A couple of thoughts from the day
1) Why do we always get to say, "I don't believe in that," or, "I believe that isn't the case," etc.
Does that make sense? We always speak in the I Believe tense. As if your opinion changes the absolute. Now, obviously when somebody asks you what you believe, you can give that opinion, but when did it become so important to speak passively? We are afraid of constantly offending people maybe? More likely, it just makes sense that we want to not have to deal with arguments.
2) Is Christianity's diversity a strength or a weakness?
It seems like this could go either way. It seems good that Christianity could go many directions and still be received. However, it also leads to the idea that the faith is seemingly becoming bastardized as it transitions to other versions or denominations. So, what is it, a strength or weakness? I think it alls under the strength category. Now before you say, "duh, Alan, you are a Christian and you would defend your faith," hear me out. I think it points a lot to the resiliency of the core Gospel. It is so strong at the center that it can be stretched across all sorts of cultural, geographical, and temporal boundaries. I would say that is true of other faiths. However, I use Islam as an example and it appears to me that there are strong cultural ties to that faith, whereas the Gospel of Christ can permeate so many cultural boundaries.
.jpg)
Posts
3 comments:
1) Yes, it's diplomacy. If I say, "This is how it is" then another person who does not accept the truth of my proposition tends to feel that I am not allowing them to express dissent. If I say, "This is what I believe" it makes it easier to enter conversation, but unfortunately also sounds less confident.
2) It depends on what you mean by diversity.
If you are talking about it in the sense of division between denominations then it is not good at all. There is one Church and one Bride of Christ, not many. In another way, the division is a scandal to non-believers. Many cite that division as an excuse to remain agnostic, saying "why should I listen to you over them?" Additionally, theological differences mean that either one side only is right or all are wrong, and if we're proclaiming what is false where is the good in it?
If you're talking about diversity in the terms that (yes I'll say it) the Church is catholic (universal), and so encompasses all people everywhere through a broad range of cultures then it is a strength. The same is true of the diversity of spiritualities that exist within the Church, as the Lord gives different spiritual gifts through them.
1) We say this in recognition of our fallibility. We've been wrong before and will likely be wrong again. It is the same reason we call our strongest scientific ideas "theories," not facts.
It is a recognition of the subject. The observer. As a subject, I can never give truly objective information. This is the post-modern revelation (though it can be taken too far). It is not that our beliefs determine reality, but the vast majority of what we call knowledge is an interpretation of reality. A belief. Again, this is not to say that there are no objective realities, just that we have a limited ability to reflect that objectivity.
2) How can we anything other than diversity unless we have fascism? Since we all interpret what we see, we all have our own nuances. Some of us can agree on certain points, but even if we had the exact same experience as someone else, we wouldn't really be able to tell for sure. How do you and I find out about each other's musical tastes? We talk. We interpret our experiences into words which are then interpreted back into thoughts. We can't take our experiences out and compare them side-by-side.
That being said, there is still a broader question of unity. Where we part with one another, it seems like adding violence, hatred, or exclusion to the schism can only make things worse.
As for the Gospel permeating many cultures, it is probably significant that Christianity is strongest (in terms of influence and population) in countries that were at one time ruled by a government that imposed Christianity on its subjects and whose decisions were largely influenced by either the Vatican or by its own state church.
***As for the Gospel permeating many cultures, it is probably significant that Christianity is strongest (in terms of influence and population) in countries that were at one time ruled by a government that imposed Christianity on its subjects and whose decisions were largely influenced by either the Vatican or by its own state church.***
I'm failing to see the connection you're trying to make between the Gospel permeating culture and strong influences and population of Christianity.
If you're saying that Christianity only thrives and somehow the Gospel is mostly relevant only in states that have historically been run by or highly influenced by church leaders then this may have some relevance historically, but is ultimately incorrect. The USA has only had private citizens whose policies may be informed by their faith running it, and yet Americans tend to be more religious than Europeans. Additionally, the Gospel is spreading most rapidly in South America and Africa.
The original point I suppose I was trying to make is that the Church is not only for an elite few, but for everyone. Salvation is a gift offered to all people, and God wants the salvation of all. Perhaps calling this a "strength" is not so appropriate. It might be better to say that this is the joy of the Gospel, that salvation through Christ is offered to every single person regardless of culture.
Post a Comment