Some Random Thoughts on Philosophers that I Read during Seminary, or a Maieutic Brief

David Tracy attempts, I contend, to deal with the fact that we all have presuppositions in interpretation and that a total vacuum for interpretation has never existed. I suppose that this is what he is saying by, "The claim is not the claim that ideal speech actually exists. The claim is that this is what ideal speech would be if it ever existed" (Tracy 26). My problem is that I have to apply this to my language, to my structure, to my religious imagination, indeed, to myself.

I understand this to impact the two great loves in my life. No matter how often I try to tell my wife how much I love her, she could never fully and completely understand. I have my idea of love and she has her idea of love. Although our language may be similar, I cannot say exactly how I love her. So how does she know at all? She knows because I gave her, and still give her, my life.

I see this to be similar to the progressive revelation of God in history compared to the Incarnation of God in Christ. Throughout history God was revealing Himself (I must use the patriarchal language of Scripture here) in incomplete, yet adequate ways. Throughout history, men and women have responded in faith to this revelation. However, even as God spoke to Israel and the nations through His prophets, the expression of His love for them was limited by language. Yet, God in the fullness of time did not speak in words, He spoke a Son, the Logos Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-4). In all humility, this view of language does color my view of scripture as limited by language, but my faith is in the Living Word not the written word.

Peter Berger does an excellent job in dealing with the relationship between religion and world-construction and world-maintenance. I feel that he does not ignore the role of religion, as many sociologists appear to do, rather he feels that, "religion occupies a distinct place in this enterprise" (Berger 3). I am and will always be in the place of making a world structure and maintaining said structure. Notwithstanding, I do disagree with a hard-line interpretation of his fundamental dialectic process. I do not think that it is possible to have society and its creations (e.g. language) totally objectivated. In a limited scope it is possible, but society and language will always remain subjective by nature. Humanity creates her own cultures and languages, and continues to change them almost daily.

My culture, my world-view, and indeed, my language is made up of me. When I change, my whole world changes. It is impossible by the very nature of the matter to be both subjective and objective (Berger 21). My response to God's revelation of Himself was to create for myself a religion. Albeit, humanity creates religion, God offers us a relationship in faith.

WOW! Dr. Woodfin really did a good job in his chapter, "Christ -- The Clue to Reality." I have found myself to be living from one epistemological/ontological crisis to another, similar to what Paul referred to as "being tossed about like the waves." I may never figure out ultimate meaning for my life, but at least I do have Christ who is my clue to Reality!

I have at times found myself asking the same question as the Velveteen Rabbit, "What is Real?" (Woodfin 84). Truly, I have discovered that the Skin Horse is correct. Being real is something that happens to me and becoming real takes a long time. Further, my reality will last forever and I cannot become unreal again. This is part of my world view, my context of reality. Where theology has failed to provide an entrance to reality, faith in Christ has given my religion a metaphysic (Woodfin 84).

T. F. Torrance, quoted by Woodfin (95) has some interesting ideas regarding the Incarnation and its Reality. He contends that the Incarnation did not limit God by space and time. The ramifications of such an idea are far reaching. If we are limited by space/time, then when God relates to us, He too is limited. Jesus Christ, the Incarnated Logos, is God yet also man. There is some Divine Self-limitation in the Incarnation. I struggle to find words that would help explain my reasoning, but there is an uneasiness between corporeal and non-corporeal existence.

At the Incarnation, God has forever been changed. For when the Word became Flesh and later returned to the side of God, humanity became a characteristic of the Trinitarian Union. This is not a belief in a fourth party of the Godhead, but rather the supreme example of God reconciling the world unto Himself. Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word made flesh, has effected redemption by bringing humanity into relationship with God. Therefore, it is only in relation to a historical incarnation of Christ that a Christian discovers a proper epistemology and ontology (95). I acknowledge the realization that at the Fall, humanity lost reality; yet, in Christ humanity is made Real once again!

The two articles in Loades and Rue entitled, "On Grading Religions" and "Can a Buddhist Be a Christian, Too?" addressed and introduced me to the issues surrounding comparing religions. At issue is the fundamental relationship between philosophy and the Christian religion. Can there be a connection between Christianity and other religions? Does Christianity have the right to call itself the only Way in light of so many other ways? These are just a couple of the questions that readily pop into my mind!

I agree with John Hick in his assertion that grading religions shows a mark of seriousness and openness (450). I even agree with his proposed criteria. But, it is with his conclusion that I react negatively. I grew up influenced by a Christian World View, even more specifically, a Southern Baptist World View. I judge other religions not by setting aside my structure; but, instead, by examining the other religions through my world structure. One of the tests by which Hick says we may judge a religion is the founder's character. Here is where I believe Christianity excels. Jesus lived up to the standard which He taught. The Liar, Lunatic, or Lord argument works well in this situation!

Hick also asserts that the test should judge the ability of the religion to bring about a change of life (462). I fear this is where Christianity may appear to fall tragically short, but to be a fair judge, so do all the rest! Jesus told his disciples that the world would know that He is TRUE by their love for one another! I have fallen short of this because of my choosing to disobey, but in all humility, I am finding it easier to love because of the presence of Jesus in my life.
Hick does such a good job, then blows it all in the last paragraph (469). I agree, it is possible to grade religions. I firmly believe that only Christianity leads to Reality. I agree that the complexity of human existence has established a myriad of religious phenomena. In faith, I state that the only Reality is Jesus Christ. I totally believe that the only transformation from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness can occur in Christ.

John Cobb also falls too quickly and too optimistically into the pluralistic trap. I believe that in his argument not only did he show that Christianity is incompatible with Buddhism, but that in spite of his conclusions, a Buddhist by his own definition cannot accept a Biblical Christ (485). In his argument, Cobb can only prove his statements by redefining terms according to his needs. In a resurgence of Gnosticism, he separates the Man, Jesus, from the Logos, Christ (Cobb 476). The Incarnation is unique in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Logos, not part of a logos infused in all religions.

Finally, Green draws it all together for me by examining the religious imagination. I think that this idea of the imagination is firmly tied to the use of religious language. I view this "imagination" as similar to my structure, my world view. In my imagination, my cosmology, I am united with Christ in the imagination of Love (Green 103). By very nature, God is Love and the change that He brings in my life through the presence of Christ is the ability to love ,like Him, all of humanity. In philosophical humility, I concede defeat, for my imagination, my world structure, is in utter dependence upon the Grace of God.