I participated in some of the comments in the original thread, but I wanted to follow up with a thought or two.
Francis Beckwith, whose "journey" was recounted in the book, seemed straightaway to hijack the comments, complaining that "I don’t think it’s right to refer to the primary chapters as “defenses", as Justin Taylor had done in his introduction. Beckwith went on to say,
There is an overuse in the Evangelical world of the language of military combat and adversarial jurisprudence to describe every theological disagreement. So, we don’t “dialogue over the nature of biblical inspiration.” We “battle for the Bible.” We don’t present reasons why we believe the way we do. We offer “evidence that demands a verdict.” We don’t engage contrary religious traditions. We rebut “the Kingdom of the Cults.” Enough already.But several of the commenters noted that such language was Biblical, and if anything is worth being adversarial over, it is the true nature of "the one true faith".
I would say further, this whole concept of "Journeys of faith" is a questionable concept. While I have a great deal of respect for "those who traveled from Christian tradition to another" -- the assumption being that these are individuals who want to follow Christ more closely -- we certainly have to admit that, given the "theological disagreements" of the last 500, or 1000 years, that someone is -- many someones are -- clearly taking their "journeys of faith" in the wrong direction. It is very wrong-headed to attribute some sort of moral equivalence to these journeys. There are clearly moral and theological differences. One would hope at some point that these actual differences would be discussed, thoroughly and honestly.
What is always lacking in these "ecumenical" discussions is that the recently-found Roman concept of "separated brethren" is really a combination of the concept that Protestants are "invincible" in their "ignorance" (hardly a concept upon which to build "brotherhood") along with a wholesale adoption by Rome of 19th century liberal concepts. Neither of these is acceptable to evangelicals, nor should they be. But the smiley-face pasted on these dual concepts gives Rome the opportunity to appear to be magnanimous, offering an ersatz "fullness" which some of the other branches of Christianity purportedly don't have. Thus, Rome insults Protestants, and they frequently don't even realize the doctrinal condescension and the rot that lies behind the smiles.
All along, genuine historical scholarship that I'm reading is showing two things. It is (a) shoring up historical justification for Jesus, and (b) clearly exposing the sham of any historical "justification" behind the papacy, which is the heart and soul of the Roman system. Hence, in recent years, Rome has retreated behind behind the imagery of a "Petrine" ministry, in which Peter has some vaguely defined "headship" among the "college" of Apostles (and not the "primacy of jurisdiction" pronounced in a more cocksure era of Vatican I).
Rather than "explore" "personal journeys", it is a far better thing to spend our time re-examining Christian history as it was lived and breathed in generation after generation. We would see that every branch of Christianity has its problems, but no one has done more violence to Christianity than has Roman Catholicism.
Much better in my opinion to give up the fuzzy, back-stabbing ecumenism and really analyze what divides us in honest terms, using honest exegesis from Scripture, and honest historical investigation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn Bugay,
ReplyDeleteHa ha! I got the two terms mixed up. Here's my corrected question:
I am not disagreeing with the main point of your article, which seems like a good point to me, but I'm puzzled as to why you think the concept of "invincible ignorance" (well, I guess it sorta sounds insulting but I don't think it is intended to be) is "hardly a concept upon which to build 'brotherhood'"
Maybe I'm missing something, but:
Aren't ignorance and knowledge dichotomous? It seems to me that they must be. You either know a truth or you are ignorant of it and you cannot both know and be ignorant of a truth at the same time.
If two parties (say, pedobaptists and credobaptists) disagree about about a theological proposition, must it not be true that at most one of the parties has knowledge of the truth and at least one party is ignorant of the truth? It seems to me that that must be the case.
Doesn't vincible ignorance meaning sinful ignorance, ignorance in bad faith, and invincible ignorance mean ignorance in good faith? I thought that was more or less what the terms meant but perhaps I was mistaken.
If I'm right about what "vincible" and "invincible" ignorance are supposed to mean, does it not necessarily follow that invincible ignorance is the ONLY polite, non-insulting basis upon which there can be brotherhood between Christians who disagree? If said the person you disagreed with had vincible ignorance, bad-faith ignorance, that would be insulting. Right? If you thought he was not ignorant, that he was correct, it would mean you agreed with him after all, that you did not disagree with his postion. Right?
Of course the primary central "basis of brotherhood" for Christians who differ can be something other than knowledge or ignorance (focus should be on Christ and He should be the basis for Christian brotherhood it seems to me), but **specifically in regards to the things they disagree about**, invincible ignorance and tolerance of those differences, "I think you are wrong about those points but they are non-essentials and we can agree to disagree," logically have to be the bases for brotherhood, if there is to be brotherhood. No?
Really, rather than objecting to the logically unassailable (as far as I can tell, but I'm anxious to be corrected if I'm wrong) distinctions between vincible and invincible ignorance and between ignorance and knowledge, doesn't it make more sense just to get right to the point and deal with the question as to whether the questions of doctrine concerning which some of the people at least must certainly ignorant are to be considered essentials or not?
"Thus, Rome insults Protestants, and they frequently don't even realize the doctrinal condescension and the rot that lies behind the smiles."
ReplyDeleteSounds like the recent stink on our national radio- CBC.
Of Jews complaining of being insulted by the baptizing of their dead by Mormons.
Mormons are well aware of "the condescension and rot" behind their baptizing of Jews... they just choose to ignore it.
BTW, anyone else here not liking this new comment format?
"It is very wrong-headed to attribute some sort of moral equivalence to these journeys."
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you said this. And I quite agree.
I'm always quite pleased when someone leaves the RCC or Eastern Orthodox Church or a liberal Protestant church for a Reform faith or a conservative evangelical faith.
In contrast, I'm mildly displeased with journeys away from a Reform faith or a conservative evangelical faith.
P.S. I'm also not happy with the current "blogger" format.
Steelikat, it's not like I'm looking for ways to find some "basis for Christian brotherhood" with Roman Catholicism. It does seem to me that if "ignorance" is "invincible", that would be an impediment. But my purpose isn't to quibble over language. My purpose is to show the insulting nature of Roman Catholic overtures -- the insult coming in the form of, "you don't know what you're missing".
ReplyDeleteThe reality is, Roman Catholics don't know the idols that they've bought into (ignorantly or not), and the real "basis for Christian brotherhood" with Roman Catholics is that they repent from those uniquely Roman dogmas and accept the gospel for what it is, not with all the Roman "conditions" placed on it.
Hi Truth -- I do wish that they would re-incorporate the old "subscribe" button. Maybe that's in the works. I haven't kept up with Blogger's changes.
ReplyDelete"it's not like I'm looking for ways to find some "basis for Christian brotherhood" with Roman Catholicism."
ReplyDeleteYes, I know; but you did bring up invincible ignorance "hardly being a basis for brotherhood." It strikes me that it necessarily is one of the necessary bases for Christian brotherhood when there is disagreement but a desire for brotherhood. I just wonder if you're overreacting either to the word "invincible" or the word "ignorance," neither of which logically denote or should connote an insult.
"and the real "basis for Christian brotherhood" with Roman Catholics is that they repent from those uniquely Roman dogmas and accept the gospel for what it is, not with all the Roman "conditions" placed on it."
Yes, and that's the way to put it, I think, rather than talking about "ignorance." If two people disagree at least one of them logically MUST be ignorant. To deny that is to deny the principle of non-contradiction, to deny the validity of logic itself. And whenever someone is ignorant we should hope their ignorance is good faith ignorance rather than bad faith ignorance.
I realized as a teenager that I am an ignoramus and always will be an ignoramus this side of the grave. I vividly remember the moment I came to that realization. We are all ignorant of many good things. We need not take that personally or be distressed about it.