Chapter 8: Response to Peter
Peter, your postmoderist slip is showing. :-}
I could be really nasty with you, and point out that the Bible does not issue any blanket rejection of violence. :-} But perhaps it would be better to point out that the line between “logic as corrective” and “logic as coercive” is… perspectival? :-}
But on to my serious point, in regards to your assertion that…
If I may be so bold, I would assert that there are probably some issues where, even though we are both believers, we will never be in total agreement in this life. The question in my mind is no longer, “How can we achieve total theological agreement?” – I am now convinced that is chasing after a mirage. The question in my mind is now “How can we live together in the local body, seeking to accommodate the strengths and valid concerns of each party, while maintaining unity in the disagreements?” I alluded to the baptism question in my main commentary on chapter 8. I see no reason why credobaptists and paedobaptists cannot fellowship and worship together in the same body, with the baptism and confirmation liturgies covering the concerns of both parties and both parties working to nurture the children as members of the body and disciples of Christ. Yeah, both sides will have to temper their rhetoric and live with some things the other side does that they do not agree with – but as Captain Lonestar said in Spaceballs, “Welcome to REAL LIFE!” Living with other peoples’ flaws is a vital skill – Christ and His apostles even elevated it to a fruit of the Spirit. And given the expectation we have that others overlook our (admittedly minor and almost insignificant) flaws, we ought to extend the same consideration to them. (In fact, I think there’s something about that in the Lord’s Prayer – ‘forgive us our sins, as we forgive…’)
Once again, we both noted Frame’s Presby agenda lurking behind all the ecumenical rhetoric. But you do notice he’s getting a bit more open about it as the book unfolds? That may be a partial explanation as to why it really didn’t take off like he would have liked…
As to your four points, 1 & 2 are covered in the Nicene Creed, 3 & 4 in The Gospel An Evangelical Celebration document. I still do love logical symmetry. :-}
(T)he "pre-empt" language still assumes a framework in which the desired goal is to convince/persuade/compel the other person to believe what I already affirm. I'm going to show that his concepts/concerns are "really" better expressed in my words. This is and remains a form of violence, though: the use of logic as coercive, rather than explanatory and corrective, force.
I could be really nasty with you, and point out that the Bible does not issue any blanket rejection of violence. :-} But perhaps it would be better to point out that the line between “logic as corrective” and “logic as coercive” is… perspectival? :-}
But on to my serious point, in regards to your assertion that…
I suggest that we need to move a step further in this direction, one in keeping with a truly charitable hermeneutic: We need to affirm that, if we are both believers, then we are going to be in agreement, and seek a language in which that is possible.
If I may be so bold, I would assert that there are probably some issues where, even though we are both believers, we will never be in total agreement in this life. The question in my mind is no longer, “How can we achieve total theological agreement?” – I am now convinced that is chasing after a mirage. The question in my mind is now “How can we live together in the local body, seeking to accommodate the strengths and valid concerns of each party, while maintaining unity in the disagreements?” I alluded to the baptism question in my main commentary on chapter 8. I see no reason why credobaptists and paedobaptists cannot fellowship and worship together in the same body, with the baptism and confirmation liturgies covering the concerns of both parties and both parties working to nurture the children as members of the body and disciples of Christ. Yeah, both sides will have to temper their rhetoric and live with some things the other side does that they do not agree with – but as Captain Lonestar said in Spaceballs, “Welcome to REAL LIFE!” Living with other peoples’ flaws is a vital skill – Christ and His apostles even elevated it to a fruit of the Spirit. And given the expectation we have that others overlook our (admittedly minor and almost insignificant) flaws, we ought to extend the same consideration to them. (In fact, I think there’s something about that in the Lord’s Prayer – ‘forgive us our sins, as we forgive…’)
Once again, we both noted Frame’s Presby agenda lurking behind all the ecumenical rhetoric. But you do notice he’s getting a bit more open about it as the book unfolds? That may be a partial explanation as to why it really didn’t take off like he would have liked…
As to your four points, 1 & 2 are covered in the Nicene Creed, 3 & 4 in The Gospel An Evangelical Celebration document. I still do love logical symmetry. :-}
posted by burttd at 5/03/2006 11:53:00 AM
2 Comments:
re: post-modernist slip. No slip, I assure you. 'Twas quite an intentional flirtation with the fringe.
"Violence" in the sense of coercion ("the force of words") or misprision ("doing violence to the language") is inevitable in the communications of human beings. It is, as you say, not entirely condemned--moreover, it is sometimes necessary and right.
Here's the question, though: why should we, of all people, regard violence in language as altogether different from violence in speech? And if we don't, then it follows that while there is an economy of unavoidable violence, that is, while violent men lay hold of the kingdom of heaven by storm, there is also a need to economize our use of force, to prevent its unnecessary expenditure and to limit its undesirable costs.
So when I see a book ostensibly about the overall reduction of hostilities recommending a strategy of premeditated linguistic violence, I expect to either see a rigorous justification ("Peace grows from the barrel of a gun"--Mao) or an admission of inadequacy. What I saw was naivete worthy of Woodrow Wilson, a belief that we could actually and directly "fight for peace."
Cheers,
PGE
"Violence" in the sense of coercion ("the force of words") or misprision ("doing violence to the language") is inevitable in the communications of [XhumanXbeingsX] sinful mortals.
Post a Comment
<< Home