I think it is intellectual integrity that gives me confidence in my beliefs. If I find something in scripture that doesn’t fit with what I believe, then I feel the need to (as much as it is possible) understand the new learning so that it meshes with my beliefs, or change my beliefs so that it fits with the new learning. This may take very quickly or over a period of some years. Generally it involves a considerable amount of dialogue with others on the topic.

As a result, I have changed a number of my beliefs over the years, generally this has been all on what I would consider to be secondary or tertiary issues.

On primary issues, my study has confirmed rather than changed my beliefs. For example now you would have a very difficult time convincing me that Jesus is not God, as I have spent so much time studying the issue.

I am sure that there are other primary issues out there that psychologically I am afraid to touch because they are so intertwined with my identity as a person. Like Pandora’s box, certain issues if opened will make it difficult to find closure.

I am the guilty party here. It was I who brought up the profanation remark because I felt it illustrated the lack of humility which is necessary for a respectful dialogue.

Again, my apologies for sidetracking the post.

It may be a profanation to you, but millions of Christians taking the Lord’s Supper in non-Lutheran/non-Catholic churches are coming to Christ in grateful faith and affirming his gift of salvation. Please don’t say they are “profaning” the supper. If you judge all other Christians by their relation to Lutheranism I’m not quite sure what your point is. This starts to sound like “I thank thee that I am not like other men.”

I will say this to you one last time: Find a way to participate here without turning every discussion into a debate about the superiority of Lutheranism.

Why should I assume I am wrong? I admit the possibility that I could be totally mistaken on a number of issues. But that doesn’t mean I am. The burden of proof is on the other person to prove I am wrong if they believe I am. Until then I have no reason to assume I am wrong.

I think we are largely in agreement here. But what I find annoying, and what I think Michael was talking about was the attitude not of, “If you think I’m wrong, show me why,” but rather, “I am not wrong and if you are attempting to prove that I am, I have no reason to listen to you in the first place.”

An example of this might be the person who has some pet doctrine that he supports with some obscure verse of uncertain translation from Leviticus somewhere. And the conversation goes something like,

“Well, OK that’s what it says in Leviticus, but over in Hosea it says –”
“Whoa whoa whoa! Is the Word of God going to contradict itself?”
“Well, I guess not, but over here in Hosea -”
“Well, if there aren’t going to be any contradictions in the Word of God, then there isn’t going to be anything that contradicts this passage is there?”
“Well, no, in the sense that –”
“Well there you go!”
“Well it’s not that simple because –”
“LIBERAL!!!”
“Never mind.”

I agree that it is important that you are sincere in your beliefs. But at the same time humility requires us to be respectful of others sincerely held beliefs. When you stated in a previous commnet that you considered my practice of the Lord’s table to be a “profanation” when I hadn’t even fully stated what my beliefs were concerning the eucharist, then your remarks show neither charity nor humilty.

I would go so far to say that calling something profane that Christians are doing because of a command of Christ, is getting pretty close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

I don’t usually write this impassioned, but I was quite upset when I saw the word “profanation”.

Okay just kidding.

But I think intellectual humility – agnosticism over one’s own ideas is a little more complicated… Because who decides that something is “obvious” and what should humbly be left undecided? The Nicene Creed was (and is, in some circles) hotly debated…and “mere” Christianity in the 1800′s meant trying to be a good person, living by the golden rule…which to me is not quite Christianity (although not bad in itself).

So humility in character +1. But intellectual humility…maybe. Cheers!