Why debate over doctrinal issues?
Again, in talking to people I have found Roman Catholics the topic of disdainful intrigue. Why is it that Christians bicker and argue about who is 'right'? Granted, this is a loaded word, perhaps a precursor to a normative clause, though the arguments are real. Is it so that some can convince others of the truth? Is it so that some can find meaning in life...? Is it so that some might find simplicity in a seemingly complicated world worthy of defense? Is it all of these mentioned? Is it because there is something inexplicable tugging at their hearts that moves them to publicly proclaim their 'rightness' rather than keeping it secret from the rest of the world? What is this revelation to humanity? When is it revelation? When is it false revelation? Can their be different interpretations of biblical passages, both being right? In such cases, who is right? Does it matter who is right? Does what is right constitute a universal to all?
My point is that the arguments are endless among varying Christian sects, condemnation is apparent (in my experience), and segregation is implied (in some circumstances). Everyone wants to be right...everyone is seeking truth in different ways...even other religions...
Who is right...we all are...and we all are not -- it's the core truth that matters, not the variations. Though the variations of truth are what complicate life. However, the variations present truth in a different light, which may inadvertantly illumine more as to what the core truth is, thus contributing to human *Christian) understanding of truth. Or perhaps the core truth is in much of what humanity does. It is the varying presentations of that truth that illumines us and reveals much to us. ?
My point is that the arguments are endless among varying Christian sects, condemnation is apparent (in my experience), and segregation is implied (in some circumstances). Everyone wants to be right...everyone is seeking truth in different ways...even other religions...
Who is right...we all are...and we all are not -- it's the core truth that matters, not the variations. Though the variations of truth are what complicate life. However, the variations present truth in a different light, which may inadvertantly illumine more as to what the core truth is, thus contributing to human *Christian) understanding of truth. Or perhaps the core truth is in much of what humanity does. It is the varying presentations of that truth that illumines us and reveals much to us. ?
posted by Timcom at 4:55 PM
6 Comments:
The last paragraph is more to my liking; a positive aspect to different doctrines making up one body of the church. From my understanding, and from a historical perspective, different doctrines have been responsible for the preservation of Christianity. The introduction of new doctrines never once broke up the church or fragmented it. Even when there were three Popes, endless Councils were held to keep the church united.
Gotta go, finish my response later.
OK...where was I...ahh....historical context....
Even Augustine's soul (pun intended) purpose, among his struggle with the Donatists, was to keep the church united. Most traditions today believe in one body of Christ: one Church. Yes, granted the Church has always argued and bickered over doctrines even political power, but all in all, differences strengthened and preserved the Church.
All the doctrines are wrong anyway. Shoot, God himself may be an omnipotent mouse who sits back and eats cheese laughing at this ant farm he calls humanity. Obviously, if we believe in Jesus and that we have a continual relationship through the Holy Spirit, this exact point is refuted, but the point I am trying to make is that we cannot put God into a little box (i.e. a single doctrine) that is completely explainable. Doctrinal differences are humanistic creations, but they all point to the same thing in the end.
There are elements of the Catholic church that I really like, and I feel like the Spirit speaks to me in many of those elements. John Wesley's ideas of the authority of the church are very interesting all though his theology seems to spread God a little thin giving humanity too much credit and control. Calvin does the opposite and takes the pesmistic 'Total Depravity' approach which has been revised over time by the Reformed tradition. Many African American churches tend to focus more on the Holy Spirit living among us idea which many other denominations tend to push to the back burner. None of these approaches can be proven right or wrong, but each can learn something about God from the other.
Instinctively, we as human beings have a desire to explain everything; to narrow things down to our level of comprehension. How did we become so arrogant in the first place, thinking that our capacity to learn is infinite. All scientific 'facts' are really nothing but observations and probabilities; they are best guesses. It should be called the theory of gravity; the theory of science. Science should be an off shoot of philosophy because of its limited boundaries. I know, you're asking why the heck am I talking about science. Well, in science, we observe, categorize, make guesses. Well, we do the same thing in religion with our doctrines. In my opinion, the reason you see the same trend, is that it is something bigger than ourselves. I talked in a previous response about humanity be created Imago Dei. I see our wanting to categorize and defrentiate because this act is something we were given; a gift rooted in the essence of God's creation. In that respect I see doctrines as a good thing overall; because they show God's people using God's gift to worship Him.
This topic was interesting. I will have to think more on it to fully respond, but it aroused some interesting ideas. I tried not to be biased in one doctrine over another, but God knows I am. I think I will respond on my blog with a Reformed answer to the question, (other than what I have already mentioned), because I am more familiar with that tradition.
I suppose, after rereading my own blog that I was struggling with the ideas of truth and Truth. The Truth being the transcendent (let's say unlimited possibilities)...and the truth being the limited emodiment of unlimited possibilities yielding various manifestations of Truth given a certain context. Thus culture, history, science, etc all have an impact on how we discern Truth in terms of truth. What I am interested in are the constants throughout these cultural, paradigmatic changes that tell us something about human nature, about the Truth.
Imago Dei is a theological motif I still wrestle with, and will continue to for a long time to come...
I would agree to an extent that differences in the Church have strengthened it over time, but those differences under the umbrella of various key historical Christian tenets. However, I do not see theology as building off of former theology...I see a continuing interpretation and reinterpretation of the classic (Scripture) given the certain historical context in which it is being read.
Further, in agreement with you, doctrines show the utilization of divinely given gifts, however this has been a sticky issue for me more recently. Much of what I have seen among seminary students are students not seeking pastoral positions, but rather seeking doctoral program in hopes teaching positions at prestigious universities and seminaries. This in itself is not a bad thing, but what happens when doctrine becomes purely theoretical and lacks praxis? Theology without application is dead, of course. And much Christian discourse takes place purely in theory. This is of course no different than the danger of any other discipline proceeding in that direction, but it is a danger many of us get caught up in.
Interdisciplinary dialogue, I agree with you again, is a very significant way for gaining insight. But how do we cross interdisciplinary lines? As you have already said all disciplines "observe, categorize, make guesses"...but Christian theologians cannot escape the absolute authority that is the foundation of their religion. A more encompassing definition of rationality or rather a view of "relative adequacy" can accommodate this interdisciplinary dialogue though where do Christians, scientists, Buddhists, lawyers begin?
There is something indeed bigger than ourselves, but what is that something? This again sparks my interest at the constants within the evolving paradigms that humans create and destroy. This is why sociology of religion really fascinates me. Prey into Hunter by Maurice Bloch and Religion and Society by Nabokov are great reads, especially Bloch. In his observations he has noted a core in rituals from all of the world that remains constant despite the details surrounding it.
Forgive the obscurity of this response, again my mind is a little jumpy...I'll try to write more later...
First I see the distinction your making between truth and Truth. I would say truth is human (from us to God) and Truth is divine (from God to us). Thus making Truth an impossibility to humanity. From a philisophical side we can argue what Truth is until we are blue in the face, but come to no end.
Even theologically it is a difficult idea, but as Christians, we find Truth in our faith. I really hate talking like this sometimes because it comes across as preachy (which isn't always a bad thing), but in this case I want to make a good point. Obviously I won't chnage minds, but everyone's opinion matters.
A good friend of mine would argue that Truth can be any attribute that we perceive true of God. i.e. love, compassion, mercy, etc.
I would also argue that human nature does not contain a worldly Truth other than limited existence on Earth. Historically we do see the same pattern of rising and falling super powers. Biblically we see the same pattern; Israel does something bad, then God spanks his baby of Israel, and then they repent and all is made new. You could say that is human nature, but not the Truth.
Second, I see tradition as theology evolving over time, a resource from great minds that came before us. Yes, reinterpretation is a part of that process, but we build from what we have already learned and tested.
I do, however, agree that in many denominations, your theory of "...reinterpretation of the classic (Scripture) given the certain historical context in which it is being read..." sheds some accurac, but I do not particularly agree with the churches theology. The idea and the theology of the Trinity is not Biblically based, but rather was historically 'built up' by early Christians. Though this is the major distinction between the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Western churches, it is still accepted. I do think that we go back and interpret the "classic Scripture" but through 2,000 years of evolving theology as its base. The church will not go back and refute the idea of the Trinity, but they may revise it.
Imago Dei is a difficult concept and I admit it is hard to except when we continually screw up.
"but Christian theologians cannot escape the absolute authority that is the foundation of their religion..." I agree with this. The whole idea behind theology; its base is God. Because of that, everything a theologian says can be refuted by a Scientist who's base is 'facts.' And vice versa with any other discipline.
Your fourth paragraph is absolutely 'true'. Hehehehe. Well, I agree with it anyway. I am seeing that more and more as I meet with students and faculty. It's 'Theory and Praxis' without the praxis. People make assumptions based purely on books, with no experience in the field (slightly unrelated, but it gives me white hairs).
I've gotta sleep. Paper due tomorrow. I'll write more later.
Everyone's opinion does matter -- a plurality of individual theologies is not such a bad thing. And I would have to agree with your first segment of your response.
Truth is something that is historically sought after, though again I agree that it is something that is unattainable because of our limited existence.
I suppose under the umbrella of Christian 'tenets' as something that will never change within the Christian Church...yes, the doctrine of the trinity will be revised, etc...though I think the creeds do a great job at summarizing, concisely these tenets (though ambiguously as well). Christians, I would argue start from those tenets, from the faith professed in the creed. It is not enough to read what Augustine or Aquinas have to say, though I think their theology can be quite helpful in current interpretation as guides, as examples...historically our situation is different though...how are we to interpret these theologians? What does God have to say in the situations that are not explicitly in the Scripture text? We may build upon their theology at times and stray from it at others...
By reinterpretation of the classic, that is something that is continually being done by given archaeological evidence? What could the conquest of Canaan really have looked like given the evidence for instance? The theological motifs tend to remain though the way in which we view those motifs changes. I am not saying that the certain theological claims to God are irrelevant for today and that we completely abolish what others said, but that we should see how Scripture speaks to us.
Finish later...have class...
There is definitely a danger in individualistically running with any interpretation of Scripture as 'the truth' or 'authoritative' but in conversation the insight can be insightful within a larger community of theologians seeking to make sense of Scripture today. For instance, the Canaanites in the Old Testament get such a bad wrap, being expelled from their own land and becoming the antagonist in the narrative of Israel. The deliverance story in Exodus is lifted by many around the world when the God of liberation later becomes the God of conquest (to use Robert Allen Warrior's terms) in Joshua and Judges. Walter Benjamin (a Jewish Holocaust victim) says "There is no document of civilzation which is not at the same time a document of barbarism." Reading Scripture purely as narrative is problematic then for Native Americans who identify with the Canaanites. If a Christian is to act on the basis of the text then that person has a responsibility for past, present, and future violence.
The text doesn't change, but our interpretations of that text change within the parameters as outlined in the creeds.
I would agree that scientists do look for facts, but along the same lines, scientists, just as theologians begin any inquiry with the experiences and enculturated values that ultimately affect that inquiry...and thus shouldn't we first look at scientist or theologian before proceeding into inquiry? There is an imaginative spark that is often overlooked in the blind acceptance of a logical positivistic science; not to mention the values that we take with us. In this sense, theologians, scientists, etc have some common ground in which to speak on. I suppose you could see science as falling back on the authority of (using the loaded term) objectivity in a logical positist sense, or perhaps falling back on the authority of theory for that matter. With this more broadly defined reality and rationality where can one really draw the boundary lines between disciplines?
Following Kuhn's model of paradigms, it is valid to see theology as an evolution over time in which violent paradigm shifts do take place...
In building on theology, are we getting closer to truth? Is it a parabolic sense that we will get closer and closer to realizing what truth is, but never quite reach it? Or is it that we will explore different facets of that truth from different angles? Perhaps the evolution you are talking about is the truth gathered from different angles at different times to form a more comprehensive and dynamic picture of how we cope with our situation? By truth I am connotating a term 'in-line with God.'
Is this view of evolution one incorporating a sense of falsification?
Ironic situation: cyclical historical pattern on a linear track
Post a Comment
<< Home