Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers"

[OBW]

A few posts back, MacDuff probably said some of what I would say better than I would. I will not say that I agree with him on some of his positions. And I surely would not simply take the Catholic position over that of Protestantism.

Except in a few things. And those seem to be the things that are underpinning the nature of the recent arguments. I do not simply agree with the Catholics on these. But note that they are at least rational and consistent in how they approach and deal with scripture.

Sola Scriptura was developed in response to some decrees of the RCC that seemed to fly in the face of what scripture actually said. Since the RCC's position is that the church is the final arbiter of what scripture means, they think it is their prerogative.

They are wrong. But the idea that scripture simply speaks clearly is nothing short of ludicrous. If we are going to dump the church, and go to scripture alone, then it becomes me and my Bible. And we all get to say. And we simply don't agree. (And look where that has gotten us.)

While I have no desire to even consider a regular "diet" of Masses, rosaries, Hail Marys etc., the fighting among the Protestants is proof that what they think is important about in understanding scripture is mostly garbage.

And in the midst of the fighting, for many it is ending.

What I note in so many posts and positions is that we have virtually all been part of (or are still part of) a group that made such a big deal about being free from the law. But despite this, we view whatever our position is as so important that everyone else ought to agree with it. Even when we dump the LRC, we want to make rules about how leaders ought to be (and whether there should even be leaders) or we are degenerate.

We mostly don't say it that strongly, but we look down our noses at a denomination simply because it is a denomination. We despise a preacher because he is paid. We think that the fact that there is someone who is primary among leadership is problematic.

But does the record in Acts ever suggest such a problem? It is clear that Peter took the lead at a time. At another time, it was James. There is no indication in the written account that this was a problem.

I don't say that there are no problems anywhere. But the problems are the actual problems, not the ones layered on by implication of purist theology.

And this is my beef, of sorts. I have seemed to take on some pretty strong opinions on things lately. But how often have you paid attention to the position I take? How often is it like the latest one here on life-after-death? We are poised to develop a new and better theology about how to say it right (and without intention, start looking down our noses at those who don't do it that way or agree with it).

My position in this particular situation is that there is not really a position to take. We are so strong to try to figure it out — a la sola scriptura — and then apply our new-found theology as a yardstick to judge others.

I am not saying that there is no cause for getting things right. But the history from which we spring tends to push us to repeat the same errors that we now despise in Lee and the LRC. And that is thinking you got it right and judging everyone else for their error.

There is a place for getting it right. And that place is together. It is as the church. Not the Catholic church, or this denomination or that denomination. But as Christians willing to look beyond our petty preferences and search for truth together. I prefer immersion for baptism. Others sprinkling. I prefer believers baptism. Others take the words where whole households were baptized and do it on that basis of the household (and thus infant baptism). (BTW, do any of those groups believe, as a matter of teaching, that the infant is now saved?) But beyond these things that we differ upon, there is the core of the faith. And on this we agree. We may ultimately conclude that other positions are "right."

But we should always consider whether they are important. What does scripture actually say about it? Or is it just am implication?

And we should ask more questions than we answer. Even the scientific method of modernism finds answers by asking questions and seeking beyond what is known. Too often, our only question is where to find proof of what it is that we have already decided is true.

And when that is the exercise, then the postmodern position is far superior. Don't just tell me. Show me.

You say Jesus changes lives? Show me one. Shw me how you are changed.

You claim that Christ makes you one. demonstrate it. I will assure you that just because there are two different groups meeting in different ways across the street from each other, that alone will not be seen as disproof of oneness. The fact that they come out together to live the gospel in the community without discord is proof that they are.

I obviously love logic. And, at some level, I love theology. But I hate theology that does not have meaningful impact on people's lives today. That picks through what is wrong with other Christians and how to avoid them. I hate theology that is at the cost of loving one another. And since there will be more than one way to understand what happens between death and the resurrection, I am happy for those who have come to peace because of their version (as a result of sola scripture — me and my Bible). But I hate the creation of a "this is the answer" when it has no bearing on love for one another — rather puts one more bullet in the gun of discord.

I do not say this concerning the core of the person of Christ and the core of salvation. Only concerning the periphery. And of all the things mentioned in scripture in any way, shape or form, what happens between death and the resurrection is one of the more unspecified items there is. I cringe at the very act of trying to "figure it out," especially to go to such lengths to defend the need to do so.

I do not believe that the need exists. Scripture itself, in its silence, seems to agree.

Figure it out for yourself if you want. Like your conclusions. Don't think they are "right" and others are "wrong." If it comforts you to go this route, then so be it. But to rejoin with others to defend the importance of the topic is to require a specific result which is to add one more cause for lack of unity in the body. One more new Christian denomination or splinter group.