Karen Armstrong on Compassion

If you missed Billy Moyers' interview with Karen Armstrong last week, you can watch the whole video online. I loved it!

BILL MOYERS: You ask the question, "What would it mean to interpret the whole of the Bible as a commentary on the Golden Rule?"

KAREN ARMSTRONG: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: What's your answer to that question?

KAREN ARMSTRONG: Well, this is one of the things that really intrigued me when I was researching this book. How frequently the early rabbis, for example, in the Talmudic period, shortly after the death of Jesus, insisted that to any interpretation of scripture that read hatred or contempt for any single human being was illegitimate.

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

St. Augustine said that scripture teaches nothing but charity. And if you come to a passage like the one you just read, that seems to preach hatred, you've got to give it an allegorical or metaphorical interpretation. And make it speak of charity.

BILL MOYERS: But of course, what some people do is to read for their own purposes what--

KAREN ARMSTRONG: Exactly.

BILL MOYERS: --they call allegorical. And then, read literally what they want to apply in their--

KAREN ARMSTRONG: And of course, you have to understand that this tendency to read scripture in a literal manner is very recent.

BILL MOYERS: Right.

KAREN ARMSTRONG: Nobody, for example, ever thought of interpreting the first chapter of Genesis as a literal account of the origins of life, until the modern period. It's our scientific mindset that makes us want to sort of read these texts for accurate information.

What Is God?

Here's a great question asked by Ester Brady Crawford and answered by two of my favorite authors.



HT: FaintStarLite.com

Emergence 101

Dr. Philip Clayton on Emergence Theory and its relationship with theology:



Clayton's analysis of Emergence theory is particularly exciting. However I'm not sure it actually negates reductionism. Emergence must start by accepting the basic observations that lower level parts initiate (start, push, provide the building blocks for) the higher level emerging actions. Yet, it also adds the idea that higher order phenomenon can effect the lower level parts. When translated to theology, we are still left with a negation of supernatural theism, right? Doesn't Emergence negate the idea that we depend on a higher level "first cause" that necessarily existed before all other lower levels?

Clayton suggests that an atheist, like Richard Dawkins, might have problems with emergence. I don't see how. I imagine it might cause Dawkins to modify a few terms to accommodate newer science, but Dawkins' central theme still holds; there is no evidence or need for a "personal god". Emergence still appears to be a completely naturalistic position. It doesn't need an unnatural causation, does it?

A Call to the Emerging Church

In this short video clip, Philip Clayton gives a great description of emergence theory. He goes on to challenge Tony Jones concerning our use of emergence theory in reshaping Christian theology.



Watch Tony's response...

Both of them use particularly theistic language, but I think emergence theory can help bridge the divide and bring peace to the conflict between theism, atheism, and agnosticism (or any other metaphysical view). I'll be posting more on this later.