[Oe List ...] Event and Story Quote re literalism

[R Williams]

I like Jack's word event.  People draw ontological conclusions and tell stories only about things that really happen to them, encounters with the world--events, happenings, historical occurences.  The Christ "event", the grace "happening."  That does not preclude "literalism."  In the art form conversation (ORID) we always start with objective reality, what happened.  We may disagree about the significance and the metaphors and even what happened.  But everyone would agree, something happened, and that's the starting point.  We don't start with abstract theory.  The trouble is, there's not much objective reporting of historical events, but some people think if it didn't happen exactly as reported (which time and by whom?) then it has no ontological validity, no deeper truth about the way life is.  Something happened to a community of people after which they were never the same.  They attached significance to the happening as they
 experienced it and told stories about it.  Those who heard the story reflected on their own experience, and in light of that reflection, through the story, on their own experience, they had a change of heart and mind and began to do things differently and their lives were never the same either. Gratefully, most don't put their faith in the factual inerrancy of the details of the historical event, but I don't know how to think of experience, Christian or otherwise, without some kind of precipitious event.
 
I appreciate everyone's honest reflections and the quality of the conversation, for whatever it's all worth.
 
Randy

From: Rod Rippel <rodrippel at cox.net>
To: Order Ecumenical Community <oe at wedgeblade.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Event and Story Quote re literalism


What's at stake for Christianity in the historical veracity of the story would seem to be wrapped up in the Incarnation.  If Incarnation is "the coming into being of a community" as an "embodiment" of spirit, then Gnosticism can also claim to be an authentic response to a version of the story without recourse to historicity.  Is this not similar to the self concsious Church "naming the Name" as opposed to a community having the same experince but not rooting their story in a historical happening?  In either case the question of historical is difficult to establish.  Literalism removes the Mystery and replaces it with a 'historical account' which rapidly becomes scripture (read bibliolatry).  
    I guess my point (if I have one!) is that literature is full of fictional accounts and "events" that have precipitated spirit responses from individuals and led to communities coming into existence.  That retelling the story recreates (in listeners) the events of the original story is a dynamic built into reality and deepens the mystery and richness of 'spirit movements' of all kinds and in all times.  Can any old fiction do this?  I don't think so. My contention is that literalism robs people of this depth and struggle and substututes a trite explanation.
    
 
Rod
_______________________________________________
OE mailing list
OE at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20110811/e352d02d/attachment.html>