Bible, Theology & Philosophy

Worshiping with the Church Fathers seems to reflect a growing interest among Protestants—especially Evangelicals—in early Christianity. Hall is an associate editor for IVP’s Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, as well as the author of the series of which this book is the third installment. The other titles are Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, Learning Theology with the Church Fathers and Living Ethnically with the Church Fathers.

The present volume focuses on “baptism, the Eucharist, prayer and the spirituality of the desert fathers” (p. 13). Throughout the book, Hall inserts personal experiences that help keep the book from being a boring string of facts. To help prepare readers for the strangeness they will encounter, he concedes that our world is different, that we are personally resistant to many of the themes here,that we offer “aesthetic resistance,” and we listen to the fathers in a negative fashion (pp. 14-15).

By “aesthetic resistance,” Hall is referring to the fathers’ use of allegory and the dislike of many for that practice—including, he expects, some of his readers (p. 15). He does offer sound advice regarding “negative listening.” We often “ignore all that is positively said in a text and [draw] our attention to what is not said and what we think should be said” (p. 16). I decided to listen before I drew any conclusions.

Read Part 1 and Part 2.

Does the Bible teach that God’s people will always be able to point to a particular text¹ of the Bible and know that it is the word-perfect, preserved text? Those who believe a particular choice of translations is “the biblically right” option, tend to answer (passionately) in the affirmative. But many who use other translations or simply prefer the KJV are not so sure. Who is right?

Points of agreement

Nearly all involved in the controversy are agreed that God has preserved His Word for us in some sense. Nearly all are agreed as well that Scripture teaches God will preserve forever, somewhere and in some form, every one of the words He inspired and that some believers will always have access to Scripture in some form. God’s ability to use imperfect sinners to perfectly preserve His Word is also not in dispute, nor is the fact that we should accept what the Bible reveals to be true regardless of the claims of the “science of textual criticism” or any “high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5, KJV).

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6.

Speculative Fantasy and Primary Imagination

The simple fantasy is the power to envision realities that we have never encountered. The speculative fantasy is the power to envision things that never were and never will be. The speculative fantasy works in much the same way as the simple fantasy, i.e., by combining elements that are already present in the memory. By combining these elements, the mind creates new arrangements that exist nowhere outside of the fantasy itself.

Suppose we combine the following elements: body of a serpent, wings of a bat, legs and head of a lizard, size of a tree trunk. The result, of course, is a dragon. If we further combine the elements of fire and breath, we end up with a fire-breathing dragon, which is the best kind. Even if there are no dragons in the real world, we have no trouble imagining one.

The Bible sometimes requires us to employ the speculative fantasy. For example, Jotham’s fable in the book of Judges has trees meeting to elect a king. They reason, speak, and hold a council. This fable clearly combines elements that never occur together in the real world.

We have discussed two classifications of fantasy: simple and speculative. Many critics have seen fantasy as inferior to other forms of imagination. Indeed, some classify fantasy as a separate thing from imagination altogether. Some even believe that fantasy is detrimental.

What are their reasons? One is that fantasy creates nothing new, but simply recombines elements from memory. Another is that fantasy is sometimes used as a mechanism to escape reality, and therefore does not enlarge our understanding of the world.

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.

Memory and Simple Fantasy

The nature of the imagination has been discussed extensively by philosophers, poets, and critics. Since the Enlightenment, prominent thinkers in this conversation have included Thomas Hobbes (who divided the imagination into simple and compound), Joseph Addison (who differentiated primary from secondary pleasures of the imagination), common-sense philosopher Dugald Stewart (who distinguished the fancy from the imagination), William Wordsworth (who linked fancy to the temporal and imagination to the eternal), and Samuel Taylor Coleridge (who not only distinguished fancy from imagination, but divided imagination into primary and secondary faculties).

Why all of the discussion? The reason is that we ordinarily use the word imagination to cover several related but distinguishable operations of the mind. While the literature that discusses these operations tends to be rather opaque, we can perhaps review some obvious distinctions.

If we take the term imagination in its common, loose sense, it refers to our capacity to form and entertain mental images. We are able see objects with the mind’s eye that are not actually present to the sight. Under this definition, the most common form of imagination is simple memory. When we remember a thing, we are considering its image in our mind. We are inwardly re-calling its image into being.

Already in the act of remembering, disparities occur between individuals. Suppose three people see a snake. Later on, when they recall it, one remembers the snake’s position (it was wrapped around the limb of a tree). The second recalls its color (it was a vivid green with yellow markings). The third remembers its manner (it was showing its fangs and hissing—and the fangs were really big!). All three people are recalling the same snake, and they are all remembering it truly as far as their individual recollections are concerned. Nevertheless, they are all remembering the snake differently.