Relative Objectivity?
It seems to be a common phenomena that two people can agree on the Bible as the supreme source of truth and yet come to opposite conclusions on a wide variety of issues. Some examples are:
- Age of the earth/Genesis flood
- Modern application of the Old Testament laws
- Moral issues such as alcohol, abortion, gambling, dancing
- The correct content for a Gospel presentation
- Role of women in the Church
- Speaking in tongues
- Style and content of corporate worship
- Method of observing Christian "Holidays"
- Mode of baptism
- End times events and timing
- The ultimate hope of the Christian
- And much, much more...
In response, the counsel I hear most often from respected Leaders is:
In Christianity, there are essential and non-essential beliefs. In the spirit of unity, we should not divide over non-essentials.
So the essentials are undeniable, right? Well, most mainstream Christian Churches express generally similar beliefs about the Trinity, Resurrection, Bible, and Eternity, but even here there is some variation (Grace, BBC, Saddleback) and a lot of subjects are not addressed.
But assuming that the essentials are basically similar, the net effect is that almost all of Christian faith and practice is defined by the individual. This isn't quite relativism (because Christians generally that truth is objective), but for all practical purposes, it is very wishy-washy. At the end of the day, it seems that everyone is pretty much on their own.
There have been selected times in the past when believers were more unified, but perhaps, this is the way things are meant to be at this time. Each person is accountable to God for their actions. Yet, the chaos seems to be somewhat unsatisfying.
I hope my analysis is way off and one of you wise guys can help.
posted by Vijay Swamidass | 11:16 PM
7 Comments:
One source of the frustration you are expressing...which I feel as well...is the absence of any authority. Who is to say who is right about any of these things? I think what we are looking at is a negative effect of the Reformation.
Gar,
Perhaps I should clarify: By "negative effect" I didnt mean "a desired and intended negative effect caused by direct action of the REformers." All I meant was "The undermining of ecclesiastical authority was a negative consequence perhaps unintended by the Reformers but none the less a product of the tumultuous political and religious event called the Reformation."
Is that better?
Steve,
Is it the "absence of any authority" that is frustrating or the absence of a voice that is rightly understanding and articulating that authority to the Church?
I guess my point is that there is an authority present, one that we should struggle to understand and know. In our fallenness, however, good people come to different conclusions regarding meaning and interpretation. While this does not justify or excuse error it does offer some explanation for its prevalence. The struggle for me then, Vijay, is not so much in the existing divergence of opinion, but in the "bitter animosity and suspicion" of which you speak.
"If I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." 1 Corinthians 13:2
Jeff,
I agree. The manner in which we deal with people of divergent opinions is indeed paramount. We are supposed to be distinquishible as Christ-followers by our love.
What is frustrating is not that people disagree...or that I want to be right...it's that some people get to the point where they dont seem to care. We disagree...so what. Well, if its over something like abortion then the party that is mistake is REALLY mistaken.
It is becoming increasingly hard to find a place for the gracious hammering out of ideas between people who disagree but love and respect each other.
Love ya, Steve
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Lack of visible authority, resolution, final court of arbitration - however you put it, that is my frustration. Of course, any earthly authority can be in error, even that is not a guaranteed solution.
So, yes, perhaps as Steve says, the problem is that there isn't a forum for the time when "good people come to different conclusions." It seems the early Church remained unified by addressing issues in councils.
Nowdays, when there is a disagreement about a certain topic, it seems there are two choices:
1. Ignore the issue and remain in fellowship
2. Part company and go to another church
I think people choose these options in equally great numbers, and this has resulted in a divided Church with mixed responses to important questions.
Vijay,
Why are those the only options? Where is #3: Remain in fellowship with someone you disagree with not ignoring the issue but rather using the difference you have as a way of either confirming or modifying what you belief based upon new information. Minimally, using it as an opportunity to demonstrate charity.
Most people flock towards group that are indentical with themselves. Very few people, anymore, have significant friendships with people who disagree with them profoundly. We have lost or are losing the ability to argue charitably. We expect people either to agree with us or to go away.
Steve,
Yes, you are right. I am certainly in favor of having more charitable discussion (i.e. this blog).
I believe that I was pointing out what actually happens in many cases (the problem), not what should happen as you pointed out (solution). So, I think we agree on the problem, and now we can move into talking about some solutions.
Post a Comment
<< Home