“Here endeth the rant…”

A Thinking Reed’s post on theological pet peeves is short, to the point and telling:

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.

Well, that would be me, in both cases. I have said both, in sermons and elsewhere. And I stand by them too. So what’s he saying? Probably, that you can push any good idea too far, and turn a insight into a caricature of an insight.

Your own theological pet peeves, anyone?

Comments

[Basso Profondo]

It's rather hard to seperate the theological from the ecclesiastical... My particular pet peeve, which is rather a central issue in 'Tokens of Trust' by the Archbishop of Cantebury, is the tendency that some thinkers have to employ a certain... circular justification. "Why should we trust in Christ? Because Christ says so."

What's more frustrating is that there's not really a better way of dealing with that particular niggle.

[Andrew]

I know what you mean. I guess the answer is rather a long one.

[Basso Profondo]

On possibly a more reassuring note, I find it helpful to discuss Hebrew-Greek dichotomies: one man's peeve is another man's pertinence.

[Andrew]

Very neat, Basso!