God Save Us!
Apr. 3rd, 2005 09:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kerravonsenWatch 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:
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.
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.
