A Problem With the Below
While pondering the import of the post below, I came to a thought-problem. As is relatively plain, I propounded a quasi-existential way of sorting out weltanschauungen: essentially, man as homo interpretans makes a series of choices in reaction to, on one level, the entire world; on a deeper level, to the Bible and its interpretive community. He was described as being in submission to this text and community.
Fine, but what struck me was the sudden stab of fear that I had perhaps just sired a brainchild that would, parricide-wise, destroy me upon maturation. After all, this system makes everything depend finally upon the individual, does it not? And is not individualism run rampant the salient characteristic of two of my less favourite establishments, namely, democracy and fundamentalist Baptistry? Sure are. Loath to simply torpedo my lovely little epistomological fancy, I began work upon an expanded theory: communal existentialism.
What think you, is this possible? Homines interpretantes, inseperable units forming a single body, a body which takes as its axioms (first and foremost) God and His Word, and as its pilots the Patristic community (which by mystical extension is absorbed into the current community, or rather we into them) and established (or re-established) rituals: the celebration of the Eucharist, the rhythms of growth and decay, the regular beat of holy feast days.
In this manner, I think the original solution is extended; furthermore, the old problem would be trumped even if every man in the community was not sufficiently broad-minded to avoid absorption into a clique: since, in the community I have described, truth is achieved in a sort of dialectical manner, our pressing questions (like Realism vs. Nominalism or the Postmodern question) begin to look, over time, very small, and are finally swamped in the flood of truth, redemptive narrative, and sacred tradition.
A pipe dream? With a gigantic influx of divine aid, perhaps not.
Fine, but what struck me was the sudden stab of fear that I had perhaps just sired a brainchild that would, parricide-wise, destroy me upon maturation. After all, this system makes everything depend finally upon the individual, does it not? And is not individualism run rampant the salient characteristic of two of my less favourite establishments, namely, democracy and fundamentalist Baptistry? Sure are. Loath to simply torpedo my lovely little epistomological fancy, I began work upon an expanded theory: communal existentialism.
What think you, is this possible? Homines interpretantes, inseperable units forming a single body, a body which takes as its axioms (first and foremost) God and His Word, and as its pilots the Patristic community (which by mystical extension is absorbed into the current community, or rather we into them) and established (or re-established) rituals: the celebration of the Eucharist, the rhythms of growth and decay, the regular beat of holy feast days.
In this manner, I think the original solution is extended; furthermore, the old problem would be trumped even if every man in the community was not sufficiently broad-minded to avoid absorption into a clique: since, in the community I have described, truth is achieved in a sort of dialectical manner, our pressing questions (like Realism vs. Nominalism or the Postmodern question) begin to look, over time, very small, and are finally swamped in the flood of truth, redemptive narrative, and sacred tradition.
A pipe dream? With a gigantic influx of divine aid, perhaps not.
posted by Robert C. Hamilton at 11:10 PM
6 Comments:
Wonderful thoughts and I share your sentiments wholeheartedly. But…does it ever concern you that we might be reforming back into Catholicism or Orthodoxy? I did a little research into Eastern Orthodoxy several years ago after I was shocked to discover that Francis Schaeffer’s son had converted to EO. The idea was appalling, and I could not imagine what would draw him away from his father’s teachings and into something so terribly superstitious and unbiblical. We had only been Reformed a few years when I started reading about EO, but I noticed some striking similarities between where they have been and where we’re headed. We have an Episcopal priest friend who converted to EO, and we fear he embraced some obviously superstitious teaching in order to gain what we all hunger to see in the church – real church authority and unity on the scriptures rather than the individualist post-reformation approach where everybody wings it on their own, morality that doesn’t shift with the sand, respect for the thoughts and leadership of the body of Christ going back 2000 years and not just the Pat Robertsons of our own generation and theological/doctrinal fads.
Sadly, I couldn't post a comment to your site because only your profile would open.
Anyhow, as a matriculatee (is that a word??) in a Catholic college, I certainly worry about this all the time. One part of me, saddened at being divided from so many brethren, entertains fond conciliar sentiments. The other part of me sees the inherent problem with the authoritative structure I so love: it has a tendency to push things a bit too far. The thing that troubles me most about the Catholic church (I don't know if the EO church does the same thing) is that it has not only declared itself infallible, it has also insisted that everything it has ever taught was, is, and ever shall be valid. I for one find it hard to believe how much energy has been expended on defending the Perpetual Virginity of Mary -- a doctrine with no biblical support, no logical rationale, and which was probably developed as a grassroots movement in Mediaeval Europe. This is the authority problem, for me. It would be comforting to think that a body exists which can provide infallible certainly; sadly, it would seem the gift of infallible certainty has not been endowed to any human mind or institution -- it in fact inheres in a text which must be interpreted by very fallible psyches (a good point made by the 'theological postmodernists'). We might dislike this, but it's what we have to work with; what you see here are preliminary gropings toward understanding such a world, and resisting atomization therein.
Why does this have to be a return to Rome (or Constantinople)? Why, oh why, if we long to have the authority structure, do we ever have to embrace the unbiblical things inherent in RC or EO? Must reforming the Protestant church require embracing one of these two options?
Sandy, I, too, was stunned several years ago when I heard about Franky Schaeffer, and when I heard about Elisabeth Eliot's brother converting to Roman Catholicism. I even read a book by Thomas Howard (Eliot's bro) called _Evangelical Is Not Enough_. I agreed with a lot of what he was saying, but was aghast that he would convert to all that is wrong about RC just to get the liturgy, majesty, and authority he so deeply desired.
Do either of you (Robert or Sandy) imagine there is anything that could get you to convert to one of these options? There is nothing, short of the RC repudiating a good percentage of their doctrines (which I'm fairly certain they are not planning to do anytime soon) that would get me to convert.
So, I guess I don't understand the danger here. (And Sandy, I asked Robert what he meant by the fact that he is concerned about "it" every day. He said he meant the authority problem in the Protestant church--not that he was concerned he would convert because he goes to a RC college).
Also, have you read _The Lord's Service_ and/or any books by Keith Mathison, like _The Shape of Sola Scriptura_ or _Given for You_? When I read these books, I don't see any hint that Meyers or Mathison are in danger of converting. Also, have you read the essay by Rich Lusk called, "Rome Won't Have Me"? Here's the link for that: http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/rich_lusk/rome_wont_have_me.htm
If you haven't read this, I highly recommend it.
Okay, enough ranting, but I'm curious about what you think.
~Mom/Kathleen
Coincidentally, _The Lord's Service_ is on our table waiting to be read. Our pastor encouraged us all to read it, as he is doing a series of sermons based on it right now.
No, there is nothing that would make me convert to EO or RC. As my husband very bluntly put it, "We're not kissing any pictures or talking to dead people instead of the Lord." I've only found it interesting that our Reformed church emphasizes the corporate nature of the church rather than modern protestant individualism, drinks real wine with communion each week, embraces liturgy and confession, believes in paedocommunion (not officially), and turns to the church fathers when discussing theology to get a look at the big picture. We still believe in all the Solas, but our application seems a bit different from most Presbyterian churches. I didn't think Robert was considering converting :). I really identified with the longing for real authority and stability in the church's teachings. I'm very much in agreement with Wilson's crowd, but after studying EO, a tiny corner of my brain worried that some of our leadership might be heading that way...years down the road. If so, that's where we'd have to part company. Although EO is more palatable than RC, for reasons too lengthy to give here, they still have some odd/unbiblical teachings tucked in among the good "stuff".
We should certainly yearn for unity and pray for it, but we can't accept obvious errors for the sake of unity or authority.
Lol! I love your husband's comment! That's great.
Okay, I see what you were saying, now. I have heard this before about Doug Wilson, et.al,..."they are on their way to Rome." I could never see that, but upon reading this essay from Rich Lusk, I at least understood a little better what the deal was.
Don't think your church is unique--it sounds very much like ours. Also, with respect to the Church Fathers, read Mathison on Sola Scriptura. What an excellent book--it was so helpful to me before Robert went off to a RC college where Protestants are sometimes mocked (nicely) about Sola Scriptura. Mathison does a masterful job (IMO) of explaining the difference between *Sola* Scriptura and *Solo* Scriptura.
On another subject...did you hear anything from LaJuana about classed? I'm seeing her Sunday both at and after church (weather permitting), so I can ask her if you haven't heard anything yet.
I find this fascinating.
Post a Comment
<< Home