TRISLE S Argument Conflates the One (Or Small Family of Unified Problem-Solving Strategies)

TRISLE’S argument conflates the one (or small family of unified problem-solving strategies) unified problem-solving strategy with the application of that problem-solving strategy to a wide range of problems. The Christian God has clearly revealed to us, in the ‘Christ Event’ (the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus--which is susceptible to historical investigation--and which is the unity amidst the diversity in the NT; see James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament) a unified problem-solving strategy, or role, or purpose (let us call it ‘inaugurated kingdom’ theory--see Dale Allison, Jr. End of the Ages Has Come: Early Interpretaion of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus & the application of which has resulted in a limited range of diverse ideas. But this is not a vice, for if the Christian God revealed to us one, or a small family of problem solving strategies, it would actually be a virtue of this problem solving strategy if it opened up new areas of research by giving us a new way of looking at the world called fecundity(akin to a visionary empowerment type of management--see Empowerment takes more than a minute below), thereby leading us to ask new questions, and so to embark on new and fruitful lines of inquiry…Typically, a flourishing science is incomplete. At any rate, it raises more questions that it can currently answer. But incompleteness is no vice. On the contrary, incompleteness is the mother of fecundity... A good theory should be productive; it should raise new questions and presume that those questions can be answered without giving up its problem-solving strategies (Kitcher 1982: 47–48). Through the Christ-event, humans have been inspired and empowered (which is a method of management that leads by following) to use our ‘human’ methodologies and resources to test what works in bringing heaven to earth (combating evil, apologetics, community projects, etc.) What works we keep, what doesn’t we scrap.
The heart of ‘inaugurated kingdom’ theory is a unified, or small family of problem-solving strategies, related by their common employment of a particular style of historical narrative (the Gospels). The first step consists in a description of some key features of what an inaugurated kingdom theory includes. The reasoning proceeds by tracing the modification of the ‘ik’ theory through subsequent generations, showing how characteristics were selected, inherited, and became prevalent (the function of the canon and history in general). Reasoning like this can be used to answer a host of role/purpose-centered questions. God, in Jesus, not only provided a scheme for unifying the diversity of ‘purpose’ related questions and problems. God, in Jesus, also gave a structure to our ignorance. After Jesus, it was important to resolve general issues about the presuppositions of ‘inaugurated kingdom’ theory. The commisive role, or purpose of ‘inaugurated kingdom’ theory had been made admirably plain, and it was clear that Christians had to tackle questions for which they had, as yet, no answers in applying this problem solving strategy(modified Kitcher again).
From Kitcher's point of view then (though I am sure he would never want to be used in the way I am doing), ‘inaugurated kingdom’ theory not only meets the three conditions for a good scientific theory (in something like the life sciences); it is without question an extraordinarily successful theory:
According to Kenneth Scott Latourette , that great Yale historian who wrote the History of Christianity, “We have had much to say about the effects of Christianity upon mankind as a whole, here has been the most potent force which mankind has known for the dispelling of illiteracy, for the creation of schools, for the emergence of new types of education, from Christianity have issued impulses for intellectual and geographic adventure, the universities were largely Christian creations, music, architecture, painting, poetry, philosophy, owe some of their greatest achievements to Christianity, democracy as it was known in the 19th and 20th century was in large part the outgrowth of Christian teaching, the abolition of slavery was chiefly due to Christianity, so were the measures taken to protect the Indians against the exploitation by the whites, the most helpful movements for the regulation of war, for the mitigation of suffering entailed by war, for the eventual abolition of war owe their inception to Christian faith, the nursing profession had the same origin, the extension of western methods of surgery was chiefly due to Christian missionary enterprise, and the elevation of the status of woman as a whole.”
But someone might protest, wouldn't it be more efficient for God to give us feedback? Wouldn't "leaving us to our own devices clearly fall short of giving us the best possible chance of achieving the purpose for which we were made?" The first thing to point out is that the subject has now changed which is essentially to admit that the original argument is no longer any good; now the objector is saying, "Okay, God has adequately revealed his role thereby giving us the 'possibility' of achieving our intended role, and therefore, God's goal, butwouldn't God want to give us the 'best' chance to achieve our intended role, and not the mere possibility?"
1) The problem with this is that efficiency is not an essential property of an omni-God since efficiency is only a concern for limited beings with limited time and limited resources but God has neither limited time nor limited resources.
2) Moreover, God could use intermediaries (humans, the Holy Spirit, etc.) to give us feedback on a Leibnizian conception of providence (see Murray below). Indeed, many have the intuition that a being that accomplishes its purposes indirectly, with the least amount of direct involvement possible, is greater than one who has to directly oversee or modify its plans.
3)The problem with this objection is that the 'lack' of feedback may be, and indeed I think it is, partofGod's role for us, with respect to the 'ik' theory, to figure it out by ourselves (Interestingly then, this in turn doesn't impact the 'knowability' of the application of ‘ike theory, so it leaves us in the same epistemological quandary, the quandary of which might be part of his purpose.—modified from the Secular Outpost); and more importantly, the Newtonian kind of feedback would sacrifice the greater good of a connection building theodicy (CBT), "Finally, the CBT’s stress on the value of human interdependence, and more generally interdependence among personal agents, leads one to expect that typically God would work through intermediaries, since this maximizes connections (See Collins’ article below)." The CBT also provides at least an adequate explanation of what God is doing with humanity from beginning (pre-Biblical times) to the end (See Collins’ article below).
TWO OTHER OBJECTIONS TRISEL MENTIONS:Trisel thinks that if we appeal to the Bible to explain our role we must be able to explain in detail what God was doing with humanity in pre-Biblical times, and we need to be reassured that the God of the Bible still has the same plan in mind for us that was once revealed in the Bible. I think both of these objections are worthless in and of themselves. If we know what our role is through revelation in the Bible, then we need not know IN DETAIL what God's role for humanity was prior to the Bible in order to know that we have a role. Or again, we need not know WHAT God was up to prior to 'the Bible' so long as we know THAT God has a role for humanity. Moreover, if God has revealed a role for us at all, then it seems very implausible that such a being would communicate a role, then change its mind, know we weren't aware of this, decide not to tell us, let us continue in the delusion that our original role is no longer valid and binding because it is so ad hoc and it would be self-undermining to reveal a role, change it, and then not tell us. In any case, let all that pass for now, because I think the religio-historical context in which the resurrection of Jesus occured can answer both of Trisels objections adequately:
"Most Jews of Jesus’ day did not believe that the exile was properly over since pagan foreigners ruled over them (even though they were back in the Holy Land, and had rebuilt the Temple). So, when Daniel 9 says that it will be 490 years before the exile will be completely over, we need to relate this to Matthew’s genealogy because Matthew is trying to make it clear to any Jewish minded person in the 1st century, that the exile had ended with
Jesus, the jubilee of jubilees, the greatest redemption of all. This didn’t just mean that individuals could now turn to him and find personal forgiveness, though that was the case, it meant that exile (which was the payment for sin), was over, and so forgiveness of sin means the end of exile. Matthew has Jesus recapitulating key elements in the earlier story of Israel: The Sermon on the Mount portrays Jesus as Moses, answering critics about his actions on the Sabbath portrays Jesus as David, calling twelve disciples portrays Jesus as Jacob, healing the sick and raising the dead portrays Jesus as Elijah or Elisha, etc. It all points to the idea that Israel’s story is now reaching its conclusion. However, since the story of Israel had gone down so many wrong paths, the Gospel writers have to describe Jesus’ life both as the fulfillment of the vocation of Israel and divine judgment on the mess and muddle that Israel’s story had become.Matthew is saying we didn’t think it would look like this, but this iswhat we have been waiting for.
This is not the point that some try to make, that Jesus fulfilled certain Old Testament prophecies, but rather, Jesus brought the long story of Israel to its proper goal, even though that long story had apparently become
lost, stuck, and all but forgotten.But you might ask, what relevance has that got to the rest of the human
race and to the wider world? Understand this next point, and you will understand almost everything; in
Israel’s scriptures, the reason Israel’s story matters is that the creator of the world has chosen and called Israel to be the people through whom he will redeem world. The call of Abraham is the answer to the sin of Adam.
Israel’s story is thus the microcosm and beating heart of the world’s story, but also its ultimate saving energy, they were the people who carried the destiny of the world on their shoulders.
In ancient Jewish thought, with echoes of Daniel 7, for Jesus to be seated at the right hand of the Father meant that Jesus was in charge of the entire world. We have been lured, perhaps by our embarrassment at the literalistic sense of Jesus flying up like a spaceman to a heaven located a few miles up within our universe, into ignoring the real meaning both of heaven (which is not a place within our universe at all, but God’s place, intersecting with our world in all sorts of ways) and of ascension itself, which is about sovereignty of Jesus as the Father’s accredited and appointed agent given authority over the world (Matt. 28:18, Acts 1:6-11). The ascension wrongly implies for many, Jesus’ absences rather than his universal presence and sovereign rule. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Hebrews, 1 Corinthians, and Revelation all think that Jesus is already in charge of the world. But for the 4 Gospels, this didn’t begin at the ascension, it began from the moment Jesus began his public career."
--N.T. Wright How God Became King
Jesus, having been raised from the dead, is ascended to God and if thereby the end of the world has begun, then God is ultimately revealed in Jesus. Only because in Jesus' resurrection the end of all things, which for us has not yet happened, has already occured can it be said of Jesus that the ultimate already is present in him, and also that God himself, his glory, has made its appearance in Jesus in a way that cannot be surpassed.
--WolfhartPannenberg Jesus-God and Man
Pannenberg and his friends discovered something like a total view of history in the literature of apocalyptic, particularly in the period between 200 BCE and 100 CE. Their own work led them to conclude that:
History is the most comprehensive horizon of Christian theology. All theological questions and answers are meaningful only within the framework of the history which God has with humanity and through humanity with his whole creation—the history moving toward a future still hidden from the world but already revealed in Jesus Christ.
Jewish apocalyptic had a view of history that covered the whole course of the world from its beginning to its end.
---ChristiaanMostert God and the Future