Wednesday, August 22, 2007

The value of theological competition

The primary objection to the Protestant rule of faith is that it leads to divergence rather than convergence. I’ve dealt with this objection from many different angles. Now I wish to approach it from one more angle.

Human beings are prone to over refinement. You know the old adage that anything worth doing is worth doing well.

By “over refinement” I mean taking things to a logical extreme, or increasing degrees of specialization and precision. By itself, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Let’s take some examples. Take the game of golf. It started out as a pastime. A pleasant way to kill time.

However, men also have a competitive streak, so what began as an idle recreation became a professional sport. At that point it becomes important to design the perfect golf club, to perfect the optimal grip, to perfect the optimal swing, and so on.

Increasing resources are diverted and devoted to mastering the fine art of hitting a rubber ball into a hole in the ground. Cutting edge technology is deployed to design the most aerodynamic golf ball (e.g. hexagonal dimpled balls) or the most efficient putters and drivers.

Like any sport, golf also has a set of rules. Rules for keeping score as well as regulations governing the design specifications of a legal golf ball. There are golfing magazines and golf instructors.

I’m not venturing a value judgment on these developments. That would take it too seriously. It’s just a game.

There’s no intrinsic value in hitting a rubber ball into a hole in the ground. The whole exercise is inherently and patently artificial. But anything human beings do, however trivial or arbitrary, they tend to improve on over time—learning to do it better and better.

Likewise, there’s nothing inherently wrong with taking things to a logical extreme. Whether it’s good or bad largely depends on the veracity of the operating premise.

I used the example of golf, but I could illustrate the same point with watches or cars. These are essentially utilitarian inventions, but as with just about any other human invention, the impulse towards over refinement leads the designer to extend and fine-tune his technology to wholly gratuitous levels of precision or performance. Does any one really need a Rolex? A dime store Timex will get the job done.

But that misses the point. The appeal of a Rolex is that it’s so blatantly gratuitous.

Same thing with a Ferrari. There’s a sense in which the faster you can make a car go, the less useful it is as a car—since speed has become an end in itself, at the expense of storage capacity. But, of course, folks don’t buy a Ferrari to buy groceries.

Once again, I’ve not venturing a value-judgment on any of this, but merely illustrating a larger point. For the same psychology takes root in theology.

A theological tradition, if allowed to develop internally in cultural isolation, is apt to become overly refined. It becomes quirky and absurd.

The examples are almost endless. You end up with quaint, legalistic dress codes which were originally well-intentioned, but have hardened into dogma.

You end up with violent schisms over the one true way to pronounced the name of Jesus or make the sign of the cross.

You end up with communion tokens.

You end up with gilded shrines encasing the finger bone of a legendary saint.

The altar call becomes the central sacrament in fundamentalism. The altar call is to fundamentalism what the Mass is to Catholicism.

I could multiply examples, and my examples would reflect my own theological bias. But I say all that to make this point: theological competition is healthy, because theological competition has a pruning effect on theological eccentricities.

When a particular tradition enjoys an unchallenged monopoly, it becomes inbred and overbred—like a hairless dog the size of a kitten. Isolated theological traditions either go from good to bad or bad to worse. It’s only a matter of time before rite makes right.

But competition purifies the competition. When one tradition shines a spotlight on a rival tradition, that makes it more difficult for an idiosyncrasy or historical accident to graduate into an article of faith.

By itself, competition doesn’t prevent theological quirks and curiosities from mutating into pious dogmas, but it exposes them for what they are, and offers an escape route for those who have the ears to hear.

Is there too much theological diversity in Christendom? Undoubtedly. But I’d much rather have a healthy dose of theological competition than allow a doctrinal or ecclesiastical monopoly to go unchecked until it perfects a false premise or optimizes a primitive corruption—leaving us fettered and shackled in a dungeon of dogmatic decadence.

22 comments:

  1. Steve,

    I think this suffers from a fundamental weakness in your analogy, namely that every-man-his-own-pope Christianity doesn't have any *measurement* capabilities, unless you suppose that competing for *members* or adherents is your criteria for finding truth, or at least the "best" theology.

    In golf, player A can say "Hmmm, you did that in 6 less strokes than I did today. I congratulate you, you were the better golfer this round." If we are pitting a 308 GTS vs. a 550 Maranello from a standing start, driver A can say "Well, I was looking at you throw my windshield, and you were looking at me through your rear-view mirror when we got to the finish line, so you win -- you had the faster car today."

    Etc. We compete based on some kind of metric; competition depends on it.

    But with your fractally dividing theologies, what's the metric? Is it how many adherents you can claim or demonstrate? If so, that's got to be a new cynical low for you and Triablogue -- "best theology" as "best panderer to the public".

    I can't think that's the case, as you and your theology would be on the wrong end of the metric, but I stand ready to be corrected.

    If it's not "adherents", then what? I can't think what the basis for competing would be other than that.

    If it's 'nothing' -- or, to put it differently, that you simply had bothered to think about what competition means and how it functions in the examples you gave -- then I think your point is completely busted right out of the gate.

    A decidedly "unwise" point, eitrer way, as I see it.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  2. Touchstone said:

    "I think this suffers from a fundamental weakness in your analogy, namely that every-man-his-own-pope Christianity doesn't have any *measurement* capabilities, unless you suppose that competing for *members* or adherents is your criteria for finding truth, or at least the 'best theology'."

    As I recall, T-stone once identified himself as a Baptist. Since he's not Roman Catholic, he himself is vulnerable to the every-man-his-own-pope charge. But if he took that charge seriously, he would be a Catholic rather than a Baptist. So what is *his* theological "metric"?

    "But with your fractally dividing theologies, what's the metric?"

    The Bible.

    "But I stand ready to be corrected."

    That admission is long overdue. The only question is where to start.

    "If it's not 'adherents', then what? I can't think what the basis for competing would be other than that."

    Exegesis.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Touchstone said:
    Steve,

    I think this suffers from a fundamental weakness in your analogy, namely that every-man-his-own-pope Christianity doesn't have any *measurement* capabilities, unless you suppose that competing for *members* or adherents is your criteria for finding truth, or at least the "best" theology.

    In golf, player A can say "Hmmm, you did that in 6 less strokes than I did today. I congratulate you, you were the better golfer this round." If we are pitting a 308 GTS vs. a 550 Maranello from a standing start, driver A can say "Well, I was looking at you throw my windshield, and you were looking at me through your rear-view mirror when we got to the finish line, so you win -- you had the faster car today."

    ***********

    I didn't use sports and sports cars to illustrate competition. Rather, I used those examples to illustrate the tendency towards over refinement.

    Since T-stone missed the point of the analogy, he has failed to identify a fundamental weakness in my analogy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve,

    That doesn't acquit anything here. It just elicits a rephrasing of the question:

    How do you measure "refinement" for theology? Given theology A and theology B, how do you determined which is more refined, or if they are at parity?

    Competition (see the title of your post) measure progress ('refinement') through some metric. If you have no metric, I don't see any basis for saying a thing is "more refined", "less refined" or "not refined at all".

    So what is the metric for refinement in theology?

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  5. TOUCHSTONE SAID:
    Steve,__That doesn't acquit anything here. It just elicits a rephrasing of the question:__How do you measure "refinement" for theology? Given theology A and theology B, how do you determined which is more refined, or if they are at parity?__Competition (see the title of your post) measure progress ('refinement') through some metric. If you have no metric, I don't see any basis for saying a thing is "more refined", "less refined" or "not refined at all".__So what is the metric for refinement in theology?

    ***************************************

    You keep missing the target. No surprise, since that’s par for the course (pardon the pun).

    I didn’t frame the issue in terms of “refinement” (=”progress”), but “over refinement.”

    Even a theological tradition that gets off to a good start can go off the rails if it suffers from cultural isolation. Its adherents see everything through their theological prism, and even initially minor errors may develop into major errors as they continue to erect a superstructure over a false premise.

    Theological competition sets up a comparison and contrast, by bringing opposing ideas to bear and introducing alternative interpretive strategies. This allows a theological tradition to perform a midcourse correction, reexamining old, faulty assumptions—if it’s even open to correction. Not all theological traditions are capable of self-criticism.

    Or, the competition may serve to confirm the essential soundness of the tradition.

    BTW, notice that T-stone is ducking the questions I posed to him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. BTW, there's a problem with T-stone's analogy. For he is using a technological analogy—precision measurement. But theology isn't technology.

    ReplyDelete
  7. orthodox said...

    “About 15 years ago, when I happened to be in a situation with too much money and no commitments I bought a Rolex. I've worn it every day since. It gets banged around a lot. However, surgical steel and saphire crystal is impossible to scratch. I could put it back in the shop window and you'd need a magnifying glass to tell that it has spent 15 years getting belted up on my arm.”

    Imagine the utter humiliation if Orthodox were actually seen wearing a watch that appeared to be slightly used. Could he ever live down the stigma?

    “This is not to say that Rolexes represent marvellous value for money. But it does point out that Rolexes are not gratuitous for those who comprehend their value.”

    Yes, it’s value as an ostentatious status symbol. Orthodox has just revealed his real attraction to Orthodoxy—its compartmentalized piety.

    Monday through Saturday he can wallow in worldly decadence while, on Sunday, he can immerse himself in the otherworldly bath of a glittering, smoke-filled sanctuary.

    Think how many Timex watches he could buy for the price of one Rolex. Orthodox can live it up like Benny Hinn while patting himself on the back for his spirituality.

    BTW, I can’t imagine one of the Desert Fathers with a Rolex.

    “So how does this relate to churches? Protestant churches have become a race to the bottom. Instead of being a quality timepiece... errr.. I mean a quality spiritual experience, they are a testament to utilitarianism and maximum features for your dollar. Like the calculator wrist watch, they pack in coffee shops, theatre seating, cupholders, popcorn intermission, theatrical lighting and cinema sized secondary displays.”

    There are many Evangelical critics of megachurch showbiz. And Protestant churches range along a stylistic spectrum.

    “And for all those utilitarian features piled one on top of another, does the experience actually hold a candle to (pun intended) the spiritual experience of attending a divine liturgy, which has been refined for the one purpose of worshipping God? Not at all.”

    That’s not a “spiritual” experience. Rather, it’s a manmade aesthetic experience.

    “And why not? When tradition is no criteria, then utilitarianism becomes the criteria.”

    False alternatives. When scripture is no criterion, then utilitarianism becomes the criterion.

    “And of course we see that the "spotlight" of protestant utilitarianism has eliminated elements of worship that are actually commanded by scripture. Yes, incense is commanded by scripture,”

    Only on your Mickey Mouse interpretation.

    “And an Orthodox service is a picture of worship as is found in Revelation.”

    And I suppose that all those 1C house-churches resembled Hagia Sophia, right?

    “But I guess any protestants in heaven will rip out all the unnecessary grandeur in heaven, install cupholders, and then everything will be sweet.”

    Orthodox is now acting like a jerk (what else is new?), as if all Protestants were Puritans.

    As I’ve said on more than one occasion, I don’t have any particular objection to the aesthetic side of Orthodoxy. And I myself have traveled to the finest examples of Orthodox art and architecture (e.g. Hosios Loukos, Hagia Sophia, Ravenna, the monolithic churches of Cappadocia, &c.).

    However, I’d never confound pretty music and tasteful artwork with piety or the presence of God. Impious men can produce great religious art. There’s no connection between artistic talent and sanctity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. BTW, this is what Touchstone had to say on a related topic:

    "It [doctrine] isn't orthodox because of it's [sic] age or historical status, but, as I've said several times now, because it represents the formal consensus of the catholic episcopate."

    ReplyDelete

  9. As I recall, T-stone once identified himself as a Baptist. Since he's not Roman Catholic, he himself is vulnerable to the every-man-his-own-pope charge. But if he took that charge seriously, he would be a Catholic rather than a Baptist. So what is *his* theological "metric"?


    Steve, I *am* vulnerable to the every-man-his-own-pope charge, and I'm keenly aware of the problem it present. I'll be upfront about it, you won't. We both know the drill - you're just letting your party line subvert your mouth here.

    As for a "metric", I don't have one, and think's that's a badly formed concept -- that's why I spoke up; it's fundamentally ill-conceived. I don't pretend to know what is "over refined" and what it not, so you're asking the wrong guy for an explanation of your terms here.


    "But with your fractally dividing theologies, what's the metric?"

    The Bible.


    Heh. Well this reveals the depth of your analogy and argument here. "The Bible". How many of these competing theologies your talking about all claim their support from "The Bible"? Thousand and thousands.

    That's just a non=answer Steve, and anyone reading this knows it.


    "But I stand ready to be corrected."

    That admission is long overdue. The only question is where to start.

    "If it's not 'adherents', then what? I can't think what the basis for competing would be other than that."

    Exegesis.


    Hah! OK, that's even more ridiculous than your previous answer. That's what theology *is* for a large number of theologies out there -- exegesis. Their theology is a manifestation of the interpretations of scripture.

    So saying "Exegesis" is your metric is even *less* of an answer than "The Bible", if that's possible.

    If I have theology A in front of me, how do I tell if it's "over refined"?

    Exegesis?

    Doesn't help at all. Doesn't *mean* anything at all. Except to show the T-Blog Shuffle™.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think this suffers from a fundamental weakness in your analogy, namely that every-man-his-own-pope Christianity doesn't have any *measurement* capabilities, unless you suppose that competing for *members* or adherents is your criteria for finding truth, or at least the "best" theology.

    Uh-huh...Just to be clear here, this is Touchstone's self-profession:


    And just so we're clear, I'm not a Catholic, or an Eastern Orthodox. I'm a Protestant, which makes me a pope unto myself just like you. I am the top-most earthly authority on what the Bible says to me. I can delegate whatever interepretational responsibilites to whatever theologians, denominations or snake oil salesman apologists I'd like, but it's still delegation. I begin with the authority, and ultimately retain it; if I don't think denomination XYZ is "rightly exegeting", I look elsewhere for "right exegesis", asserting myself as the final earthly authority on what Scripture says.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As for a "metric", I don't have one, and think's that's a badly formed concept -- that's why I spoke up; it's fundamentally ill-conceived. I don't pretend to know what is "over refined" and what it not, so you're asking the wrong guy for an explanation of your terms here.

    Then how do you know that YEC is "God dishonoring?" How do you know the ecumenical creeds got it right?

    Consensus? That commits the regressive fallacy, for how do you know you're interpreting the creeds rightly?


    Exegesis?

    Doesn't help at all. Doesn't *mean* anything at all. Except to show the T-Blog Shuffle™.


    One of the advantages of the GHM is that it doesn't prejudice any theological tradition. Does Touchstone deny the usefulness of the GHM?

    What competing theologies does Touchstone have in mind?

    What's his alternative? Where is his epistemic warrant for his theology?

    And if he judges another heterodox, upon what basis?

    ReplyDelete
  12. You keep missing the target. No surprise, since that’s par for the course (pardon the pun).

    I didn’t frame the issue in terms of “refinement” (=”progress”), but “over refinement.”


    Sheesh. First you run away from "competition", which you used in your post title, and offer "refinement" as a replacement, which changed nothing.

    I point out that it changes nothing, and you seek refuge in "over refinement", as if *that* changed anything. Not.

    How would I establish whether something is "over refined" if I have no basis for evaluating how refined a theology is to begin with, either in absolute or relative terms?

    It's like you are telling me "I didn't mean 'warm', I meant '*too* warm'." Total nonsense unless you can tell me what 'warm' means and how you gauge the warmth of one thing versus another.


    Even a theological tradition that gets off to a good start can go off the rails if it suffers from cultural isolation. Its adherents see everything through their theological prism, and even initially minor errors may develop into major errors as they continue to erect a superstructure over a false premise.

    Theological competition sets up a comparison and contrast, by bringing opposing ideas to bear and introducing alternative interpretive strategies. This allows a theological tradition to perform a midcourse correction, reexamining old, faulty assumptions—if it’s even open to correction. Not all theological traditions are capable of self-criticism.


    This tells us perfectly *nothing* about what theologies are or are not "over refined" -- to use your latest position. Given the above, how do we tell if theology A is "over refined" or not.


    Or, the competition may serve to confirm the essential soundness of the tradition.


    How would you know that Steve? "The Bible"? "Exegesis"?

    Go ahead, say it. Tell me "The Bible" is who we know what traditions are sound or not. Let's just get that gem on the record...


    BTW, notice that T-stone is ducking the questions I posed to him.


    I think I have. Tell me which ones I missed, if any.


    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Gene,


    Then how do you know that YEC is "God dishonoring?" How do you know the ecumenical creeds got it right?


    YEC -- disconfirmed by the facts. That exercise *is* like racing one car versus another on the track -- we have real world, objective observations that we can bring to bear to judge performance.

    But that's not any measure of "over refined" vis-a-vis some other theology (or whatever his latest fallback term is at the moment). YEC is a shame to the faith, but because it flips the middle finger to the facts, not because it's "over refined" or "under refined".


    Consensus? That commits the regressive fallacy, for how do you know you're interpreting the creeds rightly?


    What do think this is, Gene? Eight grade, two weeks breezing through "logic" and "fallacies"? Sheesh. The whole point here is that theology is a hypothesis, a conjecture, that for most of its crucial parts, there will not be a 'metric' available in our lifetimes. Only after we die -- beyond the 'metric' space of our lives in the here and now, will the real answers be revealed.

    So I have *faith* in what I believe, but I can't *know* in the performative, certain, objective sense the final verdict. Neither can you, you just aren't aware, or aren't prepared to admit it.


    One of the advantages of the GHM is that it doesn't prejudice any theological tradition. Does Touchstone deny the usefulness of the GHM?


    I think it's quite useful. But you're smoking dope Gene if you suppose that GHM is self-validating, some kind of guarantee that we will arrive at the Truth.

    But forget that, you can't even get agreement across the board on precisely what the GHM entails, and how it should be applied, and how to tell if it has been correctly applied. I suspect you are making an idol out of some useful but very limited heuristics here, Gene.


    What competing theologies does Touchstone have in mind?


    None in particular. My questions for Steve were about the algorithm he was deploying to measure/evaluate the competition between theologies -- any two theologies, name whichever ones you wish.

    Sorry, I mean, measure/evaluate the "refinement" between two theologies.

    Oh, hold on. Scratch that.

    I now mean measure/evalute the "*over* refinement between two theologies.

    (stay tuned...)


    What's his alternative? Where is his epistemic warrant for his theology?

    And if he judges another heterodox, upon what basis?


    Upon whatever basis I think best. I'm one individual. I'm not some objective system unto the world.

    I'm not out there talking about some "competion" between theologies that somehow produces the "survival of the fittest" in theology (and don't think I missed the irony in that vector of Steve's post).

    I don't see any basis for saying there is "competition", "refinement", or "over-refinement" between theologies as Steve thinks has been cleverly posited in his post. The examples he used -- whether you look from a "competitive", "refinement" or "over refinement" standpoint are endeavors where not only the *participants* can judge the outcomes qualitatively (and quantitatively as well), but any independent observer can make the same judgement.

    This car crossed the line before that car. This man used less strokes to finish 18 holes than this other guy.

    I see nothing like that in theology, save for the theology's interface with non-theology -- the science of the real world. Then, it can and does get measure, but against *science*, not against other theologies. It competes against the facts at that point, not faith-powered beliefs about things we can't confirm for certain in the here and now.

    It's that interface with the facts that grind YEC theology into a smoking heap of ash, by the way.

    But you knew that already.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gene,

    And just so we're clear, I'm not a Catholic, or an Eastern Orthodox. I'm a Protestant, which makes me a pope unto myself just like you. I am the top-most earthly authority on what the Bible says to me. I can delegate whatever interepretational responsibilites to whatever theologians, denominations or snake oil salesman apologists I'd like, but it's still delegation. I begin with the authority, and ultimately retain it; if I don't think denomination XYZ is "rightly exegeting", I look elsewhere for "right exegesis", asserting myself as the final earthly authority on what Scripture says.

    See above where I already affirmed my every-man-his-own-pope status, right along with Steve, here. I remain my own root earthly authority over what scripture says, just like you, and Steve.

    That's not something someone can say "well, Touchstone is now into 'over-refined' territory at this point', and the guy next to him nods and says "oh yes, definitely" in the way those same two would say "That Maranello blew the doors off that Boxer just now", as the guy next to him whistles and says "and how..."

    If Steve's post where coherent analogically, we'd be imaging how fast our cars ultimately would go, and each supposing he has the fastest car. If not, he'd upgrade to some model he' found faster in an 'I-have-faith-it-will-be-fast-in-the-great-race-in-the-sky" way.

    But we'd not get to actually drive our cars, here and now, and *see* how they actually perform. If we could, they'd not be theologies, or at least not primarily theologies, but scientific assertions as well.

    So we each judge as best we can. We can test how far our cars go, and see if we can drive the golf ball straighter or farther or both down the fairway than the rest of the foursome, but if we want to see who's "refined" or "over refined" about salvation, or justification, well, we won't know in a certain and shared way until we're gone from here.

    To the extent assertions that proceed from our theology, though, that *can* be tested in a factual, scientific way, I'm all for it!


    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete

  15. YEC -- disconfirmed by the facts. That exercise *is* like racing one car versus another on the track -- we have real world, objective observations that we can bring to bear to judge performance.


    Notice the question-begging assertion here, as if this hasn't been answered,

    but that's fine I can play this game anyway.

    You were asked once:
    Would Touchstone care to cite which specific God-dishonoring doctrines he has in mind?

    You replied:

    YEC

    So, you think YEC is a *doctrine.* So, it isn't purely "scientific" its theological.

    Where's the supporting argument that *science* defines *doctrine*?

    Does Touchstone believe in miracles? Did Jesus rise from the dead or not? Is this just a "leap of faith?"

    What do think this is, Gene? Eight grade, two weeks breezing through "logic" and "fallacies"? Sheesh.

    Well, I have to confess I wanted to keep it on your level.

    The whole point here is that theology is a hypothesis, a conjecture, that for most of its crucial parts, there will not be a 'metric' available in our lifetimes. Only after we die -- beyond the 'metric' space of our lives in the here and now, will the real answers be revealed.

    But this doesn't answer the question, Toucstone. I asked how you know the ecumenical creeds got it right if not by the exegesis of Scripture?

    So I have *faith* in what I believe, but I can't *know* in the performative, certain, objective sense the final verdict. Neither can you, you just aren't aware, or aren't prepared to admit it.

    Notice that Touchstone smuggles in adjectives I've never discussed.

    And we have dealt with probabilties and certainties many times in discussing Sola Scriptura on this blog, so he's attacking a straw man.

    I think it's quite useful. But you're smoking dope Gene if you suppose that GHM is self-validating, some kind of guarantee that we will arrive at the Truth.

    This is a straw man.

    Even unbelievers grant that Scripture is a theological document. Indeed, that's one reason they're unbelievers. They don't believe in God, so they don't believe in theological documents. Hence, this identification is the common coin of believer and unbeliever alike.

    Whether Scripture is deemed to be authoritative is, indeed, personal-variable. But I'm writing a Baptist, not an atheist, right?

    With respect to Scripture hermeneutics, we dont predicate the GHM on a predetermined level of certitude. Rather, we have argued that the GHM is the only game in town, because it doesn't select for a particular position. There is no other way of ascertaining the meaning of Scripture of short of private revelation.

    Some interpretations of some verses enjoy a higher probability than others. But the warrant for the GHM doesn'tt depend on its being more probable than the alternatives. Rather, its warrant depends on the absence of any genuine alternatives. The contrast is not between probability and certainty, but probability and impossibility.

    Now, as a matter of fact, we also believe that the GHM does suffice to tell us what we need to know. And one reason for this is that we are merely emulating the practice of Christ, the Apostles and prophets.

    The GHM isn't predicated on definitive findings. You won't find that presupposition in either Catholic or Protestant commentators.

    But forget that, you can't even get agreement across the board on precisely what the GHM entails, and how it should be applied, and how to tell if it has been correctly applied. I suspect you are making an idol out of some useful but very limited heuristics here, Gene.

    It is unnecessary to mount a separate and independent argument for your own position if that is, or ought to be, a point of common ground between you and your opponent. Roman Catholics use the GHM. Protestants do as well. And when a Roman Catholic objects to the GHM's use, he's assuming it in order to be understood. He's also assuming it in order to interpret the creeds and the Fathers. The same is true with you.

    If you have an alternative, go ahead and present it.

    And if you want to advertise your ignorance of biblical hermeneutics, be our guest.

    It's also good to see that you share Perry Robinson's shallow views of the GHM.


    None in particular. My questions for Steve were about the algorithm he was deploying to measure/evaluate the competition between theologies -- any two theologies, name whichever ones you wish.


    No, that's not Steve's burden of proof. You're trying to set up a test case, so you need to present one. You talk in general terms, but be specific.

    Sorry, I mean, measure/evaluate the "refinement" between two theologies.

    Oh, hold on. Scratch that.

    I now mean measure/evalute the "*over* refinement between two theologies.


    Touchstone can't follow the argument presented in the original post. These were all certainly included. This isn't at all a "fallback" position. Try reading Steve's second paragraph.

    Upon whatever basis I think best. I'm one individual. I'm not some objective system unto the world.

    So, you consider YEC "God dishonoring" upon "what you think best." We'll file this away the next time you invoke this statement.

    Your theology = "what you think best."

    It's nice to know that when the rubber meets the road, Touchstone is on the same footing as the Village Atheist.

    I'm reminded of Judges, "Each man did what was right in his own eyes."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Gene,

    You said:

    The GHM isn't predicated on definitive findings.

    So why do you bring this up. What you've said here is precisely the reason it doesn't apply. Person A applies GHM and gets theology X. Person B applies GHM and gets theology Y. Person C does the same, and gets Z.

    Now what, Gene. You're nowhere, you back to "he said, she said"... thinking your conjectural-Ferrari is the fastest, even though it can't be driven to test for speed, or even road worthiness until you are dead.

    So, unless you want to argue that GHM is *definitive*, you're just wasting your time (and mine) in thinking it applies here.

    There's no "stop watch and finish line" in GHM that maps to Steve's fast cars. There's no scorecard that the tournament judges can observe review and approve the *definitely* says you beat all other competitors in the tournament.

    So you can blow as hard as you want, but it doesn't begin to introduce GHM as meaningful here, unless there's some definitiveness.

    Or, unless you (and/or Steve) want to fall back to yet another bunker that says "well, the competition is really just subjective, who's better and all that really just depends on who you ask."

    I'd then have to say you were coming down to reality, and just wasting our time with puffery in the original post. Start off in that bunker. You probably don't get a post out of it, as it's nothing more interesting than saying the sky is blue on some sunny days.

    Later you said:
    No, that's not Steve's burden of proof. You're trying to set up a test case, so you need to present one. You talk in general terms, but be specific.

    You have this backwards. I'm saying there *is* no test case available to us here on earth, objectively. Steve's argument *presumes* one, requires one, unavoidably. He cannot produce such, I think, which is why I pointed it out.

    I reject the idea that there is some objective basis for saying this theology is "over refined", simply because Steve, and apparently you, have no way to show you have the vaguest concept of what "over refined" means. If so, I ask again: how do you take any randomly selected theology A and B, and determine which is "more refined" or which, if either is "over refined".

    If you can't establish that, then it's pretty silly to suggest you see some value in the "competition" between theologies (see the title of this post!) It's just words, saying nothing, as it is.

    Lastly, you say:
    Your theology = "what you think best."

    Well, that's a scathing analysis. Tell me, do you have a theology you do NOT think is best? If so, why do you not have a theology that you think is better than the one you have?

    I'm interested in your answer.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  17. So why do you bring this up. What you've said here is precisely the reason it doesn't apply. Person A applies GHM and gets theology X. Person B applies GHM and gets theology Y. Person C does the same, and gets Z.

    Again, which theologies do you have in mind.

    You're assuming, without benefit of argument that each is using the GHM in a vacuum.

    And if the GHM doesn't apply, why are you using it to understand what is said and why do you assume it when you assume you'll be understood?

    You have this backwards. I'm saying there *is* no test case available to us here on earth, objectively.

    You're making this up as you move along, aren't you?

    You're talking about Person A, B, and C, so either have something specific in mind or you don't. I'm just taking you at your word.

    I reject the idea that there is some objective basis for saying this theology is "over refined",

    Is this an objective opinion or a subjective opinion?

    Well, that's a scathing analysis. Tell me, do you have a theology you do NOT think is best? If so, why do you not have a theology that you think is better than the one you have?

    Notice how TStone punts to the Calvinist as if that's my burden of proof to discharge, but this is a diversionary tactic. He's the one that claims certain doctrines are "God dishonoring." He's the one that claims that ecumenical councils constitute a proper standard of orthodoxy. And yet he's also claiming that he judges his theology based on "whatever standard I see fit."

    The difference between you and me is that you're the one saying there is no such thing as objective truth that can be known, and I have a nonarbitrary, objective standard.

    You're just a garden variety atheist who wants to hold on to his last vestiges of Christianity, the poor man's Barry Lynn. Do us all a favor, Touchstone, and go the rest of the way.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I reject the idea that there is some objective basis for saying this theology is "over refined", simply because Steve, and apparently you, have no way to show you have the vaguest concept of what "over refined" means. If so, I ask again: how do you take any randomly selected theology A and B, and determine which is "more refined" or which, if either is "over refined".

    If you can't establish that, then it's pretty silly to suggest you see some value in the "competition" between theologies (see the title of this post!) It's just words, saying nothing, as it is.


    Of course, Steve gave examples of what he has in mind. You just gloss right over them.

    One way to know this would be from the Bible. Does the theology leave the confines of Scriptural warrant?

    For example: the Mass, purgatory, prayers to the saints as doctrines - none of which are found in Scripture and which defy the GHM to be found;

    and as practices: the one true sign of the cross (East and West differ, you know), communion tokens, altar calls (sacrosanct in Baptist circles these days), legalistic dress codes.

    Scripture, you know, includes a theology of "adiaphora," or did you just forget that part?

    And what does Scripture say about "theological competition?" Well, it certainly does have something to say:

    18For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.

    19For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

    1 Cor. 11:19 uses the Greek word "haireses" for "factions". We get the English word heresy from this Greek word. A heresy is a false teaching, something that deviates from orthodoxy. If we see that the Scriptures declare something clearly (orthodoxy), and if someone teaches contrary to that clear teaching, then he or she is teaching heresy.

    The Scriptures teach that there is a place for division and that is when opposing teachings that are contrary to sound doctrine. But division can only occur when the truth is known and those who abide with the truth should correct those who do not. That would mean that there is, in point of fact, a "final court of appeal," and objective standard - or do you think Scripture is teaching that there is no objective standard that can be known? If so, where's the supporting argument from Scripture to that effect? You claim to be a Christian, so I would think you'd be able to argue your point from Scripture. If you can't or won't then quit pretending to be one.

    So, if you have a problem with the "value of theological competition," then, by all means take it up with the Bible. Of course, since we all know you believe the text lacks perspicuity and the GHM doesn't apply, this text is without meaning to you, given you own professed standards.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Gene,


    Again, which theologies do you have in mind.


    None in particular. Doesn't matter which, as I said before.


    You're assuming, without benefit of argument that each is using the GHM in a vacuum.


    No not assuming that. For all I know, we might look at a theology that rests purely on mystical revelation, and eschews the GHM. Is that "more refined" than *your* theology? Less? How would you establish that? I this theology happens to be true, then the divine revelation by definition trumps your interpretational heuristics.

    I still don't know, though, what that means for "refined", or "over refined". The only way I can talk about it's superiority (or inferiority) to yours is by making hypothetical assumptions about the ultimate answers, you'll note.


    And if the GHM doesn't apply, why are you using it to understand what is said and why do you assume it when you assume you'll be understood?


    I think the GHM is of great use, it's just not useful for what you, or Steve, want to apply it to. It's not an objective system. You don't have 10 guys line up and get 10 points of agreement, predictably, reliably as you do when you are judging strokes in a golf game. Golf, fast cars, these are "refinement domains", where we have something tangible, measurable to use as a basis for the word "refinement". We can simply define refinement as "less strokes", "longer drives", or "0-60mph in less time". GHM can't do that, as 10 applications of GHM is bound to produce just that many different results. Which is the right one? Obviously, user of GHM is supposing they've got it righ, or as right as can be, else they'd do it better.

    GHM is a fine tool to apply. But the results aren't objective, Gene. There's nothing wrong with subjective results. Subjective ideas can be and often are perfectly true, as true as any objective concept could be. But, a subjective concept is *not* an objective one, true or not. And objectivity is what you (and Steve) require for "over refined" to be at all meaningful in theologies interacting with each other. THat's how a theology says "OK, you've out driven me on that fairway". Without it, we just imaging how far our "drives when we die" will roll down the Great Fairway Beyond.


    You're talking about Person A, B, and C, so either have something specific in mind or you don't. I'm just taking you at your word.

    I don't have specific theologies in mind. There's no need for any specific theologies to be identified here. You can supply some if you need. It doesn't hurt, or help.


    I reject the idea that there is some objective basis for saying this theology is "over refined",

    Is this an objective opinion or a subjective opinion?


    That'd be my opinion, so it's at least partly subjective. As I said, I'm not an objective system unto the world. I am just one individual. I call 'em as I see 'em. I would say that if we were to pursue that question to a large number of uncommitted others, they would also fail to identify any objective basis for saying one theology is "more refined" than another. In fact, I'm *sure* they would all agree, since the best measure you've (the collective you) given is "The Bible" and "Exegesis", which is a perfect beg to the very question at hand.

    Again, there's no problem with having or promoting subjective opinions. In many cases, subjective opinions are the only kind available.


    Notice how TStone punts to the Calvinist as if that's my burden of proof to discharge, but this is a diversionary tactic. He's the one that claims certain doctrines are "God dishonoring." He's the one that claims that ecumenical councils constitute a proper standard of orthodoxy. And yet he's also claiming that he judges his theology based on "whatever standard I see fit."

    There's not a bit of conflict between any of those things, Gene. I believe YEC is thorough shameful, that Orthodoxy is the consensus of the body catholic, and this is "fit" with my theology.


    The difference between you and me is that you're the one saying there is no such thing as objective truth that can be known, and I have a nonarbitrary, objective standard.


    I think we *can* objectively determine who the winner of a golf tournament is. I think we *can* objectively determine which car, if either, is the faster to run the quarter mile. There's just an inexhaustible number of things we can develop as objective knowledge. But not all things obtain this way. Theology is particularly problematic for objective analysis. It's only when theology makes claims that overlap the domain of science and natural analysis that we can apply some objectivity to it, and even then, just to those parts that are liable to the available evidence (this is where YEC gets toasted, for example, by the facts). But on questions like "who exactly get saved", and "when precisely does justification begin and end", these are questions without verification mechanisms -- objective tools -- in the here and now. So objective truth certainly does exist in my view, and there is a lot of truth we can arrive at with a significant amount of objectivity (objective truth and an objective *basis* for arriving at that truth are not the same thing, remember).

    But, speaking of diversion, you didn't answer my question. Do you embrace the theology you "think best", or not?


    You're just a garden variety atheist who wants to hold on to his last vestiges of Christianity, the poor man's Barry Lynn. Do us all a favor, Touchstone, and go the rest of the way.


    You're comfortable in trafficking in knowledge you do not have, Gene.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  20. ORTHODOX SAID:

    “It just depends whether you are glad and proud to be part of the throw away generation.”

    I’m sure that Benny Hinn would use the same rationalization. If you want to delude yourself into thinking that a Rolex is anything other than a flashy status symbol, then you’re welcome to your moral blindness.

    “As it happens, I belong to a small Orthodox mission that has no buildings, no glittering sanctuary. Merely an austere room.”

    Which instantly undercuts your argument that we are mandated to have a style of worship that resembles the book of Revelation.

    As usual, your arguments have a shelf-life of about three minutes’ duration. Have you always been this dishonest, or does Orthodoxy foster you lack of integrity?

    “In the meantime, we all express some pity for Steve's wife if he has one, since we know he won't waste any money on non-utilitarian jewellery for her.”

    Now you equate giving yourself a fancy gift with giving your wife a fancy gift. You’re doing a wonderful job of illustrating the moral vacuity of Orthodoxy piety.

    “The people have spoken, megachurch showbiz is the new orthodoxy. And who's going to correct them in your self-correcting theory?”

    I’m not responsible for what other people do, are you? How far do you wish to take that principle? I have a long list of heinous criminals you’re welcome to take responsibility for.

    “Gnostic Steve shows his true colours. The material and spiritual worlds are linked. This idea that it must be all in your intellectual head to be real is not a Christian idea.”

    So, according to you, watching The Godfather is a spiritual experience, a way to experience the presence of God. After all, The Godfather is a cinematic masterpiece, and only a Gnostic would deny the automatic connection between artistry and piety.

    “In more ways than you would care to admit, yes.”

    Feel free to spell out the ways in which a 1C house-church resembles Hagia Sophia.

    “There must be some connection or else God wouldn't have given the Israelites such very careful and explicit instructions concerning the temple and the worship. You're trying to set up a false dichotomy.”

    Au contraire. If the connection were automatic, God wouldn’t need to provide a blueprint for OT worship.

    ReplyDelete
  21. “Heh. Well this reveals the depth of your analogy and argument here. ‘The Bible’. How many of these competing theologies your talking about all claim their support from ‘The Bible’? Thousand and thousands. __That's just a non=answer Steve, and anyone reading this knows it.”

    You talk just like the village atheist. Any relation?

    A “claim” is not an exegetical argument, and not all exegetical arguments are equally good—unless you happen to think that Creflo Dollar or Charles Taze Russell exegetes the Bible as well as F. F. Bruce.

    “Hah! OK, that's even more ridiculous than your previous answer. That's what theology *is* for a large number of theologies out there -- exegesis. Their theology is a manifestation of the interpretations of scripture.__So saying ‘Exegesis’ is your metric is even *less* of an answer than ‘’The Bible’, if that's possible.__If I have theology A in front of me, how do I tell if it's ‘over refined’? __Exegesis?”

    Same answer as before (see above). But you’re welcome to believe that Mary Baker Eddy’s theological understanding was as exegetically sure-footed as F. F. Bruce’s.

    “Sheesh. First you run away from ‘competition’, which you used in your post title.”

    I simply disown your smarmy attempt to hijack my analogy and make it say something it was never meant to say.

    “And offer "refinement" as a replacement, which changed nothing.”

    Thanks for illustrating what a liar you are. “I never used the word “refinement.” You are using “refinement” as a replacement for my usage.

    “I point out that it changes nothing, and you seek refuge in ‘over refinement’, as if *that* changed anything.”

    Once again, thanks for illustrating what a liar you are. “Over refinement” was in my original post, so it’s hardly a “refuge.”

    “Go ahead, say it. Tell me ‘’The Bible’ is who we know what traditions are sound or not. Let's just get that gem on the record...”

    Yes, the Bible is how we sift the truth of God from unscriptural accretions. I’m more than happy to get that gem on the record.

    The OT prophets appeal to the Bible they had: the Pentateuch. The Apostles appeal to the Bible they had: the OT. And Jesus also appeals to the OT.

    That’s how the prophets and apostles and Jesus himself winnow truth from error. Mock it as much as you like. By so doing, you put yourself on the wrong side of the prophets, apostles, and God Incarnate.

    ReplyDelete