ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso omnia

Just finished watching the #BEDPEACE video which Yoko Ono has made available for this weekend via a free stream. It is a portrait of John and Yoko’s Bed-In in Montreal from 1969. Yoko writes “John and I were so naïve to think that doing the Bed-In would help change the world.” My response would be “yes” and “no”. I’d like to elaborate on a few points, if I may.

The Beatles and the whole counter-culture movement of the sixties is indirectly part of my youth and something that always strikes a chord within me. I was to young to experience the movement firsthand. I was only seven years old when the Bed-In took place. But later in the seventies when I began to get interested in music, I was always drawn to the music and culture that took place at that time instead of the contemporary music of the day. I had often secretly wished that I would have been born ten years earlier so that I could have experienced all these things firsthand. Maybe I was drawn to it because then events of that period had already achieved a kind of mythical status by the mid seventies. I’m sure there are many factors. But maybe it was better that I wasn’t born earlier. Perhaps my reaction would have been different.

Anyway, in 1980 I became a Christian of the evangelical variety and as was the case with many like me, I was drawn into the realm of conservative political thought, This in turn brought me into an inner conflict about many of the views of the sixties and in particular John and Yoko’s pacifism. I had accepted as true  and necsessary many of the things which they were campaigning against. I have since become more flexible in my thinking, which is in a constant process of reevaluation. Especially the fact that I’ve lived outside the USA for over twenty years now, has given me the opportunity to reflect on things from afar and from other perspectives.

Watching the video struck me and I was impressed by several things. John Lennon was very intelligent and had an excellent grasp of human nature and the problems of the world. Quite remarkable, since at the time he was not yet thirty years old. He was not advocating a kind of class warfare. He realized that the problem lie in the heart of all mankind. He realized that a revolution by force would not solve things but simply replace the existing regime with a new one that would end up repeating the same mistakes. His hope was to do something different, to change the hearts of people and bring change from within. This is where I would disagree with Yoko. They were not naïve in thier analysis of the problem but right on.

Where I would agree with Yoko is in another area, their solution to the problem. The change that is required in the heart of mankind is not something that can be achieved by a simple refelction and change of the will. It requires Jesus Christ. The nature of mankind must be radically altered and this can only be achieved by God. But for this to occur we need as individualy to recognize this and ask for his forgiveness and life changing power. A conversion must take place which takes usfrom the kingdom of darkeness into the kingdom of light. As admirable as their efforts were I think they were naïve as to the solution.

I think many valuable lessons can still be gained from their approach: we require change,  the system is not the problem but our human nature, it is our responsibility to take action the solution won’t come from othersin the sense of a system or structure. In my opinion the action that is needed is for us to get on our knees and come before God. Yes, “power to the people,” but the power comes from God.

Recently I’ve been doing some research on the doctrine of sola scriptura. Among the many sources I’ve been reading is the Book “Exploring Protestant Traditions” from W. David Buschart. I’ve created the following table to compare how the protestant traditions employ sola scriptura. Although this table may be helpful for an initial overview, please refer to the book itself^[1] or other literature to get a more informed opinion. There is a high degree of variability within all of these denominations and a tabular description such as this cannot convey many of the nuances that are involved. Nonetheless it can be useful for a quick-glance overview.

Sources for Theology:

Theological Sources Key:

Other Aspects:

1. ^[1] The book is nicely subdivided so that one can quickly focus on the interpretive aspects of each denominational community. ↩

Part 1

Many theologically minded people dream of a theological system which is free of contradictions. In fact much effort in systematic theology and apologetics is made in explaining, resolving and circumventing contradictory theological statements. If one could only achieve a system that had no contradiction one would have the truth.

For many years, this too was my hope. My continuing theological studies in the area of theological hermeneutics have caused me to rethink this position. I’ve not relegated this aspect of theological interpretation to meaninglessness but for me it has to a degree been reduced in importance. Two reasons come to mind, which have shaped my opinion. Both are related to modernistic thinking and propositionalism^[1].

• In my understanding propositionalism reduces theology to a set of assertions. A true theology is one which contains only true statements. In recent years I have come to appreciate the view that theology and Christian living encompasses more than a simple reiteration of truthful propositions. There are other aspects to our existence and especially our relationship to God, which go beyond the proposition: Prayer, aesthetics, love and mystery just to name a few.^[2] Surely we understand the biblical message that a truly Godly person is not one who knows things about God but one who has integrated faith in God into his/her life. Obedience, selflessness, thought life and wisdom are a few keywords indicating that there is more the Christianity than a set of propositions. Yet even this example shows my position. Propositions are not unnecessary. We need need them. How else would we understand the teaching I just mentioned in part “be doers and not hearers of the Word”^[3], if not via propositions. Yet at the same time the very propositions that inform us also point to a realm of existence which goes beyond the proposition. Thus, I believe that the realm of the proposition is only a part of the theological enterprise not its entirety.

• As can be seen in other posts on this blog^[4], I hold that theological systems can be viewed as being comprised of two categories of statements. Those which which say something about theological reality in general and those which guide us in the interpretation of these statements. In my view the principle of non-contradiction belongs to the latter category. It is not necessarily a indisputable theological truth but a principle of interpretation. Thus, it should be open to question. Think for a moment about the doctrines of free will vs. the sovereignty of God and the trinity. From our human perspective both of these doctrines hint at contradiction. Yet, many theologies hold these seemingly contradictory statements to be true. How can this be if non-contradiction is to be a hermeneutical key guiding us toward the truth. I’m not advocating a eastern type of thinking, which in my understanding has little problem with contradiction, rather I suggest that some aspects of God’s revelation to us goes beyond the categories from which we are able to rationally grasp things. Some of these contradictions must simply be allowed to exist. Someday we may become enlightened and understand them more clearly but perhaps not. Thus, non-contradiction can play a role but we should be aware that this is an interpretive principle that we employ and not an absolute truth.

Part 2

So, how does this relate to the Orthotomeo Project? I anticipate that many theologians, who like myself practice a theology beyond propositionalism and rigid non-contradictionalsim, may shudder at the concept behind the Orthotomeo Project. They may fear that it is simply an attempt at creating a contradiction free system of propositions, which violates some of their primary theological convictions. If you share these concerns, I can say to you DO NOT FEAR! This is not the goal of the Orthotomeo Project.
In fact I would suggest that the Orthotomeo Project is neutral in this regard.^[5] The premise behind the Orthotomeo Project is that theological systems are reasoned systems. That is, there are reasons for interpreting statements one way or another. If one chooses to employ the interpretive principle of non-contradiction, one is free to do so. The Orthotomeo Project will be an excellent tool for determining the feasibility of such an attempt. However, if one does not rigidly hold to this principle, one is also free to document their interpretations this way. All that is required is that one give a reason for an interpretation. Once submitted to the public domain these interpretations are then open to debate and questions of plausibility. And this is what we desire is it not, a public dialog about theological interpretation?

1. ^[1] see Propositions and Statements ↩
2. ^[2] For example, what is happening in Romans 8:26? In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words ↩
3. ^[3] James 1:22 ↩
4. ^[4] Among others: The Black Box, Propositions and Statements, Terminology and Structural Guidelines for Nodal Relations ↩
5. ^[5] I realize that nothing is truly neutral. One of my ongoing efforts concerning the structure of the Orthotomeo DB will be at reducing assumptions which favor particular theologies. This goal will probably never be achieved but I do think that it can become a useful tool for practitioners of a wide variety of theological perspectives. ↩

I have begun a project which deals with theology, hermeneutics and issues of interpretation. In 2011 a website for viewing and querying theological argumentation will be created. Currently it is in development, however, I have a related blog for presenting and discussion the concepts involved.

Here are a few excerpts from the website …

… The Orthotomeo Project is the culmination of several years of contemplation on my part about theological hermeneutics and theology in general. I believe the orthotomeo project can revolutionize the way that theology is practiced. I envision a website which, in its field of application, will rival informational websites such as Wikipedia. The revolution, however, does not lie in vast internet exposure, rather in its approach to theological and biblical interpretation. In short, I believe the orthotomeo project will facilitate dialog within all facets of theological argumentation in a way which has never been done before …

… The Orthotomeo Project endeavors to portray theological systems in a graphical manner (please see the examples.) and subsequently enable a variety of queries and analysis, which would otherwise not be possible …

When trying to understand the statements and actions of others we often misinterpret their intentions. Depending on the subject matter, such misinterpretations can lead to heated accusations flying in both directions and end up in a situation resembling WWI style trench warfare. I believe we should be aware of two key elements in the communication process which can aid in reducing the amount of trench warfare and improve our dialog with people holding disparate ideas.

Element #1: The Perlocution

When people make statements and assertions, part of what they say is external and accessible to all: e.g. sentences, words, text layout, body language and gestures etc. Another part of what they’re saying is unspoken and internal: e.g. their specific understanding of the terms and signs being used, the connotations of the phrases, the motivation for and the purpose of the statement etc. This is an important point to recognize. Every time you interpret the statements and actions of another person, part of the work involved is in essence guess work. The meaning you associate with their statements is based in part on your ability to adequately ascertain the speakers internal understandings, motivations and views. The term perlocution stems from the speech-act theory of J. L. Austin. What I am referring to with the term (which may not be 100% congruent with Austin’s usage) are the goals and motivations of a speaker, pertinent to a speech act, which do to their subjective nature are only truly knowable by the speaker him- or herself. Even if one does not hold to Austin’s speech-act theory, I think one must concede that something exists similar to what I have described, regardless of the use of the perlocution moniker.

Element #2: Worldviews

Wikipedia defines a worldview as a “fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing natural philosophy; fundamental existential and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.” When we think about how things work in the world, what the cause and effect relationship is, the ethical evaluation of specific activities and a host of other issues, the judgments we make are related to our worldview. When a boy on the school playground through speech and action is aggressive and assertive, some may judge this behavior as “bullying” and others may view it as a demonstration of “a healthy ego.” One person sees the use of military force as a proper response to a specific threat. Another person views the same use of military force as unwarranted and even as a cause rather than solution to problems. I.e. the same activity is judged differently by different people. This is because the people in question hold different worldviews about how people should relate to one another and what role military force plays in the world.

The tyranny of the perlocution occurs when these two elements of human nature (perlocution and worldview) are inappropriately combined. Unfortunately, this appears to be the standard procedure among human beings. We combine the outward expressions from others with our personal worldview in order to deduce the related perlocutions of the other. This often results in misunderstanding and hostility. Because the communication process necessarily involves a degree of speculation about the the motives and goals of the speaker, we are forced to fill the void (the missing perlocutionary qualities) with something. The most natural source is our own worldview. When someone makes a statement, we instinctively ask ourselves, “why are they saying this?” or “what do they hope to gain from this?” The most natural answer comes from our own experience. We imagine ourselves making such a statement and deduce the perlocutionary qualities that would accompany such a statement. We then ascribe these deduced perlocutionary qualities to be those of the speaker. The problem arises when the the speaker and the hearer subscribe to differing worldviews. The actual perlocutionary qualities of the speaker may be quite different than those ascribed to him or her.

Two examples

Many people view the world through the lens of making money. Not that they themselves are greedy but they conclude that the desire for money is the primary motivation for personal sacrifice. For them this is how people tick. However, there are people in the world who view speak and act from other motivations. Perhaps they desire to order their world based on aesthetics. Others may be motivated by the belief and hope for tolerance and peaceful coexistence among people. I have repeatedly observed situations similar to the following: when someone from the “money makes the world go around” worldview hears a statement from a person who holds a different worldview, they interpret the statement based on their own worldview, which states that most things are money driven. How many times have you heard something like “everything he says is just show, all he really wants to do is make a buck.”

In the political arena in the U.S.A. the left and the right regularly condemn one another by ascribing motives that IMO are often false. The right accuses the left of negative socialist goals because this is the only explanation of the left’s activities based on the worldview of the right. The left accuses the right of desires for totalitarian and regressive control because this is the only sensible explanation of the activities of the right based on the worldview of the left. Could it not be that the left has a noble goal, for example combating oppression? Could it also not be that the right is simply acting on moral conviction about what they believe to be right and wrong? Would it not be better if the left and the right attempted to understand the worldview and presuppositions of each other before resorting to a childish demonizing of the opponent?

In short people normally interpret the statements and others by using their own worldview and often come to incorrect conclusions. My suggestion would be that we try to make a correct judgment about the motives of the other. This, however, is not always an easy task. It entails two things which often go against our nature: 1.) we must realize that everyone does not think like I do, i.e. they have a different worldview, and 2.) we must be humble and consider the possibility that my worldview may be incorrect, i.e. just because I have an understanding of how the world functions, it may not be correct.