celebrate these but they are all traditions passed down from generation to generation but does that on its own make a religion or is it above the holy book of the said religion?
Every culture and every religion has tradition as a foundation. I will be examining tradition as an authority in the next few paragraphs, particularly Christian tradition, as one might know; Christianity places a lot of emphasis on tradition e.g. the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox.
So what is Christian Tradition- “Christian Tradition is the living process whereby each generation within the church receives practices and teachings from the one before and hands on, perhaps slightly altered to the next”.
I wonder if it is then safe to say tradition is just as authoritative as the written scripture. It is obvious that the oral tradition predates written tradition, I mean even the New Testament was written over 20 years after Jesus’ death so it is obvious that people talked about it before it was eventually written down but then again is tradition confused with prophecy and narratives as the bible isn’t just made up of rules and laws to follow but stories, prophecies and doctrines. It is true that Jesus warned against man made traditions but he respected his Jewish traditions. Even St Paul in his letter to the Corinthians talks about tradition “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.......maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you” but perhaps he was asking them to use the tradition as a guide which of course we have to as no one in last thousand or so generation was alive when Jesus was, all we have is the traditions that we practice (written) in relation to the scriptures.
Basil of Caesarea argued in favour of tradition but also acknowledges the fact that tradition and scripture are separate entities “there is an unwritten teaching alongside written teaching which is just as apostolic and just as authoritative”, but isn’t tradition greatly influenced by culture and man’s influence but one might ask isn’t that the same for the scriptures? - (inspired by God, written by man).
Because we were taught to do things in a certain way, does that make it right? Well apparently so, as the Christian Tradition claims: “That ‘the church has taught’ a particular position, or that ‘many theologians have believed ‘it, or that ‘it has been universally held that’ this thing is true, is regarded as in itself an argument in favour of the position in.....theological work”
There are so many arguments for tradition as an authority (in some cases) over the scriptures, David Benett in his article The Christian Tradition: Living, Holy, and Relevant argue that tradition is unavoidable, he goes further to say that the church would not have survived if it were not for Tradition. This makes me wonder if oral tradition is sometimes confused with story telling. So I tell a friend about a dream I had or something that happened to me in my childhood and she tells her children and the children tell their children’s children and so on does that then become the tradition? What I am trying to say is: The act of telling a story is a tradition but is the story itself a tradition or a narrative?
Of course there are arguments against tradition and scripture and that is in the form of the movement Sola Scriptura which means Scripture alone but surely in the scriptures itself there are a lot of traditions slipped in as it can’t be helped.
Tradition should be a guide which aids us .Christians need tradition as it weren’t there and tradition does I believe help to preserve faith in religion but Scripture stands alone at the head of the tradition. I think Scriptures can just about stand alone but tradition cannot.
Its arguable to say that tradition helps build a religion, take for example Christmas, Hanukkah, Easter, Sallah. Different religions celebrate these but they are all traditions passed down from generation to generation but does that on its own make a religion or is it above the holy book of the said religion?
Every culture and every religion has tradition as a foundation. I will be examining tradition as an authority in the next few paragraphs, particularly Christian tradition, as one might know; Christianity places a lot of emphasis on tradition e.g. the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox.
So what is Christian Tradition- “Christian Tradition is the living process whereby each generation within the church receives practices and teachings from the one before and hands on, perhaps slightly altered to the next”.
I wonder if it is then safe to say tradition is just as authoritative as the written scripture. It is obvious that the oral tradition predates written tradition, I mean even the New Testament was written over 20 years after Jesus’ death so it is obvious that people talked about it before it was eventually written down but then again is tradition confused with prophecy and narratives as the bible isn’t just made up of rules and laws to follow but stories, prophecies and doctrines. It is true that Jesus warned against man made traditions but he respected his Jewish traditions. Even St Paul in his letter to the Corinthians talks about tradition “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.......maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you” but perhaps he was asking them to use the tradition as a guide which of course we have to as no one in last thousand or so generation was alive when Jesus was, all we have is the traditions that we practice (written) in relation to the scriptures.
Basil of Caesarea argued in favour of tradition but also acknowledges the fact that tradition and scripture are separate entities “there is an unwritten teaching alongside written teaching which is just as apostolic and just as authoritative”, but isn’t tradition greatly influenced by culture and man’s influence but one might ask isn’t that the same for the scriptures? - (inspired by God, written by man).
Because we were taught to do things in a certain way, does that make it right? Well apparently so, as the Christian Tradition claims: “That ‘the church has taught’ a particular position, or that ‘many theologians have believed ‘it, or that ‘it has been universally held that’ this thing is true, is regarded as in itself an argument in favour of the position in.....theological work”
There are so many arguments for tradition as an authority (in some cases) over the scriptures, David Benett in his article The Christian Tradition: Living, Holy, and Relevant argue that tradition is unavoidable, he goes further to say that the church would not have survived if it were not for Tradition. This makes me wonder if oral tradition is sometimes confused with story telling. So I tell a friend about a dream I had or something that happened to me in my childhood and she tells her children and the children tell their children’s children and so on does that then become the tradition? What I am trying to say is: The act of telling a story is a tradition but is the story itself a tradition or a narrative?
Of course there are arguments against tradition and scripture and that is in the form of the movement Sola Scriptura which means Scripture alone but surely in the scriptures itself there are a lot of traditions slipped in as it can’t be helped.
Tradition should be a guide which aids us .Christians need tradition as it weren’t there and tradition does I believe help to preserve faith in religion but Scripture stands alone at the head of the tradition. I think Scriptures can just about stand alone but tradition cannot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)