Seeking to know God by arguing about the Bible is sort of like getting intimate with your wife by dissecting her. It may be enlightening, but in the end all you've accomplished is to reduce her to meaningless meat. Refrigerate after opening. A felony in all 50 states, mind you.My wife's grandpa once told me "If you think you can improve it, take it apart. But if you want it to work, leave it be." J.C. Stanley knew machines. J.C. Stanley knew God.
Systematic theology excels at analysis. That is, taking the bible and God apart. It then reassembles the parts in an orderly way (a vast improvement on that crazy, chopped up, puree-of-Bible, right?) It is a grand learning exercise, and great fun for us who relish it. But we must cling to this truth with white knuckles: the final product is not the Word of God, it is an abstraction of the Word, a simplification, an interpretation. At its best, it diminishes the Word; at its worst it distorts the Word. The product is not a living man; not even a dead body. Even at its richest and best, it is a chalk outline on the asphalt that oddly resembles the men who drew it. "The body without the spirit is dead."
Jesus said "The wind (pneuma), where it wills, it goes. It's sound you hear, but you cannot see whence it comes or whither it goes. So is each who is begotten from the Spirit (pneuma)." (Jn 3:8) If your faith cannot endure mystery, I suggest you study engineering, not God.
Those who slice specimens of God and peer at him under their microscopes wind up with nothing better to do than argue "which is greater, faith or works?" (Geez, did not St. James clearly enough warn against separating the two?)
In Love, faith and works unite, and from their union springs blessed life. In Love, heaven and earth unite, as God breathes his spirit into the man of clay. In Love, man and woman unite, and life begets life. In Love, Word becomes flesh and they are one; "whoever believes will in Him have eternal life." Jesus, son of Man, son of God.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and your neighbor as yourself. These sum up the Law and the Prophets.
JB
Posts
47 comments:
"If your faith cannot endure mystery, I suggest you study engineering, not God."Gosh, Joe, you sound like an Orthodox here; they love to answer arcane theological questions by saying, "Eez meestery". (Which doesn't, by any stretch, mean that Orthodox aren't into arcane theological questions; only that they're more inclined than your average Western Christian to admit when they don't know the answer. . .)
You make a good point here - even at its best, most theology amounts to 'commentary', and, as we used to say about our good-ol' study Bibles, 'the footnotes aren't inspired'. (Note, I say 'most', partly because I'm Catholic, and I have to have space for some points of doctrine to be a bit more than 'commentary'; I really, REALLY don't want to provoke any kind of quarrel over Catholicism, but in the interest of my cards being on the table. . .)
I'm probably a bit more optimistic than you are about the 'positive potential' of theology than you are. I think that, at its best, theology can give us real insight into the Word of God, and help us understand it more clearly.
I double checked. Also a felony in the District of Columbia.
I admit I am Orthodox ignorant! My thought re:mystery was actually germinated by a great Catholic buddy down the street who says "the difference between us and you Protties is that we believe in mystery, and you guys don't. We shrug our shoulders; you stamp your feet."
Actually Craig, I love theology. But theology is the work of men; it's descriptive and inferrential. The work of God is new creation. My confidence is foremost
in the Holy Spirit Jesus gave us. Not a chalk outline of a holy spirit, but the indwelling and dynamic presence of the one true and living God.
The Holy Spirit is very subversive. "Even on the slaves and slavettes I will in those days pour forth of my spirit and they shall prophesy." Talk about power to the people!It leaves priests and authorities and experts with a noble place of service, but with nothing to lord over anyone.
Tonya, you didn't come here to start your anti-Catholic ranting against Craig, did you?
It really gets embarassing.
Well, the Orthodox will often complain about 'Western legalism' and the Catholic proclivity for defining fine points of doctrine; Orthodox would probably find your Catholic friend's statement to be ironically humorous. . .
When you say, "My confidence is in the Holy Spirit Jesus gave us,", I understand what you mean, and I agree with you. But my background of many years in the charismatic movement has taught me to flinch, just a little, when I hear things like that. Mostly because the Holy Spirit is still stuck dealing with the likes of me, and I don't always hear Him as well as I like to think I do. I promise you, there are no quarrels so nasty as the ones between folks who are sure they're hearing from the Holy Spirit. And call me cynical, but it's a whole lot easier to say, 'the Holy Spirit told me. . .' than it is to actually hear and obey the Holy Spirit.
I do understand what you're saying here, and as I said, I agree with you. But hearing from the Holy Spirit isn't quite as simple as it might seem. Our own human sinfulness makes us less-than-perfect receivers/transmitters of God's Word; there will always be a need for some form of discernment (and of course, that discernment is exercised by other folks who are fallen humans in their own right, and so forth, and so on. . .)
Craig, believe me I understand the concerns about "those who believe they are hearing the Holy Spirit." (I was a pastor in a pentecost-a-matic movement for several years, til I left naked and bleeding.) Those same concerns exist for those who believe they are defending God from other people through dogmatism.
The cause is carnality, the decay of death. But the life-giving spirit brings unity out of diversity, truth out of confusion, and peace out of strife.
All those who think they are doing the work of the spirit through strife, whether they are dry mainliners or wild charismatics, are simple mistaken.
I will not abandon the bible because some err in its use, nor will I lose confidence in how the holy spirit does his work because carnal men strive and swerve.
I'll take my chances with the pure uncut Holy Spirit before I'll take my chances with men who think they can take His place.
Love!
The Holy Spirit unites people, simple as that. He leads us into all truth, together.
True that. My only point is that, as long as the Holy Spirit only has such as me to deal with, things are never as 'clean' as they ought to be.
And to return to an earlier thread, re theology as 'man-made' (I meant to include this in my last comment, but I got distracted) - I understand the difference between the Bible and 'commentary', but I wouldn't want to think that the Holy Spirit has nothing at all to do with theology. Is it possible that part of the 'all truth' that the Holy Spirit leads us into, is theological?
Clean? Did Jesus tell us to expect clean, or use clean as an indicator of how things are progressing? Tares among wheat, Judas among the 12, a crucified Christ...clean is not on the menu.
Of course "part of the 'all truth' the spirit leads us into is theological" in nature. That is, it is the subject of our inquiry and the product of the enlightenment he works in our souls.
But is it equivalent to, or a sufficient representation of, or an adequate substitute for the Word itself? NO, not at all. Its advantage and usefulness is in its portablity, the fact that it can be quickly and consistently taught and retaught. What we fail to teach is that all our theology is just a thumbnail of the Reality. The reality is in Christ himself, experienced in our dynamic fellowship and discipleship with him in the holy spirit.
We leave it out the reality because (a) it is not always clean, and (b) it obstructs those who want to leverage their spirtual gifts into money, power, and position in the church.
Those who leverage the holy spirit into personal gain by acting like shamans commit the same sin, just with a different head-dress on. They are self-condemned.
I'll admit that, as Craig has alluded to, it's very easy for us to be skeptical of everyone else's claims about the Holy Spirit. Sure, we trust the Holy Spirit in our own lives, generally, but I'm not sure how much I'm buying what he's supposedly doing at the revival healing service on the south side of town.
It's definitely not clean. But I suppose the possibility of some huckstering (is that a word?) doesn't diminish what the Spirit is, and what it can do. Sadly, I think we let our skepticism over other people hamper the Spirit working in us.
At least I know that's something I've had a problem with throughout much of my life.
"At its best, [Systematic Theology] it diminishes the Word; at its worst it distorts the Word. The product is not a living man; not even a dead body. Even at its richest and best, it is a chalk outline on the asphalt that oddly resembles the men who drew it."
Well, at least you've come out and finally said it.
Tell me, what's the difference between what Systematic Theology purportedly does to the Scripture, and what you do when you read it and write about it here?
And lets take it back a step: What's the difference between what Systematic Theology purportedly does to Scripture and what YOU do to Scripture when you read it and simply think about it?
"I'll take my chances with the pure uncut Holy Spirit before I'll take my chances with men who think they can take His place."
Who gets that?
The reality for all of us would-be charismatics and bibliolators is that everything in God's created world comes to his creatures mediated through creation.
We don't get the Bible "uncut." We get it mediated through the breath of God, the stone tablets, the holy men, the parchments, faithful preaching, conversations with other Christians, the creeds, sytematic theology, the firing of optical nerves and the procesing of our mental minds.
We don't get the Spirit "uncut." The Spirit is similarly mediated to us through our weakness, which includes our bodies, mental models, experiences, sins, predispositions, etc.
Neiher the Spirit nor the Word is limited by these things, but does work throuhg them. It matters that we recognize that the Spirit is interacting with matter, like the waters of creation, the Pharaoh of Egypt and the hearts of the Israelites. This is part of what it means when we say that God's covenant with Noah and creation matters and that the incranation matters. God doesn't ordinarily suspend his interaction with creation to give us things uncut.
We have all seen examples of scripture wrecking by someone who had a grid to grind. We have all seen examples of people claiming the Spirit's leading as they do stupid or harmful or exploitative things.
Why is it so tempting to think that we can get the Spirit in an unmediated form? Even when He gives us new hearts and faith to believe and new energy for righteousness, once we open our mouth or move our hands or think a thought, or type a blog post the Spirit is being mediated (for better and worse)through created means.
Which brings us back to the need for relying on the gathered wisdom of the company of all faithful people, depending on the insights of those who have been reading the Bible longer than us and have faced challenges before us.
Theology is the ongoing revision of people's mediated response to God's words and work in and to His world. Of course it is mediated through people, which raises the risk since we are weak and fallen, but so is the Spirit's word or energy or assurance in the life of His people, which raises the risk because we are weak and fallen.
Rather than rage against our creature-hood and risk Gnosticism, we might consider availing ourselves of the means of grace God has given to his creatures.
grace and certain hope,
Christopher Caudle
Amen dat. That, Scott. That tension is the centerpeice of my life, that tug-o-war between faith and fear; between that eternity in my heart and that decay in my flesh.
It's best to recall that the Holy Spirit isn't just an addendum to God Almighty, it is him in person and in full. That abiding presence in us -- and still more, in the Church, his Body -- is what life and faith are all about.
That's why it is so important not to minimize God's real presence in the holy spirit, and not to reduce what is dynamic to something static.
Scott, what you say reminds me of the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares - God lets 'em grow alongside each other, and they get sorted out at harvest time. So, maybe, for the sake of the life of the wheat, God has more tolerance for tares than the wheat might wish He did?
Christopher, what you say about the Holy Spirit being 'mediated' thru our humanity is pretty much what I was meaning to say above. I especially like "It matters that we recognize that the Spirit is interacting with matter" (whether or not you intended the pun). It is a perennial temptation to want to 'remove ourselves' (at least in our own minds) from the messiness of embodied life in the physical universe. And I echo your thoughts on 'the risk of Gnosticism'. . .
I think you guys (Chris & Larry) are taking pains, perhaps by reflex, to exaggerate the differences between us. It's a good way to prosecute defendants, but a poor way to pursue truth.
"I'll take my chances with the pure uncut Holy Spirit before I'll take my chances with men who think they can take His place."
Obviously, boys, this is not a manifesto, but a distinction between two hypothetical extremes I employed to clarify my position; neither condition exists in God’s design. The point is this: one does not err by following God (who does not err) by the holy spirit he has poured into our hearts by Christ Jesus. (Obviously, I might err in the course of my efforts, since I am fallible.) On the other hand, men do err following the precedents and values and interpretations of men, who are fallible whether individually and/or collectively. (Yes, Ra McLaughlin says so, so I know it's true.)
Therefore, being led by the spirit is primary, and leads to life. Being led by men is secondary. In practice (in the body of Christ) the two blur together, as men work a variety of gifts through the one spirit of God.
You may not agree with those statements, but it is not asking too much that you would at least understand what they say and what they do not say. What we have here is a difference of emphasis. I think there are very few matters of fact where we differ.
That I am "raging against our creaturehood" is pure inference, and purely incorrect. Why look for an explanation beyond what I clearly say? I am not anti-creature, I am pro-spirit. The spirit quickens the creature and conforms it to his image, individually and in unity. Is this unfamiliar in your tradition?
To Larry's dead-center question, since apparently I was not clear:
"What's the difference between what Systematic Theology purportedly does to Scripture and what YOU do to Scripture when you read it and simply think about it...and write about it here??"
The differences are not of quality, but of practice: I am not a theologian. I rely on others who feel so moved. I carry a canteen in my hand, and a river in my heart. But I am grateful for the tap in my kitchen.
Similarities:
(1) Yes, "what I do here" and elsewhere diminishes the word! I do not mean (nor did I say) it diminishes it in importance, quite the opposite. It diminishes it in size, scope, and complexity because of what I abridge.
(2)It diminishes it in True-ness, because an imperfect Me is handling God's perfect Truth. My thoughts represent my best human efforts, as I avail myself to the spirit of God. Likewise, Sys-Theo, whether the work of one man or the accrual of multiple men over time.
(3) It is done for a purpose. We pare it down and simplify in order to make revealed truth portable, like packing a suitcase with items selected from a closet. It reduces and wrinkles the shirts, but it's important to have what you need where you need it, whether to wear it or to give it away.
Now, I love you guys, but I have to get my butt to work!!
re: Gnosticism
Being led by the spirit of God does not lead to nor does it put one in jeopardy of gnosticism.
Failing to be led by the spirit of God does both.
I would be fascinated to hear how I might be mistaken on this point.
"The point is this: one does not err by following God (who does not err) by the holy spirit he has poured into our hearts by Christ Jesus. (Obviously, I might err in the course of my efforts, since I am fallible.) On the other hand, men do err following the precedents and values and interpretations of men, who are fallible whether individually and/or collectively."
Now - how do you discover whether you are actually "following God by the Holy Spirit," or if in fact you are erring "in the course of [your] efforts?"
It seems to me, we all agree that -
*God is bigger than any and all human efforts to understand him.
*The Holy Spirit 'leads us into all Truth'.
*Our own human limited-ness and fallen-ness mean that we are limited in our capacity to know God, and perceive the leading of His Holy Spirit, as we ought.
Is that a fair summary?
"That I am "raging against our creaturehood" is pure inference, and purely incorrect. Why look for an explanation beyond what I clearly say?"To be honest, I don't think what you are saying is as "clear" as you think it is. Consider what you wrote in your original post:
Seeking to know God by arguing about the Bible is sort of like getting intimate with your wife by dissecting her. It may be enlightening, but in the end all you've accomplished is to reduce her to meaningless meat. Refrigerate after opening. A felony in all 50 states, mind you.Besides this statement being inherently contradictory (arguing about the Bible is both "enlightening" and "meaningless") this SEEMS to be saying that Systematic Theology is actually a hindrance to understanding God.
This impression is reinforced in your next paragraph:
My wife's grandpa once told me "If you think you can improve it, take it apart. But if you want it to work, leave it be." J.C. Stanley knew machines. J.C. Stanley knew God.I'm definitely getting the impression here that we would be better off not analyzing Scripture at all (be it thru Systematic, or Biblical Theology, or whatever) because by doing so, Scripture will not "work."
I'm not sure how anybody would be better off not knowing anything about ancient suzerin/vassal treaties in interpreting OT law and covenants (as just one example). Apparently knowing this, or understanding why Christ had to be a human being (via both Systematics and Biblical Theology) just "breaks" Scripture and it won't work anymore.
Joe, our differences aren't so much in what we believe about God, as you say.
But our differences are light-years apart in matters of epistemology. You keep undercutting the basis of yours, and fail to understand what you are doing to yourself, and others who read what you write.
Anonymous wishes to anonymously voice their regret for their comment and asks the Great Redacticus to graciously wipe the slate clean. Your wish is granted, humble Anon. Stay with the discussion, it is illuminating.
And you, Dez-Deletor, we'd love to hear your thoughts. Would you happen to be the man from Arizona? Or perhaps the name is a coincidence?
"It's best to recall that the Holy Spirit isn't just an addendum to God Almighty, it is him in person and in full."
I believe it is an assumption not proven from scripture, experience, or tradition that the Spirit says the same things to everyone and gives equal amounts of information and insight to all Christians.
As a result, I question the wisdom in encouraging people to prefer without qualification the Spirit inside while casting repeated doubt upon the Spirit's proven work outside, especially as it relates to framing one's life according to the pattern of Jesus.
This is for two reasons.
First, the intuitive approach that interprets existential revelation (witness of the Spirit) is just as dangerous as the interpretaion of written theology, but much more private and less able to be corrected in the open.
It is easier to find an illegitimate prooftext in a systematic theology book than to discern the secret faults of a believer's impression.
Second, the intuitive approach always runs the risk of appearing to be an inside track on the truths of God, a view not supported by scripture, tradition or Christian experience.
If this view were true, Christ would have served his bride the church better by binding teachers like a strongman, rather than giving her so many as gifts.
Joe, I think we do disagree on how best to lead others to know God in the fullest and fastest way.
Discipleship is a long row to hoe, and I fear that giving away too many resources in the effort of attracting people on the long row based on the front-end scarcity of tools they have to carry to the field will result in smaller harvests and more fatigued workers. And the harvest is too precious for that, regardless of our intentions.
grace and certain hope,
Christopher Caudle
Craig, I think you described it aptly. I am sure all would agree, but to various degrees.
Unfortunately areas of agreement do not get blog-people's contemplative juices flowing.
I think violent video gams are at fault.
At this point in the discussion thread, two things appear to me:
1. The basic premise of the original article seems to be sustained in the discusion that followed: The polemical arguments cast more shadows than light.
2. I can not tell, but I am curious about, what Larry or Chris are arguing in favor of, if anything.
Redacticus, the wise and gentle keeper of the scriptorium, invites Chris to write a 400 word article affirming his view on the Holy Spirit, "especially as it relates to framing one's life according to the pattern of Jesus." Probably 10 minutes work for you!
Redacticus would invite Larry Gwaltney to write an article defining epistemology in popular terms, affirming his own, and contrasting it to that he rejects. A huge topic, but a fine epistemological mind should be able to get the ball rolling in 600 words.
What say ye?
Just e-mail it to redacticus@theunchurch.us and I will post it and you can host the discussion. I give you the keys to th scriptorium, right up to my chamber door.
Dear Redacticus et al,
I apologize for tracking shadows into the living room. I do appreciate the chance to offer a few words.
However, this is going to be a diversion from the subject of the post, which compared theology to the dismemberment of a spouse and the dismantling of a working machine.
I thought my responses were appropriate given the need of readers of the unchurch blog to either agree with or disagree with the premises of the post. Since I don’t view my theological texts as crime scenes, I felt led to the second option. I do think that prosecutors are often good at pursuing the truth, especially when they force people to answer questions they may have initially preferred to dodge.
I also am in favor of things, from time to time.
I am in favor of giving people pause before they act upon the notion that the poor actions of a few theologians bring an entire inheritance of the church into disrepute. Especially if the proposed remedy has an even more spotty history.
I am in favor of people appreciating that the understanding and apprehension of truth is a communal activity, given our creaturely limitations and remaining corruption. That definition must include time, giving the views of the faithful dead a chance to vote on issues at hand.
I am in favor of the church being brought to maturity in ways that don’t resemble zero-sum economics. Embracing a concern for others does not require a commensurate chunking of Augustine’s books equal the weight of the needy person.
I am in favor of emphases being developed without constant use of scarecrows and antithesis. Fingers in the body of Christ can talk about what it means to be part of a hand without disparaging the toes and feet and ears. Does othopraxis really have to steal all of its gas from orthodoxy’s car to drive around?
I am in favor of receiving subject verb sentences as replies to subject verb responses.
I will work hard to fulfill your request and email my response to the address you gave soon.
grace and certain hope,
Christopher Caudle
1. The basic premise of the original article seems to be sustained in the discusion that followed: The polemical arguments cast more shadows than light.Let me put this as simply as I can: The Mormon can (and does) make identical claims for the sufficiency of personal revelation as does the original article. As a Christian, this should bother you. A lot.
2. I can not tell, but I am curious about, what Larry or Chris are arguing in favor of, if anything.
My suggestion in this instance is that if you can't tell, it might not be a good idea to run article after article diminishing the value of formal theological procedure.
I do thank you for the opportunity, and will try to abide by a 600 word limit as best I can - but you must understand that you are asking me to give everyone a refreshing sip from a fire hose.
I'm beginning to feel a little out of my depth in this conversation, although it's not like I'm having trouble understanding it. I'm just feeling a little like I'm watching a tennis match, with the ball going back and forth, saying, "Oooh, good point!" "Oooh, that's a good point, too!"
I find myself in substantial agreement with Christopher and Larry (Chesterton's 'democracy of the dead' - nicely done, Chris!)
And yet, I think Joe's original point is also true - that Jesus is the point of Christian life, and if our theology distracts us from Jesus, and loving our neighbor, then something is amiss.
But I agree with Chris that it's more like a 'both-and' situation - orthodoxy and orthopraxy are not enemies. . .
It's a little odd sometimes, being a charismatic Catholic with just enough theological literacy to be dangerous. . .
"Scarecrow and Antithesis" is very descriptive, and quite fitting if I understand it aright. Yes, the article was deliberately and predictably provocative.
My, and what doth scurry across the basement floor when suddenly one flips on the lights!
It's funny, my whole article led up to the marriage of the animating Spirit with the mediating clay, flesh, and mind. Only one commenter mentioned it, accidentally it seems, as a counter-argument:
"It matters that we recognize that the Spirit is interacting with matter, like the waters of creation"
Sound at all familiar? Sure, it's kith & kin with the climax of my article:
"In Love, heaven and earth unite, as God breathes his spirit into the man of clay. In Love, man and woman unite, and life begets life. In Love, Word becomes flesh and they are one."
Gee, why didn't I think of that?
Predictably, my conclusion asserts that spirit and matter are joined in Love, and reiterates Love as the Great Commandment.
Predictably, your comment underscores the role of intellect and the importance of scholars.
I lead with agape & pneuma, you lead with nous & gramma.
I think I have chosen the better part.
Hey, beloved CC, I am looking forward to posting your piece, scarecrow free!
Craig, forgive our self-indulgence. I keep poing the stick thru the bars and the lions keep roaring at me. Redacticus should have stepped in; thank you for noting it.
My vote says you have contributed the most valuable inputs of the thread, gathering truth instead of scattering abroad.
I'm not an aspiring theologian, I'm just a bible-holic anda blabbermouth.
Could you be tempted to tell us how you came into the faith community up there, and how life, mission, and worship there is distinctive?
Larry, of course. You were clear enough that you were arguing for the value of formal theological procedure.
It was a wee bit obscured by your rockets' red glare, but I am beginning to see again.
I have faith in your parsimony. But it is a challenge to write small articles on big subjects, isn't it?
I may not be able to reel off a theological definition of "sufficiency", but I am sufficiently certain I make no claim for the sufficiency of personal revelation in that article.
But wouldn't that be a thrilling thing for you if I did? Yipee.
"Love rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth."
(1 co 13:6)
Aw, see, now you're just flattering me, Joe. I think it's just taking me a minute or two to understand the various and sundry interpersonal (and other) dynamics at work in this blog. . .
As I said, I know just enough, of both theology and the Bible, to be dangerous. But not a whole lot more than that. . .
Certainly, I can be tempted to tell you about our community, etc. But I doubt I could do it in a format suitable for comment-space. Can I email you? Or, Scott has my email. . .
I think like many movie endings, what precedes the flourishing finale makes some difference.
It seems to me that you frequently mention the union of things only after implying and stating other things quite directly. For example...
"At its best, it diminishes the Word" implying that while pneuma blows where it wills, it never empowers the "peer(ing) at him under their microscopes" and always empowers the "love" you have defined in a way you prefer.
Obviously faith and practice are intended to go together, and do go together in the life of all true believers. But practice includes thinking and serving.
The spirit may be powerfully present in both, or may equally be damnably missing from both.
The passage in John 3, I would suggest, has more to do with the impredictability of the sovereign work of God in bringing salvation (sight of the kingdom, entering of the kingsom)to unlikely places than it does with the inscrutable results of salvation in a beleiver's life.
The process of discipleship and sanctification are thankfully not as mysterious as wind, and the apostles never imply as much as they minister to people of all sorts and backgrounds in their ministry and letters. Once faith is given and it takes root, te plant grows predictably, graciously, slowly to resemble Christ. Every single time. Without exception. The rate may vary, and disease may blight the leaves from time to time, but the pattern and the path are all clearly marked and guaranteed.
"I think I have chosen the better part."
And sadly have defined the terms so that those who disagree must cobble together answers from the ragbag of the Pharisees and flesh.
Nice rules.
It is not always prudent to lead with one perspective. Situations change. Needs change. It also telegraphs your moves to others, which isn't always beneficial. It also makes Larry and I too predictable in the comments.
You might never guess how often Larry and I take different approches to issues, and you give us few occasions to agree with you.
I will labor to remove scarecrows from my submission. It may make the crows sad.
grace and certain hope,
Christopher Caudle
Craig - I would be interested in hearing about it too, so if you e-mail Joe, can he share? I was raised Catholic and while I don't pretend to be a very good Catholic I will admit that I have never heard of a charismatic Catholic. So, I'm curious!
Christi - I'm assuming that Joe, and whoever else, will share with whomever. If that doesn't reach all the way to you, let me know, and I'll make sure you get what you're looking for.
As re charismatic Catholics, I'm a little surprised when I encounter folks who haven't heard of such a thing, especially by now. The pentecostal movement began in the very early 20th century, and had its roots, in turn, in the Wesleyan holiness movement. For the first half of the 20th century, or so, pentecostals were either run out of their churches, or left them, 'shaking the dust off their feet'. By the '50s, there was a movement of Protestant charismatics, who, for whatever reason, were able/inclined to remain in their churches. The charismatic movement hit the Catholic church in 1967. By the mid-70s, there were stadium-size conferences for Catholic charismatics (altho you don't find those anymore). I'm not sure how many charismatic Catholics there are today - it can be a little tricky to 'count' them (someone who's been thru a Life in the Spirit seminar? someone who self-identifies as a 'charismatic Catholic'? do they have to speak in tongues? blah, blah, blah). But I've heard estimates on the order of tens of millions of Catholics, possibly even 100 million, worldwide, who've been touched by the charismatic movement in one way or another.
Which probably doesn't really get at what you're wondering about, I realize. . .
Craig, i'll bet it's close. I have some number from the Pugh Trust survey on religion in American life that puts absolutely enormous numbers on the the phenom. I'll try to dig them up for you if you're interested. Free on the web, and fascinating.
Interesting information, Craig. I'm intrigued and can't wait to hear more... I'm actually interested in the "blah, blah, blah" though too. What actually does make a "charismatic" Catholic? Tens of millions? Huh, who knew??
I feel a great new thread coming on. It's kind of a Java Jesus thing, at least the telling about it.
The unChurch is about the living it. But heck, nobody reads Java J anymore anyway, do they?
:-)
You can send us over to Java Jesus, Joe B. I still go over there every now and then and check it out, but there generally isn't anything new.
Well, interesting question, Christi; and, as I mentioned previously, it becomes a little difficult to give a definitive answer as to what, exactly, constitutes a 'charismatic Catholic'. Because the movement has gone in so many different directions over the past 40 years. Back in the 70s, it'd have been a lot easier - Catholic charismatics were Catholics who'd been 'baptized in the Spirit' (I'm gonna assume that that's a more-or-less familiar term to you), and whose Christian life was marked by the 'charismatic gifts' (which, if you know your Greek, is really redundant, but common usage, and all that), most especially praying in tongues and prophesy, but the whole I Cor 12 group was in-play to greater or lesser degrees.
In the early days, the Catholic charismatic movement tended to come in two flavors - small, parish-based prayer groups, and larger, stand-alone communities, which may or may not have been all-Catholic. As you'd expect, our community was one of those.
The parish-based groups tended to get 'resorbed' into their parishes as various forms of 'spiritual life' special-interest-groups, and those went in many and varying different directions - often Marian (eg the whole Medjugorje phenomenon), or eucharistic-piety focused. Lots and lots of folks who were in charismatic prayer groups 20-30 years ago no longer actively pray in tongues, but they're doing the Friday eucharistic devotions in their parishes. And if you asked 'em, they'd as likely tell you they were charismatic as not.
So, I'm not sure if I've clarified anything for you, or not. Anyway, I'm putting together a 'first installment' of an account of our life/history, which, hopefully, you can look at before too much longer. . .
But gosh, we're pretty far afield of Systematic Theology, aren't we?
Christi, they also tend to be Bible-people like Craig. Much more so than Catholics at large.
Also there were groups/communities in parishes and dioces that were discouraged and resisted, and who met without the auspices of the church. Scads of these peopel left the church altogether.
One in ten Americans describe themselves as ex-Catholic! Still those who describe themselves as charismatic are a huge growth group among Catholics.
Joe B - I have many questions and thoughts on this. Do you want us to continue this here or take it somewhere else? I know it has nothing to do with the original post and I don't want to be responsible for hijacking your post! :-)
Good point, Joe. In fact, charismatic Catholics are sometimes accused by 'traditionalist' Catholics of being crypto-Protestants because of the way we read the Bible.
But you know, it's just so darned hard to find a good study Bible that has cross-references to Tobit and Sirach. . .
And something like 20-25 percent of Americans are Catholic (at least nominally), so there are almost half as many ex-Catholics as there are Catholics.
Which doesn't surprise me; we've generally done a pretty poor job of catechesis. The days when you could just send your kids to Catholic school, and go to Mass every Sunday, and expect that they'd 'get it', are long gone. . .
And there are times, when I'm around one or another of the 'mega-churches' in our town, when it seems that the only members they've got are ex-Catholics. . . (Which makes me sad, on one level, but honestly, better that they should know Jesus than sit dumbly in a Catholic church because it's what they were always told they 'should' do. . .)
Clearly the catechesis did not have its intended effect, but I'm not sue that's because it was done badly.
I think it is part of a seismic cultural change. The target moved, and the projectiles fly differently in this strange new air. We'll adapt, once we abandon ourselves to humilty and prayer. We cannot argue our way out of this pickle, nor can we politic our way out.
The Word of God, borne as it is in spirit, is incredibly adaptable. You cannot fracture pneuma; it always comes together again on the lee side of any obstacle.
Our methods (catechetic and otherwise) are comparatively brittle, but by God's dynamic spirit the church always recovers its equilibrium and resurges. The visible quakes and crumbles, but "that which is begotten of spirit is spirit."
That's why I am not bothered at all by the sweeping change in world views, the rise of neo-paganism, and the dying-off of certain denominations.
I talk to people continually about Jesus and his kingdom and their obligation to repent and follow. I'm telling you, it may be a tough business climate for churches, but it is rich soil for the true gospel of the one true and living God.But the next great revival will come from outside the camp. "Behold, the prostitutes and tax collectors are entering the kingdom ahead of you [lawyers]!"
(I am not identifying any of those here present, nor their sectarian affiliates, by the 2nd person pronoun, so chill. I'm just invoking a recurrent theme of scripture.)
I know we've already moved on to a new post, but I've been gone and just wanted to comment on the Bible reading thing. See, I never really gave that much thought and I guess I assumed (or just didn't think about it at all) that other religions were just as lax about reading the Bible as the majority of us Catholics. Shows you what I know!
Anyway, last Wednesday I had dinner with a group of girls I went to high school with and a few of them aren't Catholic, although we all went to Catholic schools from grade school through high school. So one of the non-Catholic girls was saying that she has been a part of a bible study group for a year or two now and how great it is. She said it’s really a completely different experience reading the bible and understanding it herself as opposed to just being told what to do or what not to do. I guess it got me thinking: how much are “traditional” Catholics missing out on by not making reading the Bible an important part of their faith education?
It was asked what is the difference between theology and what happens when we read the Bible and interpret it in our heads. Well for one thing we tend not to make it a matter of faith for anyone other than ourselves.
Theology is just doctrine waiting for a dictator to enforce it.
I would much rather stumble through God's words on my own falling often and having God lift me back up than have men, in their infinite wisdom and arrogance telling me what they think they know God means.
Post a Comment