tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post115225614336118043..comments2024-03-24T11:30:08.199-07:00Comments on Can you believe?: The use and abuse of doctrineJohan Maurerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-1152574129786590192006-07-10T16:28:00.000-07:002006-07-10T16:28:00.000-07:00Formal imprimatur of the canon came at a very late...Formal imprimatur of the canon came at a very late date. It was largely a ratification of a consensus that had developed within the church - not Quaker process in terms of a business meeting, but the convergence within the church about what was an authentic expression of the faith and what wasn't, as well as what was useful over time and what was more time-limited in value.<BR/><BR/>I think a reason why there wasn't a formal canon in the early church period has something to do with them not having the rigid idea of a canon that became common in the institutional Christian church. And this rigid idea was one of the many rejected firmly by early Quakers, who argued strongly against the idea of a fixed canon.<BR/><BR/>I think that the early Quaker tension between acceptance of the scripture as valid outward authority and rejection of the rigid fixed canon concept was right, as difficult as it was for others to grasp at the time and remaining so today (including among probably a majority of contemporary Quakers, including both ends of the spectrum).<BR/><BR/>A number of facets of early Quakerism later came to be much more widely accepted in the church. It has puzzled me as to why the Quaker approach to the Bible hasn't received this acceptance, and remains largely unknown. It seems to me to be a major contribution of Friends, and one which provides a refreshing alternative to the liberal-evangelical divide in the Christian church today. Each side of that divide has fallen into a pit, and the Quaker approach to the Bible offers a genuine alternative to the pits.<BR/><BR/>About doctrine, I believe it is the attempt to express in words what goes beyond what we can express in words. It can be very useful if we understand its inherent limitations. But people tend to substitute faith in doctrine about Christ for faith in Christ. In this, they mimic more Jesus' chief opponents than Jesus.<BR/><BR/>A radical basic idea of Christianity is that truth is expressed in a person - Jesus Christ. When we regard doctrine as truth, rather than hold it more lightly as an attempt to say some things about truth, we fall into idolatry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-1152488212201554892006-07-09T16:36:00.000-07:002006-07-09T16:36:00.000-07:00¡Hola Ricardo! Someday let's talk about Calvinists...¡Hola Ricardo! Someday let's talk about Calvinists. My contacts with actual intelligent, compassionate Calvinists has helped me distinguish what they really do say from the cruel determinism sometimes associated with them. Most of all, I appreciate Calvinist piety, which provides some refreshing correctives to the holiness/Arminian cycle of wallowing in and battling against shame.<BR/><BR/>Marshall: God always takes a risk entrusting humans with divine insight. From both the historical record and my own observations, I see no evidence that the canon-forming processes and councils were more corrupt than present-day Friends. (To paraphrase the cosmological turtle fable, it's politics all the way down.) That's why the gradual ratification of the community, as well as the preparatory work of theologians and church politicians, is a crucial part of validating biblical authority. <BR/><BR/>I think Anthony Bloom's candid comments about the formation of the Eastern Orthodox creed "—through searchings, through half-light and half-dark, through the struggle of opposing schools, opinions, personalities—" apply also to the formation and ratification of the canon of the Bible. I'm not shocked by the existence of minority reports, including the minor variations in the lists of accepted books. Overall, however, when I compare what didn't make it into the consensus canon and what did, I see clear evidence of good judgment.<BR/><BR/>There's a difference in scale, of course, between the ecumenical councils and the formation of the Bible, on the one hand, and Friends governance processes and outcomes on the other. Raw power played a much greater role in the former than in the latter, and we know that power corrupts. On the other hand, nontransparency also corrupts. The ancient church operated far more transparently than some Friends meetings and organizations operate today. Even our tiny scale mitigates against us: if we had journalists at more Quaker decisionmaking events, we might behave differently, and I do mean <I>better</I>. Greater interaction with the ecumenical world might help us see that we often repeat mistakes that others have learned to correct, and our quakerly conceits don't always stand up to outside scrutiny. It would also help us see where we really do shine. One aspect of that "shine" for me is the apostolic roots of Friends: without rejecting the insights of the early church, including the formation of the Bible, early Friends really did seem to call us back to be contemporaries of Jesus, and to continue his reconciling work based on that sense of immediacy, urgency, and intimacy.Johan Maurerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-1152399771110524522006-07-08T16:02:00.000-07:002006-07-08T16:02:00.000-07:00Johan, you write, "If we don't believe that God ac...Johan, you write, "If we don't believe that God acted with authority in the creation of the Bible, then we have no business pretending to respect Quaker process now." Huh? The Biblical canon was established, including (e.g.) John's Apocalypse (a.k.a. Revelation) and excluding (e.g.) the Gospel of Thomas, through a process quite different from corporate discernment in meeting for business. There was a lot of partisan pressure politics involved. In fact, the partisan pressure politics was so blatant that, in the case of John's Apocalypse, the Greek Orthodox and Syrian churches still are not reconciled to the outcome: the Greeks won't let John's Apocalypse be used in their liturgy, and the Syrians won't admit it into their native-language version of the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I would say it is quite legitimate to question the results of such a dubious process, while still affirming that Quaker process when faithfully followed can discover the will of God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-1152335433888747972006-07-07T22:10:00.000-07:002006-07-07T22:10:00.000-07:00Children of Enlightment vrs Children of the Reform...Children of Enlightment vrs Children of the Reformation.<BR/><BR/>My parents both graduated from Wheaton College. In the Fundamentalist church my parents took me to, Wheaton's brand of Calvinist Christianity was the only one considered acceptable. I always knew it was “our way or the highway.” A few years back I got to a point in my crisis of Faith, where, after much prayer, I saw no other alternative than the highway. Mind you, I did not leave God. For the most part, I just left Calvinism. But it took me almost 10 years to be able to open a Bible again. <BR/><BR/>God let me know I was still- and always will be- in His Fold by leading me one day to attend a church where the motto was "Want to listen to God? SHUT UP." Yup, you guessed it: A Quaker meeting. <BR/><BR/>It took me several years of listening to God through "Children of Enlightment" messages, to begin to let go of the hurt, anger and resentment I still had toward my church of origin. <BR/><BR/>At the time I would not have been able to listen to His Messages through Children of the Reformation. It has taken me decades to internalize the concept of everyone having a little bit of God's light. Even Calvinist!<BR/><BR/>I love discussing doctrines, be it the Inerrancy of Scriptures, Atonement, the Virginal Birth, or whatever. BUT, I have to remind myself, continually, that I do not hold the monopoly on Truth, and that, actually, I can barely claim to be the recipient of just a sliver of God's light, for which I am constantly in search of clearness.<BR/><BR/>Reading your blog is for me an exercise in discipline, forcing myself to continue reading through the passages where I am shaking my head from side to side, until I can get to those sentences, or even phrases where God chimes in with an “ahah!”<BR/><BR/>We will continue disagreeing on many things, probably for as long as we are alive, except on the fact that God continues to speak to us through each other.<BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work!<BR/><BR/>Ricardo5322@yahoo.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com