A friend of mine, the Dok, recently became engaged and sent me some of his thoughts on getting married in a church setting. This led to a good discussion of Christian belief which we will begin to carry out online. With respect to the teaching of the 'Christian church' the Dok made the following statement.
If the people at the core of the church hold many negative qualities such as greed, dishonesty, pride, then it is quite easy to say that the church itself is somehow corrupt because of it. It is hard to receive teachings from a corrupt entity. All of my life I’ve been taught by others and have had it proven through experience that ideas, theories, thoughts, and hypothesis must be proven to be logically correct in order to be true. (bold-faced emphasis is my own)
First of all I agree with the Dok that anytime a debased person (someone who is consumed by greed or pride or dishonesty) speaks it will be difficult to believe even if what they say happens to be true. Since one of the fundamental tasks of the Church is to proclaim the Gospel of Christ, a message of truth, this serves as incentive for the church to live it's corporate life in such a way as to make belief in it's message as easy to swallow as possible for those who now stand outside of faith.
The important thing to note, however, is that the church is not the source of truth (regardless of what the Catholic church may teach) but is an institution that simply recognizes the authoritative teaching of the Bible as the source of truth. The Bible is itself the source of truth and the church merely recognizes this to be true. Hence, when debating Christian thought it is my task to always refer back to the teachings of Scripture, not to the teachings of a particular church or denomination or any other such group. While the church might make belief in the teaching of scripture more or less easy to believe by it's more or less pure life, the church does not make the teachings of scripture to be more or less true by it's more or less pure life.
One final note is also in order. In the Dok's initial post he indicates the premise by which he lives his life. His premise is that "ideas, theories, thoughts, and hypothesis must be proven to be logically correct in order to be true." He completely undermines this premise, however, since the premise itself is based not on precise logical reasoning but was established via the teaching of others and his own (imperfect) subjective experience. In addition, it should be clarified that things are true because we can prove them but they are believed upon proof. His initial statement is fundamentally self-refuting. As a christian my premise is similar but different in an important way. I would phrase my premise as "ideas, theories, thoughts, and hypothesis must be either proven logically correct or revealed in scripture in order to be believed.".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I'm smelling....presuppositionalism :-)
The creation of so many contradictions is exactly why an organized faith is so difficult to swallow. To say that another’s judgment of the teachings in the Judeo-Christian Bible is based on that one’s own point of view, and therefore an imperfect point of view because it is not that of Jesus’, is a moot point because of the belief that Jesus is the only entity to have lived a perfect life. Believers in the New Testament can assume that only Jesus lived a perfect life, but the belief in that fact and the man it is founded on does not necessarily allow the judgment to be passed that all other lives are imperfect. The fundamental ideal behind Christianity is first the acceptance of Jesus’ life and the second the attempt to be more like him. This ideal is based on the idea that because his life on earth and teachings, and not just his sacrifice and resurrection, the world is now a better place. Jesus said himself that “You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.” (John 8:15-17) When Jesus did judge he judged the major sins (e.g. The Ten Commandments of Moses) of Jewish Leaders. Paul, in Romans, is cited as saying “Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another” when in the context of minor disputable matters such as what is sacred and acceptable. As thought by Jesus and his Apostles we should not judge others because of the way they believe or if they have different standards of faith, but rather only judge them if their actions and beliefs are offensive to God, to which only God, or his only son, can determine. As a true Christian, one should not be concerned with HOW others believe and if that way is correct, only that others believe and do not force non-pious beliefs on others.
On to address the idea of an organizational faith debasement. None of us, that I’m aware of, have attained the same level of revelation as Jesus. Therefore it is necessary to learn how to be more like him through scripture via reading it, and via the example of others in the community (unless someone knows of a burning bush in the neighborhood that I don’t know about…) When an origination within the community, such as a church whose only goal is to pass on those teachings, fails at the goal of passing on the core of the scripture it corrupts the learners in such a way that they are unable to determine what beliefs are pious and which are not. Some of these churches may pass on the teaching that we should judge most imperfections, while others teach that we should not judge anyone at all (as if they skipped over the last part of John that I cite above). Although a church, and other organizations, are great conduits for scripture they seem to fail, time and time again, at passing on simple fundamental ideas and teachings. I have found I am able to keep pass with my own “self-study” program as most are with organizational attendance.
-Dok
DoK-
I really appreciated your thoughts, thanks for sharing. I hope you don't mind, and I hope Mr. Modern doesn't mind, if I probed a bit to get a better understanding of where you are coming from.
I found your statement:
"As thought by Jesus and his Apostles we should not judge others because of the way they believe or if they have different standards of faith" to be quite interesting. I am having a hard time reconciling the two verses you brought up in Christ's teaching and the teaching of the Apostle to mean that we shouldn't "judge" people who have different standards of faith. Taken in the context of what is truly being talked about in both instances, it seems your comment is logically flawed (non sequitur). Am I wrong about this?
Secondly, I was curious if you would draw a difference between passing judgment, and pronouncing judgment. Here's what I mean. Let's say that Scripture clearly states that any who do not trust in Christ will go to hell. Am I passing judgment on someone when I say, "You must trust in Christ or go to hell," or am I simply pronouncing an already stated judgment? Do you get the difference? In relaying that truth to someone I am not playing the part of the judge, that is, I am not passing judgment, but simply being the herald of the Judge. Is that a fair distinction to make? If so, is it fair for a Christian to tell others on the authority and testimony of Scripture that they are dead in their sins and only by faith in Christ will they live?
That's it for now, like I said, I appreciated your comments.
Grace.
KB
Kenny,
I must say I'm a bit surprised by your response. While I agree with you that the church cannot make the truth any more or less true, I don't think that's what Dok was actually asking. It sounds like Dok has seen the hypocrisy and falseness inherit to every church, and doesn't know what to do about that observation. It feels like between the lines he's asking if the church's "debasement" means the scripture "doesn't work". And that is a very difficult issue to wrestle with. The church is very debased. It's caused me a great deal of pain, and I know it's caused you pain, and if I had to guess, it's caused Dok a lot of pain too.
I'm surprised to see you write about "debased" people the way you do. If I may be so bold, you talk as if you are not one of those "debased people". I know you don't believe that. We've had many discussion on this, and I know for a fact your theology calls us all debased. Every one of us. I know you know that the more saintly a person becomes the more they describe themselves as a sinner. Now what I'm getting at is, the church is just a group of us, it is a collection of us debased people. Of course it is going to be debased.
This makes the question Dok is asking much more personal though. If I accept the observations I can make about my own obvious debasement, then what shall I do? Will the scriptures work for me? Will they fix me?
When Dok responds in the comments about how he can "become more like Christ" himself with the self-study of the scriptures just as well anything the church has to offer, I think there is a telling sign. The church's failing is not in its inherit debasement, but in hiding behind its mask of righteous perfection.
Let me explain what I mean with an example. The first time I experienced real love within the context of the church is when I became involved with a class that began to ask this question: "is this it?" Is this all there is to the church? Where are all the *living waters* we were promised? We realized two things in this group. First, that the church *experience* was by no means what either the scriptures nor the church leaders promised us. Second, that there was no one that had any answers as to why. We bonded in that group. We all felt the existential loneliness as individuals (though we all tried hard to pretend we didn't, Christianity, after all, had to work), but now we could be honest about it, and we felt the loneliness as a group, and we realized we weren't alone anymore. Out of that comfort and safety, grew honesty, and love.
Chastising Dok's semantical logic at the end of your post was, I believe, out of a desire for sound thinking and clear writing and good theology. I appreciate how important these things are to you, and your diligence to instill them into others. I was surprised by the harshness of it though. It didn't really serve to create a safe environment for added discussion. Which is a big problem. Because, the thing is, regardless of our noble attempts to only believe that which is "logically correct" or even that which we read in scripture, the reality is we believe all sorts of things. And a lot of these things we believe we have no idea where they came from, much less how to identify and articulate them. If we feel safe enough, we'll get honest enough to look inside, and what we'll find is a real mess of complex beliefs, desires, emotions, pains, joys, all jumbled together.
It's the deep waters.
Now when I first started attending this group, my heart was pretty well locked down. The deep waters were boarded up and bolted shut, because I didn't know how to deal with it. My Christian experience growing up had taught me that if I was good enough, God would take that mess away. That the more I became like Christ, the smaller that mess would be. I was taught wrong. The mess stays there. And festers. But something happened as I began to feel safer in this group. The bolts came undone. The boards came down. And as I began to get honest and share some of the mess, people didn't judge me, they loved me. I was surprised by that. Christians can be very good at judging others, and I'd gotten used to that.
As I realized that these people could handle me, and handle my mess, I shared more of it with them. And they shared their messes. I learned that I didn't have to relate to people the way I used to. People could be different. Everybody was not the same. There were people that would love before they'd judge. Then something magical happened.
As I learned to give and accept love, love that was not earned by being good, I realized I could begin to relate to God this way as well. I knew from the scriptures that God loved me unconditionally, but I didn't have a relational framework to understand that. I memorized the verses, but I had no person in my life that modeled what that could look like, so I had no concept of it's existence. Let me say this again--I would have said "God loves me", but I behaved as if God only loved me if I was good. If I did something bad, I acted as if God hated me. As if God were going to chase after me screaming and yelling until I felt bad enough for long enough. But as I learned a new way to relate to people, I learned a new way to relate to God. This was a revelation, and the beginning of a spiritual journey I continue on today. This revelation did not come from logic, nor from the scriptures. It came from people. It came from God's people. It came from God's debased people, people that had decided to start being honest with how poor they were all really all doing. This is the best of what I've found in the church, and what I would go back for.
Now I realize I've enmeshed a few things in this response. Kenny, I guess I'm correcting you, to a degree, which does feel weird. I mean it in love, and think of it as an open discussion as opposed to a "chastisement". Also, it occurs to me that you may be using "debased" in a particular sense, and that the word may not be the best choice in the sense that I am using it. Dok, we've been out of touch for a while. I don't know if I'm getting near what you're trying to say, I see that as an open discussion as well. Communicating about these things can be very difficult, and often takes a couple of tries. I think everyone is interested in listening. I've shared some of my church experience in the hope that it may broaden your view of the church. However, as much as I wish all of church was like what I've described, I have to admit I think precious little of it actually is. Now that I've tasted it, however, I can't help but share it. Blogger, I know this is a long post for a comment, but your owned by Google. I think you can deal with it.
I'm going to try to pull the reigns in with some quick comments.
1. To address Kyle Borg: Are you passing judgment on someone when you say "(you must) believe in Christ or go to hell”? I don’t believe so. Everyone can believe or trust the way that they wish to, so long as that belief and trust is genuine. I would say that it is rather useless to say that though, because you are not the judge of what is genuine or what is not. Everyone is entitled to their own belief, it is not anyone’s place to force them into any one direction, it is only our way to show them there are other paths that they might not see.
2. Brandon Weaver: Lazy quote and reply structure here
a. “It sounds like Dok has seen the hypocrisy and falseness inherit to every church, and doesn't know what to do about that observation.” I wouldn’t say “church”, I would say “organized faith structure.” When man tries to put a organizational structure on faith, such as the sects of Islam, the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches, Lutheran Synods, etc, things go bad. Haven’t you seen the movie “Dogma?” :p
b. “Chastising Dok's semantical logic at the end of your post was, I believe, out of a desire for sound thinking and clear writing and good theology.” I think it was out of desire to start this very debate. Remember, Dr. Hunt is a teacher, and one aspect of teaching is planting a seed and seeing what grows.
c. “If we feel safe enough, we'll get honest enough to look inside.” A noble person will look inside themselves to find the truth no matter how safe they feel, and will especially do so when they feel unsafe. "Man looks into the Abyss, and there's nothin' staring back at him. At that moment, man finds his character, and that's what keeps him out of the Abyss."
-Dok
Dok,
Forgive me for pressing this at all, but I had one more thought about what you have just said. You said:
"Everyone is entitled to their own belief, it is not anyone’s place to force them into any one direction, it is only our way to show them there are other paths that they might not see."
Isn't this a contradiction? If everyone is entitled to their own opinion, am I entitled to be of the opinion that not every is entitled to their own opinion? By saying that one should not force them into a direction, aren't you (in a way) forcing others into your direction; the direction of "autonomy of opinion"?
Further, if I am entitled to my own opinion, by your standard, and my opinion is that the claims which Christianity makes are true, and those who deny the claims of Christianity will perish, and my "opinion," or my belief in Christianity demands that I do all that I can to get people to change their thinking in order that they might be saved; by your standard can you refute my claim? Can you tell me that I have no right to "force" my belief on people? (Let me clarify that the word, force, automatically carries negative connotations, but I do advocate for tact).
This is precisely the question we must answer. Post-enlightenment, individualism "demands" that everyone is "free to their own opinion," that is, man is autonomous in his thinking and has that right, and no one should interfere. But the Christian worldview does not view man in this autonomous sense. The Christian worldview says that man does not have a right to their "own" opinion, so who is right? One of us will end up "forcing" our worldview on the other. Any thoughts?
I'm not trying to be nit-picky here, I'm just curious about that statement and how you would respond.
Thanks again for your comments!
Grace.
Brandon,
This isn't meant harsh, I just want to say this succinctly. The way you described the "church" in your comments, do you think that echoes the Scriptural definition of the Church, or does that stem more from the theological work of men like Schleirmacher, Ritschel, and other "experiential" Christians?
Any thoughts?
Grace.
Kyle, Unfortunately I'm not familiar with Schleirmacher or Ritschel. That doesn't mean I haven't been influenced by them, but I couldn't label what that influence would be. A cursory glance at their respective Wikipedia pages doesn't strike any familiar chords.
The "Scriptural definition of the Church" you mention, I'm not sure what you mean by that. I think it's safe to say there are many opposing views that would all claim to be scriptural. Are you referring to a particular definition?
If your asking something along the lines of "where am I coming from", or "what am I reacting against", I can try and answer that. Actually, now that I think about it, that answer is going to be somewhat drawn out and complex at this point. I'll save it for another time. Instead, I'll qualify a few things:
When I talk of the "church", I'm not speaking so much out of a specific theological regiment (such as "reformed" or "episcopal" or what-have-you) as I am referring to my experiences with several particular churches. (Denominationally, they would all be Evangelical Free.) In discussing these experiences with others, I do find there are certain similarities, and these similarities, fueled by a certain though often misplaced passion, feed my unfortunate habit of projecting my experience with these particular churches onto the very broad and general term "church". Dok is probably right to use longer and more descriptive terms such as "organized faith structure", though "organized faith structure" is not really what I mean. I mean something clumsy like "churches as I've experienced them correlated with the way others have described experiencing them".
Now as I mentioned I didn't recognize any of the names you tossed out. Here's some names of what I've been reading lately, perhaps it will create a connection point. G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy was particularly interesting (and challenging) to me. Robert Bly's Iron John has become very influential to my understanding of maturity. David Benner's books have introduced me to a much deeper concept of love. Other names to throw out there: C.S. Lewis, George MacDonald, and a new one for me that thus far I've been excited about, Saint Francis de Sales.
Lastly, I hope I haven't created an unsafe atmosphere where you feel you must qualify your statement with "this isn't meant harsh", lest I overreact or something. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you taking the time to avoid an offense, but I also want you to feel safe asking questions. You can let me know how you feel about that if you want to.
Hi! I'm from Indonesia. I recently found an exciting website about the faith comparation. May my words doesn't seem to be right. It's better for You to access this url= http://www.openchoice.org/the_concept_of_God.html
Клубничка [url=http://aftertube.net.ua/tags/%EE%ED%EB%E0%E9%ED/]онлайн[/url] Здесь [url=http://aftertube.net.ua/tags/Pickup/]Pickup[/url]
Содержит контент эротический!
[url=http://mariana-cordoba.livejournal.com/]mariana-cordoba.livejournal.com[/url]
Post a Comment