Two very good and readable books which explore martyrdom have come to my attention recently. One is Chris Huebner's A Precarious Peace; the other is Craig Hovey's To Share in the Body.
Both writers are clearly of the Hauerwas-Yoder school, though I don't mean that to be a pigeon-holing of them. I particularly enjoyed this, about promise, from Hovey:
...the truth of a martyr's testimony is like the meaning of the martyr's death: both are gifts. Promise is the way that a gift is known. It is known without being grasped, leaving the promise maker free to fulfill the promise. It is impossible to have a promise without the promise maker. Grasping after promises turns promises into brute knowledge bereft of surprises and alienates the free action of the promise maker. Ultimately grasping actually results in the death of the promise maker, just as the heri in the parable of the vineyard is not just beaten and sent away but killed. A bruised heir will still inherit the vineyard according to the promise of inheritance; the heir's death is the only way to secure tenancy as a possession.
In the same way, a dead Jesus allows for a knowledge of grasping, controlling, and manipulating. Promises are unwound, detatched from both thei beginning and end. They float free as words and phrases that are made to function according to the logic of convenience, persuasion, defense, and ideology. When they are spoken, it becomes impossible for such words to constitute true testimony because their truth was only ever bound up with the continuing faithfulnes of the one who gave them to us. Ironically, the grasping and controlling that released knowledge from promise in hopes of imparting direct access to them has actually worked counter-productively. Such knowledge may be useful for accomplishing ends, but it can no longer be true knowledge, as direct apprehension is revelaed to be a myth in which what is apprehended is evacuated of anything new of real. A dead Jesus means dead knowledge.
In contrast, though, the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the risen Christ, whose presence owes to Jeuss's promise to remain with his disciples and not leave them on their own. The gift that is the Holy Spirit continues to give the gifts of promise... p. 145-6
9 comments:
Hi,
It says "it is impossible to have a promise without the promise maker."
However this statement is not true, it is possible for the promise to exist without the promise maker. The promise maker could be dead and therefore non-existant. We have to agree that promise makers can exist or not exist, its not reasonable to assume that ALL promise makers exist or that ALL promises are from promise makers. The promise may be part of a collective promise, money is a promise, a promise that the collective makes towards money in exchange for good or services. As such it is not from a single promise maker.
It says "Promise is the way that a gift is known."
A gift can be known by multiple ways, someone may tell me that a gift is going to be given to me on my birthday, therefore I know about the gift, I have meta-knowledge of the gift. A promise is not the only way a gift can be known. I could break into someones house who has a gift for me and find out about the gift.
It says "Grasping after promises turns promises into brute knowledge bereft of surprises and alienates the free action of the promise maker."
What in the world does that mean?
Firstly, I don't grasp afer promises, there is no grasping involved. If grasp is supposed to mean, to look for, or seek, seek a promise or seek a promise furfilment through contractual obligation, then why not express it in simple language which could be clearer, such as. "IF a person seeks for the furfilment of a promise THEN".
I put my faith in logic, why doesn't this text pass my logical checks and balances? I can go on with further analysis, more in depth, but you know where this is going, ever you belive there is error or not. Therefore I must reject this information. I reject all information which is not logically consistent.
Why do you feel that you enjoy a text which is not logically sound?
Since you are human and will have normal human reactions of the predictable sort, type A, you will feel annoyed someone tried to point out a fault which may exist in you, no-one likes to be corrected even if the person finding the fault is right or wrong since you are programmed to try to be right, correct and good.
Type B, you will ignore my information as it is not constructive towards your current goals.
Type C, you will negate my assertions with Biblical reasoning which will also contain flaws in logic
Type D, you have free will and choose a unpredictable option
I assume you are a human machine and will take one of the following above options.
Regards, Cult of Skaro
I'm sorry, please forgive me, sometimes I just want to say exactly what I'm thinking...
So forgiven.
I could also point out that you haven't read the text well, or that, after all, I clipped it from its surrounding context and so probably didn't give it a fair hearing.
A promise maker who is dead can't fulfil the promise. Seems logical to me. If I say 'see you tomorrow' and die today, the promise is invalidated or made meaningless. Surely.
It says "it is impossible to have a promise without the promise maker."
But you have just pointed out that it is possible to hav a promise without the promise maker.
A promise can be fulfiled without the promise maker, my Will is a promise, a present sent in the mail is a promise.
If your wondering what the point of this is, I'm trying to establish that the statement "It is impossible to have a promise without the promise maker." is not true.
It doesn't matter what context it is in, the statement clearly says it in a way which applies to all promises "It is impossible to have a promise".
Therefore if we can establish that there is error in this document, then how can we trust this line of reasoning?
It shows that either your not looking for errors, not critical thinking, or willing to gloss over incorrect statements.
You also said "I could also point out that you haven't read the text well, or that, after all, I clipped it from its surrounding context and so probably didn't give it a fair hearing".
I agree, I havn't seen the context, but the context doesn't matter, the statement is worded to apply to all context of promise.
This is the most difficult part I have with Christian readings that I come across logical errors all the time in books or articles, I'm not sure what to do about it, sit around and ignore it or speak up.
Its one of the biggest problems I have with Christianity.
I don't think you have really made your point by means of cold logic though. Certainly, though we might be talking about a contestable proposition, it isn't clear to me that you have demonstrated that it is a plain error. So you self-assured tone is a little baffling...
The statement 'it is impossible to have the promise without the promise-maker' might well be quite obviously true if we could agree on the meaning of certain terms in the proposition, like 'have', or 'impossible' or 'without'.
We might grant that a promise-maker might set in train a series of actions prior to his/her death that ensures the fulfillment of the promise. Hovey might reply that this is, in a sense, 'having' the promise-maker with the promise. Certainly, if the promise make dies and so is no longer an agent, there is no guarantee that the promise will be fulfilled.
I should add also that if you have ever actually dealt with a real life will (as I have!) you will know that what a deceased person promises is very prone to be altered and contested.
I would use the dictionary definitions only for agreement on the meaning of certain terms in the proposition, like 'have', or 'impossible' or 'without'.
Sorry if there's any tone in my text, I'm not intending to put any emotion into it.
If I havn't convinced you its ok, its actually my problem that I have with Christian texts, I'm a software developer, have been for ten years in business. What I've been doing for over ten years is look for errors in requirements, analysis, code, systems, errors are so common so we try to remove all errors. Errors cost business a lot of money. So in that mind-set, thats how I approach all information.
This is my problem when I go to Church, I collect a list of errors in the spoken sermon.
When you work from 8 to 8 every day and often on weekends, it changes your thinking...
I would use the dictionary definitions only for agreement on the meaning of certain terms in the proposition, like 'have', or 'impossible' or 'without'.
Sorry if there's any tone in my text, I'm not intending to put any emotion into it.
If I havn't convinced you its ok, its actually my problem that I have with Christian texts, I'm a software developer, have been for ten years in business. What I've been doing for over ten years is look for errors in requirements, analysis, code, systems, errors are so common so we try to remove all errors. Errors cost business a lot of money. So in that mind-set, thats how I approach all information.
This is my problem when I go to Church, I collect a list of errors in the spoken sermon.
When you work from 8 to 8 every day and often on weekends, it changes your thinking...
Post a Comment