Just a quick reply to what I made out of Grant’s comment (yes, comment, Grant!) Grant seems to be assuming that those in the church are somehow epistemologically privileged: he writes that the “church is guided by that which is beyond interpretation”. I submit that I don’t find this line of argument either cogent or persuasive. Moreover, I am really worried when Xans, or anyone else for that matter, claim that they are holding to whatever is beyond interpretation; this surely is a recipe for drawing a line between “us” and “them” – what I see Keith’s quasi-Anabaptist line of argument doing. There is a church-centered community here and there are the rest of “them” out there. Yes, we do have to reach out to them, but we want to keep the line clear! (I apologize for the polemical tone.)
So, Grant, I take issue with your attempt to epistemologically privilege the church. It might be helpful here to bring in another old, and I believe still very helpful, Kuyperian (Pauline?) distinction between common and special grace. In case that you don’t find the terms appealing, the distinction I have in mind is between that which is revealed to all, along the lines of Romans 1&2, and the salvific knowledge of Xst given to the believers. Now, if it seems like I am undermining my previous discontents, do not me misled: the salvific knowledge of Xst does not grant Xans any privileged epistemological route to, say, being a farmer, or a statesman. Anecdotally, just because a certain person might be an outstanding member of the Body of Xst, that does not automatically make her “better” at something else. We could insert any number of biblical, historical or contemporary examples. I hope I am clear on this.
I will stop here.
By the way, congratulations to any of you Republicans out there; and to the rest of you: God help us all! (Let’s pray and hope that those entrusted with the levers of power, will exercise their responsibility justly toward the lofty goals of peace and shalom.)
sgassanov
Nov 08 2002
05:26 am
Just a quick reply to what I made out of Grant’s comment (yes, comment, Grant!) Grant seems to be assuming that those in the church are somehow epistemologically privileged: he writes that the “church is guided by that which is beyond interpretation”. I submit that I don’t find this line of argument either cogent or persuasive. Moreover, I am really worried when Xans, or anyone else for that matter, claim that they are holding to whatever is beyond interpretation; this surely is a recipe for drawing a line between “us” and “them” – what I see Keith’s quasi-Anabaptist line of argument doing. There is a church-centered community here and there are the rest of “them” out there. Yes, we do have to reach out to them, but we want to keep the line clear! (I apologize for the polemical tone.)
So, Grant, I take issue with your attempt to epistemologically privilege the church. It might be helpful here to bring in another old, and I believe still very helpful, Kuyperian (Pauline?) distinction between common and special grace. In case that you don’t find the terms appealing, the distinction I have in mind is between that which is revealed to all, along the lines of Romans 1&2, and the salvific knowledge of Xst given to the believers. Now, if it seems like I am undermining my previous discontents, do not me misled: the salvific knowledge of Xst does not grant Xans any privileged epistemological route to, say, being a farmer, or a statesman. Anecdotally, just because a certain person might be an outstanding member of the Body of Xst, that does not automatically make her “better” at something else. We could insert any number of biblical, historical or contemporary examples. I hope I am clear on this.
I will stop here.
By the way, congratulations to any of you Republicans out there; and to the rest of you: God help us all! (Let’s pray and hope that those entrusted with the levers of power, will exercise their responsibility justly toward the lofty goals of peace and shalom.)