Propositions and the Gospel (A Grab-Bag of Musings)

{Re-dated}

We're very confused about about propositions.

Consider this proposition: the moon's surface is dusty.

I believe that the moon's surface is dusty.

Is my believing this a matter of bearing this proposition in mind and then assenting to it, or having attitudes about it?
NO. NO. NO.

It involves bearing the moon's surface in mind then and judging it dusty.

It is one thing to believe, of the moon's surface, that it is dusty. It is another thing to believe of the proposition, the moon's surface is dusty, that it is true.

(A) the moon's surface is dusty.

(B) the proposition, the moon's surface is dusty, is true.

Each of these beliefs is propositional.

(A) is propositional in the sense that it involves the predication of something about something. That's just what it is to be propositional.

(B) is propositional in the first sense, but also in another sense: it's about a proposition -- it involves the predication of something about a proposition.

Suppose the Gospel is propositional.

I suspect many folks are worried that, if the Gospel is propositional, this means the Gospel is about propositions. But Christianity is manifestly not about propositions! It's about God and his unfolding mission to reconcile the world to himself in Jesus!

But my belief, about the moon, that it is dusty, is propositional and it is not about propositions. If the Gospel is propositional, it is propositional in the first sense: it predicates something about something.

Is the Gospel propositional?

The Gospel is good news; it's an announcement; it's a story. All reports/announcements/stories are propositional, because each always involves saying something about something.

Suppose the following proposition is a part of the Gospel: God is reconciling the world to himself in Jesus. (Or, maybe, on the third day he rose again.)

Believing this is a matter of thinking about God (not a proposition) and agreeing/judging/trusting/being-ready-to-act-on-the-truth that God is reconciling the world to himself in Jesus.

Preaching the Gospel is a matter of asserting a proposition by a speech act.

All saying is a kind of doing. And all doing says something. But you can't say something in particular by doing just anything you happen to fancy.

An English sentence, or even the feeding of the hungry, can only say/assert something against a background.

You can say "God loves you" to someone in English or by feeding them. But in either case, the speech act can only assert what it asserts against a background.

In order for "God loves you" to assert what it asserts, it will need to be uttered against the right background. The English sentence won't assert anything at all to the native Chinese speaker! (Just as a Chinese sentence won't assert anything at all to me!)

In order for feeding someone to assert "God loves you", a network of other beliefs is required of the recipient: they must believe this person feeding me is an ambassador of God, that God is (such and such), etc. This network, if not already in the background, will need to communicated with words and sentences, not merely by feeding.

Feeding someone might assert the Gospel after the fact, but it won't assert anything until this network of beliefs (and background) is in place.

Best to feed first, then talk. But both talking and feeding are doings, and feeding won't assert anything in the absence of talking, unless the appropriate network is already in place in the background.

There are other reasons to feed than asserting the Gospel!!!