The Romantic Christian Maxim That Has Apparently Shaken Christianity to Its Core

8/3/2022

Be vigilant! Take personal responsibility for your individual discernment.

Such sacrilege is insufferable! Insufferable, I say!

6 Comments

Hoyos

8/4/2022 03:43:42

See that’s the problem for me, there is no substitute for personal judgement.

Not exactly the same but related, that is one of the weakest arguments Catholics use against Protestants “you’re relying on your own judgement!”, right the same way every catholic is relying on his own judgement that Catholicism is true.

The thing that worries me though is I believe I know God with my intuition, when I became a Christian it was like direct knowing. I also believe in the Bible, I believe that the creeds reflect the Bible and I sense that these things are so important that our failures stem from too easily ceding ground on these points; we basically gave in too early to enemies that were far weaker than we imagined.

So what worries me about some romantic Christians is how some excise parts of the Bible out, or dabble too much in men that I think are confirmed false prophets, Joseph Smith or Steiner.

On the flip, “dead orthodoxy” is a thing, an attempt to replace a personal relationship with God with a system. It’s what happened, I think, when Moses struck the rock (choosing technique over revelation). Even pseudo dead orthodoxy, it took a long time for me to really be aware of and have the lesson sink in of real trust in God for guidance. So many lessons about faith and the heart were necessary for me to be spiritually as alive, I was a pretty hard hearted dummy honestly, still am in a lot of ways but at least now I know that and know that God knows it.

I’m not trying to be the guy that stands in judgement and is saying everybody is wrong, or that everybody should have common ground because I’m just so smart, but I think my point of view is actually pretty common historically and even now. I’m clinging to orthodoxy not just with my intellect or imagination, but my intuition as well.

This is part of why the Bible is so instructive, and we’re ignoring it. There were continuous spiritual diseases in ancient Israel, and according to the NT, deviations and corruptions from the very start. In a sense there is no “history”, human nature doesn’t develop or evolve it’s the same. And one of the main themes of the Bible is the authority and reliability of God’s word, it’s aliveness. I don’t even think we can understand without God;s guidance either. So in all honesty everybody has got a point here as far as I’m concerned. I just don’t think we can junk the Bible or personal judgement.

I’m sorry, this is a ramble, I just hope something valuable is coming across.

Francis Berger

8/4/2022 13:29:57

@ Hoyos - Perhaps the solution lies in discerning motivation rather than focusing on denominations/practices/scriptures, etc. On the surface this comes off sounding like relativism, but I don't think it is.

For example, if I personally know a Christian, and I discern him to be sincere and well-motivated -- someone who has honestly and earnestly chosen to follow Jesus based on his reading of Steiner, then perhaps the inspiration that Christian receives from Steiner is not the most important issue.

Conversely, if I know a Christian who is an ultra-orthodox whatever who adheres to all the strict doctrines of his tradition but is otherwise questionable in his commitment to Christ, then perhaps the tradition is not as important as it seems in that individual's case.

I don't think we can boil this down to orthodox versus unorthodox anymore. I myself continue to maintain many orthodox ways of thinking, and I respect a great deal of Catholic tradition. I go to Mass on Sundays. My son serves as an altar boy. At the same time, I reject practically everything the current hierarchy stands for and does, and I would not welcome a return to the throne-altar model.

I believe God is a like a loving parent who does His best to provide the things we need individually to draw us closer to Him. Once we make the sincere commitment in our hearts to follow Jesus, the Holy Ghost will work to guide us to the resources we require (both inner and outer) to help us on our individual paths. For some, it's conventional church-going and Bible reading. For others, it's a blend of the conventional and unconventional. For others still, it is almost purely internal. Whatever the case, if it helps the individual follow Christ in an authentic way and the motivation is discernibly sincere, then we should accept it and be glad for it.

Note: this does not mean the individual is free to align himself with obvious evil or think and act in evil ways. He must align himself with God and Creation. That alignment does not need to be perfect, but it needs to be honest.

I disagree with the "no history" part. I believe human consciousness does change and has changed -- not in a Darwinian-evolutionary sense, but more like an unfolding through time. As I noted above, I think a return to the throne-altar tradition, even if it were possible, would be terrible for Christianity because it would value obedience and order over spiritual freedom and creativity. We would abandon the choice to consciously develop the "Christianity of the Holy Spirit" (freedom and creativity) in favor of the "Christianity of the Father" (obedience and law). At the end of the day, I don't believe God wants us to relate to him in the same way our ancestors did 500 years ago. He desires something more from us. However, that doesn't mean what our ancestors did 500 years ago is obsolete, superfluous, or useless -- or that we cannot benefit from it in a variety of ways.

Hoyos

8/5/2022 01:04:45

As folksy as it is, wise old southern saying “God’s hit many a lick with a crooked stick.” I suspect God winks at a lot based on what we know, even if it’s wrong. For some reason I’m reminded of a common, although far from universal theme in Muslim conversion stories; they often have visions or dreams where they meet Jesus. I suspect they were men who really were thirsting after God, so God showed up and gave them the desire of their hearts.

It’s just the setting aside of scripture that’s a red flag for me. We have intuition, intellect, and imagination and I believe were supposed to use all three in our relationship to God and it seems clear that God provided His written word as an indispensable aid. It’s where we reach outside of ourselves. It’s like the old Harvard crest, the original one, three books , two open (nature and reason, which included the intuitive sense) and one open but face down, revelation. Some things we can’t know without it. The Bible has been stress tested harder than any document in history and it does things no merely human originated book should be able to do. I think God put it here, and if He did, and we believe it, that changes everything. God can guide us individually but it seems likely He provides aids we all share.

As far as relating to God differently over time, in a sense you have to be right; everyone is at least a little bit of a dispensationalist, hence old and new testaments. But I think the ABCs of human nature are still all present, perhaps with different emphases over time.

bruce charlton

8/4/2022 09:09:05

One of the cleverest and most effective intellectual tricks that Satan ever pulled was to assert 'epistemology' as the most fundamental philosophy - in other words, to make people believe that they must above all attain (unchanging) certainty of knowledge.

When, in addition, this is pursued without an explicit acknowledgment of the metaphysical assumptions, and that they are assumptions (and therefore At Best intuitive) - we get the unanswerable problems of knowledge that lead people to relativism and nihilism on the one hand - and on the other hand to an ignorant/ crazy/ dishonest denial of the fundamental nature of intuition and assertion of a complex and circular system as the 'obvious' and eternal truth.

Francis Berger

8/4/2022 13:43:36

@ Bruce - Forgive me. I know you would rather not be Berdyaev-bombed, but I stumbled upon these passages the other day and found them very insightful regarding knowledge/truth (re: your discussion with Alan, especially the last passage):

"I wish to know, not actuality, but the truth about actuality. And I may learn what this truth is, only because in me, the knowing subject, there is a source of truth and because I may communicate with this truth."

"Truth has two meanings: there is truth as knowledge of reality, and truth as reality itself."

"Truth is the awakening of spirit in man, his communion with spirit."

"Where shall we seek criteria of truth? All too often men seek these criteria in what is lower than truth, in the objective world with its compulsions, seek criteria for spirit in the material world. And they fall into a vicious circle. Discursive truth can provide no criteria for final truth: it is only at the half-way mark, and knows neither the beginning nor the end. Every proof rests upon the unproven, the postulate, the created. There is risk, and no guarantee. The very search for guarantee is wrong and really means subjecting the higher to the lower. Freedom of the spirit knows no guarantees. The sole criterion of truth is truth itself, the light which streams out of it. All other criteria exist only for the everyday, objective world, for social communication."

Bookslinger

8/5/2022 18:53:04

BC: are you familiar with "The Sensory Order" by Hayek? If so, do you recommend it? Is it about intuition and metaphysical senses?

It showed up in my Bookbub email. $2 US, (and £2 UK) for the ebook, is the temporary discount price.

https://www.amazon.com/Sensory-Order-Foundations-Theoretical-Psychology-ebook/dp/B009GJQIS4/

Sorry Frank, it's not on discount in the EU.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

The Romantic Christian Maxim That Has Apparently Shaken Christianity to Its Core

Leave a Reply.

Archives