energy
So, much energy seems to go into defending the idea of Jesus. Debating, arguing and above all defending boundaries, ideas and presupositions.
This is what it meant, no this is what it meant. You are wrong, I am right. You are bad and I am good. You are out and I am in. God loves me, God doesn’t even know you.
Is this the world we want to live in?
November 22nd, 2003 at 7:14 am
When you state it this way, of course not. But, on the obverse, if it doesn’t matter what we believe, then does it really matter THAT we believe? I know that’s a rather simplistic reply, but I also think you have to start somewhere, or what the hell, let’s all go be Gnostics or Manicheans or Marcionites.
November 22nd, 2003 at 10:31 am
As you know Mike I don’t want that. But, I think we need to inject less certainity into the debate. It seems to me, that there is a growing sense of fundementalism everywhere. Muslims and Christians in particular.
My reading of the gospels shows me that Jesus got quite upset at the pharisees insistence that they were in and everyone else are out. On the whole it seems we have traveled down this path again with great strides taken in the last couple of years.
I love dialogue and even vigourous debate - as you know
But, I can’t help feel a different edge to the debate lately.
November 22nd, 2003 at 10:36 am
Well said Rev. Mike.
There is a world of difference between saying “You are wrong, I am right” and saying “You are bad and I am good. You are out and I am in. God loves me, God doesn’t even know you.”
We can and should always strive to be more charitable in our discussions. But if the world people want to live in is one where you must believe that all of the contradictory things said about Jesus and his Church are equally true….well, I think you’ll find that view hard to defend and convince people to die for.
St. Paul and all the Church Fathers and martyrs who suffered to preserve and pass down the truth had a lot of “certainity.” They key is that they also had abundant humility; not in regards to the truth but to their neighbor and to God.
Chersterton said it best:
“But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert–himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt–the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a humility content to learn from Nature. But the new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. Thus we should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time. The truth is that there is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.”
November 22nd, 2003 at 12:49 pm
Karl says:
“There is a world of difference between saying “You are wrong, I am right” and saying “You are bad and I am good. You are out and I am in. God loves me, God doesn’t even know you.”
Actually, I think it is a fine line. One that is continually crossed and abused.
So. do you agree about the rise of fundementalism guys? Do you see some dangers? Have you fears in the direction that this is all heading?
November 22nd, 2003 at 1:33 pm
I think a lot of it is the effects of the internet and increasing global awareness. In the past most of us would never have had the opportunity to hear about (much less meet) Muslims or people of other faiths, or even those whose Christianity is much different from our own.
Since I’m sure this post is partially a response to me (as I gave your “Bible and Moral Behaviour” post a 3rd TrackBack ping yesterday), I wanted to admit that I’ve been feeling a little resistant lately about a lot of stuff coming out of the Anglican em-church, which I see as quite a bit different from what I’m comfortable with accepting. Not in an “I’m in/you’re out” sense, but the sense that Mike describes above.
I think humility is essential, but if we’re being humble and open to learning, I don’t see why the things you mentioned perjoratively are bad. Certainly the parts about being judgmental of others’ salvation are bad, but I don’t think anyone’s saying that. I’ve never said that (though my post titles might indicate otherwise to the casual reader, which I know you’re not).
If these things were not worth the energy it takes to discuss them, we’d be left without most of the Epistles. They’re full of encouragement and building up, but also full of warnings against wrong ideas and false teachings. Discernment is not a perfect process, but an ongoing and open-minded discussion we must engage in.
November 22nd, 2003 at 2:08 pm
Ok guys, you all seem to have missed my original point. Probably because I was not clear
My point is not to say we shouldn’t debate/dialogue etc. In fact, I think we should. My point is that I seem to see more energy expended in this area, than displaying compassion and doing the work of the cause of Jesus. I wasn’t posting this aimed at anyone - I include myself in this.
I think the trap is that we are moving to think that the point of being a Christian is that Jesus is an idea that needs to be defended. It seems the wrong emphasis to me.
November 22nd, 2003 at 2:35 pm
“I think the trap is that we are moving to think that the point of being a Christian is that Jesus is an idea that needs to be defended. It seems the wrong emphasis to me.”
This is certainly true, I agree.
I think Justin is right though–the internet and blogs have really given us a chance to hear voices we normally would not hear. So it may seem that there is more “talk” and less “walk”…but I don’t think this is really the case.
Yes, I suppose there is a rise in “fundamentalism”…but I also see the rise in a new kind of “fundyism” (as Justin and I have talked about before!)…And that is the totalitarianism of theological relativism (seem so often in the Em-church) that wants to undermine the very nature of truth in an effort to dislodge itself from the poisons of western Christendom.
Phil, I know you aren’t a relativst–but the post was, in some ways, seeming to indicate an affinity for it. That was my only point.
November 25th, 2003 at 2:54 pm
Maybe what we need is a way to “walk” online. While most of what there is to do online is rather spectator-like (e.g. no real effects in the real world), there are many sites that allow you to take action.
Amnesty International, for example, has links for writing letters on behalf of people imprisoned for their beliefs. It can make a difference.
November 28th, 2003 at 11:56 am
What if I could tell the story of a college professor who was fired from his full professorship because people claimed he taught evolution, instead of creation? In the U.S.? Would that qualify as fundamentalism?