Irons in the Fire
I like your “About” line which says that we’re seeking “truth beyond semantics” -- although I’m sure that a scholar of semantics could parse any such sentence into a puddle of alphabet soup. Here’s another way of saying basically the same thing with some specifics tossed in to make it chewy.
What we are engaged in sounds a bit like classical ecumenism, which in my church tradition is viewed with suspicion. That road leads to the World Council of Churches and the Jesus Seminar, where flaccid conjecture replaces lively debate; where the gospels are screened by a committee until only the most popular and inoffensive sayings of Jesus are left.
Usually, in my church tradition, the purpose of dialogue is to convert, to assist the Holy Spirit in opening the eyes of another, to correct errors. I know, it does sound a bit arrogant.
I happen to think that we can disagree with one another, not change one another’s minds in any great degree, and still be better Christians for the practice.
Proverbs 27:17 says “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” I think that’s the goal of this exercise, to be better Christians of whatever type we happen to be.
If along the way we change one another’s minds in some way, or convert some passing soul, then praise be to God, and then back to the debate.
What we are engaged in sounds a bit like classical ecumenism, which in my church tradition is viewed with suspicion. That road leads to the World Council of Churches and the Jesus Seminar, where flaccid conjecture replaces lively debate; where the gospels are screened by a committee until only the most popular and inoffensive sayings of Jesus are left.
Usually, in my church tradition, the purpose of dialogue is to convert, to assist the Holy Spirit in opening the eyes of another, to correct errors. I know, it does sound a bit arrogant.
I happen to think that we can disagree with one another, not change one another’s minds in any great degree, and still be better Christians for the practice.
Proverbs 27:17 says “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” I think that’s the goal of this exercise, to be better Christians of whatever type we happen to be.
If along the way we change one another’s minds in some way, or convert some passing soul, then praise be to God, and then back to the debate.
posted by Rick Broussard at 11:33 PM
11 Comments:
"I happen to think that we can disagree with one another, not change one another’s minds in any great degree, and still be better Christians for the practice."
I think so. This might have something to do with value in processes. It also makes sense because so many of our faith traditions, even within themselves, include of enough diversity of opinion over how their proper interpretation of faith is properly interpreted that a bit of ecumenical spirit is required just to get to meat of what the guy in the pew next to you is trying to say... I've been in a number of communications seminars that focus on how differently one needs to convey the same material with different personality types, different learning styles and differently language abilities and frames of reference.
Which brings me back to that "about" statement. I sort of stuck that in there while waiting for each of us to actually write some about ourselves. But since it's still there, I suppose it's worthwhile commenting on it.
I meant it in this dictionary.com sense: "The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics."
Then again, if I recall some of our conversations rightly, we were pretty quick to agree on the gist of things then in fact spend hours quibbling over semantics. That, I think, sometimes illustrated "so near but so far away" while at the same time reinforcing the common ground that made the conversation worthwhile to begin with.
So maybe that statement is backwards. Maybe we ought to be quibbling over sematics. Maybe someone's in the details, and we should find out who.
"So maybe that statement is backwards. Maybe we ought to be quibbling over semantics. Maybe someone's in the details, and we should find out who."
Funny, isn't it, that there are clichés that put both God and the devil "in the details." I would have to assume the implication to be that details are important. Perhaps infinitely so, with such impressive denizens as these. This idea of the importance of small things fits pretty neatly into Christianity, when you think of the value of the human race on our speck of a world, the entry of God into the world through a speck of humanity, the emphasis upon the potential of the mustard seed of faith or the yeast of the Pharisees.
So here, perhaps, is my first stab at a disagreement with Catholicism. The tendency of a hierarchical and authoritarian (however benignly so) religion is to deal with the details on behalf of its members, to provide the tie-breaker, so to speak, and offer assurance even if things are not clear to the mind. This provides some comfort, I suspect, and protects the body against schisms (or simply casts them off), but it also robs the process of discovery that comes from the disputation (or, dare I say, protestation) of the details.
There are certainly grand themes that, like the burning bush, signify Holy Ground, and our command is simply to take off our shoes and approach them with faith. The Trinity, the deity of Christ, the resurrection and the return of Christ are just a few of these.
The list of non-negotiables for the evangelical contains no items that are not in the list of the Catholic. But the Catholic list has a number of specifics that don’t sit easily with the evangelical protestant and seem a bit arbitrary, based upon a simple reading of scripture. So there’s the rub. Why should an open-minded and curious evangelical not assume that Catholic beliefs such as the ascension of Mary are simply the result of some religious authorities with a bit too much power and time on their hands making up stuff?
A good analogy to this Protestant suspicion might be found on the Supreme Court, where the originalists are a bit like the “sola scripturians” who think the role of the court is not to write new law, but simply to interpret the Constitution. Likewise, they would say, good priests should not “write new scripture.”
I question the core of your point: "The tendency of a hierarchical and authoritarian (however benignly so) religion is to deal with the details on behalf of its members, to provide the tie-breaker, so to speak..."
If we're talking about Catholicism as the "hierarchical and authoritarian (however benignly so) religion," I'd say its tendency is just the opposite. The Church deals with the broader themes, defines, as you put it, the fundamentals or "non-negotiables", and leaves the details up to its individual members to iron out. Hence the broad diversity of opinion within the church, even among church leaders, on topics ranging from evolution to the interpretation and core meaning of Vatican II...
Frequently, in the past, my disagreements with Catholicism have largely been based upon misunderstandings. This may be another such case. But I would contend that there is any number of "details" that the Catholic Church has encoded into doctrine or dogma or disciplinary practice. If you disagree with this assertion, which seems fairly obvious to my lenses, then we can do some kind of comparative list of expectations that are placed upon the faithful of the Catholic and evangelical persuasions. The rationale for many of these practices are rooted in other fixed “details” (to the evangelical mind) such as the status of Mary, the state of apostolic succession, the nature of the priesthood (celibacy, confession, maleness, etc.), the existence of Purgatory (which enables a "works-oriented" salvation plan) and, I'm sure, others.
I might agree with some of these positions, but my impression is that my agreement or disagreement would be a moot point in most cases, if I were a Catholic.
Maybe this is once again a semantic dissection. By “details” I did not mean trivialities, just smaller but still important parts that make up a whole.
Okay, you write: "The rationale for many of these practices are rooted in other fixed “details” (to the evangelical mind) such as the status of Mary, the state of apostolic succession, the nature of the priesthood (celibacy, confession, maleness, etc.), the existence of Purgatory (which enables a 'works-oriented' salvation plan) and, I'm sure, others."
Doesn't the fact that these details are areas of disagreement between the evangelical and the Catholic imply that they are somehow dogmatically defined for the evangelical as well?
Take the Catholic understanding of apostolic succession and transubstantiation as two related examples: the evangelical must believe these to be untrue or else he would also have to believe that he is being separated from vital sacraments by not utilizing the various services a Catholic priest provides.
The details of the fundamental structures of any tradition are determined negatively, by what they rule out or reject, as well as positively.
On a separate point -- I think the existence of purgatory is a distinct concept from a "works-oriented salvation plan," which in and of itself isn't exactly accurate...
Ernesto wrote: "Doesn't the fact that these details are areas of disagreement between the evangelical and the Catholic imply that they are somehow dogmatically defined for the evangelical as well?"
To which I reply: Is rejecting the certainty of one possibility among many equally as dogmatic as rejecting all alternatives to one possibility?
Ernesto wrote: "Take the Catholic understanding of apostolic succession and transubstantiation as two related examples: the evangelical must believe these to be untrue or else he would also have to believe that he is being separated from vital sacraments by not utilizing the various services a Catholic priest provides."
Rick replies: To reject the idea that the sacraments are just as they are thought to be by Catholics is not to say that they are not mystical elements. Perhaps they become the very body and blood of Christ but perhaps the significance of that is other than what Catholic tradition specifies. My Baptist church had a policy of denying anything like transubstantiation whenever we shared the Lord's Supper. "Just a symbol of remembrance," they would remind the congregation each time. That was dogmatic, and I rejected it. I enjoyed the mystery of communion. God is never limited by the dogma of any church. Maybe sometimes communion is just a holy remembrance.
I'm not trying to be a weasel, but I don't reject anything that doesn't fly in the face of a clear reading of the non-abstract portions of the Bible. I think that is what Christian liberty is all about. If we are engaged by the Holy Spirit and committed to the love and understanding of both God and our neighbors, then it's hard to go wrong. So I don't so much think that Catholics are wrong as that they are incomplete, as am I, until God sets all things right.
Ernesto said: "On a separate point -- I think the existence of purgatory is a distinct concept from a "works-oriented salvation plan," which in and of itself isn't exactly accurate..."
Purgatory is the device by which Catholics deal with the seeming cruelty and harshness of Hell existing within God's perfect will. It sets the stage for a variety of works-related salvation practices, putting the brunt upon the living do good deeds for the souls of the departed and motivating the faithful to good works to shorten their own stays in an unpleasant place. Of course, just beyond purgatory lies Hell, so beware. For evangelicals, the device by which we deal with Hell is grace. We can take comfort in knowing that our departed loved ones, while not perfect or even necessarily good, were able to receive the unmerited favor of God by trusting in God's son. Since we can't know the hearts of people, we can't know that anyone is in heaven or hell, but we can imagine anyone in either place.
This may sound cynical, but I think it's a good snapshot of how we (both Catholic and evangelical) gird ourselves against the fear of judgment that we naturally possess in the presence of our righteous and all-powerful creator.
I think we're at a point where the debate we're having in this post diverges. I'm going to break the bit about purgatory out into a new post, if that's okay, and respond to the other below.
On the dictation of details of dogma, Rick wrote: "God is never limited by the dogma of any church. Maybe sometimes communion is just a holy remembrance."
I reply: By the same token, maybe it's not. One way or the other, it is what it is, and what's true is true, even if we don't know that it's true. I know you well enough to be sure you're not arguing the difference between symbol and sacrament is relative or subjective ... but I'm not sure what else the above means, unless it's a sort of quantum black box, a theological Schrodinger's Cat ... if the person observing communion is a Baptist, it's a remembrance, if the person's a Catholic, it's a the body and blood of Jesus?
I'm being facetious, but you get my general drift...
Actually, the Schrodinger's Cat concept isn't bad. Wish I'd thought of it. Yes, I think that what is, is and what is not, is not, but the nature of a mystery is to not be known for what the heck it is or is not. And a mystery of God would equal mystery cubed. The various views of the sacraments: transubstantiation, consubstantiation, remembrance, aid to grace could simply be different ways of perceiving the mystery, all correct insofar as they are different languages through which God reaches different hearts. What I don't challenge is that God speaks to people through their acts of obedience. And Jesus told his disciples to "take this and eat it."
Actually, the Schrodinger's Cat concept isn't bad. Wish I'd thought of it. Yes, I think that what is, is and what is not, is not, but the nature of a mystery is to not be known for what the heck it is or is not. And a mystery of God would equal mystery cubed. The various views of the sacraments: transubstantiation, consubstantiation, remembrance, aid to grace could simply be different ways of perceiving the mystery, all correct insofar as they are different languages through which God reaches different hearts. What I don't challenge is that God speaks to people through their acts of obedience. And Jesus told his disciples to "take this and eat it."
Rick, while it sounds persuasive on some levels, the point you are making still sounds deconstructionist to me ... as if it's imply that because of the limitations of language there's no way to "establish any ultimate or secure meaning."
The difference, say, between transubstantiation and the Lord's Supper shared at an evangelical service is pretty clearly understood by both Catholics and evangelicals is it not? One group claims the bread has physically changed into flesh (though retaining the appearance of bread) while the other does not.
I may be misunderstanding what you're saying, exactly...
Just thought I should get back to this loose end while I'm on a kind of wild roll (no telling if I actually agree with all the stuff I've been spinning out on the "purgatory" thread until I read it again later). Anyway, to answer the deconstructionist charge, I'd have to say that I think my remarks are more trancendentalist than post-modern. I think we can agree to terms about things within the time-space continuum, but when God speaks, prophets tend to lapse into poetry to describe the sound of his voice. And when Peter spoke after Pentecost, which language was he actually using?
Post a Comment
<< Home