And what about the “one in Christ” part? Are we not united in Christ even when we fuss and fight? These are real questions and as you might can tell it’s a subject that has confounded me for a while. But I’m fairly simple-minded.

Thanks for letting me go on.

What’s bothered me over the past few weeks has been this strange polarization of Christians who believe anything that smacks of postmodernism is evil. I’m frustrated that we can’t just sit around a table and rationally discuss things. Even the Christian media seems to hype people up about this issue, causing folks to fear. And when they fear (like an animal who’s been shot), they bite back.

I wrote about this over at The Master’s Artist. Here’s the link: http://tpr.typepad.com/themastersartist/2007/07/when-folks-just.html

And, recently, if you read Christianity Today, check out the August issue, page 52. David Aikman’s article “Attack Dogs of Christendom” clearly articulates the problem. They don’t have an online link yet, or I’d add it here.

Warmly,
Mary E DeMuth

I think the problem is when we take verses like “the Lord repented he made Saul king” and “the Lord is not like a man that he should repent” and we say that a theological position that affirms “one or the other” is just as good as a position that affirms both and blends them by deductions. I’d say if we must use logic to make sense of two “seemingly” contradictory Scriptures, that logic is part of God’s revelation. We supply the connection intended by the author, we don’t supply the inspired status by our logic. I’ve heard and somewhat agree that logic is thinking God’s thoughts after Him. (I just think God’s thoughts represent higher logic, not a lack of logic)

If we take the “one or the other” position on two contradictory verses, we are calling God true in one verse and a liar in the other basically. Either that or attacking the veracity of the subject matter. Or either we are just saying God’s ways don’t have to hold to logic or reason. I think those are dangerous…but that’s my deduction.

Michael:

Great post! I couldn’t agree more what you write here about Pope Benedict’s recent statement on how Catholics understand Church. I do think it important to note that while, in this age of instant global communication, this document was released generally, it’s intended audience was neither the average Catholic of Protestant. It was directed to those in the Catholic Church who are engaged in ecumenism. Believe it or not, it is intended to foster to ecumenism, just as was Dominus Iesus, issued a few years back that was intended for ecumenists and those engaged in inter-religious dialogue.

The good news is that the underlying assumption is that the Catholic Church engages in ecumenism and is committed to working to bring about authentic unity among all baptized Christians- the Catholic Church does recognize the validity of Christian baptisms that take place out side the Catholic Church. Baptism is the basis of our fellowship, over and above our differences However, if authentic union (dare we hope communion?) is ever to be achieved, we have to up-front about where we are and what honest differences exist. Just to pick one point that Catholic ecclesiology emphasizes, apostolic succession, Protestant churches do not claim it nor see even see it as all that important, except maybe some Anglicans.

So, again, you’re right on that average Christians don’t care, nor should they. These division are painful and they do compromise our witness, but, as with the document you mentioned, which here in our Catholic parish we used as the basis for adult formation in understanding Eucharist, there are signs of hope. Here’s to having more such convergences.

But certainly God is “above” us in every way. The question is not God’s “aboveness,” but revelation. Does it occur, in what way, and does it result in true theological statements.

My friend has heard me do my talk on Using John 3:16 as a summary of the entire Bible. He/She is aware that the Bible does make theological statements and he/she accepts them as true.

But the trouble comes when, for example, someone writes an 800 page book of Systematics. That’s theology of another kind, and it’s often defended as if it is scripture and authoritative. There is a distinction there that we need to make. No man’s theology = scripture, though any man’s theology may be drawn from scripture and accurately present scripture.

For doctrine to be untrue, 1 of 3 things has happened. Either the source material we draw it from is wrong (the Bible), either the deductions we draw from it are wrong (our doctrines don’t make sense of the full biblical data in a harmonious way), or the ability to deduce is feeble (logic is not capable of conveying truth from the biblical subject matter)

It seems your friend is either in camp 1 (the Bible is an inaccurate document) or in camp 3 (logic is unable to guide us)

I’m guessing this because of his statements. I have found that those two ways of looking at theology are ways to punch at you while not allowing you to punch back. I think you responded as if your friend is in camp 2….maybe the quote you have at the front from him is not fully representative, but it seems he is not thinking of subject matter, but of epistemology.

If God is “obviously” above theology, how would he know that we can’t know what God thinks about theology. If there is some barrier between God’s mind and our minds that cannot be crossed even in a minor way, we ought to pack up the shop and go home. I hate the way people apply the term “theology” like it is something alien to Christianity that Greeks chained the Bible to. The idea of God is theology. The Bible is full of theological deductions and applications.

Now doctrinal infighting does hurt the church. But it also helps the church. I think of J.I. Packer’s claim that he was almost suicidal over his sin and trying to achieve perfection, until he read John Owen’s “Mortification of Sin”. That book was a polemical against the Catholic doctrine of sanctification. Doctrinal infighting might turn off religious spectators, but people fighting for their own soul are benefited immensely by truth defended and proclaimed. 2 Ti 2:24-25 “The man of God must not be quarrelsome…correcting his opponents with gentleness…” Fight, but fight the way God says to. “…God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth.”

http://forums.guide2games.org/index.php?showtopic=44&st=0&gopid=1722&#entry1722

The scientific community is actually praised for the way in which debate and conjecture are encoruaged. Why should this same standard not be applied to the church?

I personally think that “debate” has been so removed from normal church life (General Question: when was the last time there was a dsicussino or debate during your sunday service?) that we have not developed a forum and process for humble debate in church communities, where the scientific community has (of sorts – peer review etc..). Most of the theological/ doctrinal debate has been left in the seminaries where the lay-person cannot access the dicsussion. Hence the often volatile debate that spills on to the internet.

I think church communities should ambrace active debate as a regular part of their activities. Becasue I think we can get the method down in a humble and polite manner if only we give it a try.

So I’ve got no beef with doctrinal debate per se. But I do have a probelm with it being carried out in a hostile manner.

I think if Christians can be seen to be thoughtful, active debaters (esp when dicsussing doctrinal issues amongst themselves) who are also humble and polite this will go a long way towards restoring some credit at least.

It would be interesting to compare the language used in Lumen Gentium to refer to Protestant denominations with internal language used to refer to lay leaders… for example, lay Catholic movements are ‘ecclesial movements’ (the term ecclesial recognizes elements of the Church, while at the same time indicates that these movements of themselves lack the totality of the Church). And there’s also resistance to using the terms minister and pastor to refer to lay persons, despite increased service and pastoral roles.