Re: The 'mildly theistic forum'?
Submitted by Jules on February 23 2002 12:54:23
In reply to The 'mildly theistic forum'? submitted by Forgiven on February 21 2002 02:29:34
Hi Forgiven,But the question sits there looking at me - where does one draw the line on 'tolerance'. I'm still trying to cope with the 2 John passage; the writer does not pull his punches - 'he who greets him shares his wicked work'. (v 11) - though he is talking to Christians......There's a big difference between loving and accepting people regardless of their creed or morality, which we should do, and tolerating error within the core of the church, which we should not. Here's the quote from 2 John: 7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.Yes, he's talking to Christians, and he's talking about what might be called pseudo-Christians -- people who were teaching a different version in which Jesus wasn't really human, an early sort of gnosticism. He's not talking about just anyone who comes up with another religion; it's people who "come to you" (v.10), i.e. come to the church, and claim to be teaching true Christianity. The issue doesn't arise in relation to other religions; they don't have the same threat to the truth about Jesus, because they don't claim to be based on him anyway. So Paul in Athens could say to the pagans, "Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you." (Acts 17:23) "We worship the same God, but let me tell you more about him..." Paul picks on the point of agreement, not the many points of disagreement! That's why I said to Rahiim something to the effect of, "Yes I agree there is no god but Allah, but I also believe Isa (Jesus) is his Son." I'm a cradle evangelical; I am strongly of the view that the bible should be the test of things, and if it makes something very clear, then as Christians we're asking for trouble if we seek to apply our own wisdom. The history of the Reformation is of people standing on the clear teaching of the bible confronting the wisdom of the church of their day; to my mind the same is equally true when evangelicals confront liberals for their lack of certainty about anything (except the need for tolerance?!). The trigger for my outburst was the claim that we all worship the same God....If you're talking here about Rahiim's comment about Islam, then I've already covered that, but if you're talking about "liberals" versus "evangelicals", then surely we're not going to get anywhere with uniting the church under Christ unless we agree that we do worship the same God: liberals and evangelicals. As for how we use the bible, there's no way that any of us can avoid using our own wisdom. The best way of using the bible will change over time, in accordance with the best scholarship. As Bach said, it's not enough to call one version of Christianity the "biblical" one. You hold to one way of interpreting the bible, but others hold to other ways, including someone like me who learnt much of my theology in an evangelical setting! I'm not sure if this has got me a lot further in my thinking; clearly there is a role for the church to have a porous border so that the seeker does feel comfortable within it. But equally at some point there needs to be a border which defines what is acceptable behaviour and doctrine; I Cor 5 and 6 makes clear the need over behaviour - large swathes of the Epistles are concerned with doctrinal clarity. As is so often the case I sincerely wish it wasn't so - it would be really nice if it really didn't matter how you lived or what you believed. But to proclaim that, even by one's silence as in an environment when it has come to be assumed, is to be unfaithful to the 'gospel once for all delivered to the saints'.You imply that some people here have been saying it doesn't matter how you live or what you believe; but I can't think I've read anything like that, at least not from those who do identify themselves as Christians. People have different views on what is right sexual behaviour, and different views on what is right doctrine, but I haven't heard anyone saying it doesn't matter. Of course it might seem that they don't think it matters if their views are less strict than yours... Plus, I don't think silence does always imply acquiescence. There are many things people say here that I don't agree with, but I don't say anything because this is not the place to say it. If they were to say it in my church, claiming it to be true teaching, then the leaders of the church would deal with it gently but firmly. But this is not my church. There are no leaders here; and we can't do for each other here everything that a church with appointed leaders would do. For many people who struggle with their own church (and I know you're one) this place does function as a substitute church, but it can't do everything; it's part of what being church is about, but not everything. It is a part of the church that does have "porous borders" as you put it. If I were to liken this forum to a part of church life, it would be a fellowship group that meets in a pub, that you can bring your friends along to; or an alpha group talking over a meal. But there's no way that I could equate it with the sort of formal church setting in which Paul was talking about excluding an offender. You need an agreed basis of faith and leadership structure to do that sort of thing; and I don't think a support forum can do that. Bach suggested we might have a statement of faith for the forum, but I'm not sure it's the right way to go, for this reason. I think the words "Christian" and "boylove" are sufficient. With Christian love, Jules |
Follow ups: