First year retrospective


I do not shy away from throwing around wild ideas, for I hope that in doing so I will spark further discussion and better thinking than my own. The Chinese have a term for that, "throwing brick to receive back jade," which may be defined as offering an ill developed idea in the hope that others will add to it and improve it. Because not much jade has been thrown at me on the subject of Christian unity, I am having doubts about my whole premise in writing this blog. It is easy to get a vigorous Internet discussion going if you argue the ideas of one denomination against the ideas of another, but when I argue against the very grounds of such arguments, people are uninterested, or perhaps confused. I do, though, think there is a discussion here that we need to be having, about whether Christians are even arguing about the right things. We all seem to be having some trouble understanding how to start that discussion. I, no less than anyone, find it a difficult problem.

Some ideas that seem important to solving the unity puzzle are a return to preaching the kerygma before tackling doctrine, and revisiting the meaning and application of the Lord's new commandment, that we love one another. Another idea that seems to be a good one to me, but which some others evidently hate, is the idea I have called 'enlightened ignorance.' There are some things we do not know about the hidden operations of God's kingdom, and we should be content to leave them mysterious. When we become too sure of our answers and arguments about unseen things, we become arrogant, even abusive, toward one another. Whence such hubris? Surely it is not from God.

Something that I think needs more attention in future blog installments is this idea that the whole ground of discussion is wrong, when we uncharitably take each other to task for divergences, one church versus another, in theological fine points. We cannot all be right on such matters, and it is at least possible that all are wrong: We have attempted to fill in the gaps in the knowledge we get from revealed truth with what amount to philosophical arguments. But the two things may be incommensurate. Our reasoning may not be as sure a guide as we think.

Christendom is not unified. It should be. What steps could we take, that we are not now taking, to move us toward the unity the Lord desires for us? Surely there are new things we could try. Efforts at Christian unity have very nearly stagnated in our era. We need to stir things up, make a disturbance, get some action going. Even if we do not do everything right, we will at least be doing something, and that in turn can lead us to improved understanding and better-conceived actions going forward. If you do not have jade to offer, toss a brick.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reality, fantasy and ecumenism

By Charles Marsh Recent conversations online and off have shown me something very curious. Some of what I believe to be Christian verity some other Christians take to be mere fantasy. They are cessationists and I am not . According to them, the things that I believe about tongues and prophecy and words of wisdom and of knowledge are sheer moonshine. So while in some churches I am thought orthodox enough, in others I am regarded as delusional or something rather like it. There are other matters in which, in like manner, some Christians view certain beliefs of other Christians as no better than free imagination, runaway fantasy or perhaps something worse: damaging falsehoods not harmless nuttiness. I admit to being somewhat dismayed by other Christians' newspaper novenas and Facebook prayer schemes. I do not think that is how prayer works. Their idea seems to be that if you repeat such and such a prayer x times, or republish it or "like" it or retweet it, then you w...
Read more

Science versus religion is a phony issue

By Charles Marsh The problem is that science, well suited to look at repeatable events, is at a loss about singular ones.  Some people suppose that science trumps religion, that a modern understanding of the world through science renders religious understandings obsolete. Some others suppose that religious understanding can be used to refute science. Both views are wrong. Science is rooted in philosophical naturalism. That is the stance that says we will explain what we see without reference to supernatural agencies. Science describes what happens without recourse to explanations involving angels, demons, gods, fairy godmothers, humors, vapors or ghosts. Acting on this basis, science has done a great deal of good. It has gotten rid of superstitions about what causes disease, where insects come from and a good many other misunderstandings. Notice that science is morally neutral. The same disciplines that give us vaccines and disease prevention can as...
Read more

What is a "Francisism"?

The first time I used the word I used it in attempting to explain some of Pope Francis's headline-grabbing remarks. This is what I said: This strikes me as another one of those Francisisms that generates lots of good press for Francis and then is walked back via more careful statements by others in the Church. I have remarked before on his tendency to do things like this. But it was not the first time I had encountered the concept. My remarks on this habit of Francis's go back a couple of years, to the early days of his pontificate. Francis tends to make sweeping-sounding statements that sound nearly un-Catholic in their generosity, toward gays, socialists, atheists, Lutherans and others. But when the statements are unpacked in light of Catholic faith and practice, they do not mean all that they seem to suggest. The statements are narrowly and logically true in some sense but really say less than they seem at first to say. Before I coined the word I wrote Pope Franc...
Read more