Janssen Debate - Round 4
Part 4: by Wes Janssen
Dear Paul,
Thank you for your interest. Yes, I have read your rebuttal, and as was the case with your earlier rebuttals, I must admit that it somewhat disappoints me. You are certainly a man wrestling with personal demons (it's a metaphor, you needn't tell me you don't believe in demons). The metaphorical doesn't appear to be terribly different than the "literal" sometimes.
It has been said, by rather wise and observant individuals, that the man who strives to rationalize his rejection of God is often, in this very struggle, more closely bound to God than most so-called believers, for whom God is an anthropomorphous candy store clerk or unexamined insurance policy or ancient literary character. These lazy-minded believers, often the ones we might call "Bible thumpers", also disappoint me. For the Bible-thumper too, the real God -- the One and unnamable mystery, is traded for a small idol. I am led to surmise that individuals of this description have fed your rejection of God. This is a very strong hunch on my part, not psychoanalysis or certain knowledge. I hope that I don't sound presumptuous.
Your statements and questions that are theological in nature interest me more than your other arguments. Your more dubious arguments that are directed toward being scientific in nature, have, in all of your rebuttals, essentially attempted to 'talked past' the salient points I have tried to speak to. In my saying this, I don't want you to feel "called out". To be human is to often be in error. I must include myself in this observation. I respect that you have questions but also wish that you would allow yourself some better answers. It has never been my desire that our discussions should be contests (as in my dialectic skill or "savvy" against yours). I will not enlist in exchanges of "smack talk." I notice that some of your correspondents engage in rather long-running debates, but I am not personally interested in such things.
As to those things theological, your most recently published comments suggest that my God must not be the God of the Bible. Bible thumpers might say the same, as would anyone who demands that the whole of scripture must be understood typologically/literally. My God certainly is the God of the Bible, but I have no doubt whatsoever that the truth in scripture often is to be found beneath the surface, so to speak. One should notice that Christ taught largely in allegory (his parables), telling his disciples that he did this deliberately because spiritual people perceive spiritual truth but that people who understand only familiar, fleshly or "literal" things don't know what to make of spiritual insight anyway.
Paul echoed this and so did Augustine. Good theologians have always recognized those statements in scripture which should not be seen as literal revelations, but as directed toward spiritual truths. This isn't my own, new, or exclusive philosophy of Biblical interpretation and it does not produce my own version of God. Yes, many literalists will disagree, but I believe that they do so out of spiritual and intellectual complacency (I guess that's a nicer word than laziness). I see scripture (or try to) the way Philo, Paul, Augustine, Origen, Clement, Gregory and other ancient theologians tried to understand scripture. Origen taught that to literalize texts that speak anthropomorphously of God is to accept theologies that are heretical and inconsistent with the whole of scripture.
Spiritual revelations were sought in these passages, not literal histories. Philo of Alexandria, a Pharisee and the most prominent Moses scholar of his day, taught the same, meaning that this was a revered approach to scripture at the time of Christ's ministry in Judea. We note that neither Jesus nor the New Testament writers expressed opposition to this approach (in fact, Paul embraced it, at least to some extent). Gregory of Nyssa said of Biblical interpretation, "we look for the true spiritual meaning, seeking to determine whether the events took place typologically," not that we demand they be typological (i.e., literal). Theologians of our era (the last century) who have understand scripture and God in this way include Sadhu Sundar Singh, C.S. Lewis, A.W. Tozer, Richard Foster and Dallas Willard, among others. To examiners such as these, scripture does not present an anthropomorphous deity. Nor to me.
Tozer saw two distinct ways to read and understand the Bible, he calls them the way of 'the scribe' and the way of 'the prophet'; in his words: " . . .the scribe tells us what he has read, and the prophet tells us what he has seen. The distinction is not an imaginary one. Between the scribe who has read and the prophet who has seen there is a distance as wide as the sea. We are overrun today with orthodox scribes, but the prophets, where are they? The hard voice of the scribe sounds over evangelicalism, but the church waits for the tender voice of the saint who has penetrated the veil and has gazed with inward eye upon the wonder that is God. And yet, thus to penetrate . . . into the holy Presence, is a privilege open to every child of God."
Anyway, I have no idea how much this interests you, I offer it "FYI", as is said. I think that, in a careful and systematic reading/understanding, it is quite certain that scripture does not present a human deity, even if a "surface" reading may contain humanized language. The God of Solomon (1 Kings 8:27) and Isaiah (Isa. 55:8- 9) is not human-like! Augustine understood the Genesis creation account as spiritual allegory (not historical or scientific) precisely because a literal reading presented a god of physical and human-like features (having spatial locality; breathing, seeing, speaking, forming, as to humans these would indicate spatial constraints, lungs, eyes, a mouth, hands, and so forth). Philo expressed the same insight 400 years earlier. Augustine's God is the God of Solomon, not the God of the literalist or of Tozer's "scribes".
Unfortunately, the God of the "Bible thumper" is too often not the God of Solomon, David, Isaiah, Paul or Augustine. In the tradition of Augustine, the "non-literalist" must always hesitate to enter into interpretational arguments with the literalist/scribe/Bible-thumper. The constraint is nothing less than Christ's commandment of love. In others words, the Christian is to esteem 'right thinking', but not above caring for others. Because of this, Christianity's most visible dogmatists tend to be the literalists.
As I say, I may have carried this discussion too far. But I would like you to understand that my view of God and of the Bible is not something unique that I have cooked up to suit myself, as you have charged.
I hesitate to sign-off, but this has become a much longer commentary than I had expected. Given the course of our intermittent contact this past year, I find it hard not to think of you as my friend, albeit a rather combative one. Call me crazy. I wish you peace and good health. Perhaps the day will come when we don't see things so differently.
Wes
Dear Paul,
Thank you for your interest. Yes, I have read your rebuttal, and as was the case with your earlier rebuttals, I must admit that it somewhat disappoints me. You are certainly a man wrestling with personal demons (it's a metaphor, you needn't tell me you don't believe in demons). The metaphorical doesn't appear to be terribly different than the "literal" sometimes.
It has been said, by rather wise and observant individuals, that the man who strives to rationalize his rejection of God is often, in this very struggle, more closely bound to God than most so-called believers, for whom God is an anthropomorphous candy store clerk or unexamined insurance policy or ancient literary character. These lazy-minded believers, often the ones we might call "Bible thumpers", also disappoint me. For the Bible-thumper too, the real God -- the One and unnamable mystery, is traded for a small idol. I am led to surmise that individuals of this description have fed your rejection of God. This is a very strong hunch on my part, not psychoanalysis or certain knowledge. I hope that I don't sound presumptuous.
Your statements and questions that are theological in nature interest me more than your other arguments. Your more dubious arguments that are directed toward being scientific in nature, have, in all of your rebuttals, essentially attempted to 'talked past' the salient points I have tried to speak to. In my saying this, I don't want you to feel "called out". To be human is to often be in error. I must include myself in this observation. I respect that you have questions but also wish that you would allow yourself some better answers. It has never been my desire that our discussions should be contests (as in my dialectic skill or "savvy" against yours). I will not enlist in exchanges of "smack talk." I notice that some of your correspondents engage in rather long-running debates, but I am not personally interested in such things.
As to those things theological, your most recently published comments suggest that my God must not be the God of the Bible. Bible thumpers might say the same, as would anyone who demands that the whole of scripture must be understood typologically/literally. My God certainly is the God of the Bible, but I have no doubt whatsoever that the truth in scripture often is to be found beneath the surface, so to speak. One should notice that Christ taught largely in allegory (his parables), telling his disciples that he did this deliberately because spiritual people perceive spiritual truth but that people who understand only familiar, fleshly or "literal" things don't know what to make of spiritual insight anyway.
Paul echoed this and so did Augustine. Good theologians have always recognized those statements in scripture which should not be seen as literal revelations, but as directed toward spiritual truths. This isn't my own, new, or exclusive philosophy of Biblical interpretation and it does not produce my own version of God. Yes, many literalists will disagree, but I believe that they do so out of spiritual and intellectual complacency (I guess that's a nicer word than laziness). I see scripture (or try to) the way Philo, Paul, Augustine, Origen, Clement, Gregory and other ancient theologians tried to understand scripture. Origen taught that to literalize texts that speak anthropomorphously of God is to accept theologies that are heretical and inconsistent with the whole of scripture.
Spiritual revelations were sought in these passages, not literal histories. Philo of Alexandria, a Pharisee and the most prominent Moses scholar of his day, taught the same, meaning that this was a revered approach to scripture at the time of Christ's ministry in Judea. We note that neither Jesus nor the New Testament writers expressed opposition to this approach (in fact, Paul embraced it, at least to some extent). Gregory of Nyssa said of Biblical interpretation, "we look for the true spiritual meaning, seeking to determine whether the events took place typologically," not that we demand they be typological (i.e., literal). Theologians of our era (the last century) who have understand scripture and God in this way include Sadhu Sundar Singh, C.S. Lewis, A.W. Tozer, Richard Foster and Dallas Willard, among others. To examiners such as these, scripture does not present an anthropomorphous deity. Nor to me.
Tozer saw two distinct ways to read and understand the Bible, he calls them the way of 'the scribe' and the way of 'the prophet'; in his words: " . . .the scribe tells us what he has read, and the prophet tells us what he has seen. The distinction is not an imaginary one. Between the scribe who has read and the prophet who has seen there is a distance as wide as the sea. We are overrun today with orthodox scribes, but the prophets, where are they? The hard voice of the scribe sounds over evangelicalism, but the church waits for the tender voice of the saint who has penetrated the veil and has gazed with inward eye upon the wonder that is God. And yet, thus to penetrate . . . into the holy Presence, is a privilege open to every child of God."
Anyway, I have no idea how much this interests you, I offer it "FYI", as is said. I think that, in a careful and systematic reading/understanding, it is quite certain that scripture does not present a human deity, even if a "surface" reading may contain humanized language. The God of Solomon (1 Kings 8:27) and Isaiah (Isa. 55:8- 9) is not human-like! Augustine understood the Genesis creation account as spiritual allegory (not historical or scientific) precisely because a literal reading presented a god of physical and human-like features (having spatial locality; breathing, seeing, speaking, forming, as to humans these would indicate spatial constraints, lungs, eyes, a mouth, hands, and so forth). Philo expressed the same insight 400 years earlier. Augustine's God is the God of Solomon, not the God of the literalist or of Tozer's "scribes".
Unfortunately, the God of the "Bible thumper" is too often not the God of Solomon, David, Isaiah, Paul or Augustine. In the tradition of Augustine, the "non-literalist" must always hesitate to enter into interpretational arguments with the literalist/scribe/Bible-thumper. The constraint is nothing less than Christ's commandment of love. In others words, the Christian is to esteem 'right thinking', but not above caring for others. Because of this, Christianity's most visible dogmatists tend to be the literalists.
As I say, I may have carried this discussion too far. But I would like you to understand that my view of God and of the Bible is not something unique that I have cooked up to suit myself, as you have charged.
I hesitate to sign-off, but this has become a much longer commentary than I had expected. Given the course of our intermittent contact this past year, I find it hard not to think of you as my friend, albeit a rather combative one. Call me crazy. I wish you peace and good health. Perhaps the day will come when we don't see things so differently.
Wes
Rebuttal 4: by Paul Jacobsen
My first comment is that I certainly like Janssen's God better than the "literalist's God". Probably most Christians (that I know of anyway) would have more to disagree with what Janssen has said than I would... The questions that come to mind to me when reading Janssen's paper are, how do you any of the the Bible is a divine truth? How do you know what is literal and what isn't? How do you know what the non-literal parts really mean? Janssen's God seems to be rather nebulous, without any real way to know what is a divine truth, and what isn't.
I could quote some of the more, um, extreme quotes of the Bible such as "do not suffer a witch to live," and ask, well, what does that really mean? Does that really mean, "love your neighbor"? I could go on, there's plenty more where that came from. But I don't see any point to quoting more. I just don't see any reason to conclude that there are any divine truths in the Bible at all.
My first comment is that I certainly like Janssen's God better than the "literalist's God". Probably most Christians (that I know of anyway) would have more to disagree with what Janssen has said than I would... The questions that come to mind to me when reading Janssen's paper are, how do you any of the the Bible is a divine truth? How do you know what is literal and what isn't? How do you know what the non-literal parts really mean? Janssen's God seems to be rather nebulous, without any real way to know what is a divine truth, and what isn't.
I could quote some of the more, um, extreme quotes of the Bible such as "do not suffer a witch to live," and ask, well, what does that really mean? Does that really mean, "love your neighbor"? I could go on, there's plenty more where that came from. But I don't see any point to quoting more. I just don't see any reason to conclude that there are any divine truths in the Bible at all.
