Connecting Emergent Ideas (1 of 2)
May 10, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall
I finally had a chance to listen to Bleeding Purple’s podcast of a two-part interview with Brian McLaren, and I found it extremely helpful for grasping a more complete picture of Emergent Christianity (how the ideas fit together as whole, their roots, and their implications). As McLaren points out in the interview, the views he shares with us aren’t just individual, unrelated thoughts. They’re part of a “whole package”–a “different vision” of Christianity that he’s gathering together “piece by piece.”
This interview allowed me to connect some dots between certain Emergent ideas–ideas that begin with a different view of truth and end with a different view of Jesus. Whether you agree or disagree with McLaren’s philosophical foundation and the ideas that logically follow, it’s important to clarify the “whole package” because acceptance of certain key parts will connect you to other key parts you may not have realized were related.
I’ll clarify using quotes from the interview, and I encourage you all to listen to the interview itself in context (Part One, Part Two), or read a (mostly accurate) transcript here.
1. Our reality is constructed by our society through the ways we have chosen to use words. Therefore, we have no real intellectual “knowledge” of God (His characteristics, who He is, etc.)–we have only the way we have chosen to talk about Him. Since our concepts are only a result of our language, we should not trust our intellectual ideas about God.
McLaren: [T]he God who really exists has to always be greater than the language we use in speaking about God. [This understanding] gives us permission to doubt the way we speak about God as an act of faith in saying that the real God would have to be better than the way we speak about God….Only wonder understands; concepts create idols. And for someone like yourself and like me and so many of us who have grown up in evangelical contexts, where we argue about God in ways that would make you think that we have great confidence in our words to capture God, so we’re ready to pillory somebody who doesn’t use words just the same way we do.
2. If our language talks about God but can’t express literal truth about God, then the Bible does not contain such truth, and conforming our ideas to those expressed in the words of the Bible is not the best way for everyone to find God.
3.If we do not accept the full Bible as expressing real truth about God, then we will not see the full picture of not only his mercy and grace (which everyone leaps to embrace), but also his holiness and justice (which humans have resisted throughout time).
4. If we do not have a concept of God’s holiness and the goodness and rightness of justice, then we must conclude that the main problem God has with sin is not that it requires justice and separates us from Himself, but that it destroys relationships between people and makes them unhappy.
McLaren: I think the problem is God wants His children to get along with each other. He wants them to be good people because He’s good. And His vision for creation is that they’ll love each other and be good to each other and enjoy each other and have a lot of fun together. So sin is incredibly serious. But I think we’ve shifted why it’s so important….The problem is–why does sin matter to God?…We have a vision that the real problem is God wants to kill us all. And we’ve got to somehow solve that problem. And what that does, Leif, to me that is so significant, is that it then minimizes the concern about injustice between human beings. That becomes a peripheral concern. But what if that’s God’s real concern from beginning to end, see?
This view of sin directly affects one’s view of the cross, and ultimately, of Jesus. I’ll continue to clarify the progression of these ideas tomorrow.
Related posts:
- Connecting Emergent Ideas (2 of 2)
- Discussing Emergent: A Plea for Realism and Charity
- Reconsidering Emergent Theology
- Where is Emergent Going?
- Loneliness and the Postmodern View of Language
- What is the Emergent Church?
Posted in Amy's Posts, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Religion (General), Theology
content rss
May 10th, 2006 at 10:58 am
One wonders if Brian thinks that his statement I think the problem is God wants His children to get along with each other [and] He wants them to be good people because He's good captures God. Of course, this depends on how he uses the word capture, for he seems to use it to create a caricature, as though we conservatives “have everything pretty much sewed up and [we
May 10th, 2006 at 11:40 am
The key issue does seem to be their view of holiness and justice. Justice is simply not seen as something good, and the concept doesn't enter into the discussion (except as a caricature of “God wanting to kill people”).
I think McLaren was the one in the interview who asked the question, why would God ask us to forgive if He's not willing to do so Himself? But I would be interested to hear his answer to the question, why would God ask governments to bring about justice (see Romans 13) if He's not willing to do so Himself? Surely God's role, as the ultimate authority, would be closer to that of a government than that of an individual. The individual, who is not God or a government is told in Romans 12:19 to “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay,' says the Lord.”
Not that I don't think God is also merciful and gracious. It just doesn't seem to me that they have the whole picture. It's precisely because of justice that his mercy is mercy and his grace is grace. He doesn't owe us forgiveness, nor is he compelled to forgive.
So then the question becomes, why this aversion to the idea of justice? By looking at the Bible differently, they don't accept this aspect of His character, but I suspect there's more to it beyond that. It certainly reflects a larger trend in our culture, and as it reflects the current culture of the past few decades, it's even less likely that it reflects timeless truth. Did our culture, apart from God, discover the real character of God before those who love Him, seek Him, and have His words? It seems unlikely.
May 10th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Hi Amy,
Long time listener, first time caller.
First of all, Brian and I don't agree on everything, so please don't interpret my comment as a defense of everything that Brian or Emergent Village has said or believes. Moreover, EV is a subset (albeit a great big one) of the emerging church and not co-extensive with it (a statement which they would also affirm).
I went to Brian's church from 1988 until 2001 and for part of that time was pastor with Brian at Cedar Ridge. With respect, your statement
“Therefore, we have no real intellectual “knowledge” of God (His characteristics, who He is, etc.)–we have only the way we have chosen to talk about Him. ”
in my opinion is an over-reading of Brian's comment. My understanding of where Brian is coming from is
1 – Language is symbolic.
2 – Language does not entirely capture reality.
3 – But language is capable of capturing reality.
So, for example, I can tell you that I hugged my 6 year old girl yesterday and that is a true statement and points to something that actually happened in space and time but it does not at all capture the joy in my heart, the feeling, the delight in loving my youngest daughter. Even as I throw words at my feeling, you definitely get some comprehension of what I feel, but you do not know what I feel in its entirety. I think we see Paul bumping up against the same limitation in Ephesians 3:17-19.
I would encourage you to read (and perhaps you have) this statement from Emergent where they address this and other issues.
And if you'd like to dive a little deeper into Brian's epistemology, see this exchange.
Now, in affirming transpropostionality have some in the emerging church inordinately depreciated propositions? Some probably have.
So, again, I post not to discourage critique – we all need it – but to say that it's important that we work really hard to ensure that we are accurately representing the position of the one with whom we disagree.
And if you think I've not understood you, please push back!
blessings,
Stephen Shields
sshields@faithmaps.org
http://www.faithmaps.org
http://faithmaps.blogspot.com
http://katrinagrace.blogspot.com
May 10th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Amy and Stephen-
Thanks for diving into this since this interview raises some interesting questions. Both of your posts/sites continue to be must reads as I have come to value your opinions.
Stephen- your voice is certainly needed at this important time since you encourage the ec, and are openly committed to orthodoxy. I hope you do more interviews in and out of the ec community.
Amy- keep up the good work. I look forward to tomorrow's comments and hopefully an insightful dialogue between you and Stephen.
May 10th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
I do believe, as Stephen alludes to, a serious discussion on the use of language continues to be needed in these types of debates. To say language can not “capture” who God is doesn't mean we can not speak correctly or intelligently about God. The modernist's anxiety to ground knowledge and find certainity leads them to see ambiguity as suspect, or worse, deceptive and… wimpy.
But if God is truly infinite, he can not be predicated. If God is infinite he transcends the distinctions we make by the use of language. Those who value the supremacy of God in and over all things, I would think, would cheer this proper understanding and place of God in our finite use of language. Instead, the modernist anxiety to ground knowledge trumps the infinity of God and attempts to define him as a finite object among others seem to be more important. This is troubling to me.
LeRon Shults has an article that touches on the meta-distinction with God and the use of language concerning him. It is profoundly helpful and I encourage the read. Beware, it is a mix of theology, philosophy and theoretical mathematics so it isn't a light read. You can find the article at this link.
May 10th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Something didn't work… probably me. Here's another try http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article2.asp?ID=8350
May 10th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Stephen, thanks for writing and for the links. Glad to hear you're a long time listener–feel free to call in more often!
I agree that we don't know everything about God–that there is more to Him than He has revealed to us or that we can comprehend. But I think what McLaren is saying goes beyond that.
Take a look at his quote above where I highlighted a portion with red letters. He says we're against not those who have a different understanding of what the words mean, or those with a wrong idea of what's true, but against those “who [don't] use words just the same way we do.” In other words, I talk about God one way, and you might talk about God another way, but that's all it is–talk, words, the language of our community. He says we should not have confidence in this way we talk such that we speak out against someone who talks another way. Why? Because we should not have confidence that our words actually match reality. The words don't represent actual truth and actual falsehood; they're just our attempt to get at God.
McLaren's interviewer gets what he is saying (I hope you'll get a chance to hear the entire interview) because later on, he asks Brian how he can connect with God if he has to get there without words or concepts about Him (I'll talk more about this on Thursday or Friday). He understands that our words and language are our creation, but the reality of God is something else. Does that make sense?
So where I would say that the words of the Bible are more than just the language of the ancient Jewish community–that they refer to reality and that we're able to comprehend it, I think, from what I've read of McLaren and from what I understand about the postmodern use of language, that he sees the Bible differently.
Now, as Timbo points out, no one can escape using words to describe God and thinking those words actually describe Him. This is because God created us to use language to refer to actual reality, and this is how we work as human beings. So McLaren expresses concepts about God as being true even as he's speaking against doing so, but I think he's giving contradictory messages.
May 10th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
“If God is infinite he transcends the distinctions we make by the use of language.”
Brian could you expand on what you're saying here for clarity's sake? Can you give me an example of the kind of distinction you're referring to that God transcends? I think there are many statements in the Bible that God is something and not the opposite of that thing (for example, good as opposed to not good). Are you saying that God is “bigger” than “good or bad”? Or are you meaning something else?
“Instead, the modernist anxiety to ground knowledge trumps the infinity of God and attempts to define him as a finite object among others seem to be more important. This is troubling to me.”
You can rest assured–I don't know of any evangelical Christian who defines God as a finite object! I think your statement here might be demonstrating our differences very well. Defining who God is based on His revelation of Himself doesn't mean we know everything there is to know about God. But your assumption that detailing the revealed attributes of God (though we can't comprehend the magnitude of their greatness) makes Him finite seems to go along with your first statement that I quoted–that is, that He is “beyond distinctions” such that we can't say he is one thing but not another (if that's really what you meant to say).
May 10th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Brian,
I was a little confused about your meaning, too, when you said:
If God is infinite he transcends the distinctions we make by the use of language.
When taken at face value, this statement just seems odd. God transcending the distinctions we make by the use of language depends, according to your statement, on “God is infinite” being true. But “God is infinite” represents language in use to describe God. If God transcends our use of language, then he must transcend “God is infinite,” but if God transcends “God is infinite,” then the condition of the statement doesn't hold. If the condition of the statement holds, then God may not transcend our use of language.
Oh dear. I wrote this hoping to get some more clarification from you, but having written it, I'm afraid I was even less clear than you were. Isn't that ironic?
May 10th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
Since our concepts are only a result of our language, we should not trust our intellectual ideas about God.
I think this statement assumes facts not in evidence, to do my Perry Mason impression. First, I would say that since language is a distinctively human ability, and most linguists agree that true language is not found elsewhere in the animal world, it is not wrong to see it as having its origins in God, not in the material world. It's not a fluke of evolution, in other words.
Language is likely one of those ways in which we are “in the image of God.” It facilitates the relationship we believe God intended us to have with him.
Therefore, it makes no real sense to believe that language has no reliable capability for expressing things about God if it is a special creation of God designed to make communication with God possible.
Secondly, our minds, again in ways that are unique to our species, are capable of abstract reasoning, and those abstractions come first, followed by the vocabulary to describe them. Our language is the result of our concepts, not the other way around. Because God reveals himself to humanity, in Word, in Christ, and through his Spirit, we have been given the concepts that define the nature of God by God himself.
Our language often falls short of being able to express these abstractions well, and we may fail to understand the abstract concepts about God that have been revealed to us, but I doubt that we are far off the mark. If God's revelation cannot be understood by us, what would be the point of his attempts to reveal himself in the first place? If we're incapable of forming reliable intellectual ideas about God, didn't Jesus waste an awful lot of time preaching to such a dumb audience?
May 10th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
“It is not wrong to see it as having its origins in God, not in the material world.”
Charlie, I think you've hit on an important point. It's my understanding that, if you trace the idea to its origins, the postmodern idea of language came from the assumption of evolution (random, without God) and naturalism (no God or spiritual reality exists). If language evolved and was not created, there's no guarantee it relates to the real world, nor is there any guarantee we have access to the real world that can be described by language.
The biblical worldview, on the other hand, assumes we are created by God in His image to be in relationship with Him. Only in this kind of world is true communication possible (where we have access to the world and where words refer to things in the real world). I think it's a mistake to adopt ideas that came from the naturalist perspective rather than those based on the theistic perspective because ultimately, if theism is true, the other ideas are false and false ideas always end up hurting people in some way.
May 10th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Sam and Amy,
Your thoughts and questions are excellent. It is the direction we need to go. But I must say, Amy, while I agree, no God-fearing evangelical would say “God is finite”, one's theology might just presume or imply that God is finite. I'm more concerned with that; the philosophical presuppositions that may indeed conceive of God as finite. That's much more dangerous.
Sam, I'll use your question as an illustration. I think for your logic to stand, you must posit “infinity” as one finite object/subject among others. Isn't that interesting? We can posit infinity as finite. But that's exactly what we do when we set infinity against finitude. But when we say “infinity is not finite”, you are setting limits on infinity.
To embrace true infinity, the true meta-distinction, we must say, “finitude finds its origin, condition and goal within infinity. Infinity upholds and embraces the finite while still transcending it.”
Amy, your words seem to illustrate this. For example, in referring to God's infinity, you speak of the “magnitude” of God's power/knowledge/whatever. This is very typical. Infinity at this level is seen in terms of quantity. But if that is what God's infinity means (i.e. God's love is like our love, but just a whole lot more), than we've still have problem, God's limited to the finite distinction of quantity.
Retrieving the idea of “true infinity” where the finite isn't set up against infinity as its opposite (which again posits infinity as “finite”) we will be well on our way. We need to see that finitude finds its origin, condition and goal within infinity where it is embraced, yet still being transcended.
I need to go watch Lost! But, LeRon Shults has helped me immensely in these areas. His new book, Reforming the Doctrine of God, touches on this area among others.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Hi Amy,
I appreciate the interaction and your irenic spirit.
I hear where your coming from but I don't think that Brian is bound by a Rortian view of truth being entirely contingent on the community.
But let's let Brian speak for himself (speaking with other Emergent Village leaders):
“we truly believe there is such a thing as truth and truth matters”
” we believe that radical relativism is absurd and dangerous”
When you write:
“Because we should not have confidence that our words actually match reality. The words don't represent actual truth and actual falsehood; they're just our attempt to get at God,”
I simply don't read that much pessimism in Brian in his writings or on the 100's of sermons I've heard him preach. There is a difference between saying that words don't match all of truth and saying words don't match truth. The word “kiss” points to something real but to be kissed is something else entirely. Same with God.
Anyway, I fear I'm merely repeating myself so perhaps we'll end up agreeing to disagree, but take these comments for what they're worth. I've no interest in being a controversialist.
blessings,
May 10th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
We had tivo'd Lost and just finished it. What a fantastic episode and I loved the emphasis on faith (now, I'm not sure exactly faith in what but I still loved it!)
May 10th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Brian, I'm afraid I'm even more confused now than I was in the beginning. I'm guessing that maybe my confusion lies in how you're using the words “infinite” and “finite.” Since they are opposites in ordinary usage, it's logically impossible for something to be both infinite and finite at the same time and in the same sense. You seem to think that anything we might say is not infinite puts limits on infinity, in which case infinity is not infinite at all. By saying “infinity is not finite,” I'm basically saying infinity is finite, since I've put a limit on infinity by stipulating what it is not. So to be truly infinite, a thing must be both infinite and finite. I mean no disrespect, but this seems like nonsense to me. I'm sure you're trying to articulate something that isn't quite as crazy as it seems on a first hearing, but I confess I dont' get it. Maybe if you could explain to me what you mean by “infinite” I could understand.
But let me ask you another question. You seem to make a distinction between “infinite” and “truly infinite.” If I say that “God is infinite,” I'm treating infinity as if it were a finite thing. On the other hand, you say the “truly infinite” embraces the finite while transcending it. So my question is this: Since saying “God is infinite” treats infinity as a finite thing, what if I were to say “God is truly infinite”? Would that make “truly infinite” a finite thing, too? If so, then what's the use in the distinction? If not, then would you say that “God is truly infinite” captures something that is true about God in the correspondence sense of the word “true”?
May 10th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Your point here is exactly one of the key positions in a paper I am writing right now. Its the response paper from my class with McLaren, and after my discussions with him, one of my most striking concerns is that he is starting with an image of God and an ethic that does not embrace a great deal of what scripture says of God.
I have more thinking to do about it, but I intend to share it with you all when its finished. The A-team gets a prominent place in the paper.
May 10th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Wow! I'm genuinely honored that the A-Team made it into your paper. In a strange coincidence, I'm working on a hermeneutics project which includes the 1 Kings 14, 2 Samuel 11-12, Psalm 51 thing you preached on oh-so-many years ago. Thanks for that!
As for McLaren's understanding of God, I think that's one of our main problems with his theology and methodology. Rather than going to Scripture to find his concept of God, he seems to take a pre-determined concept of God to Scripture. The lack of sin and holiness in his theology is disturbing to me, and I look forward to how you will bring that up in your paper.
May 10th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
To say language can not “capture” who God is doesn't mean we can not speak correctly or intelligently about God. The modernist's anxiety to ground knowledge and find certainity leads them to see ambiguity as suspect, or worse, deceptive and… wimpy.
Comments like this make me think that we are all taking past one another. As far as the first part goes, I think the vast majority of us agree that we can talk about God but that our use of language does not “capture” God in His entirety. What I wonder, though, is who is it who says that we really can “capture” God in His entirety? In other words, just who exactly is McLaren talking about when he mentions “the hardcore Calvinist[s] who really feel that they have everything pretty much sewed up and they
May 10th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
That should be “talking past one another.”
May 10th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
For a teaser, Tim, closely related to the image of God issue is an ethical hermaneutic. Think back on the lecture you attended with me. I have concerns that his ethical hermaneutic is not an appropriate corrective check to theology, but more a driving force of his biblical interpretation and theology. The corresponding problem is that the values appear to be predetermined and strikingly similar to liberal east coast values.
I want to develop my thoughts more before I state them on such a public place. I'm not sure when I will finish this paper. It will either be in the next two weeks, or by the end of September. We'll see.
May 10th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
The corresponding problem is that the values appear to be predetermined and strikingly similar to liberal east coast values.
Hammer —-> nail —-> head. I concur.
I'm also curious as to how you got such a flexible deadline. That's a nice option to have. I'm jealous.
May 11th, 2006 at 1:56 am
Bill, I'm very interested in reading your paper when you finish.
May 11th, 2006 at 2:17 am
Discussing difficult issues doesn't make you a controversialist!
It could be that I'm wrong about my assessment of McLaren's comments. But regardless, I'm not here trying to find out exactly what McLaren believes. I'm using this particular interview to illustrate the system of ideas that I think is driving the Emergent enterprise.
I'm sure that not everyone involved in Emergent believes all the ideas (even if they logically go together). As I mentioned in the post, part of my goal is to make people think through how certain ideas became part of the system and how they all relate. McLaren may not be as far in the postmodern language direction as I think, but he's undoubtedly been influenced at least somewhat by those who have. And the assumptions he takes on from those people affects his view of the Bible which affects his view of God, etc., etc.
I'll keep reading his work, though. I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong on this!
And by the way, Lost was, of course, awesome as usual!
May 11th, 2006 at 6:39 am
Timbo,
I think it very naive to think that Descartes' project was only a product of his anxiety and not a representation of his time and of his culture. We forget, but Descartes' influence was profound in his day, widely accepted by the religious community, so much so that we still talk about him today.
As I mentioned earlier in relationship to Amy's post, one doesn't have to explicitly say “I'm anxious until I can ground knowledge” to have epistemic anxiety about grounding knowledge. I would argue due to the influence of Descartes' culture and philosophy, that anxiety still exists.
If a modest foundationalist doesn't have the same kind of anxiety that a cartesian foundationalist has, what kind of anxiety does he or she have? It appears that there's anxiety, especially concerning the fight against some post-foundationalist intuitions. I'm wondering if its splitting hairs a little bit.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:01 am
I make no distinction between “infinite” and “true infinite”. When I put the modifier “true” in front of infinity, I'm trying to draw a persons attention to my observation that when “infinity” is used, it's actually used with finite limits and distinctions.
Infinity is an essential component to my theology, but I know it takes a lot of delicate time and space to articulate it well. Let me try another way. Think merely mathematically. We know that the number 10 is finite. Yet, if finds its home/source in infinity. But what if we could somehow take 10 from its source of infinity and set it against infinity. What would that make infinity? Not infinite, for its everything, but 10. If you set the finite as the opposite of the infinite, you make infinity finite. We do this all the time.
This does not mean we say “infinite is finite”. That doesn't make sense, as you say. But neither can we pose them as opposites, as you also seem to say. In your deductions you say, “a thing must be both infinite and finite”. No, we don't want to say that. What we want to say is infinity must embrace and hold the finite while still transcending it.
Think of infinity as the origin, condition and goal of all finitude. You can not separate the finite from it's origin or condition. You render it non-existent if you do so.
Now, throughout his post, I've used infinity narrowly and broadly. I've used in narrowly by referring to infinity merely in a mathematical sense. But infinity isn't bound in mathematics, we need to retrieve it's philosophical understandings as well. Infinity isn't merely an unlimited quanitity of something. Infinity refers to completeness and perfection.
If infinity is merely the opposite of finitude, then yes, what I say is stupid. But, as I would argue, if infinity is merely the opposite of finitude, it really isn't infinite. Infinity must embrace and hold finitude while still transcending it.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:28 am
I think it very naive to think that Descartes' project was only a product of his anxiety and not a representation of his time and of his culture. We forget, but Descartes' influence was profound in his day, widely accepted by the religious community, so much so that we still talk about him today.
Plato's influence was profound in his day, but that hardly makes anyone a Platonist today. Additionally, do you really think that I am so naive to think that Descartes' project was based solely on his anxiety? You are the one who mentioned modernist anxiety.
As I mentioned earlier in relationship to Amy's post, one doesn't have to explicitly say “I'm anxious until I can ground knowledge” to have epistemic anxiety about grounding knowledge. I would argue due to the influence of Descartes' culture and philosophy, that anxiety still exists.
Nor does one have to explicitly say “I'm not anxious until I can ground knowledge” to not have epistemic anxiety. The question is: who has such anxiety? Do these anxious people have names?
If a modest foundationalist doesn't have the same kind of anxiety that a cartesian foundationalist has, what kind of anxiety does he or she have? It appears that there's anxiety, especially concerning the fight against some post-foundationalist intuitions. I'm wondering if its splitting hairs a little bit.
Why think the modest foundationalist has any anxiety? It would be very naive to think that the modest foundationalist project is only a product of his anxiety. And what exactly is it that is splitting hairs? Cartesian vs. modest foundationalism?
May 11th, 2006 at 8:34 am
Brian, thanks for the clarification. I guess I should've asked what you meant by “finite” instead of “infinite.” You seem to be defining “finite” as “having any kind of limits whatsoever.” If that's what you mean, then any word we use whatsoever that has a particular meaning is “finite.” If the word “infinite” has some particular meaning, then it's limited by that meaning, and is therefore finite. I have no problem saying God is finite in that sense. There are plenty of things I think we can say that are true of God and that are not true of God. If you only mean saying these things imposes finitude on God, than I'm comfortable saying God is finite in that sense (though I wouldn't ordinarily characterize it that way).
I was thinking about your comments last night, and I wonder how you would respond to somebody like Spinoza. He seemed to have a similar concept of God's infinitude as you have. You both seem to think that being infinite must mean all-inclusive. If you exclude anything from “infinite,” you impose finitude on it. So if there's anything in particular “infinity” means which is distinguished from anything else, that makes God finite. But if God is truly infinite, without any of these limitations, then wouldn't that make God everything? This line of thinking led Spinoza to pantheism, and I wonder if you have an opinion on it. Do you make a distinction between creator and creation, or do you think God's infinity must mean that he is everything including creation?
This also reminds me of something I read in Neale Donald Walsch's book, Conversations With God. Walsch was also explaining how God is not only “all that is,” but also “all that is not.” Before God created the universe, God called herself the “is not is.” I wrote a blog about that a while back. I wonder what you would think of Walsch's point of view.
Anyway, I appreciate your patience with me.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Brian,
“But what if we could somehow take 10 from its source of infinity and set it against infinity. What would that make infinity? Not infinite, for its everything, but 10.”
Actually, that's not correct. Ask a mathematician. No matter what you subtract from an infinite amount of anything, that amount is still infinite. That's a paradox because infinity is not a finite number (such that subtracting from it would decrease it), it's a concept. By saying it would be everything but 10, you're thinking of it as a finite number made up of finite parts, but that's not what it is. It is not a finite number. And when I define it clearly as the infinite concept as it is, I have not therefore rendered it not infinite. Similarly, when I define God clearly as who He is, and who He is not (based on His own revelation of Himself), I have not made Him less than He is. I think Sam's comments about pantheism do apply here to what you're saying.
“If you set the finite as the opposite of the infinite, you make infinity finite.”
Again, are you saying that whatever we define we have therefore made finite?
I'm still having trouble understanding your original statement about God transcending distinctions. Besides the concept of infinity, can you give me an example of a distinction we commonly make about God that He transcends? And by “distinction,” do you mean “definition”?
May 11th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Hi Amy,
Regarding
“part of my goal is to make people think through how certain ideas became part of the system and how they all relate, ”
I do believe that's a worthy enterprise. I'll read your comments on this with interest.
And regarding
“McLaren may not be as far in the postmodern language direction as I think, but he's undoubtedly been influenced at least somewhat by those who have. And the assumptions he takes on from those people affects his view of the Bible which affects his view of God, etc., etc,”
Yes. I will say they've influenced mine which I've detailed a bit here.
And – most importantly – “…Lost was, of course, awesome as usual! ”
When they started down the whole raised from the dead meme I thought perhaps Ana-Lucia might be a candidate, but, alas, it seems only in Eko's dreams (though with this show, dead doesn't mean that you won't be in future episodes!).
I also had been saddened by the declination of Locke as the faith-filled. I loved seeing him become a disciple – though perhaps a temporary one – of Eko and I thought the redemption theme here was really, really fun.
The key to everything, of course, is pushing the Enter Button!
May 11th, 2006 at 10:13 am
This could be a whole post in itself, but I haven't made up my mind about what I think they were trying to say with Eko's comments about pushing the button. Is faith blind trust against the evidence? Do we do things because we're “meant” to do them but not because they have any larger meaning or purpose? I think this is the wrong idea of what faith means. I'm not sure where they're going with this. I'll have to think about it some more. On the other hand, by reminding Locke about the wheelchair, they were giving him evidence to trust, and I agree that is how God works. We have evidence of His being and workings in the past, so we can trust that His character and actions will continue in the future and our situation isn't meaningless. Hmmm….
May 11th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Amy, I wasn't suggesting that it is possible to take 10 from infinity. It's impossible. I didn' mean subtracting 10 from infinity, I'm saying, “what if you could take the subset '10' out of it's source.” The source and condition of numerality is entirely dependent on infinity. Without the infinite, finitude wouldn't exist.
As for the concerns of pantheism, folks like Spinoza had it partly right and partly wrong. The partly right was recognizing that all creaturely existence needs to find its origin and condition within the infinite. Where he got it wrong was in thinking that this equated infinity with finitude. So, for example, we all find our existence within the infinity of God, which Paul himself affirmed in Acts 17, but that doesn't mean we're God. Heaven forbid! God is infinite, I'm finite. But I find my home in the infinity of God while God clearly transcends finitude.
May 11th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
I haven't read anything from Walsch so I won't try to touch on any of his ideas.
By reading your post, I hope I didn't give the impression that viewing God as finite in any way is a good thing. For if God is infinite (which we all do believe, I presume) then far be it from us to conceive of God any other way.
Let me quote LeRon Shults for you concerning this, he does a better job then me. In an article he wrote entitled “The Infinite Trinitarian God and Human Freedom”, he says on page 5, “By 'meta-distinction', I mean to suggest that the distinction bewteen God and the world is not simply another kind of distinction, a predication of dialectical otherness between finite entities. I explicitly do not mean a very big distinction. As the term metaphysics denotes the search for the conditions of the physical universe, the term meta-distinction points to that which underlies and transcends finite distinctiveness as its source and basis.”
He expands on these ideas in his book Reforming the Doctrine of God. I must say, this task is very difficult with this medium. Discussing infinity just doesn't seem to work on a blog. As I read through my previous posts, I see that I've not said things the way I've wanted to.
Any ideas?
May 11th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
I guess I'm not coming across well. I wasn't trying to say that because Descartes still influences our thought process, we are all his disicples any more than we are platonists since Plato's philosophy influences our thought process. I was simply saying, “Descartes attempt to ground knowledge is evident in our work today.”
As for people, I guess I could name Moreland and M. Erickson for starters. Both seem to be trying to re-energize foundationist epistemology, almost in reaction to the post-foundationalist move. From some people's perspective, this seems to follow the epistemic anxiety when we can not ground knowledge.
May 11th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Here's where the distinction between modest foundationalism and Cartesian foundationalism is important. I know for a fact that J.P. Moreland is not a Cartesian foundationalist: Moreland is a modest foundationalist! I suspect Erickson is a modest foundationalist as well. In either case, the failure to distinguish between Cartesian foundationalism and modest foundationalism creates caricatures.
May 11th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Brian, you've said something here I want to call you on because I hear it often from people. You're attributing the defense of the positions you disagree with to an emotional state. I hear this from emergents–orthodox Christians are reacting out of fear, anxiety, desire for power, etc. Of course people are going to react to positions they think are wrong, but can we charitably assume this is because of their views about what is right and true rather than their emotional states? Any other label moves the discussion away from trying to determine which position is actually true to a mere discrediting of a position through sophisticated name calling.
I'm not saying you're doing this intentionally–I don't think people realize they're doing this, but it makes it more difficult to sort out what is true when there are emotional accusations poisoning the well. And after all, even if you grant that a person is defending a position because of personal anxiety, fear, or any other emotional problem, that has no bearing on whether or not the position itself is true, so it's best to leave the whole subject out of the conversation.
May 11th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
“As I read through my previous posts, I see that I've not said things the way I've wanted to.”
Don't worry–the great thing about a blog is that you can continually refine your thinking and argument, so you can eventually say what you want to say!
“I mean to suggest that the distinction between God and the world is not simply another kind of distinction, a predication of dialectical otherness between finite entities. I explicitly do not mean a very big distinction.”
If I'm understanding you correctly, then this idea is not part of the biblical worldview, if one takes the Bible at its word. The Bible is quite clear that He is distinct from the world. He is “other” from the world. He is not His creation. Yet, He works in all parts of the world. This is very different from the pagan views that see the world as part of God or as being within, yet transcended by, God. Our being sustained by God does not mean we're within God.
Saying there is a distinction between God and the world does not limit God. He did not formerly take up space that was taken by the world after creation, nor does giving humans creative abilities take away from His perfect power. Saying there is a distinct creation does not take away from the perfection of His attributes.
May 11th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Stephen, one more thing on this–these quotes affirm the existence of truth, but do you have any quotes on our ability to know and express real truth, particularly through the use of words? That's what's in question here.
May 11th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Amy, this isn't something I've made up though. In fact, this anxiety is traced back all the way to Descartes. I agree with you in general, but in this situation, epistemic anxiety is historically chronicled and is in fact the motivation for the very pursuit of Cartesian foundationalism.
I understand and see the difference between modest and cartesian convictions. My point is that the difference isn't as large as the modest foundationalists want me to believe. But that's just my opinion.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Wow, I stopped checking the comments when it looked like it peaked around 17. Silly me.
(And for those of us who watch Lost on Thursdays, can you please announce the spoilers. I found myself turning my head sharply reading through some of the comments. )
Brian, I think I see where you are coming from in saying that there is more to God
May 11th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
I hear what you're saying, Brian. I guess my point is, does a person's motivation (however real) to ground knowledge affect the reality of whether or not one can do so?
May 11th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Brian, I think the difference between modest foundationalism and Cartesian foundationalism is the presence of an epistemic anxiety, which Descartes had because he started with skepticism. The anxiety Descartes had concerned how to ground knowledge given such extreme skepticism. Take away the skepticism and the Cartesian epistemic anxiety disappears! Foundationalists of modest persuasion do not start with extreme skepticism. Thus, they have no need to ground knowledge on absolute certainty.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Hi Amy,
I think that's a fair objection to what I cited.
Well one might say that any author who denies that truth can be conveyed in words is guilty of self-referential incoherency, but I guess there have been authors who've said just that!
I very much appreciate your desire to accurately understand the one with whom you disagree. I believe it is one characteristic of a truly Christian praxis of disagreement and shows your character and maturity.
I don't think that Brian will mind my sharing this. In a personal email to me he wrote, “I believe in Truth, I believe that language helps us deal with Truth, and I am not a Derrida-esque or Rorty-esque postmodernist who despairs of knowing or living or communicating truth” (emphasis mine).
I believe the same thing is essentially said on the emergent response to criticism I cited earlier when they write, “we truly believe there is such a thing as truth and truth matters
May 11th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
mune complained, “And for those of us who watch Lost on Thursdays, can you please announce the spoilers. I found myself turning my head sharply reading through some of the comments.”
I think I'm one of the offenders. My sincerest apologies! I almost announced spoiler but then I thought, “Well it's after its run so…” but I should have realized I'm not the only Tivo/VCR/whateverer.
I will go and spoil no more.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
I appreciate your comment, Timbo. I was going to ask you, “what do you think is the difference between cartesian and modest foundationalism?” Is it merely one's starting point? I'm curious as to how a modest foundationalist would distinguish the two.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Yeah, sorry about that, Mune. I tried to keep it vague, but I should have warned people anyway.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Thanks for that, Stephen. I think I would have to know more of what he means by his statement “language helps us deal with Truth.” It's difficult to capture a position with a few sentences, unfortunately. But I'll definitely keep this in mind as I read more. I still think the key to this is the sentence I highlighted in the post because it speaks to the level at which language helps us deal with Truth. I wish I could hear more about what he meant by that!
Thanks for digging up the quote for me!
May 11th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Mune,
You said a lot, and I agree with almost everything. I don't mean to suggest we can't make any distinctions between God and the world; but if I can use Shults words again, “I mean to suggest that the distinction between God and the world is not simply another kind of distinction, a predication of dialectical otherness between finite entities.”
Along with this, if we are not careful in our distinctions, we can render God finite while claiming to believe in his infinity. And if we truly hold to God's infinity, we won't use language in such a way as to predicate the Infinite Trinitarian God.
Using our mathematical example again, we certainly can make a distinction between '10' and infinity, we just can't by setting them against one another because then we render infinity finite.
Concerning the example of love, you start with some skepticism concerning my assertion and then say, “In one sense, that is true”. You're right, most wouldn't disagree with that because it is a more obvious example (the reason I used it). But as soon as evangelicals talk about God's knowledge, will, power, action and others, I don't see the meta-distinction coming into play. What I read are words the render God's power, will, knowledge, whatever a lot like mine, but a whole lot “bigger”.
It goes back to a central concern in many of these posts, the use of language. As Amy has pointed out, and to which I agree, the Emergent movement uses words in ways that cause me concern. But if I could so humbly say as well, many conservative evangelicals use words in such a way that trouble me also.
I guess the journey continues.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
I think you've just given me something to blog about (after final projects are finished)!
May 11th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Where do I create a login?
Honestly, Google is the answer to everything. Try this search and I bet you find something. Also mine the discussion brian and I had I linked to earlier on epistemology and it will shed some light.
blessings Amy,
May 11th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
Brian, could you explain the difference between a meta-distinction and an ordinary distinction. Also, what is a dialectical distinction? You seem to be saying that God is distinct from creation, but that he's not distinct in the same sense that we ordinarily say that one thing and another thing are distinct. In what sense, then, he is distinct from creation?
The “ten and infinity” distinction makes me wonder, too. You said earlier that your view is not pantheistic, but the “ten and infinity” analogy sounds very pantheistic to me. If God represents infinity, what does ten represent? If it represents creation, then that sounds pantheistic to me since creation is part of God in the same way that ten is part of infinity.
But if you're simply talking about predications, then I fail to see how predicating something of God takes away from his infinity. If I say that God is infinite, for example, surely predicating “infinity” to God doesn't render him finite, does it?
I'm sorry I'm being so slow to understand.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Sam, you're really pushing, but pushing well. It's forcing me to make sure I know what I'm talking about, which is always a good exercise.
First, the '10 and infinity' thing. If pantheism is “God is all” and “all is God”, then saying the finite finds it's origin and condition within infinity is not pantheistic. I would have to say “10 is infinity” and “infinity is 10″… that's pantheistic. There is still a distinction between 10 and infinity in my thinking, not in pantheistic thinking.
You say, “If I say that God is infinite, for example, surely predicating “infinity” to God doesn't render him finite, does it?” That isn't exactly what I've been saying, but let me try to touch on what I think your getting at. If you “define” infinity like we define finite objects, you render infinity finite. So I'm not saying that when we prescribe the word “infinite” to God, we render him finite. I'm saying when we conceive infinity in finite ways (denying the metadistinction) and then prescribe that concept to God, then yes, we are putting God in the box of finitude.
Now, what's meta-distinction? “Meta” is being use here in the same way as it is in “meta-physics”. This prefix means “Beyond, Transcending”. So when we say “metaphysics”, we are going beyond mere physicality and thus are speaking about it's origin, condition and goal. Similiarly with the “meta-distinction”; what's the source of distinctiveness? As Shults puts it, “the term meta-distinction points to that which underlies and transcends finite distinctiveness as its source and basis.”
“ordinary distinctiveness” is merely predication, dialetical distinction; distinctions we can make with langauge. But as we know, language can't “capture” God. We can use language to speak intelligently and correctly about God, but not “capture” him as we all would agree to.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Brian, I usually pride myself on not being a pushy person, but you have to understand that curiosity is pushing me!
I understand how you distinguish between the “ten and infinity” analogy and pantheism, but I still have one more follow up question about it. Granted ten and infinity are not identical, you do however seem to think that ten is part of (or included in) infinity. Do you view the distinction betwen God and creation the same way you view the distinction between infinity and ten? Is creation part of God in the same way that ten is part of infinity?
Also, if you don't mind, I'd like to get some further explanation about “meta-distinctions.” Meta-distinction means to go beyond or to transcend distinctions, right? My question is this: What does it mean to go beyond or to transcend distinctions? I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind around the concept you're trying to convey.
If you “define” infinity like we define finite objects, you render infinity finite.
This has me puzzled about how you're defining “define.” If you mean “attribute meaning to,” which I think is what most people mean by the word “define,” than I have a hard time seeing how attributing a meaning to “infinity” renders it finite. But if you don't attribute any meaning to “infinity” then what's the use in using it to describe God (or anything for that matter)? You might as well say God is brobble, fubble, caruckle, or any other meaningless word I just made up.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from all that you've said in your previous posts, I get the impression you're saying that since the word, “infinite,” has a particular meaning, then the word is finite. It's finite merely in the sense of meaning something in particular.
If that's what you mean, then maybe the confusion comes from not differentiating between the word infinite what the word refers to. To say that the word “infinite” has a finite meaning is not to say that infinity itself is finite. I'll grant that it has a finite meaning in the sense that it means something particular. But to say that it means something in particular doesn't imply that what it refers to is finite. So when I say that “God is infinite,” and “infinite” has a finite meaning (i.e. a meaning that is particular), that doesn't mean that God is finite. That is, of course, unless you mean God is something in particular. As I said earlier, I have no trouble saying God is finite in the sense of being something in particular. And I also have no trouble in saying that “infinity is finite” if all we mean by “finite” is “meaning something in particular.” There would be no point in using the word infinite if we didn't mean something in particular by it.
Is your objection merely that people say particular things about God? If so, then how do you escape self-referential absurdity? If you object to anything particular people say about God, then you must be willing to say that “There is nothing in particular that is true of God.” But if you say that, you're saying something particular about God, so the statement is self-contradictory. I don't see how it's possible to not say particular things about God. You clearly have some concept of what God is and isn't however difficult it may be for you to articulate it. Otherwise, why disagree with what other people say about God?
Brian, I'm going to drop the subject after this post. I know I wrote alot, and I don't want to exasperate you, so if you'll just answer my question about the “ten and infinity” analogy I think I can let the rest go. Or, if curiosity gets the best of me, I'll just go back over all these comments and try harder to understand them. Thank you for taking the time to delve into this whole discussion.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
First of all, my comment about Lost was not very serious. I am a fanatic to the point where I will leave the room humming if an ad come on, but I you all mentioned the shows name near the beginning of your comments, so I easily skipped over them. I might have missed the some of the conversation about God, but I didn
May 11th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
And Brian, assuming you are the Brian W. at the website you name links to, you have a lovely family. Whenever this converation drops off, I pray Gob blesses you, your family and your ministry in SD.
And because i now have to know, is the “p” or the “f” silent? Or neither?
May 11th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
Hmmm… I read poorly. Change the SD to WI.
May 12th, 2006 at 9:11 am
We are not using the word “define” in the same way. I don't mean “to attribute meaning” with the word define. When I speak of defining, I'm refering to our use of language to predicate. By definition, the use of predicates is the placing of an object in a set, marking it off, limiting, it from other sets so as to distinguish it from other objects. This is how we communciate to each. So, if I say “God is strong,” this logically means that God is in the set of “things that are strong”. If God is in this set, then God is limited by the predication, which denies his infinity. Holding true to the meta-distiction keeps us from putting God in a set of finite things that are “strong”, or “wise”, or whatever. God must transcend the set, in fact, must be the origin, condition and goal of the set.
Yes, I would say you understand me correctly concerning the whole 10 and infinity analogy. Numbers wouldn't exist if it wasn't for their origin and condition, which is infinity. So yes, creaturely existent is dependent on it's origin and condition, which is the infinite trinitarian God. Paul affirms this in Acts 17:28 “for in him we live and move and have our being.”
Now, some might say, “So creation is in God? Are you a panentheist?” No, because I'm not a theist. This brings another topic up that will take another 50 posts. But let me just touch on it briefly. Unfortunately, evangelicalism hasn't taken the trinitarian relationship seriously either. Listen to Alvin Plantiga's definition of theism in his contribution to the book Faith and Rationality ” page 82, “the belief, first, that there exists a person of a certain sort-a being who acts, holds beliefs and has aims and purposes. This person, secondly, is immaterial, exists a se, is perfect in goodness, knowlege and power, and is such that the world depends on him for its existence.” Isn't that amazing. God is a person? Every Christian should jump up and say, “God's not a person! God's is the dynamic relationship of Father, Son, Holy Spirit.”
The presumption of God as a single subject is all over evangelical theology. I have a message from J Piper, whom I love, say that God is the most desirable “person” in all the universe. Yikes, God is not a person. In seminary, I was confronted on this by my seminary professor. He challenged me to see that while I affirmed the trinity with my mouth, my theology conceived of God as a finite single subject God.
If God is a single subject, a “being” or “person” then creation finding its existence “in God” is disturbing because then the question is, “where in God's person is creation? How are they separate and distinct.” But what if God is really trinitarian? Then creation isn't “in a person”, but is infused in the relationship between Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Sounds a lot like scripture to me: In Christ, I'm connected to the Heavenly Father by the power of the Holy Spirit.
May 12th, 2006 at 9:25 am
mune,
Some of your questions, I address in my response to Sam, so refer there.
The one question that isn't so much addressed above is your 4th question. McLaren says, “here we argue about God in ways that would make you think that we have great confidence in our words to capture God”. In this, McLaren is right. I do think there is implicit presumption that we someone are capturing God by the use of our language. The great theologian Charles Hodge, for example, states in his systematic theology that we have a “perfectly clear and distinct idea of the infinity of God” and that “we know God in the same sense in which we know ourselves and things out of ourselves” (vol 1 359, 365) Wow! McLaren and others are rebelling against this kind of thinking and rightfully so!
Now, I think McLaren goes further than I would concerning the use of language, but I think this is his impetus.
Make sure you do read the article. Also, for Sam too, his book Reforming the Doctrine of God is so very helpful. I must say, he was my theology prof in seminary, so that's why I refer to him frequently.
May 12th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Also congrats to everyone. We are into the 50
May 12th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Brian W., are you related to John Wipf of Wipf & Stock publishers?
May 12th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Yes, way to many Brians in the discussion. W, M, and Mc.
May 12th, 2006 at 11:23 am
I wish, but no.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Stephen, at the bottom of our left-hand column, just below our archives, there's a login section with the link “Create Reader Account.” Thanks for joining!
April 2nd, 2010 at 8:15 pm
[...] that allowed him to “go beyond” the words of the Bible to find God (as I described here and here). But by doing so, he lost any hope of relating in a meaningful way to a true, personal [...]