I've been away on a blessed vacation this last week and had a wonderful, peaceful time in the Smokey Mountains and in Kentucky's grand forests. I'm rested and back.
And what do I get when I get back (at another blog)? A complaint from a long-time reader. And so, I'm addressing this post to her...
Tell you what, Mom2: I'm a reasonable guy. I WANT to know God. I WANT to walk in God's ways. I WANT to know God's salvation and grace.
That being the case, I am open to being taught. I happen to believe that I am ENTIRELY fallible and able to be mistaken.
Come by my blog or send me an email and tell me what exact "my error" is in any regards, not just on my sartorial tastes. This is your chance to, graciously and kindly, show me the error of my ways.
A suggestion: Begin by saying, "Dan, when you say..." and quote me and explain why what I've actually SAID is mistaken or in error.
Help me. Teach me. I'll wipe out our history and listen with a fresh and open mind.
Here's your chance.
40 comments:
Just had to note the rather humorous juxtaposition of this serious post with the ... bears. Got a smile just seeing the picture. Where in the world did you find these?
Fortunately I missed her comment.
Best to just ignore the busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds when they come to troll. Feeding them only encourages their behavior.
That picture is from our trip this week to the Smokeys - it's a store in Pigeon Forge, TN right down the road from Dollywood. If you're not familiar with Pigeon Forge, it's the schlocky side of the mountain.
Alan, I figure it can't hurt. If she can teach me that I'm mistaken about something (everything??), then I'm that much better off.
Most likely, she will decline to comment and demonstrate that she has nothing really better to do than to gracelessly snipe at those she doesn't approve of like, well, a busybody, fusspot, tattletale and scold.
I'm hoping for the first. I hope she's not as graceless as she appears to be, just curmudgeonly. I'm always willing to be taught and corrected and stand entirely ready to be instructed and learn better.
Either way, win, win for me.
" she has nothing really better to do than to gracelessly snipe at those she doesn't approve of"
All evidence points to that.
I don't know about Mona's comment, but I'm kinda embarrassed by some of the overheated, polemical language I sent your way in years past. I vaguely recall questioning your authenticity as a Christian because you denied the historicity of the virgin birth, among other foolish musings that emerged from my keyboard.
But in my painful exit from Christianity, I remember how you acted to me and how strict theological conservatives acted toward me, and I think that I had my priorities ass-backwards. A person's theology isn't what he says; it's how he lives his life. It's more important to act like Jesus than to define him with precision.
So Dan, by that measure, you're as orthodox as they come.
John, I am embarrassed by your kindness. I'm sure any and all rash words in our exchanges were just as likely to have come from me as from you. You've always been reasonable towards me.
Thank you for everything.
And, for what it's worth, I agree: I'm much more interested in orthopraxy than orthodoxy, even though I can just barely spell either of them...
Dan,
How do you determine orthopraxis without some standard of orthodoxy?
It seems as though the key part of both words is ortho (true or right), so how can you engage in right practice (orthopraxis) without knowledge of what constitutes right (orthodoxy)?
This is one of those situations where it seems as though you can't separate the two, yet many people want to do just that?
Speaking only for myself (although, I would guess this would bear out for many if not most), I have no desire to separate orthodoxy from orthopraxy. I'm not sure how one would do that.
I guess I would just say that the basics of orthopraxy are not nearly so complicated or hard to understand that many make of orthodoxy.
"Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" is fairly easily understood and fairly universal, even if we're not always clear on exactly how to live that out, we're all united on that front.
On the other hand, we seem unable to come to any clear understanding of what in the world exactly atonement means. Penal Substitution? Moral Authority? Ransom? Ransom Substitution??
Back on the first hand, we also seem to get that living lives of grace, of mercy, of giving is the great ideal. Living it out may not always be plain, but the notion is plain enough.
So, on any given day, John or Craig may disagree with Dan or Calvin or Billy Graham on TULIP or How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but all of that pales in importance of a simple kind gesture and gracious welcome, as far as our daily life is concerned.
It sure is possible to get mixed up in orthodoxy and that could lead to bad orthopraxy, but the Bible - and people in general - tends to place an awful lot of importance on orthopraxy.
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do...
Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom.
But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.
~James
Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing [!] in him to make him stumble...
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.
If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.
~John
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"
~Jesus
Clearly, on a day to day basis in living out our faith, what we do in love has a much greater impact on what our position on TULIP or Atonement is. Now, IF our orthodoxy causes us to have bad orthopraxy, then there's a problem, as all these verses above say. So I am CERTAINLY not dismissing having good beliefs, but I think we can disagree on an awful lot of theological tenets and still be brothers and sisters of God, in Christ. And this will be evident in our practices.
Craig wrote:
How do you determine orthopraxis without some standard of orthodoxy?
Dan wrote:
I guess I would just say that the basics of orthopraxy are not nearly so complicated or hard to understand that many make of orthodoxy.
John Wesley once said that "you can be as orthodox as the devil and just as wicked." I known people who had a very conservative and thought-out systematic theology but would lie through their teeth if it suited their purposes.
It's not that hard to say one thing and do another.
I'm just curious. I didn't say you were separating them , I wanted to know where you were. I hear a significant number of folks who try to separate the two. Whereas they seem inseparable to me. Or, if not inseparable, then at least praxis builds from doxy.
It also seems as though there are those (not necessarily you) that are suggesting that if you simply do certain "Christ like" behaviors regardless of anything else that it's all good.
Thanks.
Or, if not inseparable, then at least praxis builds from doxy.
I agree. Although, I also agree with John, that while praxis should build from doxy, it does not always.
I like Jesus' story of the two brothers - one who said he would NOT do what his father asked, but DID do it, just the same, and the other brother who SAID he would do as his father asked, but DIDN'T.
I think Jesus' point there is, give me someone who actually DOES as our God wishes over someone who says the right things but whose life does not reflect that.
It also seems as though there are those (not necessarily you) that are suggesting that if you simply do certain "Christ like" behaviors regardless of anything else that it's all good.
Well, as I stated, I think it's important to believe aright, but - as Jesus and the bible repeatedly point out - the proof is in the pudding, in how you live it.
If you, Craig, were what I consider WAY wrong on the matter of "once saved always saved" or the Virgin Birth or how you try to explain Atonement or the Trinity or in your view of the Bible or Hell or Heaven or dozens of Christian tenets BUT you lived a life of Grace and Mercy, working for justice for the oppressed and poor, I would be much less concerned about you than someone who was "right" on each of those tenets and yet who was rude, hateful, spiteful, gossipy or otherwise badly behaving.
In short, I guess perhaps (or perhaps not, you can tell me) my list of critical Christian teachings may be shorter and less picky than some others.
If you agree that we're sinners in need of God's grace and grace from each other and that this grace is found in Jesus and his teachings, I think you're on the right path.
While other doctrines are, I think, important, I'd be much less concerned about someone who I thought was wrong on those other doctrines as long as they're living lives of God's grace. I take the Bible fairly literally when it says that we can recognize God's followers by their lives, by their love, by the fruit of the Spirit in their lives.
As Jesus said, "A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit... Thus you will know them by their fruits." I believe that fairly literally.
The thief on the cross had certainly never understood the doctrine of the trinity, hadn't probably heard of the virgin birth, and knew nothing of the resurrection or various theories of atonement (since it hadn't happened yet), and he was a thief. Yet Jesus told him that he would join Him in paradise.
Neither orthopraxis nor orthodoxy will save you.
Agreed. Absolutely.
No argument on the salvic value of either ortho.
Again, I was mostly just curious where you were in the discussion.
Too much focus on praxis seems like it would inevitably lead to a salvation by works theology. But I can see where one could focus on the other and that would be problematic as well.
Craig - might I suggest that too much emphasis on "ortho", either doxa or praxis, constitutes works-righteousness. Both correct thought and correct action, literal translations of "orthodoxy" and "orthopraxy", are responses to grace rather than done to attain it. Both are done, one would hope, in full understanding that they are inadequate to the tasks set before them; any good that comes from them is not ours, but the Holy Spirit working through us.
This is what I find so aggravating about so much of the talk about theology. Most of those who insist our doctrine has to be one way or another don't get that it is really nothing more than our groans and grunts ggiven life by the Spirit (to paraphrase St. Paul). Both are important. Neither have any causal relationship to our salvation.
Why condemn someone who is acting "Christ-like"? If I recall my scriptures, when the disciples returned from mission, they reported to Jesus that they had found someone (not of their group) healing people, and they stopped him. Jesus' corrected their thinking, saying, "Those who are not against us are for us."
'Love your neighbor', feed the hungry, visit the prisoner, clothe the naked... I can do all those things without a seminary degree.
I agree, Bro. Dave. I agree, Geoffrey. Thanks!
GKS,
I agree that both of the ortho's are responses to grace.
My problem is with those who suggest that simply doing the "correct" actions is somehow enough. I believe, and you seem to agree, that salvation comes first, followed by the ortho's. I have heard others (mainly in the emergent world) that would suggest otherwise.
My only real issue, is I would suggest that doxy must come first. Simply because one must know what is correct in order to do the correct actions.
I also agree that while theology is valuable and important it (like anything else) can get in the way. Even to the point of leading one astray.
There really is no argument here.
"My problem is with those who suggest that simply doing the "correct" actions is somehow enough. "
Telling wording there, that "enough" you added at the end. Enough? Enough for what? Salvation? We're not saved by our works, or by correct theology.
"Simply because one must know what is correct in order to do the correct actions."
Because without a proper understanding of the doctrine of the trinity, one can't feed the hungry?
Meh. The apostles did, and they (or at least some of them, we're told) didn't even realize they were hanging around with the Messiah. Yet they seemed to do some good.
"Even to the point of leading one astray. "
Astray? Leading one away from salvation? So salvation is based on right belief?
*buzz* Nope. Sorry. But thanks for playing.
Alan,
What part of my earlier comment did you not understand. Neither orthodoxy or orthopraxis is sufficient for salvation. I am not suggesting otherwise. There are those who I have heard that do. It seems we agree that that would be an incorrect understanding of salvation and grace.
Again, nowhere did I suggest that one needs to properly understand the Trinity to feed the hungry. I am suggesting that it helps if one knows what is correct, in order to do what is correct. So I personally would suggest that ordhodoxy comes before or alongside orthopraxis. My frmae of reference is those who would suggest (again mainly in the emergent world) that the act alone of feeding the hungry is sufficient for either salvation or to lead one significantly toward salvation. There are a number of folks who are unsaved who do good stuff all over the place. While they are doing good stuff, those acts won't get them saved.
As far as doctrine "leading astray", I am meerly suggesting that too much focus on doctrine ("correct" docrtine for the purpose of this comment) can lead one further from God rather than closer to God. Quite possibly it could/would lead to sin. Obviously "incorrect doctrine would be a problem, so that's not the issue.
Since I have nowhere suggested that Salvation is by any means other than grace. Nor have I suggested that good doctrine will get anyone saved, nor will bad doctrine cause anyone to lose salvation. I am at a loss to determine what your problem is. It seems as though we all have areas of significant agreement here, why manufacture disagreement where none exists?
I asked Dan a reasonable relevent respectful question and he answered it. I sought clarification and he provided it. We are on the same page, as (it appears) are you and I on this issue.
Yes, Alan, it appears we're all on the same page on this point. Craig has been respectful in his questions and we've had a fine little conversation amongst ourselves.
Let's be thankful and gracious for such when it happens.
"What part of my earlier comment did you not understand."
Well, clearly it would be the part where I asked you what "enough" meant. And the part where you wrote about doctrine leading people "astray" and what that meant.
Since those questions were what you addressed in the rest of your comment, you obviously knew what questions I asked, so why play stupid?
You still haven't explained what you meant by "enough", nor do I know how anything is supposed to lead us "away from God", when the Bible tells us otherwise in no uncertain terms. I was simply trying to get some clarification about what you meant. That's OK, don't bother. Honestly I don't really care that much.
Honestly, Dan, if I find areas of agreement with Craig or the rest of the amerikkkan descent, that's not a cause for celebration, it's more likely a warning that I need to rethink my position.
Perhaps that sounds harsh, but it's honest.
To get back to the orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy comments....
I was taught orthodox, Reformed 5-point Calvinism in sunday school and in confirmation classes (at a UCC church, BTW). Those ideas were broadened and deepened during my time at Calvin and since then. I think anyone would be hard-pressed to find much of anything about my theology that isn't "orthodox."
But lately I've been coming more and more to the realization that such "orthodoxy" does not lead to "orthopraxis," but quite the opposite. In fact, it appears to me that being an "orthodox" Calvinist seems to be highly correlated with being a complete jerk, for lack of a better word.
If believing in orthodox Reformed theology leads to acting like a busybody, fusspot, tattletale and scold as so often seems the case, then I'm honestly not sure I want anything to do with it.
Dan,
Thanks I appreciate it.
Alan,
I believe that I answered your question. The rest of your comment seems to have no relationship to the actual conversation happening here. You have gone way beyond anything I have said or written (I know just playing your role in your imaginary play).
But, I'll answer once more (I'll try to keep in simple)
First, "enough". doing good things is not enough for salvation. (sorry for polysyalbic words)
Second, "lead away from God". How about sin.
You have been very clear about your conception of the roles we all play in your imaginary drama, and yours is obviously to be the snarky, bitchy, drive by commentor on the left. Your basically a more verbose mom2.
Sorry, if that sounds harsh, but honsety sometimes is.
Dan,
If you have any other questions I'll be happy to answer, but otherwise our end of this has gone pretty well. For that I thank you. It doesn't always, but it did this time
"The rest of your comment seems to have no relationship to the actual conversation happening here. You have gone way beyond anything I have said or written"
Actually I just asked what you meant by "enough" and what you meant by "astray". Then, after you attempted to clarify, I simply said that I still didn't get what you were going for, but that I didn't really care that much. I thought both of those comments should be pretty clear, even for you. Whatever else was in my comment to you that went "way beyond anything [you] have said or written." Well, I don't know what that means, nor do I care.
"yours is obviously to be the snarky, bitchy, drive by commentor on the left."
Bwah! Ha! Ha!. After literally hundreds of comments here, at Geoffrey's and at ER's, the one thing that no one can blame me of doing is "driving by". Of course, that comes from the same person who thinks that Dan's innumerable comments and posts constitute cowardice and bowing out of discussions on topics like the nature of salvation. What's even more amusing is that you and your cronies spend so much of your time badgering people to repeat and repeat and repeat the same things they've said several times. When someone asks you for clarification, you pull a nutty. Hypocrite.
Oh well. Bitchy? Sure. Snarky? Why thank you! But I'm always happy to engage with people who are actually interested in engagement and not just argument and, in your case, stupid, baseless, and hypocritical personal attacks.
"I know just playing your role in your imaginary play"
Yeah, I don't know what that means either. But clearly you're working some stuff out there. Use Mucinex, it would be more pleasant for the rest of us. If you're talking about previous comments in another thread regarding the silly hypocrisy game, then I'm sorry that you don't understand the basic meaning of that context, but those comments don't apply here. I was specifically referring in those comments to a particular phenomenon. But apparently changing topics confuses you and that understanding something as fundamental as context is too complex for you.
Or maybe you just get cranky in the afternoon without a nap.
Oh, got me pegged. Those viscious baseless personal attacks, yes that's how I roll.
I very clearly addressed the context of my comments, you are the only one who didn't seem to get that. Can't help it, not my problem.
So feel free to continue to project your preconceptions on me, I can handle it. I can even handle your bitchy little snark.
If you had been readingthe thread here there was civil conversation going on, until you jumped in. I realize that is somehow my fault, and apologize.
I'm not sure why you want to go beyond this thread, I certainlyhaven't. I certainly am not "working something out". Maybe it's just too simple for you. Dan made a statement. I didn't understand where he was coming from. He agreed, I agreed. We are on the same basic page on this one. I'm sure we could nuance stuff into disagreement with this topic, but there didn't seem to be any point. Shoot, I think GKS is pretty much on the same age.
For all of the convoluted sometimes nasty threads Dan and I have gone around on, I think we both like the break when things are go well.
I've responded to your "questions" twice, that should be enough. If you have specific questions I have not addressed and would like to ask, I'll respond in kind. But I'm just not seeing any major disagreement here to beat on.
BTW, they won't let me nap at work. But these 6:30-10:30 work days can get a little long sometimes. Thanks for your concern.
Hey fellers, relax. In case you've forgotten: This post is all about DAN'S faults and educating Dan.
So quit harping on each other, please.
It's all about ME today.
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks.
"I've responded to your "questions" twice, that should be enough. "
And I said it was. Twice. That should be enough. You are the only one who didn't seem to get that. Can't help it, not my problem.
"If you had been readingthe thread here there was civil conversation going on, until you jumped in."
Well perhaps you think this statement, "Neither orthopraxis nor orthodoxy will save you" was uncivil, since that was where "I jumped in." But honestly, I don't actually care if you do or not. Your standards for "civility" are hardly a benchmark anyone would aspire to reach. But thanks for your concern.
Whatever else you're nattering on about, I can't be bothered to try to figure out.
"So quit harping on each other, please."
Oh like that's ever going to happen. ;)
Thanks ever so much.
Dan,
I'll be happy to give you a list of your faults, but it might take a day or so and several comments:)
Serioulsy, I'm not sure I can fault you on this one.
Well, actually, I was hoping mom2 would come and show me the way, but I'll take hits where I can get 'em.
Alan, earlier you said...
But lately I've been coming more and more to the realization that such "orthodoxy" does not lead to "orthopraxis," but quite the opposite.
Interesting observation. Would you want to elaborate?
I was not into Calvinism as strong as it sounds like you were, but I think I can identify with that notion.
I believed that we were sinful people in need of a savior. Okay, so no big deal. But more specifically, I believed my church family and the church at large was guilty of all manner of sin and that it was important that I help point that out.
We didn't pray enough. We didn't do enough to help the poor. We didn't take the Bible seriously enough ("serious" as I defined it, anyway).
We didn't study the Bible enough (and I had some pretty specific ideas about how much was "enough" - I looked to historic Christians who spent hours each day in prayer and bible study and thought that should be the norm - And was glad to tell people that, too.)
And on and on my list went.
In short, I was a nag and fairly graceless. Undoubtedly, as I still am, too often.
Hey fellers, relax. In case you've forgotten: This post is all about DAN'S faults and educating Dan.
Are we just talking about theological faults, or can we bring up the bodily hygiene issues?
Because I think that that's the elephant in the room that we're all avoiding.
Because I think that that's the elephant in the room that we're all avoiding.
Hey, is that a crack about my weight or political orientation? Cause we all know I'm no Republican...
"Interesting observation. Would you want to elaborate?"
Not sure there's much behind that yet but just a tiny feeling. A bit of a buzzing at the back of my skull when I hear or read the BS from the "righteous" among us about "orthodoxy."
When I observe the busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds that we see in the blogosphere, or in my denomination (PCUSA), I can't help but notice the time they spend strutting and preening about their "orthodoxy" and just how many times they can cite Calvin as if he's a Pope we Protestants just never got around to giving a proper coronation. (Interesting etymology, that.)
I was just fine with normal, human Calvin. But I'm sick to death of Pope Calvin. Got a question about theology? Well, just quote Calvin or the Westminster Catechism and that'll settle it. Because, of course, one dare not cross the Pope.
And on they drone about this and that, but mostly it's all about gate-keeping and keeping their place in the tall-steeple country club that has become their church. An unwashed sepulcher, more like it.
And I don't know what about Calvinism leads to that crap because if anything, the assurance of grace that is, I think, most prevalent in Calvinism should be, if anything, freeing! Saved not through what we do, but because God loves us! Once saved always saved!
But for them, it is simply an opportunity to decide who is in and who is out.
And then to be bitchy and haughty about a status They. Never. Earned.
Perhaps I should simply understand that this too is simply another example of total depravity (hello, TULIP). But I'm sick of making excuses for Christians who ought to know better.
I see people all around me who need the Lord but will never come to know Him because of the busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds. And given how they act who would want to?! They whine about how liberals are driving people out of churches, never noticing the throngs who have left because of them. They whore around and then chastise the gays. They're gluttons and usurers and gossips, and then presume to lecture others. Because they're assured of their salvation .... but -- and this is the key -- they're not really sure about anyone else's.
Perhaps I should thank the busybodies, fusspots, tattletales, and scolds of the world for setting me straight. (Heh.) They've come very close to convincing me that they're right, that I cannot believe as they do (as I have) in my theology and still be a Christian (as they define the term.) Well why on God's green Earth would I want to?!
Seriously. If these busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds in our denomination, or of the amerikkkan descent crowd were to tell me the sky is blue, I'd want to run out and check it for myself, because I'd hate to find myself agreeing with them about anything, so obvious is their degradation.
I just think maybe they've done their job too well. And, I think I might be better for it.
One hates to quote Nietzche out of context (Feodor would chastise me. [just kidding]) but "If they want me to believe in their god, they'll have to sing me better songs. I could only believe in a god who dances."
But like I said, I'm not sure there's much behind that yet but just a tiny feeling. A bit of a buzzing at the back of my skull.
I'm amused at Dan's comment, "...like, well, a busybody, fusspot, tattletale and scold."
Especially when it comes from...."like, well, a busybody, fusspot, tattletale and scold."
And, here we are, over a month after I have asked Mom2 to assist me and point out my sins and she is a no-show.
Showing herself to be exactly as was expected: Just a gossip and a whiner and a drive by slanderer, not someone who is interested in actual dialog or conversation or helping someone out.
Point noted.
Post a Comment