God Save Us!

[kerravonsen]

Watch the steam coming out of Kathryn's ears. Watch Kathryn take a few deep breaths.

What has got me so riled up? There is a certain LJ community, a Christian-oriented community, of which I am now no longer a member, in which someone posted the question, "Is the Pope saved?". I objected to the question as divisive, and I was slapped down for not being able to "dialogue respectfuly", told that I had a "terrible attitude". Huh? Don't they get it? Guess they don't, but they also are obviously completely unable to hear me, so I guess I'm just gonna have to explain my reasoning over here...

(a) it is extremely rude to even raise the question whether the leader of a denomination (and a whopping great big one too) is, or is not, a Christian ("is he saved?"). Even raising the question implies that the person asking the question assumes that the answer is "no".
It is rude because, here the person says "I am a Christian", and you are questioning their word, calling them a liar, a hypocrite and so on, just by asking the question. It isn't an "honest" question at all.

(b) Quite possibly, of course, the assumption on the part of those calling into question whether the Pope is saved, is that really, Catholicism is a dangerous cult, and must be attacked whenever possible. Don't know what they actually expect to achieve with this attitude, except ill-feeling all around, but, hey, it's their attitude which stinks, not mine.

(c) Maybe I'm too generous, but I reckon, since God is the only one who knows the heart, anyone actually calling themselves a Christian, is probably a Christian, and should be treated as a brother or sister, to be walked alongside with, and prayed for. If said person is going astray, then they should be reasoned with, for their own sake, not yelled at and insulted.

(d) What is the purpose of calling into question whether any particular individual, who calls themself a Christian, is or is not one? So far as I can see, far far too often, it is a case of self-righteousness, a way of saying "nyah, nyah, I'm saved and you aren't". Because, like, when people are actually interested in the question of what constitutes salvation, they tend to be in theoretical mode, and give examples of hypothetical people, not real ones. "Judge not, lest ye be judged" hasn't suddenly vanished from the Bible, and I do think it applies in this case.

Not that the question should never ever be asked -- but when should it be asked? When one is trying to decide on a course of positive action to benefit that person: (a) to decide what to pray for that person, (b) to decide what to say to that person.

(e) Having the "wrong" doctrine doesn't mean that someone is not saved. Where does the rubber hit the road? This question: do they acknowledge Christ as their Lord and saviour? Yes or no?
"Saved by grace through faith" means that we have to have faith, faith in Christ, not that we have to know the 39 Articles (or the Westminster Confession, or...). Christ isn't going to give us a theological exam -- "Oh, sorry, you only got 50%, go and burn in hell now". Bah!

I'm not saying that theology is useless or pointless or wasteful. The pursuit of truth is always a good thing. But I wrestled with this myself when confronted with some Mormons several years ago, and I came to this conclusion: If God can save us from our sins, he can surely save us from our stupidity.

Doctrine is good because we should pursue the truth, should try to increase our understanding. But we aren't saved by it.

I'm becoming increasingly of the opinion that all schisms in the Church are caused by the limitations of humanity's understanding. It's a paradox: not everybody can be right, when things contradict each other, but it's quite possible that everyone is wrong -- or wrong to a degree. I don't mean that one should toss one's hands in the air and say that it's impossible to find truth, and therefore there is no such thing. Not so! As Chesterton said:

"At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one. Of course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table."

Oh, and here's another: "To downgrade the human mind is bad theology."

It may seem that I'm contradicting myself here, but I'm not. We should pursue understanding, and hold fast to what we understand, also knowing that our understanding is limited, and may, at some future date, be shown to be mistaken, but in the meantime, use your brain, that's what God gave it to you for.

But the amount of understanding which is required to be saved, is less than the amount of understanding which we are called upon to pursue after we are saved.

Me, I don't agree with Catholic doctrine -- but I don't agree with Presbyterian doctrine either, yet I fellowship with a Presbyterian church. It keeps me on my toes, but that which unites us is greater than that which divides us.

Comments

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

"Judge not, lest ye be judged" hasn't suddenly vanished from the Bible

I hear it's currently under investigation for violating the Patriot Act...

[kerravonsen]

(snort)

[tptigger.livejournal.com]

*hugs*

I barely understand Christian thought on this topic (I've had it explained, but I don't grok it), but I'd tend to agree with you on general principles.

[kerravonsen]

Thanks.

[izhilzha.livejournal.com]

I saw that post, and decided to not even bother replying. Anyone who would ask that question, I figured, is of the opinion that Catholicism is a cult, which IMHO is not true. I didn't really care to try and explain myself to him.

I love your views here. Very well expressed.

If God can save us from our sins, he can surely save us from our stupidity.

Oh, amen to that. If that were not true, life would be impossible to live.

We should pursue understanding, and hold fast to what we understand, also knowing that our understanding is limited, and may, at some future date, be shown to be mistaken, but in the meantime, use your brain, that's what God gave it to you for.

Again, well put. This is the biggest thing my dad taught me, and living with this attitude sure makes it easier to learn, to admit it wehn you learn you are mistaken, and to still hold fast to what you know is right.

[kerravonsen]

Thanks. Thank you so much. I was a bit worried, I admit, about saying this and leaving the group, because it was through you that I discovered that group in the first place, and I was a bit concerned about what you'd think.
Mind you, I didn't just leave because of this; I was feeling a bit like an odd fish before, because my interests don't overlap theirs to the same degree as you.

[izhilzha.livejournal.com]

Oh, no worries, I bet my interests overlap even less, it just amuses me to read the posts. :-)

[kerravonsen]

I bet my interests overlap even less, it just amuses me to read the posts.
I was finding that too many of them bored me, though there was the occassional interesting one.

[reveilles.livejournal.com]

I'm in the same position as izhilzha with respect to that community. I'm not a gamer myself, so any interest in the group is in the random discussions they sometimes have.

I saw that post, thought it was incredibly tactless and self-righteous (parading under the guise of "respectful dialogue"), and when I saw you get slapped down in the comments (the "terrible attitude" comment had me steaming too), I figured I'd say something. When I actually started to consider what I'd say, though, I realized that the debate was pointless and I wouldn't be contributing anything useful, except to feed the flame-war.

So just to support your statement here (which was VERY well written!), I'm with you, sis. I don't think I want to leave the group quite yet, but I'm aware that there are People Different From Me there.

[kerravonsen]

Thank you milady. (smile)

My Mum encouraged me to post, when we were talking about the whole thing last night. I'd come to the conclusion that it was pointless posting in the actual group, but Mum was very encouraging about how... when I think things out for myself, my insights could be helpful to other people, even if not the ones who riled me in the first place. So I posted here this morning.

[reveilles.livejournal.com]

Go Mum! :)

[kerravonsen]

This is the biggest thing my dad taught me, and living with this attitude sure makes it easier to learn, to admit it wehn you learn you are mistaken, and to still hold fast to what you know is right.

Very hard to express the delicate balance of that: for if one is too sure of what one knows to be true, one becomes narrow-minded and dogmatic; yet if one is too unsure of what one knows, one becomes completely wishy-washy and double-minded, succumbing to every gust of popular opinion.

[izhilzha.livejournal.com]

My dad puts it something like this: You have to "be fully convinced in your own mind" that what you know right now about God and men is true, or you can't live life with confidence. But you have to be willing to look at new ideas, and possible admit you were wrong and change the way you live, because otherwise you become judgmental and incapable of growing in your faith.

Yeah, it's hard. I'm glad I grew up with that balance being modeled for me. It's served me well, so far, when I can actually pull it off. :-D

[sallymn.livejournal.com]

If God can save us from our sins, he can surely save us from our stupidity. I'm an agnostic (which means I don't know, don't really think I'll ever know, and don't really and truly think anyone else does either, to be honest :)) but I do think that if there's a God, he has a special place in his heart for the sincere but stupid.

[izhilzha.livejournal.com]

If I weren't Christian, I think I would likely be agnostic. As it is, I just say that it seems to me that one doesn't have to be able to prove something to know it. :-)

he has a special place in his heart for the sincere but stupid.

Yes, indeed. And that's where my general brand of Christianity (the intellectuals) sometimes fall down; we forget that "the foolish things of the world to shame the wise."

[kerravonsen]

As it is, I just say that it seems to me that one doesn't have to be able to prove something to know it.

An' that's a whole 'nother can 'o worms, really. Over my life I've tended to flip-flop between "the existance of God is unprovable" and "it's bleedin' obvious that God exists" -- all the while actually believing that He does exist, though.

[kerravonsen]

he has a special place in his heart for the sincere but stupid

Yes. I remember having a good talk with my Mum about this -- some people have "simple faith" and they are just as faithful in having it.
Trouble happens when those of "simple faith" and those of "complex faith" can't understand or accept the other...

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

The way I look at it, when people get hung up on rules and labels etc (no matter what their religion or beliefs) and project their exclusivity onto God, is that it's not possible for God to be less loving then me.

[kerravonsen]

it's not possible for God to be less loving then me

Oh yes! Well put.

I think the other thing that puzzles people when they're trying to figure out what God's attitude actually is, is the question of justice and mercy and how that ties in with love -- we had a really good discussion of that in biblestudy last week, with a very interesting perspective from one member of the group who's a police sergeant, who is therefore very aware of what "justice" requires from a human standpoint.

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

That's a hard one. I have to admit I have no mercy or love for people who deliberately hurt, torture, or kill other people or animals.

[kerravonsen]

Well, the easy answer to that is that mercy doesn't tend to be given to the unrepentant...

[sallymn.livejournal.com]

My own reaction - no doubt tainted by lack of correct doctrinal bias :) - was that this infant (no matter what her age) may have been taught her Bible, but her parents forgot to teach her common courtesy. I mean, that's just plain rude towards others who are grieving.

[mistraltoes.livejournal.com]

I agree that it's fruitless and presumptuous to discuss whether any given individual who claims to be a Christian and with whom we have no opportunity to discuss the matter is saved.

OTOH, I think you may be overreacting. Having read the thread, it's clear to me that the issue the person really wanted to discuss was whether or not Catholic teaching promotes or obscures salvation by grace through faith in Christ. I think that's a legitimate avenue of inquiry, with regard to the teachings of any denomination, even if the manner in which the topic was broached was thoughtless.

For the most part I agree with you that we're not saved by doctrine (though that is in itself a doctrine). However, there is a certain minimal understanding that must exist, and that is that we have to place our faith in Christ. Any other teaching is false teaching, wherever it is found.

You once said to me that following Christianity + another belief system usually results in Christianity getting squeezed out. I submit that teaching salvation through faith + anything results in faith getting squeezed out, and I'd be worried about it being squeezed out before it ever took hold. If I'm taught that salvation requires faith + works, how likely is it that I'm really trusting in Christ rather than my own works?

I'm sure that the Catholic church contains a mix of the saved and the unsaved, as does the Baptist church, the Methodists, etc... But I am reminded of an ex-Catholic I know who left that denomination when he finally heard and accepted the Gospel. He would say that any Catholic Christians become Christians in spite of Catholic teaching, not because of it.

when people are actually interested in the question of what constitutes salvation, they tend to be in theoretical mode, and give examples of hypothetical people, not real ones.

Not so. Some people reason from the abstract to the concrete; some reason from the concrete to the abstract. It's a different mode of thought, maybe S rather than N, but it doesn't mean the person is insincere, just tactless. And being fairly tactless myself, I'm inclined to offer said tactless person the benefit of the doubt.

[kerravonsen]

I think you may be overreacting.
Possibly. Though I still think most of what I said above is true, though I may have (a) over-generalized and (b) missed some things...

For the most part I agree with you that we're not saved by doctrine (though that is in itself a doctrine).

Yes, the irony is there... 8-)

However, there is a certain minimal understanding that must exist, and that is that we have to place our faith in Christ.

Agreed. I did touch that in passing -- that the understanding required for salvation isn't as great as that required later -- but it is required.

You once said to me that following Christianity + another belief system usually results in Christianity getting squeezed out. I submit that teaching salvation through faith + anything results in faith getting squeezed out, and I'd be worried about it being squeezed out before it ever took hold.

(nods)

Like Paul had the problem with those who wanted all Gentile Believers to be circumcised -- it's a problem that's been around since the beginning.

If I'm taught that salvation requires faith + works, how likely is it that I'm really trusting in Christ rather than my own works?

But "faith without works is dead". I've talked with sincere Catholics whom I'd reckon were "saved" and I remember one saying "but we weren't taught 'salvation by works', we were taught salvation by faith, with works being the fruit of that" so... the area is a bit greyer than most Protestants assume, I think.

Agreed, there is a lot wrong with Catholic doctrine. But even the teaching of that can vary.

And I kind of suspect that most, if not all errors-of-doctrine/heresies, arise not from out-and-out lies, but from over-emphasis of one or more particular truths. Which of course makes it even harder to correct them.

Some people reason from the abstract to the concrete; some reason from the concrete to the abstract.

Fair enough. Over-generalization, then.

[mistraltoes.livejournal.com]

But "faith without works is dead". I've talked with sincere Catholics whom I'd reckon were "saved" and I remember one saying "but we weren't taught 'salvation by works', we were taught salvation by faith, with works being the fruit of that" so... the area is a bit greyer than most Protestants assume, I think.

Yes. As you say, the teaching can vary (in most if not all denominations). But I think it's important to understand that Paul was saying that living faith yields works, rather than that works yield living faith. Because you have to look at Paul's entire teaching on the matter, which is clear in so many other places that works cannot save us.

Also, ::smacks self in head:: in an effort to keep my previous post to a reasonable length, I forgot to say that the original poster over-reacted to you far more than you did to him/her. You certainly did NOT demonstrate a terrible attitude or an inability to dialogue. You were fine, until s/he got rude.

[reapermum.livejournal.com]

Sorry to give you a long quote here, but James is more use than Paul for faith and works.

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[a]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[b] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

And as a side line, those with thyroid dificiency were called cretins (Christians) to remind people caring for them that you don't need to study to be loved by God.

[kerravonsen]

And as a side line, those with thyroid dificiency were called cretins (Christians) to remind people caring for them that you don't need to study to be loved by God.

Heh, and hasn't that one sure changed its meaning over the years...

[jhall1.livejournal.com]

I think you're 100% right. But then I'm an atheist, so my opinion on this may not be worth much. :)

[starborn-scribe.livejournal.com]

This conversation is fascinating. Despite being raised Catholic, I'm agnostic. During those years my mom dragged me to church and CCD I don't recall any talk about people being "saved." Getting into heaven seemed only to require going to confession once per month or so and getting last rites before you die. From that point of view the notion of wondering if the Pope was saved is kind of laughable.

Based on the hypocrisy I've witnessed at Catholic churches and negative experinces I've had with people who call themselves Christians, neither label has positive connontations for me. It's reassuring to read others' comments here from people -- Christian, Catholic, or otherwise -- who "get it." :)