Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Rules of the Game
This blog is philosophical in nature. I ask, then, that discussion concern only the views expressed and the arguments for them. Dissent is welcome. Personal attacks or speculation about motive are not. If this rule seems burdensome, please find another forum in which to express yourself. If this rule is not observed, you will be politely asked to make your exit. (I find it extraordinary that I was forced to state this rule. It had seemed so obvious to me, so clear, that it had not even occurred to me to state it. But hard experience has made me see the necessity of it.)
Who am I?
- Dr. M
- Lafatyette, IN, United States
Why "Philosophical Midwife"?
If you're curious about the title of the blog, I explain its sense here. (I should say as well that I searched many days in vain for a title not already taken. "Philosophical Midwife" was not my first choice.)
A Perennial
Like plants, blogs are of two sorts. Annuals are composed of posts meant to have only temporary interest. Their posts "die" soon after they appear. Perennials on the other hand are composed of posts that are like chapters in a book. Their posts last (or at least are meant to last). The Philosophical Midwife is a perennial. So please do read old posts. Though I've since abandoned the views expressed in some, all will repay study (even if only to isolate their errors). I will read and likely respond to every comment, no matter how old the post.
Topics
- Abortion (2)
- Aphorisms (8)
- Biblical Authority (7)
- Biblical Positivism (1)
- Chief End of Man (5)
- Christology (5)
- Church of Christ (5)
- Death (1)
- Death and Dying (1)
- Education of the Young (2)
- Epistemology (3)
- Euthanasia (1)
- Evangelical Christianity (9)
- Evil (3)
- Family (3)
- Forgiveness (3)
- Foundations of the Christian Faith (2)
- Human Genesis (1)
- Human Origins (3)
- In vitro fertilisation (2)
- Inerrancy (8)
- Logic (3)
- Love (8)
- Marriage (3)
- Metaphysics (5)
- Meticulous Conscience (1)
- Miracles (1)
- Moral Theory (18)
- My Faith (5)
- My Hope (2)
- Natural Law (1)
- Our Knowledge of God (4)
- Pedagogy (1)
- Philosophical Lexicon (1)
- Philosophical Papers (2)
- Poetry (1)
- Practical Christianity (1)
- Psychology (1)
- Questions for Christians (4)
- Relativism (2)
- Religion and Politics (6)
- Righteousness (1)
- Salvation (8)
- Science (1)
- Science and Christianity (1)
- Sin (7)
- Site Matters (3)
- Substitutionary Atonement (2)
- The Atonement (4)
- The Doctrine of Hell (4)
- The Fall (1)
- The Place of Women within the Christian Church (2)
- The Problem of Evil (2)
- The Rationality of Christian Belief (4)
- Theodicy (4)
- Theology (12)
- True Desire (1)
- Truth (1)
- Why I Am a Christian (6)
Archive
-
▼
2007
(53)
-
▼
July
(18)
- Birth Control
- The Highest Good
- Dewey on Truth
- Luck or Power?
- Reflections on the Church of Christ: The Great Apo...
- Christianity and the Rise of Science
- Beyond Even Being
- The Cupcake Fallacy
- Religion in the Public Sphere, Rev. 1
- The Mason Catechism
- Sola Scriptura, Part II
- Test of Scripture
- Vice and Virtue
- Reflections on the Church of Christ: Instrumental ...
- What is Sin?
- Reflections on the Church of Christ: Biblical Posi...
- True Desire
- The Meticulous Conscience: Downward Spiral
-
▼
July
(18)
4 comments:
Franklin, that's positively profound. A lack of appetite could, of course, result from being completely fulfilled in our relationship with God, but also could simply be a lack of interest in life itself.
Again, profound.
I have wondered about this for many years. We condemn alcoholics; we tell them to quit. But I doubt that we know just how strong the pull of drink is to them; and I suspect that if, at this moment, we were to experience the same desire as do they, we would surely drink. And yet we congratulate ourselves on our sobriety. It may be a sobriety with little merit.
Franklin,
I wanted to comment specifically on your post re: the CoC’s stance on musical instruments. I too have grown up in a Church of Christ and, like you, after questioning the “silence argument” can no longer accept it as valid doctrine.
I have found that there are at least a few ways of disproving the doctrine. You have focused specifically on showing the Church of Christ to be inconsistent with it. This works well since if everything must be authorized (either explicitly or through necessary inference) then anything and everything that is not authorized in such a manner and used in the assembly must be considered prohibited. But then, whence pitch pipes, or as you mentioned cushioned pews, or the countless other items the Church of Christ employs?
The tactic that I’ve also found quite effective is to simply take members of the CoC back to the precedent laid out in the Bible and show them that, contra their assertions, every example given in the Bible where someone violates a prohibition or is penalized by God is punished because he, she, or they violated a command. And of course, commands are not silence and therefore such examples cannot be used to prop up the notion that silence itself is prohibitive. Thus the question to ask them is, Where does the Bible give an example where someone is punished because they violated prohibitive silence?
The all-important point here for them to recognize is the distinction between prohibitions by silence verses prohibitions by command. For instance, the Church of Christ often tries to make the following parallels: (1) Just as it would have been wrong for Noah to use another wood that God was silent about other than the gopher wood commanded, we cannot use musical instruments (which God is silent about) in addition to singing. (2) Although Uzzah’s intentions were noble, God was silent about the way he handled the ark and he died as a result; therefore silence is prohibitive. Or, (3) Hebrews says that the Moses “spoke nothing” about a priesthood from Judah, which tells us that silence is prohibitive.
However all three examples fail because all involve a command of God, not his silence. Namely, in terms of (1) any wood other than gopher wood would not by definition have been gopher wood, which would obviously be a failure to fulfill God’s command. (2) fails to recognize that regardless of how Uzzah handled the ark, in good or bad faith, he still touched the ark (!) which violated an explicit command. (3) is virtually the same thing as (1), in that when God through Moses specified that the Levites “of all the Israelites” were to be the priests, then to be of any other tribe would by definition prohibit you from taking part in the priesthood! Thus it’s only by the logical preclusion inherent in the Mosiac command -- not silence -- that gives the phrase “Moses spoke nothing” its force.
When I point this out in my correspondences with my Church of Christ friends, they all (thus far) have responded only with silence. After all, if the Bible tells us that God only prohibits something when he tells us (logically or otherwise) that its prohibited, then clearly it is adding commands to Scripture when you start prohibiting things that God has not; an ironic fact for the CoC member! :o)
Anyway, sorry to be so long winded! It’s late, and I hope my post made sense!
Best regards.
Dane Parker
Thanks for the comment, Dane. I think that what you say is sensible. I concur.
I would understand if the cofC were to council caution about the introduction of practices not explicitly endorsed in Scripture. But when it sets us silence as a negative command - a command not to do - then as you say, I think they've made a deep mistake.
The question will then arise: if silence on x is not a command not to do x, how are we to decide whether x is permissible if Scripture is silent about it. Here we must trust the Spirit and its work in the Christian community; I do not think it possible that, when the whole of the Church, or the greater part of it, comes to agree about a certain matter after long deliberation, that it could be wrong. To suppose otherwise is to suppose that we've been abandoned by the Spirit.
This, I take it, is the view of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Consent of the church after long deliberation guarantees truth. A strong claim, I know; but I don't know how we can get around it.
Post a Comment