{reminder: there are no readings on Sundays. The schedule is here}
The First commandment (Dt. 5) is pretty explicit about what counts as an idol, but the second commandment is really undefined, by comparison:
“You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God.”
Usually the word is “blaspheme:” What constitutes wrongful use? What constitutes right use of the Name?
Some wrongful uses, perhaps: making oaths in the Name, Speaking falsely of Yahweh - attributing to Him characteristics that are not properly His (theologians ,tremble!), Failing to attribute to Him glory due Him.
As I think about it, I am not sure the quasi-expletive “oh, god” falls into this category: simply put it confuses a class of beings (deities) with a proper name (Yahweh.) Saying “oh, god” is the same as “oh, deity and not the same as “oh Yahweh;” it does not specify the deity in question.
Am I splitting hairs? Maybe. But, (and this is a full-bodied but) we have often fallen into the trap of understanding all generic god-talk as talk about the God of the Bible. Some examples, off the top of my head:
1. Mistake: when our founding fathers spoke of “god,” they meant “the God of Bible.” Not necessarily true, and definitely not true in the cases of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin.
2. The gods that show up in literature: Beowulf comes to mind. Yes, it was edited by a monk, but even still Beowulf is not a Christian text.
3. Philosophers have talked of God for a long time, and have special language for god: lots of “omni”s. This language has become the norm in theology, even, and we have become used to referring to god’s “attributes” in this philosophical language. The Bible is clear, however: not by our logic, but through Jesus Christ do we come to know God.
4. Also, see this (warning: academic language ahead!)
Also, I noticed while reading Deuteronomy that it is much more focused on the plight of the poor than are the other books of the Pentateuch: for example, the provisions for leaving the remnant of the produce of the field for the poor is expanded greatly in Deuteronomy (ch. 24:14ff).
Entries (RSS)
February 26th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
So, I realize this question may be a bit off topic, but it does hit on point number four. I’ve recently had questions here at Union on the nature of theology, and I find that at least one friend always comes back to the idea of Anselm’s definition of “Faith seeking understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum) and using that to allow for a more pluralistic idea of theology.
I agree with your three points, and would have to say that I would take community farther to include tradition - saints of the past and their thoughts.
Ironically I bring this up to my friend (hes actually Catholic) and he still talks about Anselm over and above tradition (I guess you can see where he falls on the scale of liberal and über liberal, heh.).
Anyways, my question here is, where do you allow for Anselm?
And for a bonus point, where does Moltmann’s “Hope seeking understanding-I hope that I might believe” (spes quaerens intellectum-spero, ut intelligam) fit into all of this (Theology of Hope, 33)?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
It is tough looking back as far as Anselm, especially when we focus on a phrase so well worn as his “faith seeking understanding:” reading our expectations back into it is nigh on impossible. I could say that perhaps the pursuit of theology happens most appropriately from within a community of faith – “faith seeking understanding.” But that is certainly not what Anselm had in mind. Or that only having had our language shaped by faith can we then utilize our reasoning properly, and although Milton thought this (who gives this blog its title), I’m not sure Anselm would have phrased it this way. Perhaps Anselm just meant that “learning should serve the religious life.” I think that Anselm was pre-modern (in Lindbeck’s sense of the term), and therefore not really occupying the place that my definition of theology is resisting.
Moltmann, on the other hand…you’re probably in a better place to speak to his thought than I am – you’ve met him! I think that what he says about theology (in the introduction to Theology of Hope in particular) is awesome. I don’t think that it provides – or even is meant to provide a fully-fledged definition and agenda for the theological task. I think that he is right the Christian faith has an essential eschatological character, and that one of the colloraries of this is that theological knowledge is always provisional because it awaits and looks forward to God’s future (or, I might say, the future consummation of the kingdom of God – a new “prelasparian” state).
March 24th, 2007 at 7:20 am
hi
just found your blog this morning, and read a little…
i am a past MSB student, grad class ‘92…
i am fairly new to blogs…
…do you know who the church is?
sincerely,
david r. dodson,
drd.