False Dichotomies
By: Jake Kohl
After reading Kapic’s prolegomena to theology in A Little Book for New Theologians, you will find that he challenges readers to avoid constructing false dichotomies in one’s approach to theology (i.e. theology and ministry, tradition and community, etc.). How have you seen some of these dichotomies in the life of the Church? Provide at least one example and a subsequent explanation of what happens when one side is emphasized (e.g., doctrine) while the other is neglected (e.g., love)? How do you reconcile the tension that exists in such apparent dichotomies? Then, look at the dichotomy through the lens of Kapic’s book. How would he advise you in your attempt to resolve this tension?
__________________________________________________
It does not matter if the historical basis
on which the supposed revelation (the Bible) is false. The fact that the Old
Testament itself reveals a uniqueness of creation that goes on to further show
and argue in favor of God being known to us, cannot be dismissed.
The fact that this revelation of who God
is and being known to His creation, is seen through the history of what the
Bible states has happened. God has conversed with and engaged with historical
figures in historical places (Israel) that will forever link God with this
world and humanity. This in itself is a good clue on why Oswalt said, “Whatever
the Bible is, it is not myth.”[1] If
any of the stories in the Bible are not accurate – such as the history of the Israelite's, their captivity, Noah, etc., then we must chuck out the historicity
of this revelation and deem it non-trustworthy.
If
the historical documents cannot be trusted or relied on for an historical
account in history, meant to teach, guide, and direct humanity in the ways we
should go, then we must view this as a fairy tale book and nothing more. Furthermore,
the laws we have, the calendar, time, morals, ethics, and a host of others
would all have to be rewritten, revised, and/or chuck out as to the origination
of such.
It is also equally important to note that incongruence between Biblical narratives and the
historical evidence available from different periods, does not necessarily mean
that the Bible is not historically accurate. The Bible must be historically
accurate for us to trust it theologically, but when biblical narratives do not
appear to fit the Ancient Near Eastern times, it is imperative not to
immediately call its historicity or the historical basis into question. Just
because something does not fit into a specific area of choosing, either by
time, geographic, or social environment, does not prove nor disprove anything.
It would be like putting God in a box, limited to only the possibilities and
capabilities of that box.
In conclusion, we can unequivocally
declare, YES! We can give special credence based on the historicity of Gods
revelation that the supposed
revelation we have is true and accurate. It is through faith, that we believe
the historical foundation of our God. It is a “conviction concerning those
things that are in hope, as if it were these things in action, and the
revelation of those things that are unseen…”[2]
Bibliography
J. N. Oswalt, The Bible among the Myths:
Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2009)
No comments:
Post a Comment