Has anyone so far said that Christ is the hardest person of the Trinity for them to relate to?
I’m furious that God chose to incarnate into a male body, when men are responsible for almost all the violence and rape in the world. I have a male body and am I feel like I am a threat to the world because of it. I have dreamed since childhood of a world that evolves scientifically so that men are no longer necessary (nothing bad would happen to men, but no one would be willing to reproduce with them anymore , so they would just stop existing after a few generations).
That kind of world is something I've thought about, as it's a theme in speculative fiction (bearing in mind that one of the reasons for the writing / reading of which is exploring the attitudes and behaviour of humans and human societies). It didn't seem at all unreasonable to me, and still doesn't.
And so many people justify the oppression of women in Christianity on the fact that Jesus was/is a man.
In reading up about the natures of Christ, one aspect of Christology that hadn't occurred to me is that it is the humanness of Christ that is important, while the maleness of Christ appears to be almost irrelevant. (One or two commentators made this explicit.) But there is a rather jarring disconnect when it comes to the issue of priesthood (say).
Can I even be a Christian?
If it doesn't include freedom from the agony of self-oppression, it leaves many people out in the cold.
I'd agree that the humanity of Christ is more important than his maleness. What is it the Apostle Paul said about there being neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free ...
And yes, that does become problematic for those who insist on a male priesthood.
As for whether someone can truly call themselves a Christian or not, then that ain't for me to determine.
On the issue of doctrinal correctness and drawing boundary lines, that's a very fraught issue of course. It can quickly become toxic. I'd put the 'Orthodoxy or Death' brigade and the current clutch of young 20-something male 'Ortho-Bro' keyboard culture warriors firmly in that bracket.
Whatever our 'doxy' or 'praxy' it behoves us to be generous about it.
As an Orthodox Christian of course, I am concerned about things being ... well, orthodox or Orthodox.
That doesn't mean I believe we should go around booting people about over these things nor that the Almighty is more concerned about doctrinal correctness than the way we treat each other.
So what does it mean for you?
To my mind, there's a difference between being orthodox and Orthodox in relation to doctrine - the former relates to the principle that "correctness" in doctrine is something that matters (and the latter relates to a particular collection of doctrines being correct).
It seems that the correctness of doctrine is important to you, I just have no idea why.
I'm not speaking for @Gamma Gamaliel here, but in my case, (1) because I believe it's true, and at least (2) bad doctrine can be genuinely toxic, such as the notion that the material world is not merely fallen but that matter itself is intrinsically evil in, say, Manichaeism. I've encountered people whose unorthodox, distorted notions of God's sovereignty are such that they seem to me to be worshipping an unloving tyrant.
If you think something is true in many other areas, then don't you think people should know about it? And if you see a distortion of the truth, then don't you think someone should speak up about it? One could argue that there are things which don't affect our lives very much (superstring theory, the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin), but I would not put general theology in that category at all. (And even angelology (and, correspondingly, demonology) can get into some rather dodgy territory, with things like the Frank Peretti books, when treated as actually how things work (he's had to issue disclaimers), being connected to some definitely unhealthy or even dangerous approaches to politics, extreme Christian right-wing Trumpy things, etc.)
And I didn't even know about the representation of sexual abuse allegations in Peretti's novels until just this moment. Yikes. Wikipedia quote hidden for content warning's sake:
From the same Wikipedia article:
The theme of false sexual abuse allegations against Peretti's protagonists by women and children – because they are possessed by demons – has been mentioned by several reviewers. One reviewer describes it as "a terrible willingness to forgive child abuse and sexual assault if the accused was a powerful man and the accuser was a woman or child" mirrored in American evangelicalism,[33] while another notes that not only are all of the victims depicted as "demonically-possessed liar", but those in helping roles are also "villains": "Those who are on the frontline of helping children and survivors – public school teachers, therapists, social workers, child advocates – are cast as evil".[34][35][36]
Mind you, I do believe that orthodox doctrine is very important, but one of the aspects of that very doctrine is, paradoxically*, that love matters more than correct doctrine. Jesus didn't say, about the sheep and the goats, "I was hungry and thirsty, and you had precisely correct notions of how Communion works," or "I was in prison, and your ecclesiology was top-notch." In the case of the Good Samaritan, the Samaritans were (and are, as far as theological Samaritanism is concerned) not orthodox compared with regular Jewish teaching, but he was the one who did the right thing compared to the orthodox people passing by. This doesn't mean that Jesus was saying his theology was more correct--but his heart was more correct than those others'. It's the humble tax collector who is forgiven, rather than the very learned (and presumably doctrinally orthodox) Pharisee. And so on.
* Waves to @Gamma Gamaliel for the use of "paradoxically" here. Also G. K. Chesterton.
I'd put the 'Orthodoxy or Death' brigade and the current clutch of young 20-something male 'Ortho-Bro' keyboard culture warriors firmly in that bracket.
I think there's also a disturbing influence from the far right and ethnocentric stuff here, and it's in a lot of other churches these days as well--I get the impression that church/religious stuff is seen as part of the whole package of "traditionalism" and "nationalism" rather than something that they're interested in for its own sake, or especially for Jesus' own sake. "This is what people did in my idea of the past, when men were men and women and minorities and LGBTQ people 'knew their place,'" etc. We're suddenly seeing a bunch of right-wing influencers in the "manosphere" "get religion," and while I hope there's a genuine desire for Christ in them, or that this will be a way for Him to reach them, it strikes me as more part of the "culture war" -- "I hate 'wokeness,' and this notion of religion is also against 'wokeness,' so I'll join up."
Yes. Not that I object to robust objections or even sarcastic comments. Heck, it's not as if I'm squeaky-clean in that respect.
But I was anticipating @Lamb Chopped getting some stick for saying that she could 'get close' to Christ as one male who was never going to be abusive.
I'll go further. As well as objecting to recent comments about the Virgin Mary on the grounds of misogyny and anti-semitism, I also found them quite 'hurtful' in terms of impugning the reputation of someone I respect, admire and indeed venerate.
Sooner or later in any of these discussions, no matter how prim, proper and objective we try to be, the 'personal' and relational element will kick in - whether in an apophatic or cataphatic way.
There can be pain on both sides, a sense of discomfort and 'disconnect' on the part of those of no faith or who have lost their faith, particularly if others sound blithely content to carry on regardless, and corresponding emotions among those of faith if they feel cherished beliefs are being got at, impugned or undermined.
But that’s part of it, I suppose. That's what debate involves. And we are all the stronger for it provided we engage respectfully.
It's kind of you, but I don't think you need to worry so much about my feelings. If such a person should pop up and get abusive, I expect I'll find a way to cope with them.
In fact, I meant what I said. My relationship to God was formed largely by my early relationships to family members, because humans are a species which lives in a web of relationships; and when those early relationships are toxic (as they were for me), it can fuck up later relationships. Such as mine with God.
It's why I have trouble with thinking of God as "father" (though I'm working on it) and discovered, much to my surprise, that I have no trouble thinking of Christ as "husband"--almost certainly because Mr. Lamb was the first healthy and deep relationship I managed to establish once I got away from my family--and he is not abusive. Through him I began to really understand what it might mean to care for, cherish and safeguard someone, rather than doing the opposite under a veneer of love. Mr. Lamb's actions more or less "fleshed out" for me the words about God in the New Testament particularly; I learned what real love looked like, and I had content now for the words on the page.
And then, as Christ himself continued to demonstrate those attitudes and behaviors (loving, non-abusive, kind), that started to open up for me the possibility that there might actually be more people (men, okay) in the world than just these two who were also worthwhile human beings. The redemption of the whole group, if I can call it that, started to spread, as I met more non-abusive people and learned very slowly to trust them.
Now my difficulties were never solely with men, as the worst abuse I received was at the hands of my mother. So it was more the redemption of "family" that I needed, not a particular gender. But I think the dynamics can be much the same. Having met one good example of the problematic category who is utterly trustworthy, a person may (with much fear and trembling) take a chance on a second--especially if the second one has close positive ties with the original good example.
Anyway, that's how it worked for me.
[I don't think I've mentioned this on this thread before--if I did, forgive me--but there's been a slow but definite change in my attitude toward God the Father very recently. It started when I realized that he was actually angry about what had been done to me and my siblings during our childhood--because an abused child (at least, me) just assumes that everybody is okay with what's being done to them, that it doesn't matter and nobody will care if they're told about it. I certainly believed that, and found it a shock--though a pleasant one! to realize God was angry on my behalf. I then noticed a couple of practical areas in which he, uh, sent help to us so that we all three survived our childhood--not removing the problem but providing the means for us to survive it.
Naturally the problem of theodicy comes up--why did God not simply remove my parents? And I have no answer for that one, and may never have one. But given my personal knowledge and trust of Jesus Christ (who is "the image of the invisible God") I'm willing to lay this matter on the side of my plate to be dealt with later. He's earned that of me.
But I did want to say how glad I am to see some movement in this formerly intractable problem of my view of God the Father.]
Oh, and for those who have said that maybe it isn't a problem that I (or others) have lopsided views of the Trinity, I'm sure you're right. I mean, that it's not a problem for God. But it's a problem for the human being, if the human being feels it is, and that's why I want things to change. I'm not happy with the status quo. If I were, I'd just let it go.
Yes. Not that I object to robust objections or even sarcastic comments. Heck, it's not as if I'm squeaky-clean in that respect.
But I was anticipating @Lamb Chopped getting some stick for saying that she could 'get close' to Christ as one male who was never going to be abusive.
I'll go further. As well as objecting to recent comments about the Virgin Mary on the grounds of misogyny and anti-semitism, I also found them quite 'hurtful' in terms of impugning the reputation of someone I respect, admire and indeed venerate.
Sooner or later in any of these discussions, no matter how prim, proper and objective we try to be, the 'personal' and relational element will kick in - whether in an apophatic or cataphatic way.
There can be pain on both sides, a sense of discomfort and 'disconnect' on the part of those of no faith or who have lost their faith, particularly if others sound blithely content to carry on regardless, and corresponding emotions among those of faith if they feel cherished beliefs are being got at, impugned or undermined.
But that’s part of it, I suppose. That's what debate involves. And we are all the stronger for it provided we engage respectfully.
It's kind of you, but I don't think you need to worry so much about my feelings. If such a person should pop up and get abusive, I expect I'll find a way to cope with them.
In fact, I meant what I said. My relationship to God was formed largely by my early relationships to family members, because humans are a species which lives in a web of relationships; and when those early relationships are toxic (as they were for me), it can fuck up later relationships. Such as mine with God.
It's why I have trouble with thinking of God as "father" (though I'm working on it) and discovered, much to my surprise, that I have no trouble thinking of Christ as "husband"--almost certainly because Mr. Lamb was the first healthy and deep relationship I managed to establish once I got away from my family--and he is not abusive. Through him I began to really understand what it might mean to care for, cherish and safeguard someone, rather than doing the opposite under a veneer of love. Mr. Lamb's actions more or less "fleshed out" for me the words about God in the New Testament particularly; I learned what real love looked like, and I had content now for the words on the page.
And then, as Christ himself continued to demonstrate those attitudes and behaviors (loving, non-abusive, kind), that started to open up for me the possibility that there might actually be more people (men, okay) in the world than just these two who were also worthwhile human beings. The redemption of the whole group, if I can call it that, started to spread, as I met more non-abusive people and learned very slowly to trust them.
Now my difficulties were never solely with men, as the worst abuse I received was at the hands of my mother. So it was more the redemption of "family" that I needed, not a particular gender. But I think the dynamics can be much the same. Having met one good example of the problematic category who is utterly trustworthy, a person may (with much fear and trembling) take a chance on a second--especially if the second one has close positive ties with the original good example.
Anyway, that's how it worked for me.
[I don't think I've mentioned this on this thread before--if I did, forgive me--but there's been a slow but definite change in my attitude toward God the Father very recently. It started when I realized that he was actually angry about what had been done to me and my siblings during our childhood--because an abused child (at least, me) just assumes that everybody is okay with what's being done to them, that it doesn't matter and nobody will care if they're told about it. I certainly believed that, and found it a shock--though a pleasant one! to realize God was angry on my behalf. I then noticed a couple of practical areas in which he, uh, sent help to us so that we all three survived our childhood--not removing the problem but providing the means for us to survive it.
Naturally the problem of theodicy comes up--why did God not simply remove my parents? And I have no answer for that one, and may never have one. But given my personal knowledge and trust of Jesus Christ (who is "the image of the invisible God") I'm willing to lay this matter on the side of my plate to be dealt with later. He's earned that of me.
But I did want to say how glad I am to see some movement in this formerly intractable problem of my view of God the Father.]
Oh, and for those who have said that maybe it isn't a problem that I (or others) have lopsided views of the Trinity, I'm sure you're right. I mean, that it's not a problem for God. But it's a problem for the human being, if the human being feels it is, and that's why I want things to change. I'm not happy with the status quo. If I were, I'd just let it go.
Fellow parental abuse survivor here; sending hugs and prayers. ❤️🩹
...It seems that the correctness of doctrine is important to you, I just have no idea why.
I'm not speaking for @Gamma Gamaliel here, but in my case, (1) because I believe it's true, and at least (2) bad doctrine can be genuinely toxic, such as the notion that the material world is not merely fallen but that matter itself is intrinsically evil in, say, Manichaeism. I've encountered people whose unorthodox, distorted notions of God's sovereignty are such that they seem to me to be worshipping an unloving tyrant.
From that wikipedia article:
Theodosius I issued a decree of death for all Manichaean monks in 382 CE.[89] The religion was vigorously attacked and persecuted by both the Christian Church and the Roman state, and the religion almost disappeared from western Europe in the fifth century and from the eastern portion of the empire in the sixth century.[58]
(Theodosius I being the Roman emperor who was instrumental in establishing the Nicene Creed as the orthodox doctrine for (Nicene) Christianity.)
So to illustrate your point about the "genuinely toxic" dangers of bad doctrine, you choose the example of an essentially peaceful syncretic religion that was all but wiped out for challenging the primacy of Christianity (in the Roman empire), this action somehow being justified by one aspect of its "dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness."
If you think something is true in many other areas, then don't you think people should know about it? And if you see a distortion of the truth, then don't you think someone should speak up about it?
Is that because speaking up has any effect, or because you feel that you ought to be doing something? My observation is that "speaking up" achieves little, and can get pretty ugly, pretty quickly.
One could argue that there are things which don't affect our lives very much (superstring theory, the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin), but I would not put general theology in that category at all. (And even angelology (and, correspondingly, demonology) can get into some rather dodgy territory, with things like the Frank Peretti books, when treated as actually how things work (he's had to issue disclaimers) ... But it is another example of how our views of God, the supernatural, etc. can affect our behavior in our day to day lives.
Frank Peretti? I've read this stuff - what has lurid pseudo-spiritual Christian fiction got to do with the question of doctrine? And isn't "correct" doctrine at just as much risk of being appropriated by bad actors as "incorrect" doctrine?
As far as I can tell, your argument is that bad doctrine leads to people doing bad things. I'm still concerned that this view overlooks the bad things done by those promulgators of good doctrines who have taken it upon themselves to identify and quash bad doctrines in the name of Truth.
Mind you, I do believe that orthodox doctrine is very important, but one of the aspects of that very doctrine is, paradoxically*, that love matters more than correct doctrine.
I'm really not sure what the paradox is - it is human beings that define what heresy is, who heretics are, and when it is justifiable to persecute, torture and kill them.
What does it mean in practice?
To ignore theological considerations? To have a naive and childlike faith?
Those of us who believe that orthodox or Orthodox belief is important do have to contend with the issues @Pease raises. That sticklers for 'correct belief' have been - and can be - responsible for dire practices such as persecuting 'heretics' or anyone who isn't compliant with the prevailing viewpoint.
All that is certainly true.
But does that mean we have to accept an amorphous free-for-all to avoid that risk?
...It seems that the correctness of doctrine is important to you, I just have no idea why.
I'm not speaking for @Gamma Gamaliel here, but in my case, (1) because I believe it's true, and at least (2) bad doctrine can be genuinely toxic, such as the notion that the material world is not merely fallen but that matter itself is intrinsically evil in, say, Manichaeism. I've encountered people whose unorthodox, distorted notions of God's sovereignty are such that they seem to me to be worshipping an unloving tyrant.
From that wikipedia article:
Theodosius I issued a decree of death for all Manichaean monks in 382 CE.[89] The religion was vigorously attacked and persecuted by both the Christian Church and the Roman state, and the religion almost disappeared from western Europe in the fifth century and from the eastern portion of the empire in the sixth century.[58]
(Theodosius I being the Roman emperor who was instrumental in establishing the Nicene Creed as the orthodox doctrine for (Nicene) Christianity.)
So to illustrate your point about the "genuinely toxic" dangers of bad doctrine, you choose the example of an essentially peaceful syncretic religion that was all but wiped out for challenging the primacy of Christianity (in the Roman empire), this action somehow being justified by one aspect of its "dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness."
If you think something is true in many other areas, then don't you think people should know about it? And if you see a distortion of the truth, then don't you think someone should speak up about it?
Is that because speaking up has any effect, or because you feel that you ought to be doing something? My observation is that "speaking up" achieves little, and can get pretty ugly, pretty quickly.
One could argue that there are things which don't affect our lives very much (superstring theory, the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin), but I would not put general theology in that category at all. (And even angelology (and, correspondingly, demonology) can get into some rather dodgy territory, with things like the Frank Peretti books, when treated as actually how things work (he's had to issue disclaimers) ... But it is another example of how our views of God, the supernatural, etc. can affect our behavior in our day to day lives.
Frank Peretti? I've read this stuff - what has lurid pseudo-spiritual Christian fiction got to do with the question of doctrine? And isn't "correct" doctrine at just as much risk of being appropriated by bad actors as "incorrect" doctrine?
As far as I can tell, your argument is that bad doctrine leads to people doing bad things. I'm still concerned that this view overlooks the bad things done by those promulgators of good doctrines who have taken it upon themselves to identify and quash bad doctrines in the name of Truth.
Mind you, I do believe that orthodox doctrine is very important, but one of the aspects of that very doctrine is, paradoxically*, that love matters more than correct doctrine.
I'm really not sure what the paradox is - it is human beings that define what heresy is, who heretics are, and when it is justifiable to persecute, torture and kill them.
I didn’t say that it was right to torture or persecute or kill heretics. Just that at very least certain heresies are toxic. The latter does not justify the former.
As for speaking up, I believe that people ought to stand up for the truth as an intrinsically morally right thing to do. Re “because you feel that you ought to be doing something,” what is this “feel” of which you speak? I’m talking about doing the right thing whether our feelings are pushing us in the right direction or not. Of course it helps if our feelings do, but I’m not thinking of something primarily emotional.
As for Peretti, please take a look at the links that I included there – there are people who have been influenced by this and treated it as if it is actually solid doctrine about the way the world works.
I didn’t say anything disallowing the fact of people incorrectly doing bad things in the name of good doctrine. This also happens. I would also argue that if they understand that good doctrine in its fullness, they would be less likely to do the bad things.
Re “And isn't "correct" doctrine at just as much risk of being appropriated by bad actors as "incorrect" doctrine?” I think it’s harder. The false doctrines of, for example, the ends justifying the means – if someone accepts that sort of thing then it makes it easier for them to do wrong things in the name of good doctrines or of anything else. We are currently seeing that in the United States with evils like Christian nationalism.
I think I outlined what the paradox was above. Not sure why it’s unclear.
Human beings try, or are supposed to try, to describe what heresy is and then they may codify it, but in theory they’re actually trying to understand what real, true orthodoxy genuinely is. What the truth actually is in reality.
What does it mean in practice?
To ignore theological considerations? To have a naive and childlike faith?
Those of us who believe that orthodox or Orthodox belief is important do have to contend with the issues @Pease raises. That sticklers for 'correct belief' have been - and can be - responsible for dire practices such as persecuting 'heretics' or anyone who isn't compliant with the prevailing viewpoint.
All that is certainly true.
But does that mean we have to accept an amorphous free-for-all to avoid that risk?
I don't know what the answer is.
It seems to me that the answer to that is, in every era and time and place, to do the best we can at being “harmless as doves and wise as serpents.” At various times people, especially those in power, have tried to be wise as serpents but utterly failed at being harmless.
Love does the next thing. Today in my line of vision that’s included welcoming one homeless person, running a pair of people home (they don’t drive), cleaning up after communion, offering job advice to a new grad, peacemaking in an argument, giving to a beggar, warming up someone’s lunch, coping with someone’s hearing aids, reading the Old Testament and Epistle for worship, and laughing at someone’s Truly Terrible joke. And I’m not home from church yet, so no doubt I’ll see Love do more of His thing before I get my much wanted nap in. (Ach, I forgot the bit where Love is upstairs right now taking Stephen Ministry training so he can know how to care for hurting people appropriately in the future.)
...
I didn’t say that it was right to torture or persecute or kill heretics. Just that at very least certain heresies are toxic. The latter does not justify the former.
Given that you introduced the example, can you please explain why you consider "the notion that the material world is not merely fallen but that matter itself is intrinsically evil" to be "genuinely toxic"?
And given that we now rightly consider it wrong to torture, persecute or kill heretics, what do you think the church's response to Manichaeism should have been?
As for speaking up, I believe that people ought to stand up for the truth as an intrinsically morally right thing to do. Re “because you feel that you ought to be doing something,” what is this “feel” of which you speak? I’m talking about doing the right thing whether our feelings are pushing us in the right direction or not. Of course it helps if our feelings do, but I’m not thinking of something primarily emotional.
In that case, what practical effect does standing up for truth have on the things that you consider to be untrue?
As for Peretti, please take a look at the links that I included there – there are people who have been influenced by this and treated it as if it is actually solid doctrine about the way the world works.
I looked at the Peretti links - I just don't consider critiques of fictional works to be relevant to this discussion.
As far as I can work out, you seem to be taking the idea that "many readers" really have "redefined their entire worldview based upon a novel" to imply that the problem is with the correctness of Christian doctrines that the novel incorporates. (In this case, a dualistic cosmology that's considered heretical.)
Just one of the implications of this line of reasoning is that (for example) disturbing depictions of the apocalypse or the rapture are OK as long as they're not heretical. I really don't think the problem with people taking fictional descriptions or depictions seriously is whether or not underlying Christian doctrines are orthodox.
I didn’t say anything disallowing the fact of people incorrectly doing bad things in the name of good doctrine. This also happens. I would also argue that if they understand that good doctrine in its fullness, they would be less likely to do the bad things.
Some bad people have an extremely good grasp of good doctrine - it can be quite useful in developing ways to convey their message to people who believe it.
Re “And isn't "correct" doctrine at just as much risk of being appropriated by bad actors as "incorrect" doctrine?” I think it’s harder. The false doctrines of, for example, the ends justifying the means – if someone accepts that sort of thing then it makes it easier for them to do wrong things in the name of good doctrines or of anything else. We are currently seeing that in the United States with evils like Christian nationalism.
Since when has "the ends justifies the means" been considered a heresy? It's usually referred to as an idiom.
I think I outlined what the paradox was above. Not sure why it’s unclear.
That love matters more than doctrine is the rather straightforward outworking of (say) Jesus' teaching about the greatest two commandments. Trying to turn it into a doctrinal paradox seems a stretch.
Human beings try, or are supposed to try, to describe what heresy is and then they may codify it, but in theory they’re actually trying to understand what real, true orthodoxy genuinely is. What the truth actually is in reality.
I believe the origins of orthodoxy and heresy are largely pragmatic - they served a purpose, such as keeping the disparate communities of the church on speaking terms with each other as they spread across continents.
Ah, right, and an interesting one too. Thanks for drawing my attention to it.
I'm not sure I have much to add to it but will follow it with interest.
As far as it applies to how receiving the Kingdom of heaven like a little child applies to how we 'relate' to the Persons of the Godhead, well ... I don't think anyone is saying that we need a doctorate in Trinitarian theology to be able to do so.
As far as people expelling or persecuting and executing those deemed to be heretical, well, one could argue that to do so is itself 'childish' (kids can be cruel) and immature.
On relating to the Godhead like a child, a couple of days ago I overheard my son singing a little song presumably of his own composition, which went (roughly translated from its original French) "Jesus, Jesus, you're always nice". If an adult called Jesus "nice", I'm not sure it would be excellent theology. Coming from a 6 year-old, I'd like to think Jesus is cool with it.
And getting back to how one relates to the Persons of the Trinity, apparently my son thinks Jesus is a person who is nice to him.
As far as how regarding matter as evil is a toxic notion, I would say that first it is false; second it managers to take what Christianity has been accused of, at looking down on the body as impure, and make it literally far worse as an actual doctrine. I’m suddenly reminded of the mother in Stephen King’s Carrie, who referred to breasts as “dirtypillows.” Except everything else too. Every taste of chocolate, or even celery; every erotic impulse, or even a hug; everything that isn’t spirit. I also genuinely find it troubling that it wouldn’t be immediately obvious to most people that this is a toxic way of looking at the world.
How should the church have dealt with that? Well not by murdering people. Certainly by condemning it of course.
“ In that case, what practical effect does standing up for truth have on the things that you consider to be untrue?”
It means that someone is standing up for it even if no one else is. That alone makes it worth doing. It might help make someone consider an alternative to false things.
I am assuming you’re not here in the United States – over here, elements in the worldview shown in Peretti’s novels have become part of the conspiracy theory narratives that have dangerous effects in our politics.
“ Just one of the implications of this line of reasoning is that (for example) disturbing depictions of the apocalypse or the rapture are OK as long as they're not heretical.”
I didn’t say that, and I don’t think that’s an intrinsic implication there. Saying that one particular thing is bad doesn’t mean that other things aren’t necessarily bad.
(As a sidenote, I understand the rapture itself to be a false doctrine, but that’s another matter.)
Re “ Some bad people have an extremely good grasp of good doctrine - it can be quite useful in developing ways to convey their message to people who believe it” — okay. So if they have a good grasp of it but they don’t really believe in it or at least don’t really believe in following the love part, or don’t know how to follow the love part but know enough about it to misuse it… I’m not quite sure where you’re going with this. Truth matters. It is better to know more truth than know less truth. The misuse of truth does not abolish the value of truth.
“Since when has "the ends justifies the means" been considered a heresy? It's usually referred to as an idiom.”
Well, technically, something can be false and evil, like that notion, without being formally declared a heresy, this is true.
Though St. Paul does say, in Romans 3:8, “And why not say rather (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), “Let us do evil, that good may come”?” Note that this is what we were being slandered with, not what we were actually saying.
Re: “ That love matters more than doctrine is the rather straightforward outworking of (say) Jesus' teaching about the greatest two commandments. Trying to turn it into a doctrinal paradox seems a stretch” —I would say that it is a paradox that doctrine matters a great deal, but that one of those doctrines is that love matters more than doctrine.
Re “ I believe the origins of orthodoxy and heresy are largely pragmatic - they served a purpose, such as keeping the disparate communities of the church on speaking terms with each other as they spread across continents” — and, most critically, being true, rather than a bunch of foul lies that could have served the same purpose.
On relating to the Godhead like a child, a couple of days ago I overheard my son singing a little song presumably of his own composition, which went (roughly translated from its original French) "Jesus, Jesus, you're always nice". If an adult called Jesus "nice", I'm not sure it would be excellent theology. Coming from a 6 year-old, I'd like to think Jesus is cool with it.
And getting back to how one relates to the Persons of the Trinity, apparently my son thinks Jesus is a person who is nice to him.
In reply to @pease, I’d say:
...
I am assuming you’re not here in the United States – over here, elements in the worldview shown in Peretti’s novels have become part of the conspiracy theory narratives that have dangerous effects in our politics.
I don't know why you think this is relevant or what you think it demonstrates. The conspiracy here seems to be formed around the idea that the "world" is against a shrinking, embattled, group of evangelicals. I can't see any references to dualism; but there is a reference to Ephesians 6.
Re “ Some bad people have an extremely good grasp of good doctrine - it can be quite useful in developing ways to convey their message to people who believe it” — okay. So if they have a good grasp of it but they don’t really believe in it or at least don’t really believe in following the love part, or don’t know how to follow the love part but know enough about it to misuse it… I’m not quite sure where you’re going with this. Truth matters. It is better to know more truth than know less truth. The misuse of truth does not abolish the value of truth.
I'd point out that there are some fairly nasty truths in this world - it's hard to see in what way knowing them is "better" than not knowing them. And the "value of truth" depends on what you do with it.
Re: “ That love matters more than doctrine is the rather straightforward outworking of (say) Jesus' teaching about the greatest two commandments. Trying to turn it into a doctrinal paradox seems a stretch” —I would say that it is a paradox that doctrine matters a great deal, but that one of those doctrines is that love matters more than doctrine.
Accepting for the sake of argument your assertion that this a doctrine, both those things can be true at the same, which means that it is not a paradox.
Re “ I believe the origins of orthodoxy and heresy are largely pragmatic - they served a purpose, such as keeping the disparate communities of the church on speaking terms with each other as they spread across continents” — and, most critically, being true, rather than a bunch of foul lies that could have served the same purpose.
I think the core of the issue that's been puzzling me is why you seem to think that Christians need to believe that all their Church's doctrines are true.
I mean “paradox” in the sense of definitions 1 and 2a here:
1
: one (such as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly contradictory qualities or phases
2
a
: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
Note “seemingly” and “and yet is perhaps true.”
As opposed to 2b and 2c, which I think is the definition you’re referring to:
b
: a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true
c
: an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises
I did not know that the latter definitions were a thing, actually—I’m used to just the first definitions.
Re Peretti and conspiracy theories, there’s a lot of weird and toxic stuff involving angels and demons and “spiritual warfare” connected to the US “culture war” and things like Qanon.
An analysis of this stuff which mentions the Peretti stuff:
At its most acute, the QAnon conspiracy ideology asserts that the Democratic party is controlled by a cabal of global elite (“globalist”) and “deep state” anti-Christian and anti-Trump actors (specifically naming the Rothchilds, George Soros, Bill and Hilary Clinton, Bill Gates, and “Hollywood” figures, among others). This cabal allegedly engages in pedophilia, child sex-trafficking, ritual cannibalism of children, and worships Satan. Further, this ideology amplifies the “big lie” or Trump’s baseless claims that he won the 2020 presidential election “in a landslide,” and that the election was stolen from him and his followers. Though seemingly so extreme as to be dismissed out of hand, in fact, White evangelicals in the U.S. embrace these claims at rates far higher than their non-evangelical, Republican counterparts.
Trump-era White evangelicals have widely adopted various messianic interpretations of Donald Trump. Many of these feed directly into QAnon claims that Trump is an “end time” defender of U.S. Christian culture. This is the same culture previously captivated and emboldened by Franke Peretti’s best-selling spiritual warfare Christian fiction, which generated warnings from some evangelical elites against a looming obsession with “spiritual warfare.” The U.S. White evangelical culture-industrial complex amplifies these claims and dynamics exponentially. QAnon is, in effect, one part Frank Peretti spiritual warfare, one part Left Behind series apocalypticism, and one part Elders of Zion antisemitic conspiracy theory, packaged together in a tantalizing, self-involving variation on Celebrity Apprentice reality television and social media.
Re: “ I'd point out that there are some fairly nasty truths in this world - it's hard to see in what way knowing them is "better" than not knowing them. And the "value of truth" depends on what you do with it.”
I think that knowing nasty truths can help with fighting the nasty things in this world. That doesn’t mean we should all try to seek out the nastiest stuff and just dwell on it or something. But knowing that a terrible empire wants to go and conquer something might help you with getting people together to try to stop it. Knowing about a terrible disease means that people can try to find a cure. And so on.
As the scene in Madeline L’Engle’s A Wrinkle in Time puts it:
The Medium lost the delighted smile she had worn till then. "Oh, why must you make me look at unpleasant things when there are so many delightful ones to see?"
Again Mrs. Which's voice reverberated through the cave. "Therre will nno llonggerr bee sso many pplleasanntt thinggss too llookk att iff rressponssible ppeoplle ddo nnott ddoo ssomethingg abboutt thee unnppleasanntt oness."
As for the value of truth, while it can be misused (though I generally think it’s misused by leaving out corresponding other, relevant truths, or mixing a little truth with a lie to make the lie stronger), I’d say that it has value just by virtue of being true in the first place.
@pease said (and the other comments above—mea culpa for not adding attribution!):
I think the core of the issue that's been puzzling me is why you seem to think that Christians need to believe that all their Church's doctrines are true.
I think I would say should rather than need to. “Need to” suggests some kind of other end I think—need to for what? Etc. And I don’t know how much I’d say “all” — some things, like the Creeds, are more important than minutiae. I assume when you say “their Church” with a capital C, you mean the Christian Church overall, not a given denomination—and yes, of course, I believe that Christians in general should believe in Christian beliefs. You ask why—because I think they’re true. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be a Christian.
@pease said (and the other comments above—mea culpa for not adding attribution!):
I think the core of the issue that's been puzzling me is why you seem to think that Christians need to believe that all their Church's doctrines are true.
I think I would say should rather than need to. “Need to” suggests some kind of other end I think—need to for what? Etc. And I don’t know how much I’d say “all” — some things, like the Creeds, are more important than minutiae. I assume when you say “their Church” with a capital C, you mean the Christian Church overall, not a given denomination—and yes, of course, I believe that Christians in general should believe in Christian beliefs. You ask why—because I think they’re true. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be a Christian.
I would say that the Christian Church overall doesn't have many doctrines as such, and that most doctrines (and attitudes to doctrines) are in practice associated with separate denominations or branches of Christianity.
The doctrine that most immediately comes to mind is of the nature of the Trinity, as affirmed in the Nicene Creed. As you noted recently, there are two distinct versions of this:
Yes, it’s the filioque clause, whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (EO), or from the Father and the Son (RC).
Cubby was also a Quaker, though since we went to my Episcopal church, sometimes he called himself a Quaker-palian.
This suggests to me that you are using the word true in a way that I'm not able to describe or explain, but that it is nonetheless vital to your faith (which informed my use of the word "need" above).
I note that the Episcopal Church appears to be in the rather gradual process of removing the filioque clause, and that Quakers regard creeds in general as being imperfect.
Some provinces within Anglicanism have dropped the filioque clause. I'm not sure about the ECUSA.
Quakers, as I understand it, eschew creedal formularies as they feel they are too limiting and could become a straitjacket. Some Baptists feel that way too.
The Perpetual Virginity of the BVM has come up in other ways on other threads , but it seems to be a pretty important doctrine that many in the RC community I serve feel it's important to believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong. (Apologies that this has little to do with the OP, but touches on the most recent tangent.)
Some provinces within Anglicanism have dropped the filioque clause. I'm not sure about the ECUSA.
The 1994 General Convention of The Episcopal Church adopted a recommendation to remove the filioque in the next edition of TEC’s Book of Common Prayer. The current edition is from 1979; I don’t think formal steps toward a new edition have begun yet.
The Big O would also ask whether it's in Tradition, of course.
And we have more books in our Bible than most small o or 'heterodox' churches.
So it depends whose Bible we are talking about. The Ethiopians have even more again.
@The_Riv, yes, the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a big deal for RCs - and for the Orthodox and many Anglo-Catholics too.
I didn't find it easy to accept as a convert from 'low-church' Protestantism and aspects of it still trouble me, truth be told.
But as you say, it's probably an issue for another thread. I'm sure it will have come up on these boards a good few times over the years.
Mary had her own board at one time, 'Star of the Sea' if I remember rightly. It was an invitation-only board if I remember rightly so that Marians of various stripes could gather to discuss Our Lady without continually being carped at.
Something like that.
There's only so many times an RC, Orthodox, Anglo-Catholic or Christian from another tradition which venerates Mary can put up with, 'But that’s not in the Bible ...' or 'Are you saying that sex is icky?'
I think we hve always ro 'look behind the Myth' and ask 'Why do we believe this?'. Because it's in the Bible' is not a sufficient answer.
This'll be a loose paraphrase, but I remember reading in one version of the Catechism of the RC Church an admonition not to ask or look too deeply into very many questions about Things for fear of losing one's faith. It may have been excluded from subsequent editions of the Catechism, but I'm fairly sure it existed at one time. Dedicated Church scholars are most welcome to correct me.
This suggests to me that you are using the word true in a way that I'm not able to describe or explain, but that it is nonetheless vital to your faith (which informed my use of the word "need" above).
The standard definition. How else do you use it? :baffled:
Some provinces within Anglicanism have dropped the filioque clause. I'm not sure about the ECUSA.
The 1994 General Convention of The Episcopal Church adopted a recommendation to remove the filioque in the next edition of TEC’s Book of Common Prayer. The current edition is from 1979; I don’t think formal steps toward a new edition have begun yet.
Yikes. I hope we don’t do that. Mind you, I look ahead to the next BCP with a bit of anxiety, because I have no idea what they might do with it. My inclination is to say that the 1979 version is just fine, unless I’ve missed something, and I don’t see why it needs to be changed, especially since it’s that recent. The language hasn’t changed that much in 45 years.
I'm not sure I'd want to see the prayer book revised either, save for dropping the offending clause ... 😉
Well again, this is the Episcopal (TEC) BCP, last revised in 1979, that we’re talking about, not the CofE’s BCP. TEC adopted its own BCP in 1789 (with a number of minor revisions in following years), and adopted revised editions in 1892, 1928, and 1979.
Sure, I was riffing with the idea that the Orthodox don't like change, even if it is to do with a prayer book that is someone else's and not ours - such as the TEC's, the CofE's or anyone else's for that matter.
As in, 'How many Orthodox does it take to change a light bulb?'
'Change? Change?
While presuming Mary's virginity to be historical Vatican 2 interprets it also symbolically as complete fidelity to Christ which the Church is also supposed to follow. The Church,herself, is described as a 'virgin'.
Why do you hope they don't remove the filioque clause?
Drop it. You know it makes sense ... 😉
I’m thinking of Chesterton’s fence here – before making changes or getting rid of things like that being extra careful to make sure you know why things are there, and whether they warrant removal. I know that Eastern Orthodoxy does not view the FC that way, but the western Roman Catholic and related tradition, which Anglicanism stems from, does. In my view, my own beloved Episcopal church is messing around with liturgy rather badly at this time as it is, so I’m extra nervous about things like this.
Comments
In reading up about the natures of Christ, one aspect of Christology that hadn't occurred to me is that it is the humanness of Christ that is important, while the maleness of Christ appears to be almost irrelevant. (One or two commentators made this explicit.) But there is a rather jarring disconnect when it comes to the issue of priesthood (say).
If it doesn't include freedom from the agony of self-oppression, it leaves many people out in the cold.
And yes, that does become problematic for those who insist on a male priesthood.
As for whether someone can truly call themselves a Christian or not, then that ain't for me to determine.
On the issue of doctrinal correctness and drawing boundary lines, that's a very fraught issue of course. It can quickly become toxic. I'd put the 'Orthodoxy or Death' brigade and the current clutch of young 20-something male 'Ortho-Bro' keyboard culture warriors firmly in that bracket.
Whatever our 'doxy' or 'praxy' it behoves us to be generous about it.
I'm not speaking for @Gamma Gamaliel here, but in my case, (1) because I believe it's true, and at least (2) bad doctrine can be genuinely toxic, such as the notion that the material world is not merely fallen but that matter itself is intrinsically evil in, say, Manichaeism. I've encountered people whose unorthodox, distorted notions of God's sovereignty are such that they seem to me to be worshipping an unloving tyrant.
If you think something is true in many other areas, then don't you think people should know about it? And if you see a distortion of the truth, then don't you think someone should speak up about it? One could argue that there are things which don't affect our lives very much (superstring theory, the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin), but I would not put general theology in that category at all. (And even angelology (and, correspondingly, demonology) can get into some rather dodgy territory, with things like the Frank Peretti books, when treated as actually how things work (he's had to issue disclaimers), being connected to some definitely unhealthy or even dangerous approaches to politics, extreme Christian right-wing Trumpy things, etc.)
And I didn't even know about the representation of sexual abuse allegations in Peretti's novels until just this moment. Yikes. Wikipedia quote hidden for content warning's sake:
Given the approach to the sexual abuse allegations that have been coming out in recent years in the American evangelical community, this is jarring to me. But it is another example of how our views of God, the supernatural, etc. can affect our behavior in our day to day lives.
* Waves to @Gamma Gamaliel for the use of "paradoxically" here. Also G. K. Chesterton.
I'd pretty much go along with what you've written here.
I think there's also a disturbing influence from the far right and ethnocentric stuff here, and it's in a lot of other churches these days as well--I get the impression that church/religious stuff is seen as part of the whole package of "traditionalism" and "nationalism" rather than something that they're interested in for its own sake, or especially for Jesus' own sake. "This is what people did in my idea of the past, when men were men and women and minorities and LGBTQ people 'knew their place,'" etc. We're suddenly seeing a bunch of right-wing influencers in the "manosphere" "get religion," and while I hope there's a genuine desire for Christ in them, or that this will be a way for Him to reach them, it strikes me as more part of the "culture war" -- "I hate 'wokeness,' and this notion of religion is also against 'wokeness,' so I'll join up."
It's kind of you, but I don't think you need to worry so much about my feelings. If such a person should pop up and get abusive, I expect I'll find a way to cope with them.
In fact, I meant what I said. My relationship to God was formed largely by my early relationships to family members, because humans are a species which lives in a web of relationships; and when those early relationships are toxic (as they were for me), it can fuck up later relationships. Such as mine with God.
It's why I have trouble with thinking of God as "father" (though I'm working on it) and discovered, much to my surprise, that I have no trouble thinking of Christ as "husband"--almost certainly because Mr. Lamb was the first healthy and deep relationship I managed to establish once I got away from my family--and he is not abusive. Through him I began to really understand what it might mean to care for, cherish and safeguard someone, rather than doing the opposite under a veneer of love. Mr. Lamb's actions more or less "fleshed out" for me the words about God in the New Testament particularly; I learned what real love looked like, and I had content now for the words on the page.
And then, as Christ himself continued to demonstrate those attitudes and behaviors (loving, non-abusive, kind), that started to open up for me the possibility that there might actually be more people (men, okay) in the world than just these two who were also worthwhile human beings. The redemption of the whole group, if I can call it that, started to spread, as I met more non-abusive people and learned very slowly to trust them.
Now my difficulties were never solely with men, as the worst abuse I received was at the hands of my mother. So it was more the redemption of "family" that I needed, not a particular gender. But I think the dynamics can be much the same. Having met one good example of the problematic category who is utterly trustworthy, a person may (with much fear and trembling) take a chance on a second--especially if the second one has close positive ties with the original good example.
Anyway, that's how it worked for me.
[I don't think I've mentioned this on this thread before--if I did, forgive me--but there's been a slow but definite change in my attitude toward God the Father very recently. It started when I realized that he was actually angry about what had been done to me and my siblings during our childhood--because an abused child (at least, me) just assumes that everybody is okay with what's being done to them, that it doesn't matter and nobody will care if they're told about it. I certainly believed that, and found it a shock--though a pleasant one! to realize God was angry on my behalf. I then noticed a couple of practical areas in which he, uh, sent help to us so that we all three survived our childhood--not removing the problem but providing the means for us to survive it.
Naturally the problem of theodicy comes up--why did God not simply remove my parents? And I have no answer for that one, and may never have one. But given my personal knowledge and trust of Jesus Christ (who is "the image of the invisible God") I'm willing to lay this matter on the side of my plate to be dealt with later. He's earned that of me.
But I did want to say how glad I am to see some movement in this formerly intractable problem of my view of God the Father.]
Oh, and for those who have said that maybe it isn't a problem that I (or others) have lopsided views of the Trinity, I'm sure you're right. I mean, that it's not a problem for God. But it's a problem for the human being, if the human being feels it is, and that's why I want things to change. I'm not happy with the status quo. If I were, I'd just let it go.
Fellow parental abuse survivor here; sending hugs and prayers. ❤️🩹
So to illustrate your point about the "genuinely toxic" dangers of bad doctrine, you choose the example of an essentially peaceful syncretic religion that was all but wiped out for challenging the primacy of Christianity (in the Roman empire), this action somehow being justified by one aspect of its "dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness."
Is that because speaking up has any effect, or because you feel that you ought to be doing something? My observation is that "speaking up" achieves little, and can get pretty ugly, pretty quickly.
Frank Peretti? I've read this stuff - what has lurid pseudo-spiritual Christian fiction got to do with the question of doctrine? And isn't "correct" doctrine at just as much risk of being appropriated by bad actors as "incorrect" doctrine?
As far as I can tell, your argument is that bad doctrine leads to people doing bad things. I'm still concerned that this view overlooks the bad things done by those promulgators of good doctrines who have taken it upon themselves to identify and quash bad doctrines in the name of Truth.
I'm really not sure what the paradox is - it is human beings that define what heresy is, who heretics are, and when it is justifiable to persecute, torture and kill them.
What does it mean in practice?
To ignore theological considerations? To have a naive and childlike faith?
Those of us who believe that orthodox or Orthodox belief is important do have to contend with the issues @Pease raises. That sticklers for 'correct belief' have been - and can be - responsible for dire practices such as persecuting 'heretics' or anyone who isn't compliant with the prevailing viewpoint.
All that is certainly true.
But does that mean we have to accept an amorphous free-for-all to avoid that risk?
I don't know what the answer is.
I didn’t say that it was right to torture or persecute or kill heretics. Just that at very least certain heresies are toxic. The latter does not justify the former.
As for speaking up, I believe that people ought to stand up for the truth as an intrinsically morally right thing to do. Re “because you feel that you ought to be doing something,” what is this “feel” of which you speak?
As for Peretti, please take a look at the links that I included there – there are people who have been influenced by this and treated it as if it is actually solid doctrine about the way the world works.
I didn’t say anything disallowing the fact of people incorrectly doing bad things in the name of good doctrine. This also happens. I would also argue that if they understand that good doctrine in its fullness, they would be less likely to do the bad things.
Re “And isn't "correct" doctrine at just as much risk of being appropriated by bad actors as "incorrect" doctrine?” I think it’s harder. The false doctrines of, for example, the ends justifying the means – if someone accepts that sort of thing then it makes it easier for them to do wrong things in the name of good doctrines or of anything else. We are currently seeing that in the United States with evils like Christian nationalism.
I think I outlined what the paradox was above. Not sure why it’s unclear.
Human beings try, or are supposed to try, to describe what heresy is and then they may codify it, but in theory they’re actually trying to understand what real, true orthodoxy genuinely is. What the truth actually is in reality.
It seems to me that the answer to that is, in every era and time and place, to do the best we can at being “harmless as doves and wise as serpents.” At various times people, especially those in power, have tried to be wise as serpents but utterly failed at being harmless.
And given that we now rightly consider it wrong to torture, persecute or kill heretics, what do you think the church's response to Manichaeism should have been?
In that case, what practical effect does standing up for truth have on the things that you consider to be untrue?
I looked at the Peretti links - I just don't consider critiques of fictional works to be relevant to this discussion.
As far as I can work out, you seem to be taking the idea that "many readers" really have "redefined their entire worldview based upon a novel" to imply that the problem is with the correctness of Christian doctrines that the novel incorporates. (In this case, a dualistic cosmology that's considered heretical.)
Just one of the implications of this line of reasoning is that (for example) disturbing depictions of the apocalypse or the rapture are OK as long as they're not heretical. I really don't think the problem with people taking fictional descriptions or depictions seriously is whether or not underlying Christian doctrines are orthodox.
Some bad people have an extremely good grasp of good doctrine - it can be quite useful in developing ways to convey their message to people who believe it.
Since when has "the ends justifies the means" been considered a heresy? It's usually referred to as an idiom.
That love matters more than doctrine is the rather straightforward outworking of (say) Jesus' teaching about the greatest two commandments. Trying to turn it into a doctrinal paradox seems a stretch.
I believe the origins of orthodoxy and heresy are largely pragmatic - they served a purpose, such as keeping the disparate communities of the church on speaking terms with each other as they spread across continents.
I'm not sure I have much to add to it but will follow it with interest.
As far as it applies to how receiving the Kingdom of heaven like a little child applies to how we 'relate' to the Persons of the Godhead, well ... I don't think anyone is saying that we need a doctorate in Trinitarian theology to be able to do so.
As far as people expelling or persecuting and executing those deemed to be heretical, well, one could argue that to do so is itself 'childish' (kids can be cruel) and immature.
And getting back to how one relates to the Persons of the Trinity, apparently my son thinks Jesus is a person who is nice to him.
As far as how regarding matter as evil is a toxic notion, I would say that first it is false; second it managers to take what Christianity has been accused of, at looking down on the body as impure, and make it literally far worse as an actual doctrine. I’m suddenly reminded of the mother in Stephen King’s Carrie, who referred to breasts as “dirtypillows.” Except everything else too. Every taste of chocolate, or even celery; every erotic impulse, or even a hug; everything that isn’t spirit. I also genuinely find it troubling that it wouldn’t be immediately obvious to most people that this is a toxic way of looking at the world.
How should the church have dealt with that? Well not by murdering people. Certainly by condemning it of course.
“ In that case, what practical effect does standing up for truth have on the things that you consider to be untrue?”
It means that someone is standing up for it even if no one else is. That alone makes it worth doing. It might help make someone consider an alternative to false things.
I am assuming you’re not here in the United States – over here, elements in the worldview shown in Peretti’s novels have become part of the conspiracy theory narratives that have dangerous effects in our politics.
https://www.vox.com/culture/23033782/frank-peretti-this-present-darkness-piercing-the-darkness-cultural-influence-moral-panic
“ Just one of the implications of this line of reasoning is that (for example) disturbing depictions of the apocalypse or the rapture are OK as long as they're not heretical.”
I didn’t say that, and I don’t think that’s an intrinsic implication there. Saying that one particular thing is bad doesn’t mean that other things aren’t necessarily bad.
(As a sidenote, I understand the rapture itself to be a false doctrine, but that’s another matter.)
Re “ Some bad people have an extremely good grasp of good doctrine - it can be quite useful in developing ways to convey their message to people who believe it” — okay. So if they have a good grasp of it but they don’t really believe in it or at least don’t really believe in following the love part, or don’t know how to follow the love part but know enough about it to misuse it… I’m not quite sure where you’re going with this. Truth matters. It is better to know more truth than know less truth. The misuse of truth does not abolish the value of truth.
“Since when has "the ends justifies the means" been considered a heresy? It's usually referred to as an idiom.”
Well, technically, something can be false and evil, like that notion, without being formally declared a heresy, this is true.
Though St. Paul does say, in Romans 3:8, “And why not say rather (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), “Let us do evil, that good may come”?” Note that this is what we were being slandered with, not what we were actually saying.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans 3:8
Re: “ That love matters more than doctrine is the rather straightforward outworking of (say) Jesus' teaching about the greatest two commandments. Trying to turn it into a doctrinal paradox seems a stretch” —I would say that it is a paradox that doctrine matters a great deal, but that one of those doctrines is that love matters more than doctrine.
Re “ I believe the origins of orthodoxy and heresy are largely pragmatic - they served a purpose, such as keeping the disparate communities of the church on speaking terms with each other as they spread across continents” — and, most critically, being true, rather than a bunch of foul lies that could have served the same purpose.
This is lovely.
I'd point out that there are some fairly nasty truths in this world - it's hard to see in what way knowing them is "better" than not knowing them. And the "value of truth" depends on what you do with it.
Accepting for the sake of argument your assertion that this a doctrine, both those things can be true at the same, which means that it is not a paradox.
I think the core of the issue that's been puzzling me is why you seem to think that Christians need to believe that all their Church's doctrines are true.
Note “seemingly” and “and yet is perhaps true.”
As opposed to 2b and 2c, which I think is the definition you’re referring to:
I did not know that the latter definitions were a thing, actually—I’m used to just the first definitions.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradox
An analysis of this stuff which mentions the Peretti stuff:
https://contendingmodernities.nd.edu/theorizing-modernities/qanon-evangelical-apocalypse/
I think that knowing nasty truths can help with fighting the nasty things in this world. That doesn’t mean we should all try to seek out the nastiest stuff and just dwell on it or something. But knowing that a terrible empire wants to go and conquer something might help you with getting people together to try to stop it. Knowing about a terrible disease means that people can try to find a cure. And so on.
As the scene in Madeline L’Engle’s A Wrinkle in Time puts it:
As for the value of truth, while it can be misused (though I generally think it’s misused by leaving out corresponding other, relevant truths, or mixing a little truth with a lie to make the lie stronger), I’d say that it has value just by virtue of being true in the first place.
I think I would say should rather than need to. “Need to” suggests some kind of other end I think—need to for what? Etc. And I don’t know how much I’d say “all” — some things, like the Creeds, are more important than minutiae. I assume when you say “their Church” with a capital C, you mean the Christian Church overall, not a given denomination—and yes, of course, I believe that Christians in general should believe in Christian beliefs. You ask why—because I think they’re true. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be a Christian.
The doctrine that most immediately comes to mind is of the nature of the Trinity, as affirmed in the Nicene Creed. As you noted recently, there are two distinct versions of this: This suggests to me that you are using the word true in a way that I'm not able to describe or explain, but that it is nonetheless vital to your faith (which informed my use of the word "need" above).
I note that the Episcopal Church appears to be in the rather gradual process of removing the filioque clause, and that Quakers regard creeds in general as being imperfect.
Quakers, as I understand it, eschew creedal formularies as they feel they are too limiting and could become a straitjacket. Some Baptists feel that way too.
The Big O would also ask whether it's in Tradition, of course.
And we have more books in our Bible than most small o or 'heterodox' churches.
So it depends whose Bible we are talking about. The Ethiopians have even more again.
@The_Riv, yes, the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a big deal for RCs - and for the Orthodox and many Anglo-Catholics too.
I didn't find it easy to accept as a convert from 'low-church' Protestantism and aspects of it still trouble me, truth be told.
But as you say, it's probably an issue for another thread. I'm sure it will have come up on these boards a good few times over the years.
Mary had her own board at one time, 'Star of the Sea' if I remember rightly. It was an invitation-only board if I remember rightly so that Marians of various stripes could gather to discuss Our Lady without continually being carped at.
Something like that.
There's only so many times an RC, Orthodox, Anglo-Catholic or Christian from another tradition which venerates Mary can put up with, 'But that’s not in the Bible ...' or 'Are you saying that sex is icky?'
I was invited but never joined.
This'll be a loose paraphrase, but I remember reading in one version of the Catechism of the RC Church an admonition not to ask or look too deeply into very many questions about Things for fear of losing one's faith. It may have been excluded from subsequent editions of the Catechism, but I'm fairly sure it existed at one time. Dedicated Church scholars are most welcome to correct me.
The standard definition. How else do you use it? :baffled:
Yikes. I hope we don’t do that. Mind you, I look ahead to the next BCP with a bit of anxiety, because I have no idea what they might do with it. My inclination is to say that the 1979 version is just fine, unless I’ve missed something, and I don’t see why it needs to be changed, especially since it’s that recent. The language hasn’t changed that much in 45 years.
Drop it. You know it makes sense ... 😉
I'm not sure I'd want to see the prayer book revised either, save for dropping the offending clause ... 😉
But that ain't down to me, of course.
As in, 'How many Orthodox does it take to change a light bulb?'
'Change? Change?
I’m thinking of Chesterton’s fence here – before making changes or getting rid of things like that being extra careful to make sure you know why things are there, and whether they warrant removal. I know that Eastern Orthodoxy does not view the FC that way, but the western Roman Catholic and related tradition, which Anglicanism stems from, does. In my view, my own beloved Episcopal church is messing around with liturgy rather badly at this time as it is, so I’m extra nervous about things like this.
Both!