I love 
. Do you? Click here.
First published July, 1993
The word 'symposium' originally implied a friendly, informal discussion over a few drinks after dinner (from the Greek meaning 'to drink together'). This is the tone, if not the situation, of this collection of correspondence on the topic of 'Responsible Christianity', edited to more closely resemble a conversation. Quite apart from the content, Symposium tries to communicate by the approach as well, and the message is this: It is more important to listen to each other with respect than it is to agree.
So what is Symposium? Another magazine? Not exactly. It is an irregular publication, to be brought out as and when three things co-incide: an issue to be discussed, people to discuss it, and the time to produce the symposium. It won't, therefore, be quarterly (possibly more, probably less); it won't operate with deadlines, which could potentially stifle the discussion and make it hurried and superficial. It will, in short, be rather like an after-dinner conversation.
It will also be rather like Think-Link, which is in a sense its parent. Think-Link is an informal network without subscription or officers (though Symposium has a subscription, for a number of issues rather than a time-period, and an editor). When Think-Link gets together, issues are discussed (mainly after dinner) as they arise from the interests of the people who have gathered. And Think-Link is united not by a set of conclusions but by a common approach which sees thought and discussion as valuable activities for Christians. It was through Think-Link that the following paper was first distributed, and those who have responded to it are Think-Link members. If Symposium is a cultured pearl, then Think-Link is the oyster, and the paper the inserted irritant about which the pearl grew.
Symposium was initially published in paper form, in a small number of copies which reached a very limited readership (people I was in touch with in New Zealand who I knew had an interest in such issues). The idea of putting it into a form in which it can appear on the World Wide Web is to expand its impact and generate further discussion of the ideas contained in it. Please mail me if you have anything positive to contribute (no generalised abuse, please).
- Mike McMillan, Editor.
by Mike McMillan
'Responsible Christianity' is a spontaneous movement in the NZ church, currently arising in response to the highly 'spiritualised' approach to life which has cut the Church off from society at large, and brought hurt and disillusionment to many of the people who are now turning to responsible Christianity. The following is not an attempt to justify RC biblically, as this would be a large-scale project; it is, however, intended to present what RC is and some of its implications, mainly so that people who hold to it in embryonic form may see the consequences of their views.
The essence of RC, as the name suggests, is that the believer takes appropriate responsibility for his or her own actions, rather than speaking and acting as if God and the devil are the only responsible agents in the universe. Along with this comes a rejection, or at least a skepticism, of mystical and 'spiritual' explanations for the events of everyday life in general.
Although many of those who are beginning to take on the ideas of RC have not encountered the book Decision Making and the Will of God by Gary Friesen (Multnomah, 1980), those who have read it tend to adopt it as expressing the essence of RC. Briefly, Friesen argues that, contrary to traditional understandings, God does not have a mysterious and detailed 'perfect will' for each believer's life which must be discovered through a complex process involving the advice of other believers, the indications of circumstances, and subjective 'impressions' from God in addition to the Scriptures. Instead, he regards the Scriptures as fully adequate to reveal all of God's will which the believer needs or is required to know (in accordance with 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and many doctrinal statements, though not all of the latter are put into practice in this area). Outside God's revealed moral will of what is eternally right and wrong, the believer is free (and responsible) in each individual situation to reach a decision based on a wise consideration of the factors, including the principles of love, the advice of wise counsellors, and the believer's own preferences.
Such a complex decision is acknowledged as being the believer's own responsibility, and is not passed off upon God; the believer is thus free to alter the decision if other factors arise which seem to make this advisable, without the guilt, introspection and worry which would be involved if the original decision was thought to have been a divine instruction. Also, if the decision turns out to be a poor one, the believer takes responsibility for making a poor decision and attempts to learn from this and do better next time, rather than wasting time and energy in speculation as to whether they 'misheard' God, perhaps because of sin, or whether Satan was responsible for the failure, etc. Finally, believers in leadership positions who follow this 'wisdom' view of decision-making are not claiming false divine sanction, and are required to take personal responsibility for decisions which turn out badly.
A second area in which RC is a significant change from the prevailing ideas of parts of the NZ church is its rejection of large-scale demonic influence as an explanation for many events. Such explanations are, firstly, untrue to the Scriptures in the excessive attention they pay to the demonic and the level of power they credit to it; secondly, alienating to secular people who perceive believers as frankly wierd (not without some justification); and thirdly and perhaps most importantly, again a denial of personal responsibility for sin and error on the part of the believer. Rather than attempting to cast out a 'spirit of lust,' the responsible Christian accepts that he or she has a problem with the sin of lust and needs to act accordingly. Rather than explaining the fact that a colleague is justifiably upset by one's foolish actions as a 'satanic attack,' one accepts that one has behaved foolishly, seeks forgiveness and attempts to learn from the experience.
The third noticeable effect of RC is a tendency to critique (though not necessarily to abandon) classic charismatic/pentecostal ideas of spiritual gifts, since approaches to these tend to exhibit much of the same subjectivity and circular argument which responsible Christians have rejected in the areas of guidance and the demonic.
Fourthly, RC tends to lead to a skepticism of elaborate and fanciful schemes of the 'End Times' constructed on individualistic interpretations of frankly obscure Scriptures in the light of ambiguous current events. Having seen what loose, subjective, 'God-told-me' interpretations of the Bible can lead to in terms of disastrous decisions and bizarre doctrines, responsible Christians are very wary of the same thing as applied to eschatology. This does not, of course, imply a disbelief in the return of Christ, for instance; however, rather than seeking Antichrist in the morning newspaper and the mark of the beast at the supermarket checkout, responsible Christians who have given thought to eschatology pay primary attention to Jesus' instructions about how to live in the end times: as if the master may return at any moment and require an accounting for what has been concretely achieved with the resources he left them. This includes their intelligence and their status as morally responsible agents.
Finally, the 'despiritualised' approach to much of life tends to lead to a consideration of the role of prayer. Many Christians use prayer as a substitute for thought, a role which responsible Christians reject. Prayer can also reflect the twin errors of attributing all harm to Satan and depending for all positive action on God, which means that the believer's responsibility is to 'just pray,' in effect cheering God on against Satan like a spectator at a boxing match. Responsible Christians acknowledge, in prayer, the provisions God has made for them to be effective as thinking moral agents in their own right, and also acknowledge their need for his grace in order to become more like him and to act in accordance with his character; but they are also aware that prayer alone will be no more effective than faith which is not demonstrated by works, and do not rely on prayer as the sole means of resolution of complex human and circumstantial situations.
One emphasis which has been neglected in New Zealand has been the conservative tradition of sound biblical exegesis. If RC is not to be simply a loss of faith among disillusioned people, one of the greatest needs is for sound principles of biblical study and exposition to be widely taught and practiced (which will also advance the spread of RC). In addition, attention needs to be given to teaching the principles of critical thought, not only within the churches but also in the NZ community at large, so that the situation which has produced RC as a reaction will be eroded away, and young Christians will not need to go through disillusionment in order to attain it.
There is great potential for RC, if it becomes a widespread movement, to open up the NZ Church beyond its present subcultural ghetto mentality. At present, the stumbling block of the Cross (which is indispensible) is often not reached by unbelievers, because they are put off by the unnecessary stumbling blocks of Christian jargon and odd behaviour based on naïve assumptions. Many Christians remain immature, not only in their faith but also in their general behaviour, because they are encouraged to be dependent and non-responsible. Unscrupulous or misguided pastors and other leaders also exploit this immaturity and dependence, to the harm of souls. Responsible Christians, looking at the state of the Church, are sometimes tempted to pray that there will not be a revival just yet; the prospect of more of what we already have is terrifying.
Having said this, RC is not the final word or the movement which will cure all the ills of the church. It has its dangers; it can become overly skeptical, deistic, barrenly rationalistic and bitter, partly because of its genesis in disillusionment with the current NZ Christian mindset. It has, however, potential to help many NZ Christians to a long-delayed maturity and to equip the Church to speak credibly to the general culture
Ian: Firstly, there is the issue of the relationship of RC to the state/church debate. Doesn't RC tend towards an overly imminent, meat on your plate while you wait, post- or a-millenialist Christianity? How is RC to avoid a Lutheran 'two kingdoms' approach in which God is responsible for the spiritual while we are responsible for the the temporal?
Mike: I need other people because I don't think of things like the point you raise about church and state and the two kingdoms. I never have got the various theological labels ending with -millenial sorted out, but I know my pastor, who certainly preaches responsible Christianity, is not into the one which says that we're responsible to build God's kingdom here on Earth before Christ returns; in fact, he opposes it fairly strongly. There has to be a point of balance in there somewhere. Perhaps the problem is that we've created a false spiritual/temporal dichotomy. In reality, everything is both; God is involved in the whole of our lives, but not in a spooky sort of way. Rather than demystifying all of life and saying that God is only involved in some special stuff, or mystifying all of life and saying that every common bush is afire with God (Elizabeth Barrett Browning - silly woman), we should say that this is God's world and it is sustained every moment by his immanent activity, but that this activity is predictable in certain ways and we don't need to be going to him all the time to ask him about how to work it; he's already taught us through both Scripture and reason. The credo of the people in the novel I'm working on at the moment sums up my ideas on this: 'All good things are a shadow of That One. You are not your shadow, but when I see your shadow, I know that you are there.' Much easier to say than to live, and not an original concept (Brother Lawrence knew all about making his omelette for the love of God, but didn't pray and ask God how to do it, or even whether to); but succinct, I think.
Ian: Secondly, it could be argued that as RC is moving towards rationalism, it will conflict with a non-Christian society which, through the New Age movement and the rediscovery of cultural and racial heritage, is becoming more 'spiritual'. While doing something because it is true is important, doing things because our Christian subculture expects it isn't (as you have pointed out). Maybe a more 'spiritual' non-Christian society needs to be evangelised from a spiritual Christianity?
There is, however, another way of looking at this. RC can be seen as a less spiritual Christianity meeting an increasing spiritual non-Christianity at a mid-point.
Mike: Your second point is also a fine one, that RC is moving towards rationalism while non-Christian society is heading for mysticism, and this may add yet another stumbling block. You also give the only answer I can think of: we do it because we believe it's right, not because we think it will 'sell'. In fact, if anything the need for RC has arisen because the church has been taken in in the same way that the world is now being taken in. Looked at from another angle, what better protection against the much-feared New Age invasion of the Church than RC?
Ian: Thirdly, you recommend sound biblical exegesis as a route to overcoming overspiritual Christianity. While I recognise the value of this, it's something I find boring and hard to get my teeth into. This may be my personal bias or intellectual laziness. However, a couple of points. 'Sound' according to whom? Jerry Falwell, John Shelby Spong, the Pope? Also, aren't you assuming that if we change people's theology their actions will change too? Doesn't it work at least to an equal degree in the opposite direction?
Mike: As you point out, I've begged a major question: 'sound' by whose definition? Well, mine, naturally; but how can I establish this as valid for anyone else? Basically what I mean is gaining from the Bible not what I want it to say but, as much as possible, what it said to its first recipients, which involves some understanding of their culture, language and situation. But if you approach it with common sense and humility you won't go far wrong. I personally find it fascinating in itself as well as essential if my faith is to have any legitimacy at all.
Changing people's theology and practice; well, this has been argued from both ends. I think the two do work synergistically, but as I personally need an intellectual reason to change what I am doing I tend to approach it from that end primarily. People will live what they genuinely believe, but there are three levels of belief: beliefs that you say you hold and don't, that you say you hold and do, and that you say you don't hold and do. All three have to be taken into account.
Ian: Fourthly, RC is an appalling acronym. Haven't the Catholics got a copyright on it? How about RCh or something?
Mike: I've had other feedback on the acronym as well; I'll have to work on that one. I had some doubts myself from the beginning about using RC. On the other hand, there are lots of abbreviations which mean more than one thing.
Ross: I am aware of Friesen's book, and I've also had to go back and examine my own pilgrimage as a Christian. I think I would suggest these conclusions.
A fallacy of composition occurs when what is true some of the time is assumed to be true all of the time. Evangelicals make this assumption when they explain (away) spiritual gifts. Pentecostals return the favour when they assume that because they can work in the spiritual gifts, therefore all Christians should.
Doctrines are by definition true for all Christians at all times. Christ's work on the cross is efficacious for all believers at all times. But the Spirit's call and leading is by definition an individual and subjective thing; and all of us are still learning to hear God. The ultimate reference point is the Scriptures, but that should not limit God in how He communicates to us. Now, the "God told me" school of guidance may not be true for all of us, or even true for a few of us. But I can accept that God would speak to some people that way ("by their fruits . . ."). Certainly, though, this shouldn't limit the principles of responsibility you talk about.
A variety of factors contribute to most of the problems we face. This is probably going to be true of guidance. That God will not normally work using inner, subjective "guidance", should be distinguished from the fact that sometimes He can and will lead that way. While we can't aways expect it - and shouldn't rely on it - God must always be allowed to break in if He wants.
As to the rest of your article: First, while I agree with the 'wisdom' view, don't deny God's intervention in certain cases. Example: at one point, my parish was in a very unhappy state from the priest-assistant's departure, and morale was pretty low in some circles. Wisdom would probably have said, start looking for another church, because the problem wasn't going to go away, and the 'community' I've tried to be part of in the last two years was not in a happy way. My own sense of what the Lord wanted was very different: stay at your post.
Mike: I think what I said to [some people who didn't wish their letter to appear in Symposium], in a letter I wrote to them, answers much of what you say as well; here it is:
'One of my good friends in Think-Link, Ross Clark, has raised some similar concerns to yours, and one of his contentions is, I think, a very good one. He points out that while it may not be normal for God to guide people subjectively, this is not to say that certain people do not receive subjective guidance, if they are the kind of people for whom this is the best way for God to communicate. This makes some sense; after all, he is famous for his accommodation of his infinity to our weakness and finitude, starting from when he walked in the garden in the cool of the evening. I'm prepared to entertain the possibility that you are two people to whom God does communicate in this way; though I am not prepared to throw out the possibility that you are innocently self-deceived in this matter, as many people I have met have been and as I myself once was.
'There is another way of taking the differences between people into account which I prefer, though it may still not stretch to cover all cases. This is to say that some people have a greater ability than others preconsciously and intuitively to know the best thing to do in a given situation (and those who are both intuitive and sensitive to emotion and human situations will be best at this, while those who are more factually oriented and literal may be worst at it). In this case, some who have a theology of subjective guidance from God will find that their 'impressions' are frequently accurate, while others will become disillusioned and abandon it because they have sincerely followed 'impressions' into disaster.
'So far, this is straight Western rationalism, and John Wimber would have a duck and proclaim the need for immediate remedial paradigm shifting. But I still have two points to make to round out the suggestion. The first is that it is just as Western, and arises just as much from a false dichotomy, to say that it is 'spiritual' when the Spirit 'supernaturally' (not a Jewish word) puts impressions into your mind, and that for him to give you the ability, and train you, to form correct conclusions preconsciously is not 'spiritual'. The second point is rather longer and more roundabout, and involves Scripture considered as a whole and not in its usual bleeding chunks. I was fortunate, as a young Christian, to be exposed to a teacher who, if he had nothing else right, at least encouraged the reading of the whole Bible; and to have the motivation and fast reading ability to do so, not once, but repeatedly, and the kind of mind to develop an overview rather than being bogged down in details. Thanks are due to God for all of these factors.
'My proposition is that those who hold to a subjective view of guidance for all believers can only substantiate this if they take a few isolated scriptures out of context (such as 'And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds . . .'). If we approach Scripture without the presupposition that all believers should be guided subjectively and have subjective direct experience of God, we find no evidence for that supposition. The main reason, I believe, that this idea has been able to arise at all is that the 'foreground' people in Scripture are the ones who God does speak to: the prophets and apostles.
'That is, for the most part these are the foreground people; but looking carefully we discover foregrounders who are not so favoured. There is no evidence that I can recall that Aaron, for instance, generally heard directly from God without the mediation of Moses. In fact, his whole people cried out to Moses, 'Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.' (Exodus 20:19). This set the pattern; only Moses, of that generation, ever spoke to God face to face. Aaron and the elders and so forth were enabled to prophesy, but even this was restricted in its scope.
'Virtually all of the rulers of Israel from Joshua onwards had to rely on two means to hear from God: either prophets such as Moses, Samuel and Nathan, or the casting of lots. This was used to identify the sinner Achan, and the pattern continued into the reigns of Saul and even David, whose closeness to God cannot be questioned. Solomon heard directly from God in a dream, but this seems to be exceptional. Usually it was the prophets, sometimes supplemented by priestly lot-casting, which the king used to discover the will of God (when he cared about it one way or the other).
'If the kings, even David, did not hear directly from God, what about the great mass of the people - the seven thousand, for instance, who in Elijah's time had not bowed the knee to Baal? I like the approach of Mordecai in Esther, and in fact the whole approach of Esther which does not mention God by name (or prayer, referring instead to 'fasting') but has the presence of God unescapably implied throughout. 'Who knows,' says the wise Jew, 'but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?' (Esther 4:14). Mordecai is aware of God's providence while being wary about claiming that any specific instance is a manifestation of it.
'Did things change in the New Testament, though, with the coming of the Spirit on the whole people of God rather than select individuals? The only mention of lot-casting (by Christians) comes just before the account of Pentecost, when Peter misapplied several Scriptures and concluded that a replacement for Judas was necessary. My understanding of lot-casting is that it will always yield a result, so Matthias was chosen - and is never mentioned from that point on. But were all decisions after that made on the basis of subjective, emotional 'leadings'? Certainly not. The first major church controversy was over the treatment of the widows of the Grecian Jews. Note that the apostles did not 'pray about it', receive a 'leading' as to 'what God would have them do' and announce it; they told the Grecian Jews to appoint their best men and afterwards prayed for the ones who had been selected.
'One of these men, Philip, was later instructed by the Holy Spirit to go and meet the Ethiopian eunuch. How he received this instruction is not stated, but it was clearly explicit. Just as clearly, it was a uniquely significant moment for the entire future of the church, so to take it as a normative precedent is a little dodgy to say the least. The most we can say is that here is an instance where God gave specific instructions to an individual. It goes well beyond the text to say that this is an example of a general principle.
'The same can be said of Ananias, who went to Saul after his conversion. He heard God speaking (as Peter later did on the rooftop). Cornelius saw an angel; not as a mental image or 'impression', but standing in front of him glowing. Again, these were pivotal points in the history of the church which simply have no parallel today. [Likewise Acts 13:2, where again we are not told how the Holy Spirit spoke, but it was clearly unequivocal.]
'An interesting point about the Jerusalem Council: the issue is resolved when James shows from the Scriptures that the Gentiles are to be included in Christ, not when Barnabas and Paul describe the miracles God did among the Gentiles. After his quotation he begins his summary with a phrase most Christians would never allow to cross their lips in a church meeting: 'It is my judgement, therefore. . . .' (Acts 15:19). The decision is attributed 'to the Holy Spirit and to us' (15:28), but the Holy Spirit's contribution seems to have come through the Scriptures.
'I could go on at length, but I think the point is adequately made: Few people, even in the apostolic era, received direct guidance from God, and they received it at special points for special reasons which are not paralleled, in scale at least, in our experience. I would be interested to see when the idea that God regularly gives guidance in daily life entered the church. I rather suspect Augustine with the 'take, read' of the child next door and his exposure to Greek oracular approaches, which were much more everyday and trivial than the utterances of the Hebrew prophets. (Get hold of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on 'Occultism' some time and read what it has to say about divination. The parallels with some so-called 'Christian' teachings is striking.) I would maintain, in any case, that whenever the idea entered Christianity it was not through the Old or New Testaments.
'All of which does not directly answer your contentions in your letter. It is certainly true that the foundation of our faith is that God broke in, personally. I am far from denying it (my faith would be empty if I did); nor do I deny that demons exist and can be cast out, for example. However, the fact that God broke in personally is not proof that he continues to do so, that he must continue to do so, or that he ought to continue to do so, especially since when he did he gave a propositional, theological revelation to us to follow (which is how we can reliably know that he broke in). If, in fact, breaking in is the right metaphor; rather, he made himself known in more explicit and less mistakeable ways than the ways in which he customarily makes himself known. I don't deny, either, that he can still do so; only that he generally does still do so. Certainly, the 'dreams, visions, miracles and visits' you refer to do not seem to be happening daily in the lives of many people I know whose faith and love, and understanding of the Scriptures, exceeds rather than falls short of many of those who claim such things. Most of the people of God for most of their history, it seems to me, have had to live, and will be judged on how they lived, in response to revelations not given to them personally but to other people; and this is as it should be if trust in others, and the community of faith, have any meaning at all.
'"God does have a specific plan for us, though not mysterious, nor complex to unravel". I agree that God has a plan for us to increase in wisdom, holiness, responsibility and above all love; and that it is not mysterious or complex, having been clearly revealed in the Scriptures. But if you mean that he has a specific plan for each individual, and that anyone who wants to can discover his or her life blueprint, I would like to see the colour of your Scriptures. Not ones pointing to individuals like Jeremiah, either, but ones which clearly proclaim that every person is so situated.
'Finally, you raise a valid concern that my rejection of 'mindless attitudes to supernaturalism' will in practice end up in a sterile faith in principles rather than a personal engagement with God. I see engagement with God not in an individualistic, pietistic sense but as something that happens within the community of faith. It is as I serve Christ in my neighbor, or as he is reconciled to me, or as we worship together, that we engage with God. I think I could truly state that I have only ever seen God in three places: in Scripture, in creation, and in Christians. As long as I am interacting with all three, my faith should have every chance of remaining alive. In fact, it seems to me that God, unlike anything else, seems to get smaller the closer he appears, until the New Ager's 'god within' is so small as to be unappreciable in his effects.'
Your other points, Ross: 'fallacy of composition'. If I've learnt anything in the past couple of years, it's that people are very different. One size, shape or colour does not fit all, and you are right to point this out. But I think the above answers your specific assertion: there are other explanations than 'spooky' ones.
Thinking back to the time when I thought I had heard God's voice (a phrase which is used far too loosely and casually; as I pointed out above, people in Scripture didn't get an 'impression' or a 'quickened Scripture', they heard a voice, and knew who it was) - thinking back to that time, I can't see it as 'the enemy's deception'. I made some stupid decisions, and had to make some wise decisions (and am still having to make difficult, painful, wise decisions) to deal with the problems which that caused. If I spookify it I'm in a no-lose situation: if it worked God did it, if it didn't Satan did it (which is much how prayer is usually approached also). The fact that there doesn't seem to be any detectable difference between the two 'voices' except the results suggests to me that people are hearing their own voices, generally.
The scary thing about the 'wisdom view' is that now I'm making decisions which will affect my life and I know that Daddy isn't going to make them for me because I'm supposed to be a big boy now. And I can still make stupid decisions and make a mess of my life. But the advantage is that because I'm aware of this I think these decisions through as carefully as I can and don't rely on feelings which (for me, with my personality) are not going to be good guides. For other people, their intuitive feel for a situation will be a good guide, and they should follow it.
'One-stop solutions': I'm as wary of these as you. In fact, I'm increasingly skeptical about 'solutions' in a complex world, and prefer to talk about 'approaches'. RC is an approach, and I think a useful one; it doesn't answer all the hard questions. But to address your specific point more closely, I don't hold that God can't give inner subjective guidance (any more than I hold that he can't write Scripture on moon rocks), but only:
In the case of your church, my wisdom anyway would have said 'stay'. There's not enough faithfulness and staying put going on in the NZ church. I think that many people leave a church to escape problems which they find waiting for them in the new church - perhaps because they've taken them with them. It's like the Arabic story of the servant of the Caliph of Baghdad who saw Death in the marketplace and borrowed his master's horse to ride to Samarra and escape, because Death had given him a threatening look. Later the master met Death and confronted him, asking why he had threatened his servant. Death replied that his look had been a look of surprise to see the servant there; he had an appointment with him that evening in Samarra.
All of which is easy for me to say, who left one church because it was so unfriendly and another after I confronted the worship leader for saying in the 'free worship' time 'If you're not sure if a word is from God, speak it out anyway.' I said (as above) that in Scripture it was always clear whether it was God or not. He thanked me for 'sharing', which about put the tin lid on it. (There were other factors too, mainly social.)
In the other case you mentioned [which was personal and so is not given above]: if you can think of several good reasons for doing things, I think God has made your preconscious clever enough to give you an 'impression' and a 'quickened Scripture' if that's what it takes to convince you.
Ross: A second point: the demonic may be there, and in a much more subtle way that you or Frank Peretti might think. In cultures which are much more spiritually aware than our own, the demonic is there and visible all right - stop thinking of what you can see as the 'real' world.
Mike: [My friend] Bruce Willams's theory is that the demonic strategy in the West is largely to promote false doctrine, rather than all the spectacular stuff which certainly occurs in cultures where such events are expected. He suggests that 'supernatural' manifestations would be the last thing Satan would promote if he's trying to convince people that the supernatural isn't real. Of course, now that the New Age is coming in things are changing, but it seems to me significant that:
a) although it's clear enough in Scripture, I've never heard any teaching from a charismatic that false doctrine is a demonic strategy (except from John Wimber, second-hand: he claims, apparently, that there are two 'doctrines of demons' abroad today, namely that God no longer speaks and that God no longer heals, which have no connection at all with the context of the Scriptures about demonic doctrines);
b) when I (or you, or a few other hardy souls) oppose false doctrine we strike fear, anger, incomprehension, indignation and apathy.
Ross: Third, there is still a place for spiritual gifts; but their output has to be evaluated like any other contribution to our spiritual lives (as John and Paul both say). But I totally agree with your skepticism about much modern eschatology. May I say too, that the Anglican approach is much healthier. At several points in the liturgy, we are told to 'look to His coming in Glory,' but there is none of the constant, 'next year' thinking of the likes of eg Barry Smith.
Mike: I never saw any real spiritual gifts that I can remember in four years in two charismatic churches which had a lot of emphasis on 'the gifts' (and correspondingly little on maturity etc). Your exposure has of course been greater.
Ross: Yes, I've seen some duds, and in some circles a very great lack of character. But in fairness to the AoG, the importance of wise judgment and character is well appreciated in its national leadership.
Fourth, the [patterned thinker] in me looks to much more solid exegesis; but, my intuitive shadow says that working on and developing the devotional/contemplative life is also a need. They do very different things; but remember that in my critique of B[ill] G[othard] ('American Gothard', Today's Christian No 19, July 1991, pp 28-32.), I said his emphasis on 'principles' said almost nothing on learning to be a friend of God (Jn 15:15). Most of the good devotional writers are Catholic or Anglican (which may say something about their internal cultures).
On reflection, BG's method of looking to Principles when trying to make decisions breeds dependency, because you neither learn to hear what God wants (intuitive approach) nor get to think for yourself ([patterned] approach).
Mike: Lewis has a passage in which he says that 'devotional' books never did a thing for him, but good solid theology often brought him near to God. I found this with Knowing God, Jim Packer's great Reformed work (not that I'm Reformed at all); it usually had me on my face in prayer by the end of the chapter, yet my memory is that it was very 'doctrinal'.
Ross: As I've thought about it a bit more, I've come to a few conclusions which suggest that we may not be as far apart as we think. So, here are some responses which may help your thinking; and also suggest that the real aim of both of us is mature Christianity; and that a 'mature' response of your RC approach (for it is possible to have an immature response), and a mature response of mine, may be very close at least, closer than the respective immature approaches. For convenience, I will refer to my standpoint as Listening to God, or LG.
In responding to your thinking, I found myself returning to Seeing in the Dark, 'canonical' literature that I've found so helpful in answering a number of problems I face. On p208, and citing C.S. Lewis, [Philip Yancey] goes on about how the aim of God in our lives can be summed up as Christian maturity, which means that new converts tend to get an easy ride . . . and then have to knuckle down as the demands on them grow. Now, we would both agree on the importance of working towards maturity in the Christian life, rather than towards idols called 'victory' and 'success' and 'prosperity.' You know what I mean, I think.
Another point Yancey makes is a useful one, in that he distinguishes between looking at a beam of light (reductionism) versus looking along it, and seeing what it illustrates (pp 216 ff). He also notes that the line between nature and the supernatural may be more of a continuum, rather than the huge gap that Western rationalism tries to create between them.
Try and ensure that you understand what I'm getting at before proceeding, as I'll be returning to Yancey at a number of points.
In your criticisms of the subjective guidance model, it seems to be that you have been comparing a mature form of RC with an immature form of LG. I would propose that an immature form of RC does exist. It comprises people going to the Bible for rules to follow in all matters of life; ignoring the Biblical context in the process. This is the opposite of using the Bible in the process of forming mature judgments. This is the point of view which says that dating isn't Christian, because it isn't sanctioned in Scripture. It is, of course, vintage Bill Gothard. He can hardly be called a 'subjective' person; indeed, his material arose in an environment where people were told, "just pray about it," when faced with problems.
So, maybe the problem cannot be phrased as 'RC v. LG.' Instead, it is a problem of maturity which is involved:
|
To summarise:
Marked by wise judgments within a community of faith. Canonical reference: Decision-making and the will of God.
Marked by withdrawing your own judgment in favour of a set of rules. Canonical reference: anything by Bill Gothard.
Marked by withdrawing your own judgment in favour of anything subjective, ephemeral, etc. Canonical reference: anything by Bill Subritzky.
Marked by identifying what God would want in a specific situation; but employing the community of faith, and wise judgment as well as waiting on God in the more traditional devotional sense. Canonical work: Listening to God, by Joyce Huggett. She is from the Anglican Charismatic renewal, which is quite a bit different to modern Pentecost[alism].
Hence, my assessment is that mature LG and mature RC have far more in common than you might think. Both are committed to maturity in the life of the believer, the community of faith, and a realistic working through of the issues we face (Philip Yancey has put this very well). I think that we do have more in common with the likes of Brian Hathaway, Murray Robertson and each other, than any of us have in common with Gothard or Bill Subritsky (an excellent example of immature LG). You reinforce this by comments to the effect that it is possible to work effectively in a subjective worldview.
It is also worth noting that you reinforced from an RC point of view, what I considered to be my 'subjective' judgments to stay in the parish in the face of a sore temptation to walk out. This illustrates my judgment that the two approaches do work towards the same end, and may have more in common with each other than with their respective immature forms. Hence my analogy that it was more like a Möbius loop than a straight either-or. [A Möbius loop has only one side, though it appears to have two Ed].
In defence of the LG viewpoint, it will look to hear from God, but it will do so in a wide variety of ways. It will look to Scripture. It will take counsel of the sort you suggest, remembering that 'not to decide is to decide' (Albert Camus). But it will also wait on God, and after that, more often than not take a 'weight-of-the-evidence' approach to resolve some guidance issues. And finally, it will distinguish doctrinal guidance (which is true for all Christians at all times) with individual guidance, allowing that the latter is an art, not a science (as, indeed, is wise judgment), and only comes with experience. In either model, too, it is likely that guidance, or wise judgment, will come only in stages.
I am still not sure that God will speak to all people individually; but you may be stretching it to say categorically that God 'never said he would give individual guidance.' Argument from silence may not be the best approach on this issue. Of course, the early Christians would have sought God, and that showed up in their judgments, eg. Acts 15:28, as you quote. So, the Spirit can communicate through Scripture, obviously, and may also do so to speak specifically in other ways. Obviously, God spoke very directly to some people. Although He didn't do so for all, He may well do so for some still. That He may not do so for you indicates only that His approach in your case may differ.
Mike: From my own experience and what I've observed of others, it could well be that, as you say, God is easier on us at first and then as much is given, much is required (similar to what I was saying before about accommodating himself to our finitude). Not fully sure on this one, though; perhaps new Christians, being more naïve, more readily interpret things as 'answers' or 'guidance'. Either would make sense, and a mixture is likely.
I'm not sure how what you said [in another letter] about the prophetic office being more 'forthtelling' than 'foretelling' related to what I said. I'd certainly agree with this. Much of Jeremiah is the prophet's witness to the non-observance of Deuteronomy and his re-affirmation of the deuteronomic warnings of the consequences of this, and much the same can be said of most of the other prophets. The amount of new revelation was not great in proportion to the witness to existing revelation.
I think we'd better agree that the terms we are using are simply communication tokens which we both understand, and that all of their implications shouldn't be pushed too hard. For instance, what you refer to as 'immature RC' is not in fact responsible Christianity (taking responsibility for your own decisions) at all; it is still passing the buck to someone else, eg Bill Gothard and his rules. Also, many RC exponents would claim that, through the Scriptures, they are 'listening to God'. But as long as we're agreed that we understand all this we can use the terms as you suggest.
Your insight into the issue of maturity vs immaturity is excellent, and one I had completely missed. This is what we have discussions for. Can I throw in a maxim I came up with when reflecting on this? 'A theology is not necessarily falsified if it can be shown that immature people have pushed it to unreasonable and unscriptural lengths.' (Maxim of Theological Non-Falsification.) Many attacks on all sorts of theologies (from Augustine and Pelagius forward, at least - in fact, from Romans 6) ignore this maxim.
As I say, I'd missed the fact that I was comparing mature RC with immature LG, and that Gothard's approach, for instance, could be seen as immature RC. (I was under the impression he was into the subjective approach; clearly I was wrong.) Perhaps this is because my own progression was from immature LG to mature RC; the circumstances of my maturing were such that they showed up the poverty of immature LG, and I happened to read Friesen at the same period.
Certainly, then, our respective 'mature' approaches are closer than the 'immature' approaches; we both realise the importance of a community of faith, wise judgement, and our existing knowledge of Scripture (you, for instance, are not going to 'hear' God telling you to commit adultery, as in one case I know of second-hand). We may well come to the same conclusions by either approach. I think Mordecai's 'Who knows but that you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?', James' 'It is my judgement, therefore. . .' and even Luke's remark on the vision of the man from Macedonia that they concluded God was calling them to preach the Gospel there, would fit into either mature perspective (and neither immature one).
I think, however, they are still two significantly different positions. I see the differences as lying mainly in two closely linked areas: 'Who speaks for God?' and the issue of authority, particularly the authority of (and approach to) Scripture.
On the first: As you, I think, know (or at least guess), I'm with Charles Colson on this one. 'Who speaks for God? He does quite nicely for Himself. Through His holy and infallible Word - and the quiet obedience of His servants.' (Who Speaks for God?, Hodder, 1985, p 22.) I believe God speaks through the Scriptures and, in a lesser and derivative way, through his obedient people; not in the Catholic sense of official doctrine being 'inspired' as Scripture is, virtually - although this is fairly recent even as Catholic doctrine - but in the sense that God's continued work in the world is through his people and they are witnesses to that work, past and present, and to the truth of his propositional revelation. I don't believe in new propositional revelation, either general (in terms of doctrine) or specific (in terms of guidance, either individual or corporate). Although I am indeed arguing from silence on this, it's a remarkably resonant silence. Guidance is surely so important (and so difficult) that there would be something clear in there if the case were as it is usually stated. [I repeat, I have never heard a defence of subjective guidance from a clear exposition of Scripture, only in terms of experience and analogy. This may be partly because clear exposition of Scripture has a tendency to suffer in circles where subjective guidance is deemed to be available, simply because the need for it is felt less. I say a tendency.]
Now, interestingly, someone like [John] MacArthur or Gothard is coming out with just as much 'God says this' as is the most foaming-lipped Pentecostal, though the approach is different. They are saying 'God says this because I say this and I am the one in authority who interprets the Scriptures to you.' Which is no diffent in principle from the Pope speaking ex cathedra, and is a particularly American approach to authority [and truth]. The Pentecostal is saying 'God says this because I heard him'. The first is appeal to a heirarchical position (literally, since heirarchy means rule by priests, after all); the second, appeal to a personal charisma. Both reflect the failings of their respective movements: over-rigid structure on the one hand, individualistic subjectivism on the other. I think maturity, in our sense, rejects both, partly because a certain caution comes with maturity; the caution of our good friend Mordecai. I don't know, and don't claim to know, what God is doing today in any very specific way. I think there are far too many people floating around claiming to know what God is doing or saying. I don't even know the intentions of the woman I'm going out with next week, who is a fellow finite being, let alone the intentions of the infinite God.
Linked in to 'who speaks for God', as I say, is the issue of authority. John MacArthur claims to have the authority to lay down a monolithic, all-inclusive interpretation of Scriptural truth and calls this 'the Word of God.' Our straw Pentecostal stands up in his pulpit and announces a 'word from the Lord' that the church will be the leading church in NZ, that all other churches will go where it is going, and that they have to build a multi-million-dollar building to contain the huge revival that's going to come. . . . In either case, to question the statement is to question the leader, which is to question God. But if I stand up and say, 'I think it would be a good idea to do this,' you can quite legitimately stand up and say 'I don't,' and we can have a discussion about it. I'm not claiming, even hesitantly, that my idea is from God (though it may be, for all I know), so we can treat it as an issue on its own merits, which, if it is from God, will be good ones.
I had an interesting letter recently from Bill Subritzky; I'd sent him the MS of the two articles I wanted to submit to Stimulus critiqueing his ministry and asking him to reply. After defending his ministry in terms of its popular support and the number of converts, he states, 'As our theological positions are so totally at variance, there is no point in me seeking to rebut your comments.' There is some justice to what he says, in that we really don't have any common ground to build a discussion on; but what I hear underneath is the conviction that because he has received his doctrine from God, he's right, and I'm obviously wrong because I disagree with him, and what point is there in talking to someone who's wrong? I see the same attitude in a rather scary magazine, The Chalcedon Report, which one of the Think-Link guys sent me. It's dominion theology, if you didn't know, and they are opposed to dialogue with anyone who doesn't agree with them (which is most people), presumably on similar grounds. If you have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, why talk to anyone else? They do have some sensible things to say. So does Bill Subritzky, for that matter. But I'd apply a corollary of the Maxim of Theological Non-Falsification and say that a theology is not verified by its being useful in some circumstances. I go with Bruce [Williams]'s 'two-stage method' of arriving at theological truth: first, make sure you're handling the Scriptures appropriately (and I still find your doctrinal/individual guidance division suspect; I don't believe Scripture ever means what it never meant); and second, see if that produces a theology which is workable by mature individuals and churches. If it doesn't, you've probably screwed up on Step One or hit one of the cases where interpretation is more art than science (which is not to say that the meaning comes in at the human end, any more than with the 'science' part; if the truth is God's truth it was in there from the start).
Ross: I am coming to the opinion that your call for 'responsible Christianity' is one that should be supported across the board; that people who may quibble with some of RC's individual features will at least be prepared to own the overall concept, be they committed to RC or be LG at heart. Overall, the great need in the New Zealand church is for maturity, and in many areas it is sadly lacking.
No, Gothard has no time at all for the subjective approach. I would think that his thinking came to fruition in an environment in which there was lots of the 'subjective' and he reacted against its negative consequences. Looking back at what I wrote about him (now nearly two years ago) it struck me forcefully at the time that for someone looking at the 'basic principles' of Christianity, he had absolutely nothing to say about building a devotional or contemplative relationship with God. I thought then that this is the core of the Christian life; and still do, even if I only rarely get it right.
I can screw up on trying to hear from God, but I can screw up in my judgment calls as well (and every so often, get it right). On one occasion, early in 1989, I was speaking to someone I knew when I said to her, "I can see you going to America." The line just came out of nowhere. When she asked why I said that, I thought hard, and said, "Because you have a natural affinity for the place." As it turned out, she and her fiancé were, indeed, planning to go to the USA for mission work; and so they did, for three years. I'm not sure what that proves; but do be aware things like this happen.
This is why I now think that the differences between us are those of degree rather than kind. I could have a prophecy for someone, which you might write off as a dud. But I could also give that person a quickened verse, and, it appears, be bang on target. [Example deleted to protect privacy.]
God's work in us and his communicating to us, may well be a continuum of events; the propositional revelation of Scripture, and built on that revelation, wise judgment, quickened Scripture and perhaps something very like a prophetic word.
Philip Yancey makes a useful point about the spiritual life, that when you try to look at it, it seems to fade away or be written off as something 'psychological' (p 217). Yet we both know it is real, even if it seems to leave only a shadow in our world. Perhaps it is a trace of something much more real than our world, in the same way that the Sacraments, especially Communion, are physical agents of a spiritual grace (oh the blessing of being round Anglicans for the last two years!).
Around 1986, I was in an evangelistic meeting of his, when he pulled one woman out of the audience who he didn't know from Eve, told her she had had problems of infertility, and that she would have a baby in due course. The woman concerned was my homegroup leader, who certainly did have a problem with (several) miscarriages; and who is now a mother of a healthy and bolshie five year old. So even the loose cannons get it right sometimes. Very odd, this: he's actually based in an Anglican church though culturally, he's as Pentecostal as they come.
Mike: I appreciate, and agree with, your remarks on maturity, but I think there are still issues of Scriptural verifiability and practical usefulness which we can profitably air.
What your 'I can see you going to America' comment proves to me is that you're perceptive, but we won't quibble. Counter to your devotional-diary example [not given above], however: I was driving along the other day and heard an ad for the Auckland Observatory on the radio, and started to think about astrology and how it's incompatible with modern understandings of astronomy, but not with ancient ones. Just then, I noticed that I was passing Zodiac Avenue. My point is that I wouldn't have noticed if I'd been passing a street with that name and thinking about, say, swimming (I'd just been for a swim), nor would I have noticed the name of the street if it been something like Bishop Place. I think the same could be said for your devotional diary; if you hadn't been grieving that day you wouldn't have noticed the quotation [about grief]. While it was appropriate to your situation, it had always been so, and while I don't rule out God bringing it to your attention I think that my above explanation fits the facts as well or better.
Oddly enough, your approach to Scripture is more in line with neo-orthodox understanding (the Bible becomes the word of God to us in our situation) than with evangelical ideas; perhaps the Baptists have had more influence than we think (since their theological college is neo-orthodox, more or less). Historically, though, it probably is a Pentecostal thing.
Speaking of traditions of Scripture interpretation [in relation to a seperate discussion between us involving Catholic ideas of the Scriptures]: I'm no Calvinist, as you know, and in fact am quite attracted to the Catholic way of doing things, but their attitude to Scripture and authority is mainly what has held me back from entering that tradition. The Reformation catchcry of sola Scriptura did not mean, and was never intended to mean, that there was no 'authority' or 'tradition' involved in the interpretation of Scripture. What it was a reaction to was the arrogation of the authority to interpret Scripture to a (potentially, and in Reformation times in fact) politicised church heirarchy, what [a Catholic who wrote to Ross] refers to as 'the teaching of the Church as solemnly defined by various councils. . . . the wisdom of its pastors and bishops. . . the teaching authority of the Church' (the latter, ie presumably in practice the Congregation for Doctrine in Rome, having the final say). What this doesn't recognise is that, firstly, the canon of Scripture was not prescribed but described by the early councils; it was not an official decision but a recognisation of usage by the people of God (the laos or laity) and conformity to certain standards of authenticity. In other words, the councils affirmed an existing reality rather than creating a new one by their 'authority'. The guidance of the Holy Spirit, which he says was guaranteed to the Church, was actually guaranteed to the apostles (if he means, as I assume, John 14, which is probable; looking at who 'you' refers to in verses 25 and 27, it's clearly the apostles, hence context dictates that the 'you' in v 26 also refer to them; similarly elsewhere in John 14-16). This gives the apostolic writings an authority greater than any subsequent pronouncement. All subsequent pronouncements, therefore, including interpretations of Scripture (whether by the Pope or John MacArthur or you or me), are contingent and secondary in their authority; the Scripture itself has primary authority. In practice, of course, there is some interpretation in everything; but in the case of essential doctrine Scripture is sufficiently clear that vital points will be agreed upon by everyone who adopts an appropriate methodology (the Reformation doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture), just as with the state of modern literary criticism the overall text and message of the Scriptures is essentially unaffected by the few remaining manuscript difficulties.
The other side of this is that those things which are not perspicuous are (a) probably not vital, and (b) up for grabs to some extent, ie no one authority can appropriately set itself up as uncontradictable on these matters. This regardless of the length of its history or the number of its adherents; such things introduce limitations as well as strengths, such is the weakness of finite human nature. All credit to the Catholic evangelicals, though; I don't envy them their situation.
This is really partly what I meant about 'who speaks for God?'. I'm unsure on modern prophecy; as with modern healing and modern tongues, I'm inclined to allow that it is possible while stating that I've never seen a convincing example of it, and that I've seen many obviously non-genuine examples, and that this is a bad thing. But even allowing that some people are knowingly or unknowingly representing the mind of God accurately in what they are saying (and surely some people must be, since so many are speaking on his behalf that statistical probability alone should ensure some accuracy), I'm nervous with the idea that we can point to a statement and say 'This is definitely from God.' I have no problems saying 'This is definitely not from God', since there are plenty of people saying things which Scripture flatly contradicts, or in ways which Scripture disallows. I had no problem, for example, endorsing [my pastor] Geoff Smith's letter to Challenge in which he said (before the deadline had passed) that Gerald Coates' 'prophecy' of an earthquake in Taupo would not be proved true, because he had arrived at it through a non-legitimate way of treating Scripture. But my positive statements will never get stronger than 'I think that is a correct, or at least an allowable and useful, interpretation or application of Scripture'. After all, what are we going to use to test? Miracles? There will be false signs in the last days, to deceive even the elect. Results? That's a false theology if ever there was one. Conformity to my own particular prejudices? To state it thus is a refutation.
Further: I certainly agree that all of this is a shadow of something more real than our world, and that the sacramental viewpoint (if not taken to ridiculous extremes as in the controversies about transsubstantiation, baptismal regeneration etc, on which see 1 Co 10) has some powerful truth in it. Can I propose that the Scriptures are, in a sense, sacramental? Perhaps this is the wrong way around; perhaps the sacraments are quasi-revelational [or at least a witness to the truth, even if not a revelation of it strictly speaking]. What I mean is that as they are received with faith (which is primarily a volitional activity, though it also has varied amounts of propositional and affective content), both Scriptures and sacraments allow us to be touched by that shadow. In this sense, true fellowship (not tea and biscuits, but heart-to-heart and mind-to-mind stuff, true unity of mind in the Phillippians 2 sense) is also sacramental or whatever we're calling this.
Ross: If I have understood it correctly, the gap between RC and LG may not be all that great. If so, your call for maturity in the Christian community matters most of all, and the mature elements in both parties will agree.
Hence, I still think we are arguing around the issue's margin - arguments about degree as much as kind. A 'mature' RC and a mature 'listening to God' may not be all that different in practice; LG is committed to the primary authority of Scripture and RC must have at least some room for the experiential in the Christian walk.
I don't see myself as 'neo-orthodox' either; I've spent most of the last few years studying exegesis and so on, to know what its problems are. On the other hand, I don't see how, if you are using a sound Biblical framework, neo-orthodox insights within the bounds of a Biblical foundation are a necessary contradiction in terms (go back to Yancey's comments on transposition). As in music; classical relies on form and discipline, jazz on improvisation, but they both work within a given framework of what is music. And a lot of the Spirit's work is something like jazz, I suspect. I don't think that Pentecostals are especially neo-orthodox - well, they wouldn't immediately recognise some of the lengths it's been taken to and they sure can be literalist when it suits them (eg. attitudes to women's ministry). Nor am I greatly disagreeing with your point about 'primary authority' either; I just allow somewhat more flexibility as to how one works within it than you do. Practically, I am coming to the view that the bulk of our Christian life will be conducted on rules of wise judgment (as RC says) but this does not automatically leave something like LG out of court.
Mike: I think we have been repeating ourselves, having come to a point where we are both convinced and aren't about to back down more than a little. Though your points are good ones, I'm not sure that you have understood correctly if you think that the gap between RC and LG is not all that great. Certainly in practice they may be very similar in many cases, but I still think that there are fundamental rather than trivial differences.
Hence, though if maturity is the central issue we are arguing around its margin, I think we are arguing other central issues in talking about sufficiency of Scripture vs need for or place of experience, etc.
An interesting letter this week from [Think-Link member] Chris Gousmett (who wrote a series of articles on politics for Today's Christian years ago). He's just finished a PhD thesis on Patristic eschatology and says 'I have read great quantities of literature from the second to the eighth centuries and I have yet to come across anyone who has any concern whatever about "knowing the will of God." It was all rather simple for them: the will of God was made known in Scripture, and it was to be obeyed. No subjective impressions were needed . . . as so many seem to think these days. The problem is largely traceable to our view of Scripture as a "dead letter" unless brought to our attention in a subjective way by the Spirit.' From other things he says he is responding to what you would call an immature form of LG, but I think the above has relevance to LG as a model regardless of the maturity issue. He refers me to an article in Christianity Today, Oct 26 1992, pp 30-32, 'What it means to me' by Walt Russell, if you're interested in following it up. The article distinguishes between the 'meaning' of the text (invariant) and its 'significance' (varying in different circumstances), and points to the conflation of the two as the source of many problems in biblical interpretation. I think it may have relevance to your theological/devotional distinction.
Ian: The issue of what is meant by 'spiritual' both positively and negatively is something which needs to be clarified as RC develops.
Ross: Yes, RC has one major problem; defining what the spiritual life will after all involve. It is possible to use a reductionist model that reduces guidance to what you had for breakfast, but you can't stop there. You can so rationalise the Christian life that its vertically relational aspects go out the door. What is a valid, or normal Christian walk? Perhaps the best example of my question is Aquinas, who spent decades codifying theology to the point he is still the linchpin of modern Catholicism (and even Luther gained some useful insights from that source). . . but at the end of his life had a vision of God that made everything he had written 'look like so much straw' (cf 2 Cor 12). Who knows? Maybe God can communicate himself to our spirits in a way that isn't quite within the bounds of the rational life, but real for all that.
The main area in which RC needs work, is in defining the relational aspects of a normal Christian life. I suggest you open this up for a free-for-all, (include it in the Symposium, or cast up a Today's Christian article) and see what people can tell you. Guidance is only a subset of the problem of developing a mature Christian life, which of course is what concerns us so much. Doctrinally, have a think about John 15:14-16 where Jesus tells his disciples that they are now his friends instead of just servants. So, it appears that more is involved than the old covenant's limited range of contact.
You need to be able to define what a Christian life will involve, rather than what it doesn't involve. I've been down the route which treats Christianity as a philosophy, and there was only so far one can go. You can only do so much with Karl Popper-style falsification or reductionism; what, in fact, can be verified?
Mike: Good questions. They really need an article to themselves, a discussion of 'responsible spirituality'.
At the time of original publication:
MIKE McMILLAN worked as a freelance writer and editor in Auckland. Once described in Today's Christian magazine as 'one of New Zealand's few outspoken Christian thinkers', he founded Think-Link partly to make the 'few' untrue.
ROSS CLARK worked for Transit New Zealand in Wellington. Mike and Ross knew of each other through Today's Christian, to which they have both contributed, and finally met by chance at a New Year's Eve party. Another reason Mike founded Think-Link was that he enjoyed their conversation so much.
IAN BURN was a student in Christchurch. He lists his interests as secularism, postmodernism and Christianity, environmentalism, and substitutionary atonement. A third reason Think-Link was founded was for people like Ian.
Contributions to Symposium, including the editor's, do not necessarily represent the opinion of anybody other than the contributor.
More articles.
I love |
You are visitor number to this page since
29 November 1997.