I just came across this quote from a Systematic Theology written by R. D.
Culver (who apparently was American Biblical Theologian, Walter Kaiser's doktorvater)..
Notice the sentiment being articulated by Culver in
what he here writes:
Thomas Aquinas, The Heir of 'Biblical Theology' A diversion into recent theories of language analysis and of hermeneutics at this point would show how skepticism [sic], denial that anything anyone speaks or writes is true in any important sense, has imported Pilate’s skeptical question wholesale to the academy. Recently these theories have invaded all university departments except the hard sciences. The public has been made aware of this disastrous development as ‘deconstructionism’.Deconstruction uses figures, tropes, neologisms, irony and philosophy to sever any connection between an author’s true self and what he has written. The motives of these literary dogmatists apparently are chiefly to create an elite of critics who have their own club. The strength of this syndrome is an informal connection of ambitious professors and their admirers, supported by tenure rules that deliver the star performers from necessity of constructive labour.[Culver, R. D. (2005). Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical (100). Ross-shire, UK: Mentor.] (ht)
The irony of this quote is the apparent suspicion attendant
to it. Culver is really, as I read this quote without further context,
reinforcing an anti-intellectualism by caricaturing anyone who might be
theologically oriented in their speech and thought; anyone who might be
academic by training; or anyone who thinks that Scripture itself thinks
theologically instead of biblically (which of course is itself a false
dichotomy, but so goes the thinking---I surmise).
My tentative reading of this quote is only
reinforced given the context in which it was originally used; and for the
audience for whom it was lifted up with somewhat adulation (see the ht). I
don't highlight this particular quote because I want to harp on the place I
took this quote from (online); instead, I simply take notice of this because it
saddens me (in the theme of my recent post on "I Don't Think,Theologically") . Certainly, if I were an elitist I would simply consider
the thinking reflected in this quote as simpleton rubbish; something I could
simply relegate to the dust-bin of Fundamentalist naïvete. But I am not an elitist.
The problem is that the equal and opposite slung stone is "fideism." Which comes down to the accusation that the only right Christian inquiry is none at all—just believe what we tell you. And yet there are few people actually living in these caricatures. They are aimed and fired at more moderate positions by the extremes.
ReplyDeletePart of the problem is that nobody who is self-aware and respects themselves as a scholar should have published such an illiterate statement in a book. A blog post, perhaps—but it makes no attempt to take deconstruction seriously or understand the proper origin, meaning and use of that term. It magically labels all study of poetics as a means of severing the text from its author. It serves as a label to castigate, and nothing more.
Such an argument is fit for a textbook only if the intent is to train the student in your own particular narrow dogmatism, and to arm them against others' opinions and the practices of contemporary scholarship. How nice it must be to write off the 20th century and its trends in philology as mere professional posturing, devoid of intellectual value, and opposed to genuine faith.
I don't mean to be an elitist, here—but I believe our friend Culver does, in his way. This isn't Fundie naivete; it's tactics. Consigning it as rubbish permits such an elitism to flourish. But it is proof against argument to the contrary in my particular pedantic fashion, even if I were to demonstrate its flaws without the animus above. What will you do instead?
What will you do instead?
DeleteExpose it. Be willing to live in the squalor of said elitism, so that folks might come to understand that the sentiment articulated by someone like Culver is not sound, nor true, but in the end the very elitist mantle that "he" is supposedly uncovering (as you presciently underscored, Matt).
Semper Reformanda
Light is the best disinfectant. :)
DeleteI can agree and disagree with this Culver.
ReplyDeleteLike I said in the prior post, opening the door to placing things in systems to help organize can allow a tyranny of systems until Scriptures are chained, muzzled and locked up behind the walls of a matrix.
Fitting you pick Thomas Aquinas, a man who better understood Aristotle than Scripture and interpreted it in that lens.
On the other hand, this sort of fundamentalism would have stoned the Apostles. As Peter said, not even the prophets understood all that they wrote. A Christocentric and Christotelic means for reading Scripture requires to think theologically which, as you imply, is thinking biblically.
He sees the problem of scholasticism that produce Schilemacher. However the answer is not to crawl into a hole and carve out your own little fiefdom. It's nearly as anti-Christ as liberalism is.
Cal,
DeleteAnd yet, more simply, the danger of what Culver is communicating to the church is that it reinforces a posture of fear; one that is already prevalent within the history of Evangelicalism and Fundyism.
Us Evangelical Calvinists follow a dialectical/dialogical approach to Christian Dogmatics and Christian Exegesis; so it is an open ended, Christic-ended approach that wants to always be reforming in Christ (Jn 17.3). In our book this is mine and Myk's Thesis #9. :)
I don't think the scholastics produced Schleiermacher, the Pietists did. True, the aridity of scholasticism indirectly created an atmosphere that fostered the attitude and movement known as Pietism (in somewhat of a reaction to scholasticism); but at the end of the day, I don't see Schleiermacher's thought shaped directly by scholasticism.
Fair point about Schliermacher, let me rephrase:
DeleteScholasticism influenced his methodology which shredded the Bible into refuse but instead of becoming an atheist, by route of pietism he retained his christianity, of such a form, that it is a faith in vain.
Cal,
DeleteJust to press you a bit further; in what way did scholasticism influence his methodology? Are you suggesting that the logico-deductive manner which defined much of scholasticism (like Ramist, Agricolan logic) was taken by Sch. in a way that caused him to view scripture as refuse? It seems to me that Schl. was responding more to the seminal modernist forms of thought of his day (like from Kant et al) instead of directly to scholasticism Reformed. What do you think of this?
Quite truly, I'm not familiar with all the schools and names you just dropped on me.
DeleteI think I'd say the systematic way of boxing up Scripture that came from scholasticism with the logico-deductive (as you call it)hermeneutic was the atmosphere in which Schliermacher breathed. This hollowed out his faith and he kept the shell with some psychological pietism of religion. I think he agreed with the methods but found the product ash, and therefore he had to trash the Scripture to mean something about god being a psychological function human religiosity.
I'd say Kant is a product of scholasticism. I don't think Turretin would have found anything of similarity with Schliermacher, but it's the whole underlying premise. It is a process of making Christ a-historical and natural things all encompassing. They don't want to dirty God with creation and put Him in His detached decree. Schliermacher decided to keep God clean by putting Him inside of man's imagination.
If I'm critically wrong somewhere, please enlighten me!
"... They don't want to dirty God with creation and put Him in His detached decree."
DeleteI don't either ;-). But I think I get what you're saying, Cal.
I think I will disagree with you a bit on seeing Kant as a product of scholasticism, per se. His influcences,like Leibniz et al were just straight philosophical (V. theological) rationalists. I do agree that scholasticism, Reformed (as one book with this as a title names it) followed an intellectualist (Thomist meaning Thomas Aquinas' synthesis of Aristotelian categories with Christian Theology) anthropology that was rationalist of a certain kind. But again, I don't think Kant was of this kind.
As far as Francis Turretin; he was a Reformed scholastic on his way, maybe to a philosophical rationalism. But, it wasn't until his son comes along and flowers in his own right (Antonio, if I recall his name correctly), that a rationalism of the kind you seem to be thinking of takes some root in Reformed theology of the 18th century. Again, though, I really don't see a direct causal relation (probably not even indirect) between this kind of theological rationalism and the naked philosophical kind that birthed someone like Kant, and those who followed him.
I also know of a guy, a PhD student, who is doing his work on Schleiermacher who I am sure would not agree with your characterization of Schl. :) I have only read snippets from some of Schl. commentaries; read secondary resources about him; and read Karl Barth's assessment of Schl. in Barth's book (lecture): Theology of Schleiermacher. But I am aware of the history of ideas, relative to the period, and so I base my points back to you from this understanding.
But, I do understand your basic point about Schl. and Kant; they ultimately were not friends, per se, to the orthodox faith. But just think, w/o them we wouldn't have Karl Barth!
Hmmmm not going to get into it with ya, but the context from which the quote came is dealing with God being and speaking truth. The quote in context is dealing with scholars, liberal as well as unbelievers, who deconstruct the biblical text so as to say there is no truth there for the sake of academic respectability and tenure. He isn't promoting anti intellectualism. He is pointing out the rather obvious in terms of how truth of and about God is down played and argued against all in the name of academic respect. In short he is talking about "man pleasers" to use a Biblical phrase. I enjoyed his Systematic Theology. Such a quote is refreshing in a day when people like Peter Enns or Kenton Sparks grab all the spot light.
ReplyDeleteGojira,
DeleteLike I said in the post, w/o further context, I read the quote in the way it presents itself (as a text w/o a particular context). But even with the context you have provided, unless clearly articulated for the reader, what Culver asserts can be appropriated in a way that ends up demonizing the whole academy. It is true that a theology of glory is often at play in even Christian academia, but not all of it is that. And beyond that, often there is still material truth communicated about God in Christ; even if the formal attitude that motivates said communication is in self-adulating (or seeking the praise of men instead of God).
So even with the context you provide, I still have problems with this quote. And the context I took the quote from illustrates how it is being used by folk who do in fact, in many ways and often (except for their sanctioned "theologians"), demonize all of Christian academia; which to me is often anti-Christ!
"what Culver asserts can be appropriated in a way that ends up demonizing the whole academy."
DeleteThat isn't Culver's fault. Any writer, no matter what is written, can be used wrongly.
" but not all of it is that"
To which Culver, from reading his work, would agree with.
"And beyond that, often there is still material truth communicated about God in Christ; even if the formal attitude that motivates said communication is in self-adulating (or seeking the praise of men instead of God)."
I totally agree with that. Culver would even agree with that. Once more, in context, he was talking about academics standing in the name of God and His truth only to deny God and truth for the sake of academic acceptance. It isn't the academy; it's the "wolves in sheep's clothing" in the academy.
"So even with the context you provide, I still have problems with this quote."
I am sorry to read that.
"And the context I took the quote from illustrates how it is being used by folk who do in fact, in many ways and often (except for their sanctioned "theologians"), demonize all of Christian academia; which to me is often anti-Christ!"
The context you found it in (a Pyromaniacs post, I believe), and the context Culver wrote are two different things, just as the context you put the quote in is very different from the context Culver wrote.
"Like I said in the post, w/o further context, I read the quote in the way it presents itself (***as a text w/o a particular context***)...And the context I took the quote from..."
Alrighty then.......
Yes, but Gojira, I'm not as hung up on the quote as I am the sentiment it can communicate. Like I originally said, w/o the context it can be used a certain way; and it was, actually used this way over at the place I originally took it from. So as long as you say Culver would not agree with this sentiment either, then I'll go with you on that; I don't plan on reading Culver any time soon. Yet, it is the sentiment that can be communicated from something like this that I am hung up on ... that's it.
Delete"I'm not as hung up on the quote as I am the sentiment it can communicate....Yet, it is the sentiment that can be communicated from something like this that I am hung up on ... that's it."
ReplyDeleteLike I said, it isn't Culver's fault. The same could be said about Barth. Would it be fair, let alone right, of me if I said the some of his statements communicate (out of context, mind you) that he was an antichristian Bible hater (because he didn't hold to a north American view of insperation and innerrancy) who believed in universalism? I mean, that is the way that alot of people took him. It would be totally wrong of me to do that, because I know the context, because I know that those things of him are not true. He was neither a Bible hater, nor a universalist. But the sentiment of what he communicated is still there. Now I ask you, is that Barth's fault, or is it the people who misread him? I think the answer is obvious. So claiming the sentiment it can convey is not a very strong argument since the same could be said against your own favorite theologians.
I already said I agree with you, Gojira; what more do you want? Dangit, man ... chill. I could write the post that I did without using Culver at all; and because of my comments right here in this meta, by my willingness to take your word about Culver; I effectively have. It's time to drop this thread and move on.
ReplyDelete"what more do you want? Dangit, man ... chill."
ReplyDeleteUhm Bobby I will chill no problem, but it was you yourself in your post before this one that said: "Yet, it is the sentiment that can be communicated from something like this that I am hung up on ... that's it."
You were the one who said you were hung up on it. I was just hoping you would see that you have nothing to be hung up on since your same argument works against you as well. But chill I will, you won't hear from me on this thread no mo no how :-)
Gojira,
DeleteI am! On the general sentiment, of which I "thought" Culver was continuing to propagate. I will always be hung up on this sentiment, and as I've already noted (because of the further context you've provided), apparently not with Culver.