Some things I am not


Here are some errors I have managed not to fall into, though some people on first and casual examination of my work suppose I may be guilty of some of them; hence my denials below.

anti-intellectual

 https://subversiveunity.blogspot.com/2018/12/united-in-mind-and-judgment.html

https://subversiveunity.blogspot.com/2018/01/toward-solution-part-five-roman-mistake.html

I think thinking is a good thing; I do a lot of it and enjoy it. We over-think a lot of Christian concepts, particularly in the Western churches, but that is not to say we should not think. We should think about where our thinking leads us. When it leads us away from charity and toward judgmentalism and ire, we have taken things too far.

primitivist, restorationist

 https://subversiveunity.blogspot.com/2019/03/chain-of-implications.html

Lots of good trends and customs have arisen since the days of the primitive church. We should not throw them all away; we should stop fighting about them as if they were essentials of the faith. All of the essentials were established from the first, and are defined and indeed limited by the Great Commission. Our consideration of later developments (innovations) should be limited to questions like, is this useful? Does it assist us in advancing the cause of the gospel? Does it help us in our Christian walk?

indifferentist

 https://subversiveunity.blogspot.com/2013/08/indifferentism-not-exactly.html

I can't be one of those, because I think each theological proposition has just one right answer, so long as the pathology of paradox is avoided. There are some questions where we do not know enough to say with certainty whether the answer is a yes or a no, but that does not mean a single right answer does not exist.

I plead guilty, though, to being a pragmatist. There are many cases where honest Christians do not see the questions the same way, much less the answers, so disagreement on some matters will always be with us. We need to accept that to move forward to unity. Unity does not require lockstep uniformity on each little question that people may invent and raise, and think important.

papalist

 https://subversiveunity.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-way-forward-part-3-demonic-aspect.html

History shows us that the idea of universal, nearly all-encompassing authority of the papacy is a development over time. I would argue that its development was taken too far, and created problems through overreach. Because I am not a Roman Catholic, I am permitted to call it a mistake. It would help the cause of unity if the papacy would rescind half its claims.

prophet

 https://subversiveunity.blogspot.com/2019/03/chain-of-implications.html

 I do not claim the prophetic mantle for what I have to say. This is in part humility and in part honest caution. It is also the most practical course if I want my ideas listened to. Church history is full of people who buttressed the validity of their ideas saying, thus saith the Lord, or Deus vult, or claiming extraordinary revelation. Generally, people who talk like that have caused more division, not less. It is sensible to be a bit suspicious of such proclamations.

No. It is your job to decide whether the ideas I put forward are biblical, wholesome, and worth putting into practice. You will, let us hope, consult the Lord before adopting the radical course I propose. Radical? I do not think it is too strong a word. While what I am talking about is simple enough to do (I do not say easy, just simple), and appears to me to have strong warrants in scripture, very little of the sort has been done in the past millennium, so we're at least talking about a distinct innovation. Center your efforts in Christ's New Commandment? I'd say that's pretty radical, considering the church world's history of schisms and wars.


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