A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

Theological pet peeves

When Christian writers do one or both of the following:

1. Posit a simplistic dichotomy between “Hebrew” (or “biblical”) and “Greek” thought. These days the former is invariably portrayed as earthy, holistic, and life-affirming, while the latter is otherworldly, dualistic, and sees matter as evil. (As an aside, I often wonder what Jews think when Christians purport to define “Hebrew” thinking. Bonus question: was Maimonides a “Hebrew” or “Greek” thinker?)

2. Going on ad nauseum about how God cannot be contained in “propositions” and how “propositional truth” and “reason” are irrelevant to the life of faith, which is a dynamic, life-changing relationship that, in some way I can’t fathom, doesn’t involve having beliefs with any specifiable content or truth conditions.

Here endeth the rant.

,

14 responses to “Theological pet peeves”

  1. Rick Ritchie

    You just want to put God in a box!

    Reply
  2. Mary Sue

    I often wonder what Jews think when Christians purport to define “Hebrew” thinking.

    They get PISSED OFF.

    I’m trying real hard to understand where a few of my friends who are Torah Scholars about as much as I’m a Biblical Scholar keep saying “We hate it when Christians use *our*scriptures!”

    I’m an elder sister, and I see in it a lot of “I don’t wanna share! She’ll mess everything up!” and I’m trying to be respectful and honor that—

    –but damnit, they’re my scriptures, too! G-d gave them to both of us!

    Reply
  3. Marvin

    What is this all about? Did you lose another battle in Sunday School?

    Reply
  4. Lee

    Heh. Close – it has to do with a book I’m being required to read for a church membership class. It’s otherwise not a bad book, but these two things raised my hackles.

    Reply
  5. Lee

    Uh-oh, Marvin, I just realized I might be falling afoul of your irenic aspirations for theo-blogging in this post.

    Reply
  6. Andrew

    Well, that would be me. I’ve overdone both of those points in preaching and teaching. I think they are still valid. But they can be overdone. Good rant! – see http://fizzogblog.typepad.com/held_/2009/03/here-endeth-the-rant.html.

    What’s the book that set this off?

    Reply
  7. Lee

    Hi Andrew, thanks for stopping by. The book–which as I said I like overall–is “Baptized, We Live” by Daniel Erlander, a staple of ELCA adult education it seems.

    I agree that there are valid forms of the insights I critiqued (and somewhat caricatured) in this post. My worry is that when these things get boiled down for lay consumption they tend to lose their nuance.

    I like your blog, by the way.

    Reply
  8. Andrew

    Thank you kindly. My own personal blog is actually at http://fizzogblog.typepad.com/fizzogblog/, if you’re interested.

    Reply
  9. Rick Ritchie

    Now for an actual response, I have a question, Lee.

    Do you see any validity in the Hebrew/Greek dichotomy? I tend to like it when it’s used with actual citations. I also think I can see a real difference between doing scholastic theology and working within a narrative. And I don’t want to stop doing either. When I hate the dichotomy it is when someone is attempting to jettison the “Greek” way altogether.

    Your second rant I pretty much agree with down the line.

    Reply
  10. Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

    “Was Maimonides a ‘Hebrew’ or ‘Greek’ thinker?’

    Or Philo? Or Saadya?

    Or every Jewish philosopher educated and writing in the Western tradition?

    Reply
  11. Lee

    Rick, I don’t object to the distinction per se. Not that I’m an authority, of course, but if you can talk about “Islamic” thought or “Chinese” thought, then surely you can talk about “Hebrew” thought and “Greek” thought.

    What I object to are 1. simplistic and un-nuanced depictions of what are vast and complex bodies of thought and 2. a good/bad dichotomy where “Hebrew” thought represents everything good and “Greek” thought represents everything bad (ironically, this is basically a reversal of some 19th liberal Christian thought which saw the Greek elements of Christiainity as the means by which it transcended its parochial Jewish background).

    Reply
  12. Lee

    Let me mention a place where I do think the dichotomy has some usefulness/validity: I do think it’s generally accepted that the Greeks in general had a “cyclical” or “static” view of history, whereas the OT portrays history more as a directional process with a purpose. That seems signficant for theology.

    Reply
  13. Rick Ritchie

    Thanks, Lee. That helps. I think I would agree with both the peeve and the usefulness of the distinction when carefully made.

    Reply
  14. Marvin

    I considered writing, “Yo momma is my theological pet peeve,” but I thought better of it, and accordingly raised the level of my blogospheric discourse to a polite, if slightly cheeky question.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Lee Cancel reply