Dynamic Realism
I overheard a conversation today with a student who was deeply trouble by a suggestion in class (probably not a strong one) that the stories in the Bible never really happened, but are important because of what they represent. What is the response of someone who believes that the things in the Bible did happen? Is inerrancy the only way (either it did or didn't happen the way it says it does)?
I feel that much of this problem arises from some combination of modernity attaching independent ontological significance to the sort of statement, "E happened", and the romantic notion that there could be some inner quality or essence which may never be revealed by outside action. Together these lead one to the conclusion that true significance comes from an event happening, and the meaning of the event is derivative from this first fact.
Now that we have dissolved ourselves of an ontology based on formal logic, we may more clearly see that there is no such thing as "just an event" that we need to be concerned with. The meaning of an event is the larger sphere of culture and practice, with the particular occasion of the event a smaller subset of that. In other words, the significance of the historical moment of the event is derived from it's role in the greater significance of the event as a meaningful whole. And judging by the grammar of the whole meaning, we can determine how important the local occasion of the event may be.
The focus of events in the Bible are primarily on this greater whole. The significance of the Gospel is that it applies to more than just a 30-mile by 30-year area. Jesus calming the storm is a story about God being greater than the storms of nature and the storms of our heart. There's no point in arguing whether Jesus did it or not if you fail to see the significance of the whole story. However, what's the point in arguing that Jesus calms the storms of nature and soul if he never did?
Take, for example, the 5th of November (V for Vendetta). While the particular facts of the original event are unclear (both then and now), the fact that it happened is a significant part of the grammar of the meaning of the event (remember, remember...). The actual event is significant only due to its greater meaning, but without the event, the greater meaning (and practices) lose coherence.
Contrary to romantic notions, it simply does not make sense to say that "God is love" if God has never done anything that could be considered an act of love. Likewise for redemption, grace, provision, sacrifice, etc. When the Bible describes God "systematically", it uses the language "God, who brought you out of Egypt..." not "God, the deliverer". God is not "The Deliverer of Israel" unless he actually did deliver Israel. There is no religious or spiritual significance (expression of spirituality, etc.) to that most significant event, the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ, if God never actually 'did' that. The grammar of most of our practices loses meaning without God's particular action. A Christian spirituality without historical acts of God is nonsensical. As Paul says, if God did not actually raise Jesus from the dead, then my faith is meaningless.
I feel that much of this problem arises from some combination of modernity attaching independent ontological significance to the sort of statement, "E happened", and the romantic notion that there could be some inner quality or essence which may never be revealed by outside action. Together these lead one to the conclusion that true significance comes from an event happening, and the meaning of the event is derivative from this first fact.
Now that we have dissolved ourselves of an ontology based on formal logic, we may more clearly see that there is no such thing as "just an event" that we need to be concerned with. The meaning of an event is the larger sphere of culture and practice, with the particular occasion of the event a smaller subset of that. In other words, the significance of the historical moment of the event is derived from it's role in the greater significance of the event as a meaningful whole. And judging by the grammar of the whole meaning, we can determine how important the local occasion of the event may be.
The focus of events in the Bible are primarily on this greater whole. The significance of the Gospel is that it applies to more than just a 30-mile by 30-year area. Jesus calming the storm is a story about God being greater than the storms of nature and the storms of our heart. There's no point in arguing whether Jesus did it or not if you fail to see the significance of the whole story. However, what's the point in arguing that Jesus calms the storms of nature and soul if he never did?
Take, for example, the 5th of November (V for Vendetta). While the particular facts of the original event are unclear (both then and now), the fact that it happened is a significant part of the grammar of the meaning of the event (remember, remember...). The actual event is significant only due to its greater meaning, but without the event, the greater meaning (and practices) lose coherence.
Contrary to romantic notions, it simply does not make sense to say that "God is love" if God has never done anything that could be considered an act of love. Likewise for redemption, grace, provision, sacrifice, etc. When the Bible describes God "systematically", it uses the language "God, who brought you out of Egypt..." not "God, the deliverer". God is not "The Deliverer of Israel" unless he actually did deliver Israel. There is no religious or spiritual significance (expression of spirituality, etc.) to that most significant event, the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ, if God never actually 'did' that. The grammar of most of our practices loses meaning without God's particular action. A Christian spirituality without historical acts of God is nonsensical. As Paul says, if God did not actually raise Jesus from the dead, then my faith is meaningless.
Comments