For some of my readers, this post will lack a fair bit of context. Forgive me.
I have been watching this with a certain amount of trepidation and soul-searching.
This is a blog war between, more or less, two perspectives that fall under the rubric of reformed christianity. Each side claims to be properly interpreting the Bible, each side claims a certain legitimating genealogy, each side quotes the same theologians, each side is promoting the true Truth. One, however, is right. The other is wrong. Neither side will be convinced of the other's position (short of a miracle).
Anyone who knows me knows which side I identify with. At the same time, this has made me wonder if I truly identify with that side or if I merely assent to that side's position. There is a difference.
Why do I doubt my own identification? Because this short-lived shouting match reveals a serious problem in the "reformed" perspective. This is not a battle between opposites; this is an argument between evil half-brothers. This is Jekyll and Hyde. This is the part of the tradition people don't like to talk about but keeps rearing its ugly little head and using our own tools against us.
My point is that doctrines of Sola Scriptura and the appeal to historical Christianity is not enough, because Scripture needs to be appealed to well, and history must be understood properly. Thus, inherent in these beliefs is an outside standard that legitimates them. The foundational doctrines are simply that: foundations, not structures. And, obviously, people can build very, very different structures based on the same foundation.
I'm not saying the Bible isn't the Word of God, or if it is we can't access it with any degree of certainty (far from it -- I'll address this later). But I am returning again and again to this very basic question: what is Christianity? I've lived much of my life assuming I understood what that question was -- but is that assumption justified? And does my assumption result in taking me far away from the reality of the situation?
I am not a theologian, and I acknowledge the fact that I may be wrong in all of this. But this online debacle has pushed me further in the direction I have already been moving toward: that Christianity is about my relationship to God which which determines my love for my neighbor. That Christianity is about loving God with all your heart soul mind and strength and loving your neighbor as yourself. And not about Christian Politics, Christian Education, Christian Systematic Theology, Christian Psychology, Christian Confederates, Christian Denominations, or anything else you'd want to add. (Footnote: I can already hear the objection that the list I just offered is the logical outworking of loving your neighbor. In theory: maybe. In practice, from my own experience: rarely. I'm not saying these are completely illegitimate; I am saying they do not answer the question "what is Christianity?")
This is what the Bible is about. The Book is not primarily there for you to systematize, hack up, and use to lobby for your positions. The Book is there to change you, because it is the sign of He who is Infinitely and Wholly Other, who sees without being seen, and who is so defined by love that He died so that you can know him. So I'm not against the Bible, nor am I completely opposed to theologies, systematic or otherwise. I'm simply saying that our emphases and methods have molded it into our own image, and that image can be pretty ugly.
Any more, that is the way I see Christianity. And I don't think I am breaking from the tradition. Because what was the "reformation" but an attempt to bring people back to a relationship with God? The battle over doctrine was simply a means to getting to that point. Lately, I'm seeing St. John of the Cross and certain traditions of negative theology as far more valuable, for myself, than St. Thomas Aquinas and Abraham Kuyper.
I'm not sure how coherent this is. I'd like to hear what other people have to say.
You have said a lot of the things I have been thinking about lately regarding this whole issue, I haven't posted anything because I wasn't sure what I wanted to say but I have been thinking about this a lot. I think that a lot of what happened on Josiah's website in the comments was fairly equivalent to the attacks that were made originally on New City and the Huffines. I think that this guy is totally wrong but I also think that insulting him is not going to make him think any differently than he does right now. Only God can change his heart. I think that the tendency in the reformed faith is to rely on logic and arguments to prove a point, when "proving a point" is certainly not a justified reason for causing a break in the church. Whether or not this guy is a Christian is only something God can know. Some of the stuff he says on his web site makes me sick to my stomach and I don't know what the appropriate response is. This post though, felt like a breath of fresh air, just reminding me of the love of God and the love we are supposed to have for each other. Thanks!
Posted by: jlg at May 11, 2005 05:03 PMThanks for your comments, JL. I guess one of the things behind this post is my ongoing internal dialogue over the role of propositional discourse in a personal and historical faith. By no means do I want to completely separate the two, but by no means do I think that they are one and the same. An added problem seems to stem from bringing that into public space, that is, in the realm of public discourse and /or politics. Of course, that was not the debate, but there are clearly relevant connections.
So how are you guys?
Paul, are you familiar with Hayao Miyazaki's movies? If so, and you like'em, you should catch his newest one on the big screen at the Seattle Film Festival:
http://www.seattlefilm.org/festival/film/detail.aspx?id=13063&FID=5
Color me green.
Posted by: gosey at May 13, 2005 03:47 PMnuts forget it, it's sold out. too bad.
Posted by: gosey at May 13, 2005 03:50 PMCareful Paul, Gosey will sell YOU out. You should probably stop talking to him, he'll try to exploit your feelings and turn your outer self against your inner self. before you know it you'll be sitting in a corner chewing on your knees and screaming, "gosey loves me" and "gosey hates me" at the same time. You should try that some time, saying both at the SAME time is kind of hard, which is why you should stop talking to Gosey, he'll make you go crazy. my corner is warm. I lhoavtee gosey. ouch.
Posted by: Timmy at May 13, 2005 10:49 PMDo I have to separate you two?
I am totally stoked about the SIFF. Of course, I don't know how many movies I'll be able to catch. I'm waiting for Sin City to come to the $3 theater. And then there's Episode 3. . .
Posted by: paul at May 16, 2005 10:53 AMPaul,
After skimming the discussion I quickly surmised that this person was the "fool" that we should not answer in his folly. The pictures alone of the New City families so stirred my heart with joy that they were enough for any compassionate and godly person to see this man is a fool.
I also have been doing some hard meditaion on What is the life of godliness. What does it mean to walk with God. Although that immediately takes one into realms of systematics (How can a sinful person like me have a relationship with a pure and holy God? etc.). It does seem more and more clear to me that doctrine and doctrinal issues are to draw us near to the Person. That knowing God is more a result of faith, prayer, contemplation, loving service and sacrifice, trials, more faith, prayer...and all while the Holy Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are the children of God (oops, slipped into systematics...but how glorious!!)
Don't let these crazies define for you or diminish for you the valuble contribution and great spirituallity the reformation has brought to us. It isn't the only stream...orthodoxy, the early fathers, the desert fathers, the anabaptists, moravians, waldensians, bernard, augustine are others as well...but it is a deep, refreshing, healthy stream (especially at the fountainhead where the native trout thrive!!!).
You remember the little (and may I add insignificant) backwater pockets we would run into on beautiful, clear trout streams. Little pockets of stagnent, dirty, foul smelling water. That is what this web person remeinds me of. For such people I try to do what I do fishing. Move on, forget about it and look to the next beautiful waterfall and riffle and take in the whole scene and glorify God. His web page made me want to experience New City!!!
Love,
Dad
Posted by: Dad at May 19, 2005 08:15 AMDad,
Actually, you are saying what I am getting at (and quite beautifully, I may add.) I intentionally took a more extreme position in this post to try and come to terms with the issue.
What is at stake, it seems to me, is the replacing of a relationship with an epistemology (namely, reformed systematic theologies.) As a would-be philosopher, I take epistemological positions very seriously and thus demand a lot out of them. Consequently, this debate seemed very telling because beneath the differences there was the same interpretive framework, the same systematic, reformed, historical tradition. (Again, I'm looking at the underlying moves, not the expressions).
All of this revealed, to me, the fact that "foundations" are only as good as the structure you place upon them. In this case, it would be the life that we live here on earth before God and others. The foundation is a place to start, but it is not the final product, it is not the destiny. I think certain elements of the reformed tradition never build a house, or at least they build one that you can't live in. Little Geneva is a perfect example of this.
Of course, I run the risk of making an equally unlivable structure. Which is why I loved your post: (to shift the metaphor) a river is not water, not temperature, not rocks, not trees, not trout, mink, or mayflies, its definitely not me standing enjoying it. Instead, its all of those things at once and together they are even more amazing than on there own. So I'm not trying to eliminate systematics or theology or hard thinking. I'm just trying to find a place to live in, a river to celebrate. And I know you are too.
I've been doing my best to actively NOT learn anything from the trainwreck that occured on my blog a couple weeks back. People seemed to be either attempting to learn something/grow/gain perspective (your blog post) or to remain vehemently and belligerently angry at the other side without gaining a bit of perspective.
Me, I'm gonna apathetically not learn anything without being emotionally vested. I think that's the American thing to do. My favorite part was the guy who figured out how to make those little KKK cartoons. That was funny.
Posted by: JosiahQ at May 22, 2005 01:52 PMActually, I'm not learning anything I didn't already expect/hadn't already thoght about. The whole thing was just a great, maginficent manifestation of that stuff. And the KKK hats were pretty good. . .
Posted by: paul at May 22, 2005 02:05 PMI want the KKK hat guy to get a blog where he does nothing but give commentary in hat form about stuff going on. Like, he gives the news on the Michael Jackson trial or something like that. Would be very funny.
Posted by: JosiahQ at May 27, 2005 09:38 PM