Elephant Theology
From CR?N:
So today over at Triablogue we read from Paul Manata:
Chris Lyons has a beef with systematic theology. His post critiques the project of systematic theology by appeal to that old story about the 6 blind men and the one elephant. You know, they each felt a part of the elephant and thought that their experience of the elephant constituted the whole truth of the matter (one felt the trunk and said it was a snake, another, the tusks, and said it was a spear, etc.,) when, really, there were many truths of the matter; so goes the story…
But notice that the author can only make this critique (about others being wrong, etc.,) because he has knowledge (or has seen) the entire elephant. So, it is he who has the entire truth. If the moral is intended to critique those who say that they have the whole truth, it is self-refuting… I thus judge that Lyons’ critique fails miserably.
For those who may not know, Chris Lyons is the leader of the self-proclaimed “Watcher of the Watchdogs” website CRN.Info.
I for one, have never heard Chris L claim that he knew the entire truth.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Yeah, him knowing “all he truth” or “seeing the whole elephant”, was NEVER a part of his article that Manata is doing a critique of. And I’ve never seen him claim that either.
I think this was dishonest reporting/reviewing, and an apology should be made for making a bad straw-man against Chris Lyons.
Joe
December 6th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
If I had the whole truth, I certainly hope I’d be paid more than I am…
December 6th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
(NOTE: That was humor)
December 6th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Couldn’t one of the blind guys say, “Hey everyone, I don’t think we have the whole picture. I think that we might be dealing with an elephant. Something that’s too big for us to know”?
December 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
No Matt,
What you speak of is Heresy.
Reasonable attitudes are not allowed.
No one can say they don’t know the whole elephant! NO ONE!!! :tears garmets:
LOL
Joe
December 6th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I tell you, this is like bizarro week - a four-month-old article that got nary a word when it was published suddenly becomes Ken Silva’s obsession and a badly-sung song that I figured would get 5-10 responses ends up pulling in multitudes of the SoL Sanhedrin.
Something in the water, maybe? Or (like Tim suggested), a cycle of the moon…
Weirdness
December 6th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
The real question, Chris L., is whether or not you’ve really seen an entire elephant.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
I’m guessing now that all I have to do to get Ken to post my comments over at CR?N is to use my laptop keyboard, which leads to fat-fingered splelings…
December 6th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
So check this out …
Hey…are any of you guys “man-centered…semi pelagian…or in the ‘emerging church’?
Apparently you really can’t have a different systematic theology from CRN. Owch.
I find this to be the ultimate irony, and such a terribly hypocritical statement that I’m actually offended.
How could he say something like this? Doesn’t he see that he does the very same thing to anyone not reformed?
Joe
December 6th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I’ve ridden on a couple of elephants. Three I think. I have pictures somewhere to prove it.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
talk about mistaking an acknowledgement of a whole truth for a claim to knowing it all…
December 7th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Where do you guys find your pictures? I love the “elephant.” Adorable.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:02 am
How do you eat an elephant?
One bite at a time.
LOL!
iggy
December 7th, 2007 at 3:08 am
Joe C,
I know some are Arminian based in their fiath, but many of us are far from this oft used description and sometimes as I debate the supporters I find they are the “man-centered… semi-pelagians”…
In fact Chris P mixes Grace and works… Ken does also… Ingrid does… and all say the gospel is about “me” getting saved, so “me” can go to heaven and “me” will not go to hell… so the focus seems to always be about me instead of the Kingdom..
I see that I am only by grace a minute part of the grand story that God planned before creation in Christ. This salvation by “His Kingdom on earth as it is in Heaven” is not about me, but I get to be a part of all GOd’s glorious plan to reconcile all creation (which includes me) into Christ them back into Himself…
Which one sounds more man based and semi pelagian… worring about if one should wear a suit to preach or procliaming the great salvation of God.
Some claim to “oldtruth” I stand like Bolinger against the RCC and proclaim eternal truth is what I hold.
Be blessed,
iggy
December 7th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Hi all,
My advice would be to draw a distinction between what someone *outrightly* states, and what is *implicitly* stated. I defended my analysis. That should be included in your reporting as well. The story starts off by telling us the whole truth on the matter. So, Lyons needs to take that view if he’s going to be consistent with his chosen analogy. If we didn’t know that it was anaelephant, and all we were told by one person was that he was holding a snake, could we say he was wrong or that he didn’t have the whole truth of the matter? So, one needs to watch out for the logical implications of what one says.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Paul,
One need not see the entire whole to know that one experience of it is not its entire nature. Your analysis of my article a) is flawed in the very logic it tries to use; and b) completely ignores the heart of the thesis around the dimensionality of God.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:21 am
I did a google image search for dog and elephant. That’s what I came up with. It is cute.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:25 am
To be a bit more specific to the analogy, Paul: In the story of the blind men and the elephant, we know exactly what the elephant looks like, indeed. This does not imply, though, that the blind men would not think that they were absent the big picture when their perceptions of the elephant differed.
In the case of the nature of God, we already know from Job (and elsewhere) that we cannot fully comprehend the nature of God, and we know from Genesis (and elsewhere) that God exists apart from time. Therefore, when we examine Him only within time, we start from a basis of admitted “blindness”, and this then slips into arrogance when one of us “holds his trunk” and declares it to be a snake (or a sola
)…
Rather than play the part of a blind man in denial of his blindness (which is what these systematic theologies do when they exclaim exclusive definition of the nature of God), I am just suggesting that we admit our blindness - our inability to see time beyond our own limited experience - and accept that God’s Word is true and that we don’t need to make it uncontradictory when it deals with the nature of time (ex. predestination and free will).
December 7th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Metaphors aren’t perfect Paul. Don’t miss the big picture (lol the irony!!) because you’re trying to take small parts of the metaphor literally and apply them to real life.
All Christians will never have the full picture of God (The super infinitely huge Elephant). There’s just no way we can know everything about God. Each of us brings different things to the table, as long as they’re valid by Scripture. We have to have faith that God IS, and that He is Supreme. Free will is in the Bible, plainly. Predestination is in the Bible, plainly. God making His mind up and not changing it is in the Bible, plainly. God changing His mind at request is in the Bible, plainly, which incidentally makes prayer make sense. Sure, you can pick one of these to the exclusion of all others and twist the ‘conflicting’ Scriptures away, but then you step out of the plain hermeneutics we love so much. And at tha point you’re just grabbing the toenail of the elephant and saying “LOOK! IT’S REALLY A TOENAIL GUYS!! PS, you’re doomed because you don’t agree with my Toenailism.”
LOL
Joe
I submit Hebrews 11:6 to the court.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Breaking news:
Anyone here say that? No absolutes? I think you had an article about absolutes/convictions/preferences.
Joe
December 17th, 2007 at 1:21 am
I’m with Paul Manata on this one.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:51 am
Since I was hospitalized during this discussion, let me add another perspective. When the blind man holding the tail is challenged by the blind man holding the ear, do not both men have a responsibility to objectively research the other’s claim? That should be the procedure, not just castigating the ear man because you have the tail.