Forget my last question...
I have been reading this Eternal Dialogue guy too much... I have little to say and more to ask. Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad... who knows? Well, I have another question that I would like some feedback on:
Is it better to stay in the "denomination" (ick) you were raised in and accept a more "catholic" theology/orthodoxy rather than make a transition into a more catholic/orthodox stream of the christian faith?
I have heard good arguments on both sides.
Our buddy Hauerwas says it's best to "stay with the people that harmed you." Of course this avoids the so-called modernist tendencies to think the grass to be greener on the other side. It also revives a heroic vision of the sole orthodox person amongst apostasy and decay, a martyr of sorts. Some call that following in the example of the prophet Nehemiah.
Rusty Reno, on the other hand, has left his Epsicopal roots for Rome. He feels that the "Nehemiah Vision" is out of context and that it is only a mental theory and not a true spiritual practice. One thing he says we all need to keep in mind is that all churches, no matter what their stream, are "in the ruins." We are awaiting the restoration and everything is not as it will be.
Here is the article that made bring it up.
Here's my position: I don't know. I seek and pray for God to show me his will. I would love, honestly, to join the Roman Catholic church, for the avaliability, but I have some problems with it as well. I don't know where I fit. I love the organic nature of many "emerging churches," "neo-monastic communities," and plain ol' meetings on the street corner with a guitar and a couple bystanders. It seems more real than either off-the-top-of-your-head pentecostal/baptist prayers and sermons, dry repetitive spirit-less liturgy of the dying modernist churches, or anonymity of the evangelical mega-production/church. "Stay with the people that harmed you." I can't do that. I can't stay with the pentecostal/charismatic junk I grew up with. I love them as sisters and brothers in our common Lord and Savior, but I refuse their doctrine to the point full disregard. I don't know. I am about to take off for the Eucharist celebration at the Episcopal church. Maybe the priest will have some time to discuss these things.
God be with us all.
Is it better to stay in the "denomination" (ick) you were raised in and accept a more "catholic" theology/orthodoxy rather than make a transition into a more catholic/orthodox stream of the christian faith?
I have heard good arguments on both sides.
Our buddy Hauerwas says it's best to "stay with the people that harmed you." Of course this avoids the so-called modernist tendencies to think the grass to be greener on the other side. It also revives a heroic vision of the sole orthodox person amongst apostasy and decay, a martyr of sorts. Some call that following in the example of the prophet Nehemiah.
Rusty Reno, on the other hand, has left his Epsicopal roots for Rome. He feels that the "Nehemiah Vision" is out of context and that it is only a mental theory and not a true spiritual practice. One thing he says we all need to keep in mind is that all churches, no matter what their stream, are "in the ruins." We are awaiting the restoration and everything is not as it will be.
Here is the article that made bring it up.
Here's my position: I don't know. I seek and pray for God to show me his will. I would love, honestly, to join the Roman Catholic church, for the avaliability, but I have some problems with it as well. I don't know where I fit. I love the organic nature of many "emerging churches," "neo-monastic communities," and plain ol' meetings on the street corner with a guitar and a couple bystanders. It seems more real than either off-the-top-of-your-head pentecostal/baptist prayers and sermons, dry repetitive spirit-less liturgy of the dying modernist churches, or anonymity of the evangelical mega-production/church. "Stay with the people that harmed you." I can't do that. I can't stay with the pentecostal/charismatic junk I grew up with. I love them as sisters and brothers in our common Lord and Savior, but I refuse their doctrine to the point full disregard. I don't know. I am about to take off for the Eucharist celebration at the Episcopal church. Maybe the priest will have some time to discuss these things.
God be with us all.
posted by -mike- at 10:27 AM
27 Comments:
I can think of no larger challenge for you than to become orthodox or roman catholic. In spite of the aesthetic appreciation you have for those two traditions what is drawing you to look into exiting the ever disinegrating Protestant boat. ;)
I think you should look into it, but learn from those traditions on their own terms. Roman Catholicism for the most part, and Orthodoxy both retain a premodern view of the world. The reformers simply ARE modernism. The Reformers had a strong distrust of authority claims, and exalted private opinion. They emphasized the "invisible church" and individual holiness over and against sacramental and communal holiness. They opposed the veneration of Mary and asceticism and thus promoted a low view of celibacy and the inner life. This monastic search for purity to attain to a vision of God was replaced with modern existential angst and absolute uncertainty.
Without a religion that is right even when we are wrong, Protestantism continues to splinter into new denominations and renounce key doctrines like the bodily resurrection of Jesus. On the positive side from Protestantism arose peace-mongering groups like the Anabaptists, and advocates of religious tolerance like Roger Williams.
With all of this there's also the claim of exclusivity which I think might be an obstacle to you. Both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy claim to be the true church. How would you respond to that? The Reformed and Protestant for the most part have always responded to these claims with an appeal to the "invisible church". It's true that God's kingdom is wider than his church and that theology and ecclesiology are not necessary for salvation. Grace is. But there are norms. Modernity hates Norms. Maybe they seem mundane, arrogant, stifling. But we need our Norms. Slow and Steady wins the race. :D
Ian: Thanks for your thoughts! How do you think the whole concept of "remaining with those who hurt you" plays into that?
I wanted to leave you with some words from the late Pope John Paul II about the doctrine you mentioned.
It is therefore a revealed truth that there is salvation only and exclusively in Christ. The Church, inasmuch as it is the Body of Christ, is simply an instrument of this salvation. In the first words of Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, we read: "The Church is in Christ a sacrament, or a sign and instrument, of intimate union with God and of the unity of the entire human race."
Although the Catholic Church knows that it has received the fullness of the means of salvation, it rejoices when other Christian communities join her in preaching the Gospel. This is the proper context for understanding the Council's teaching that the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church...
-Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope
Remain with those who harmed you? Don't know the context for this Hauerwas'piece, but I would guess that it all has to do with healing and reconciliation. If you have been harmed by a denomination/congregation, where is the best place for you to find healing and reconciliation? It's all about relationships. Stay for a herioc martyr opportunity? I think not. Stay with the hope that one, two, or more can approach reconciliation? Gospel worthy.
And yet....to thrive spiritually, it might be a good idea to associate with others who have had a similar experience of "God" and want to respond in similar ways. Back to relationships again. Community is more important than certainty and style.
Best bet? Search for a spiritual community (people and worship) that will comfort you when you are afflicted and afflict you when you get comfortable. God will work on you wherever.
Good to see you today, Mike.
Thanks, Brian (I am assuming)
The whole martyr complex has never attracted me. We have nothing to worry about there... ;)
I left my pentecostal background for a variety of reasons, not least of which I felt it to not represent the Gospel of Reconciliation peace to all people. They are christians but their theology can not be described as in line with christian history or orthodoxy.
"Community is more important than certainty and style." I agree. God is mystery, yet there are, in fact, revelations of God-self to humanity. That is important, in my mind.
This document is helpful for my understanding of other "experiences" of God (religions)
My boy, if you to any degree "remain with those who hurt you," you must do so at least in part because you love them. Any kind of setup in which one really thinks he is the sole faithful believer among religious apostates is just gonna be... unhealthy. Reno has a great point.
If you can practice a truly open and catholic faith among the evangelicals, great. I would tell you to avoid Pentecostals, but I think that's unnecessary.
First of all, I'd say the whole "remain with those who hurt you" concept is silly and fallacious. "Denominations" didn't hurt you, people did. If you're talking about attitudes that are held generally throughout a denomination, I think it's still silly and fallacious. We should all strive to bring about change within our respective traditions--positive, Biblical change.
Case in point being the SBC today, where many of us are calling out the legalists around us attempting to push extrabiblical restrictions and requirements. Many of our brethren are "threatening" to leave. I call these guys what they are, cowards. If we are too wishy-washy to want a healthy denomination, we don't deserve to be a part of it in the first place.
Also, I'd invite you to reexamine Ian Brown's view of the Reformers, as he simply doesn't substantiate his claims of "Reformation = Modernism" in any way, nor do I think he can, considering the Reformers are in stark contrast to actual modernists. Modernists (I suppose I should just come out and say it, liberals) as a whole have flatly denied the things Reformers worked to achieve, namely a biblical Christianity. They also flatly deny there is any such thing in their view of Scripture and church history.
As such I'd say that the "mainline" denominations such as the PCUSA, Methodists, and Episcopalians, by their abandonment of their historical beliefs, don't even qualify to be called Protestants anymore. They've simply rewritten their faith to fit what they want it to be, rather than what they have historically professed it to be, or even what the Bible says it ought to be.
But since you've stated you don't believe in sola Scriptura, this might be less of a barrier for you than it should. I'd hope not.
I saw your post about your journey from Charismatic to Liturgical may not be as uncommon as you might think. Take a look here:
http://www.cartoonchurch.com/content/cc/the-evolution-of-a-worshipper/
Perhaps u can find yourself in that image. :)
http://www.cartoonchurch.com/content/cc/
the-evolution-of-a-worshipper/
Try that word wrapped.
Kyle: How exactly does one be open and catholic among evangelicals? I have my viewpoints (obviosuly) but what would you say?
Stephen: No, it was the denomination. Haha, not even kidding. Individuals were ok (some bad, some good) but the denomination was hateful.
Modernist is a tricky word, honestly. I called a very conservative person a modernist a while back and he almost shit himself. Modernism does equal liberalism. But the very idea of what most of the conservative evangelical church holds dear is, in essense, modernistic! I am sure that Ian will have a bit to elaborate on this, he usually does ;)
I really wish that many would stop thinking I disregard scripture because I don't believe in sola scriptura. No one did for most of the church's history, so why start now?
monk-in-training: Hehe... that was on my myspace forever. I now have another one of Walker's cartoons on there. Check it out here.
Newell,
Thanks for the vote of confidence. There have been several important studies that show the inseperability of Protestantism from Modernism. And by Modernism I am referring specifically to the stream of thought which exploded out of late-medieval philosophy, the so-called renaissance, and the Protestant Reformation. There have been numerous studies on this topic, even from unabashedly Protestant scholars such as Alister McGrath (see his John Calvin: A Biography, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification) .
There are a number of key issues on which Protestantism is forever guilty of mothering Modernism. First of all Protestantism served the establishment of Nationalism which was a key factor in the past 4 centuries. Several nations used Protestantism to slip free from the Roman "empire". They founded national churches, the Germans instituted Luther as their pope, King Henry crowned himself, etc. These churches were indentified with the indigenous people and were centers of nationalist pride. They were veritable lightning rods.
Secondly and related to the first was the challenge of infallible authorities. To draw a distinction between the Lutheran critique of the papacy and the Humean skepticism of all claims to absolute certainty is one of degree and not of kind. The Protestant revolution says that there can be no infallible interpreter of scriptures. And then the liberal Protestants took it even further and denied the infallibility of the scriptures.
Where do Protestants and Modernists alike find certitude if anywhere? Intuition via the Holy Spirit or otherwise or objective exegetical evidence. Usually both are appealed to (inner testimony, and objective scriptural evidence) It began with a distrust of the interpreter, then moved on with a distrust of the textual transmission, then with a distrust of the content of the text, then a distrust of the author. Is there an author? Is there any text outside me? Or is there only a text? This kind of quagmire developed in the West, via Protestantism. Once the world could no longer except the claims of naive realists, they turned inward towards idealism and other forms of skepticism. This distrust of the world replaced by a confidence in the self, is central to both Protestantism (sola scriptura) and both early and late (post) Modernism.
There's no end of scholarship out there to prove the connection. Don't take my word for it, go to your local library and take a look. Its in a book.
To share from my own recent experience... I've been feeling much of the same pull as you have. One thing that has just really recently helped me is I've been able to connect with other people from my own denominational background who are feeling the same way. These people are asking the same questions from the same perspective. If you can find anyone else in your same boat (including the penecostal background) I'm sure that it would make for an interesting, and probably comforting, conversation.
It's much harder to get advice from people whose perspective is totally different from yours. Even if they're attracted to the same ideologies and doctrines as you, they're not viewing them through the same lens as you.
Just a though.
*I meant "just a THOUGHT"
Also... sorry about Eternal Dialogue messing with ya too much... it's good for us though.
Oh, no it's not that! It's just I have been reading it and it has made me want to ask questions... haha! It's probably a good thing!
Sorry for the confusion and thanks for the "though!"
Ian, you're forgetting that the Reformers believed the "only infallible interpreter of Scripture" was Scripture itself. That's also in a book.
How does their trust in the text make them guilty of modernist abuses of their reforms? That doesn't compute. If we're going to hold the Reformers guilty because of the corruptions of their teachings that rose up, we may as well all join Mike and go back to being Catholic. At least that way a central authority would lay down some high ecclesiastical condemnations that made us all feel better about ourselves in the end.
Clarification: I'm not joining the RCC, at least not yet. I just think that a catholic theology (held by many Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox) is far more "christian" than many "biblical" theologies.
Mike, to my mind, being a "catholic" among evangelicals means being the resident historian and ecumenist - a kind of resource guy. Some of the Church's challenges in this era are unique, but many are the same: how to I become like Jesus? How do we live together as Christ's body in a way that honors him? How do we call people into the Church and to Jesus, bringing them from death into life? Those are ancient and contemporary concerns that transcend any philosophical "moments" in history. I think it means being a voice for "keeping the main thing the main thing," and being the guy who says, "you know, the Church has always dealt with this, and some good faithful Christians who aren't ______s (fill your resident tradition in the blank here) also have some good things to say about it. Christians of different times and places have different answers to the same old questions. We learn to listen to them as we sit together and wait for the Lord to tell us our way forward in his mission in the world as well as our own life together.
I think it also mean to some extent "owning" - perhaps even better, "taking responsibility for" a particular tradition with a group of people and blessing those things which are healthy and good for the soul, and critiquing what isn't - and then calling in the voices of Christians from other times, places, and traditions for backup, to see what they have to say (or "say") about it.
Thanks a lot for the clarification, Kyle!
I don't know that I have anything intelligent or helpful to offer. I'm sorry that I cannot offer some inspiring words or argument for either side. I, honestly, don't know what you should do. I see both sides of the crevace that you're straddling but I don't know how to calm your world down.
I'll pray for you as your world shakes.
Thanks, Joshua. Your words are always kind and remind me to be a bit more catious with any form of judgment, good or bad.
Thanks.
I hate Josh's moderation.
Grrr!
I can't believe you can post on "what should I do with my life?" and get all these comments.
I wonder what kind of critters would come out of the woodwork if I asked a question like that...?
You're so angry, Kyle...
:)
They'd all say the same thing: admit that you're Catholic. I think you are. You think you are. Let's just get this all over with and say Kyle is a papist.
Word.
Newell,
You obviously aren't paying attention to any of my arguments.
"How does their trust in the text make them guilty of modernist abuses of their reforms?"
I never said that "trusting a text" was a no-no. I said that substituting an impersonal infallible text in place of a human-divine catholic tradition created the intellectual necessity for an Enlightenment.
"If we're going to hold the Reformers guilty because of the corruptions of their teachings that rose up, we may as well all join Mike and go back to being Catholic."
I highly recommend you do so!
Oh, are you just now making that argument? It's difficult to see that, since you basically equated the Reformation with Modernism. "The Reformers simply ARE modernism," you said, when nothing they believed and taught equalled what modernists later believed.
Nor did I say that you said it was a no-no. What you are indicating in your previous comments is that their reforms were directly responsible for the corruptions that followed, and as such they were no better than those who corrupted them. They were the causative force, you are saying, rather than those whom corrupted their teaching.
As I was implying, to hold the Reformers guilty is to effectively invalidate their work, at which point we don't really have any other option but to return to Romanism and its errors. Which is the exact opposite of what the Reformers initially wanted, a Rome without error.
I think the biggest problem with this is the fact that you think you have to choose. Why can't you do it all? Practice your worship in a charismatic way, maintain a catholic theology, and live out your faith like an emerging church guy. I don't think you have to agree 100% with the theology, practice, or worship of your local body. It would be nice, but it would likely not happen, that you find such a church. The best advice that I would give would be to find a group of people that practice the way you do, and practice with them; a group that worships the way you prefer to worship and worship with them; a group that believes the same theology, and pray with them. Don't limit yourself to a certain group, especially when you won't find the perfect small group of believers.
I agree with Robbie. So your theology is Catholic and you pray like a Charismatic - if you are most connected with God when you pray among Catholics, then a Catholic church may be the place for you. But be warned; we're a strange lot. :)
Ian: Good points.
Newell: Not sure where you are going with it but I hope it ends out well.
Robbie: I am speaking moreso of a local gathering rather than a theology. Kyle has said great things concerning that here on this little convo.
Day: Yah. Catholics are strange folk...
;)
Everyone: I think we're done here. Thanks for the advice.
Post a Comment
<< Home