Part 1
Many theologically minded people dream of a theological system which is free of contradictions. In fact much effort in systematic theology and apologetics is made in explaining, resolving and circumventing contradictory theological statements. If one could only achieve a system that had no contradiction one would have the truth.
For many years, this too was my hope. My continuing theological studies in the area of theological hermeneutics have caused me to rethink this position. I’ve not relegated this aspect of theological interpretation to meaninglessness but for me it has to a degree been reduced in importance. Two reasons come to mind, which have shaped my opinion. Both are related to modernistic thinking and propositionalism[1].
- In my understanding propositionalism reduces theology to a set of assertions. A true theology is one which contains only true statements. In recent years I have come to appreciate the view that theology and Christian living encompasses more than a simple reiteration of truthful propositions. There are other aspects to our existence and especially our relationship to God, which go beyond the proposition: Prayer, aesthetics, love and mystery just to name a few.[2] Surely we understand the biblical message that a truly Godly person is not one who knows things about God but one who has integrated faith in God into his/her life. Obedience, selflessness, thought life and wisdom are a few keywords indicating that there is more the Christianity than a set of propositions. Yet even this example shows my position. Propositions are not unnecessary. We need need them. How else would we understand the teaching I just mentioned in part “be doers and not hearers of the Word”[3], if not via propositions. Yet at the same time the very propositions that inform us also point to a realm of existence which goes beyond the proposition. Thus, I believe that the realm of the proposition is only a part of the theological enterprise, not its entirety.
- As can be seen in other posts on this blog[4], I hold that theological systems can be viewed as being comprised of two categories of statements. Those which which say something about theological reality in general and those which guide us in the interpretation of these statements. In my view the principle of non-contradiction belongs to the latter category. It is not necessarily an indisputable theological truth but a principle of interpretation. Thus, it should be open to question. Think for a moment about the doctrines of free will vs. the sovereignty of God and the trinity. From our human perspective both of these doctrines hint at contradiction. Yet, many theologies hold these seemingly contradictory statements to be true. How can this be if non-contradiction is to be a hermeneutical key guiding us toward the truth. I’m not advocating a eastern type of thinking, which in my understanding has little problem with contradiction, rather I suggest that some aspects of God’s revelation to us goes beyond the categories from which we are able to rationally grasp things. Some of these contradictions must simply be allowed to exist. Someday we may become enlightened and understand them more clearly but perhaps not. Thus, non-contradiction can play a role but we should be aware that this is an interpretive principle that we employ and not an absolute truth.
Part 2
So, how does this relate to the Orthotomeo Project? I anticipate that many theologians, who like myself practice a theology beyond propositionalism and rigid non-contradictionalsim, may shudder at the concept behind the Orthotomeo Project. They may fear that it is simply an attempt at creating a contradiction free system of propositions, which violates some of their primary theological convictions. If you share these concerns, I can say to you DO NOT FEAR! This is not the goal of the Orthotomeo Project.
In fact I would suggest that the Orthotomeo Project is neutral in this regard.[5] The premise behind the Orthotomeo Project is that theological systems are reasoned systems. That is, there are reasons for interpreting statements one way or another. If one chooses to employ the interpretive principle of non-contradiction, one is free to do so. The Orthotomeo Project will be an excellent tool for determining the feasibility of such an attempt. However, if one does not rigidly hold to this principle, one is also free to document their interpretations this way. All that is required is that one give a reason for an interpretation. Once submitted to the public domain these interpretations are then open to debate and questions of plausibility. And this is what we desire is it not, a public dialog about theological interpretation?
- [1] see Propositions and Statements ↩
- [2] For example, what is happening in Romans 8:26? In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words ↩
- [3] James 1:22 ↩
- [4] Among others: The Black Box, Propositions and Statements, Terminology and Structural Guidelines for Nodal Relations ↩
- [5] I realize that nothing is truly neutral. One of my ongoing efforts concerning the structure of the Orthotomeo DB will be at reducing assumptions which favor particular theologies. This goal will probably never be achieved but I do think that it can become a useful tool for practitioners of a wide variety of theological perspectives. ↩
Agreed that “contradictions” are a big bugaboo, either anathematised or painted over as “paradoxes”; the next question is how to articulate reasoning in a discourse that relativises non-contradiction. Most people don’t mind apparent contradictions greatly, so long as they’re the *right* contradictions.
But this gets back to what Aristotle says about non-contradiction somewhere: that if someone were to propose that a and not-a are compatible, he would have to say such a person was apaideutos. The other person’s contradictions strike us as foolishness, uncivilised-ness, — but that doesn’t make us the most rational, or them irrationalists.
I’m just not sure that formalising these principles doesn’t enmesh you in another paideia, though, which will position you to look out at propositionalists and remark on *their* apaideia.
My hope is that this project can help one take a meta position looking at, for instance, propositionslist and non-propositionalis interpretiuve strategies from the outside. By comparing competing theological systems in the ways they interpret similar data one can, hopefully, make an informed judgement about paideia-ty of such interpretations.
Maybe this post http://blog.orthotomeo.com/2011/02/24/meta2-a-hermeneutics-of-interpretation/ will help clarify my goals.
I think that what your looking for will be found within a narrative approach to the Scriptures of experiential theology. That is Scripture within its self is experiential in nature and not propositional, and therefore the truths have to be experientially known.
I’m gearing my PhD-Dissertation toward this topic. Right now I’m leaning strongly toward doing a dissertation on Ian Barbour and theological modelling.
Keep in mind, my purpose in the Orthotomeo Project is not to propose a theological solution or hermeneutic, rather to document and map existing theologies in way that remains as neutral as possible and to provide a framework for theological dialog.
I would venture to say that often, apparent contradictions are intended to be a riddle which is resolved at the riddle solution layer which is a meta layer. This is particularly true of Midrash and Sensus Plenior.
Jesus is the Only Begotten Son and the Unbegotten Only Son. A contradiction? No each simply are symbols which reveal the meta reality. He is also the Usurping Second Son as typified by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and others. Again, not a contradiction, but a focus on him being the second Adam who gets the inheritance that the first lost.
Language is a set of symbols which point to the idea which is represented by all the symbols pointing to it. The symbols themselves can appear to contradict, but the reality does not.
When God first revealed himself to his creation, he separated his Holiness attributes from his Love attributes because we cannot comprehend them when they are mixed. If a judge gives mercy we ask “Where is justice?” He reconciles those two aspects of himself on the cross where holiness and love are combined.
Non-contradiction can only be applied at the meta layer, not at the symbolic layer.
Take a more difficult one: God is immutable, he changes not. But was he incarnate before the incarnation? Isn’t that a change? Did he grow up, move around, learn? aren’t those changes? On the cross when the Father “forsook” the Son, God was split, isn’t that a change? Here the symbol “I change not” has been interpreted as the reality and then is misapplied to other realities. “I change not” only means what God intended it to mean, not what a systematic theology imposes upon it.
Just for thought: What will you do with double entendre?
Because of the multiple meaning of words, Gen 2:21 can be read, “And God caused the man to die and he died, and he married a certain limping side and delivered mankind.”
This double entendre is a riddle which is a picture of Christ, where his limping side represents Gethsemane. This representation is confirmed by the bruised heel of the seed of the woman and Jacob’s withered thigh.
Now we have a contradiction in the meaning of the symbols themselves caused by double entendre. Does it mean one thing or the other. Does the law of non-contradiction apply to the Quadriga where four layers of meaning are purported to be contained in the same set of symbols?
I was referred here by caleb at Biblical Hermeneutics on stack exchange. I am hoping your project gets a good start. Having tightly linked arguments is of interest to me even without the law of non-contradiction.
P.S. I can break things. So if you need help in QA I would be happy to help.
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your input. What you say makes a lot sense. I realize that non-contradiction has its difficulties. This is one reason the system I propose does not require it. The common denominator of my proposal is the observation that interpretation involves reasoning. The examples you or anyone may give for a particular interpretation (i.e. contradiction free or other options) are plain in simple reasons. They may be correct or they may be false but they are reasons advocating articular interpretation. This is all I want to accomplish. The robustness of the reasoning involved will be open to scrutiny by all.
I will be glad to come back to you with questions or help. But this will probably be a while. I’m still working on the technical implementation, which is unfortunately going slowly. Please stay tuned for any developments.