Sunday
Jan232005
When not to defend
Sunday, January 23, 2005 at 7:40AM
It's hard not to defend something that is admittedly flawed at points when you see it misrepresented. There's a time that it's important to speak up, but there's also a time to keep quiet. Maggi Dawn writes:
I think too much energy is wasted defending the emerging church conversation. I'm amazed that there are people who seem to think they need to defend it against ME - and I'm a sympatheitc supporter of it, although I dare now and again to write about its weaknesses as well as its strengths. THere is too much oversensitivity. If Carla doesn't understand it, that's her business. Respect to her for having a go, at least. It also may be that her perception of emerging is instructive, as it might show us how a lot of people actually perceive us (e.g. many people can't spot the difference between Emerging church and Purpose Driven. We might know there is a difference, but it remains a fact that thousands of people, including many who call themselves "emerging" or "emergent" don't get it.) I think just keep on doing what you're doing. What's good will grow. All the debate and misunderstanding will fall away.Like everything, it's hard to keep this in tension. In the end, it's not about the emerging church anyway. It's about all of us learning what it takes to be faithful in our own context. That's what's important.
Reader Comments (19)
Good points, Darryl. When it brings everybody back home and helps reinvigorate the Catholic church in the process, now then, we shall truly have something!
Broken link to Maggi's blog on the second link. Please fix because I'm interested.
That's the right link. Strange - it was working this morning.
I see the following link: http://willzhead.typepad.com/willzhead/2005/01/what_the.html" rel="nofollow">http://willzhead.typepad.com/willzhead/2005/01/what_the.html This leads to a 404 page: Not Found The requested URL /willzhead/2005/01/what_the.html was not found on this server. Too bad. I'm really interested in what Maggi had to say in total.
The Catholic church doesn't need invigorated, it needs gospel conversion.
Trish, I suppose this could be said of every denomination!
Darryl, some more than others. Wouldn't you agree?
Absolutely, Jacob.
Good point Trish, the house needs repair, please come home and help fix.
The house does not need repair; a brand new house needs to be built. Or to strip away the metaphor, unfortunately the Roman Catholic gospel is "another gospel" or heterodoxy. I suppose you could talk about repairing it but why fix a pseudo-gospel when you can discover the real thing. Just to add a disclaimer I'm not prejudice against Roman Catholics, whom I love, just against false doctrine that leads to hell.
Hi Trish. Got some questions for you. Has, in your opinion, a "sola scriptura" approach to faith helped reconcile or further fragmented Christian peoples? What does scripture say with regards to houses devided? What do you think was the essence of the disagreement between Jesus and the religeous leadership of his time? And finally has it occured to you or anyone else out there that the whole E-church movement is really about young disillusioned Protestants trying to become Catholic! Sorry that wasn't a question. As for me I'm busy. Packing for hell is arduously surreal..."What not to wear, what not to wear!..." If you love me, send ice.
Paul: I'm not completely sure that the whole e-church are just a bunch of frustrated protestants who want to be Catholic! Not my read anyway. Trish: Are you trying to say that there were no Christians until Martin Luther came by in the 1500s? Or maybe you think the Orthodox were okay?
Geeesh, Paul, please don
Trish, I'm afraid you still haven't presented a case for why the R.C. gospel is heterodoxy. Please build your case.
Darryl I wasn't under an impression that making a case for the heterodoxy of the R.C. church was ever asked for? But I will oblige. The Christian gospel teaches that humans are justified before a holy God entirely on the basis of grace alone not on grace plus human merit (Ro. 3:23-24; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:7). The Catholic church preaches another gospel by adding additional requirements for salvation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that in addition to faith, Catholics must fulfill all the requirements of the Church, including: water baptism, receiving the sacraments, attendance at Mass, church membership and indulgences (para. 1256, 1129, 1405, 846, 1498). For example canon #849 of the Code of Canon Law used by every Priest says, "Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments, is necessary for salvation, either by actual reception or at least by desire. By it people are freed from sins, are born again as children of God and, made like to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church." There is a careful time to use the word heresy and this is one of those times. I find it impossible that you a Protestant would think any differently, therefore it is curious if not conspicuous that you'd take the posture of questioning orthodoxy rather than heresy when both are presented in this blog. If your highest virtue is evenhandedness why not question both/and? Yes, the stakes are compatible with being repectful but much too high to remain silent.
Trish: You're probably aware that this is a pretty hot topic, with many evangelicals and Catholics looking for common ground, as well as acknowledging differences. For instance, you have the document "Evangelicals & Catholics Together". You may want to check it out here: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9405/articles/mission.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9405/articles/mission.html It's had mixed reaction. I'm not completely up to date in my understanding of all the theological issues involved. Specifically, I'm not up to date in my understanding of Catholic theology. I'm more up to date on Protestant representations of Catholic theology, but I've discovered that these aren't always accurate. That is why I ask. For instance, on the baptism issue: the position you described as heresy sounds somewhat similar to 1 Peter 3:21: "this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also
Darrly: I totally see that I doubt if I would convince you that I am not misrepresenting the R.C. position on the teaching of salvation. Why do you think the R.C.s in the ECT debate refused to adopt the little word "alone." Also I didn't mean questioning orthodoxy as in rejecting the faith or something, I meant questioning it, as I said, in contrast to not questioning heresy, that is, your enquiry was towards orthodoxy but as for heresy the silence was deafening. I would think that a Pastor should defend the faith as well as teach it. This issue of the basis of salvation is not peripheral. It is at the heart of the purpose of the atonement. There is a time for speaking the truth in love.
Don't worry, Trish. If someone called you a heretic I would defend you too. That is a very weighty term and you'd better be able to defend it if you use it. From what I am reading, I simply don't know enough about Catholic theology to know where they differ. Once again, I know what Protestants say. Take a look at a page like this: http://biblia.com/religions/similarities.htm" rel="nofollow">http://biblia.com/religions/similarities.htm and you discover that maybe there is some common ground. Once again, I don't know. I'm not arguing one way or the other; I would need to study a lot more to understand contemporary Catholic theology. Rule one in criticizing someone else is to make sure you understand their position as accurately as possible.
Wow. I've been sick, some kind of virus. Trish please take the pins out of that little Catholic dolls throat... I am so kidding :) Please accept my apologies to both you, Trish and you Darryl regarding my last post on this thread. While my questions were sincere and I truly believe that so much of the righteous earnestness I encounter on line would find itself a home in the Catholic faith, I never meant to reflect that I was insulted or upset or worse still, be irreverent. I thought your response was kind of funny Trish, it made me laugh in any case. My reply was a spontaineous mix of sincerity and sarcasm, not a good mix at the best of times and certainly not when discussing matters of faith. Please accept my apology. As for the ensuing debate, Wow again. Trish, you have certainly answered my questions. I posed them because I have always found the "sola scriptura" faith perspective to be pharasitical in substance and likely to engage great minds in persuits that create a more intellectual and legalistic relationship with God, and one another. I worry that such an approach, rather than bringing us closer to God's intended expressions for our lives, actually moves us further away. I think it is better to try to feel God with your heart, than know God with your head. I don't intend to demean scriptural study or analysis when I say that, Trish. It matters, but I honestly think how I praise, pray and live a loving life matter more. Faith doesn't know, it doesn't analyze the details over milennia and offer the latest conclusion. Faith is not the by-product of reason or logic, it is the consequence of love. It is as you say, what justifies us. May his peace be with us always