Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Ghostbusting Brevard Childs
Message-ID: <1981@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Oct-85 08:32:24 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1981
Posted: Fri Oct 25 08:32:24 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 06:36:07 EST
References: <1222@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 85

Again, not having read Childs, I'll confine myself to comments on but a few
points.

Gary writes:


>In this, Childs remains pre-critical ignoring the possibility of
>systematic distortion in the tradition.  He ignores the possibility 
>that texts and language, far from being a vehicle of knowledge, are 
>in fact the bearers of oppressive ideologies.

And why does this sound like a conspiracy-theory statem of biblical
criticism?  Even if you concede that the NT does contain "oppressive
ideology" (and this point is certainly hotly debated and not by any means a
settled question), theories about how it got there have to have some sort of
verification, after all.  For instance, take the following case:

>Such is the view of feminist theologians.  Elisabeth Shussler Fiorenza
>has recognized this and writes her book "In Memory of Her" to try to
>restore the historically true picture of the full participation of
>women in the church over against the distortion of same by both the
>canonical biblical texts and tradition.

Gary goes on to cite an apocryphal Acts as an example.  So to resolve this
issue, one needs to know why Luke's got in and Paul and Thekla didn't.  But
in the absence of such evidence, all the feminists are doing is projecting
their doctrine of male man upon the past.  And it must be pointed out that
liberal theology has been sensitive to the cries of the feminists and has
generally come to the realization that there is no reason to apply the
social standards of the 1st and 2nd centuries to this one.


>Again, in the canonical approach "authors intention" is not important
>and so the texts, in reality, become the vehicle for legitimation for
>Childs own confessional position. "Authors intention" cannot judge
>Childs nor can historical context since he has excluded these from the
>conversation from the very beginning.

Unless there is clear ex-textual evidence of that intention, though, one is
really reading one's own prejudices about the author into the text.

>Canon is the founding ideological document of the Protestant Church.  
>By consensus, Protestants have agreeed that the bible is the "Truth".
>Bible and canon exist at the level of truth as consensual definition 
>and not Truth as defined in terms of mimetic re-presentation of any
>external reality.  Childs will see to this by eliminating historical-
>critical method which could prove it wrong.  Childs will see to this 
>by eliminating any appeal to authors intention which would inhibit the 
>free-play of his exegesis.

Well, this is factually wrong in that the Anglican churchs have always
asserted that Truth may not be found in the Bible alone, but instead needs
also consultation with tradition (which can be taken very broadly) and
application of reasoning.  Author's intention is under those rules fair
game, although I can't imagine many Anglicans take agnosticism as a fact (as
the deconstructionist apparently do).


>Is it not possible that the 2000 year history of Christianity has
>*created* the problem as much as it has solved it.  In HR(History of
>Religions) this is known as the "Salvation Syndrome".  Religion offers you
>both poison and cure.  It becomes the answer to its own self-generated
>problem.
>
>Why have the "questions of human existence, justice and theology"
>remained the same throughout the past two millennia ?  Because the West
>has been Christian for the past two millennia and has been prey to
>Christianities own self-generated, self-defined problems.
>
>Yes, and the canon can serve as a paradigm for the solution of said
>"problem".  But why accept the "problem" as a problem in the first
>place ?  The problem is a problem by definition - a "given".
>
>I don't think Man is in need of any "supernatural" redemption.  I don't
>think any supernatural redemption is either possible or necessary.  I
>don't think the canon should be "valorized" in the way Childs sets out
>to do.  I don't think the (Christian) tradition should be valorized.
>I don't accept the statement of the problem and therefore "the truth of
>the gospel of Jesus Christ" is no answer.

Given that this system Gary espouses assumes the historical lack of any
revelation, and thus postulates a certain agnosticism, I can hardly see how
he expected to arrive at any other conclusion.

Charley Wingate