Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Faith in faith - around the blog world

MetaCatholic gives us some content on Dawkins' public debates. Escaping the circle of impossible to prove things, whether logical or moral, I am thinking that belief needs to be seen more as engagement than 'rational' - and I think none of us is exempt or incompetent whether we are very smart or (as are two of my children) seriously brain damaged. Perhaps 'belief' is consciousness of such engagement with the fire of love and judgment. But such engagement - even marriage - is not a matter of sola cogitans. Morality follows from engagement with the ultimate non-user-of-power. It does not precede so it cannot be used as precondition in a logical proposition except to the extent that our consciousness of error is part of the engagement.

Michael Pahl- begins the completion of his notes on the gospel. His comments read more positively than the current notes around the blog world on inerrancy. They also give one of the primary reasons for canon - to testify to the Reality of God. The inclusiveness implied in his sequence of 'both-and' and 'not only-but also' repudiates a cerebral-only apprehension of the faith. It raises the question for me as to how we can define canon so as to note its referrent as the Living God. Just in the Psalms we have a double pointer from multiple cult locations.

Korah is considered rebellious by Judah - so we have a recording of the destruction of Korah's desire to minister at the altar. But the children of Korah, the vergers and choir boys, get the last word. They wrote Chronicles. Such divisions are included in the canon - not so that we can harmonize them and force them to speak to our own limited ideas of what God ought to have had recorded but so that we can see that the will to power is not salvation. Does this help us refine our narrowing of the wideness of God's work?

Addendum: I just noted Goulder's translation of Psalm 46:1 נִמְצָא מְאֹד He has made himself to be found indeed. All else is reaction.

1 comment:

Doug Chaplin said...

Bob, I have responded to this on my blog at some length.