[I just realized that this post is rather profane in places. I cry you mercy, though I shall not edit it for content. I will, however, blame it all on Harp Lager.]
You may have noticed a change in tone over the past few entries. I seem to have gone from pissed, to annoyed, to polemically indignant, to, finally, jocular. I assure you that I am not suffering from a kind of virtual bipolar disorder. No, I sensed that it was time to step back, and give the thoughtful comments many made to those curiously ranting posts a think. Karl has taken up this topic on his blog as well, and I even found a discussion on a fascinating blog called The Blogsburg Confession. I assure you that I am indeed thinking things over, trying to gain some perspective on the events that led up the said rants, all the while remaining convinced that there is something good in there that I can't yet seem to say with any clarity. Among the points up for reconsideration:
1. Do I know what the hell I'm talking about when I use the word 'apologetics'? Might another word, and hence another activity, be what I'm really talking about? Remember, I am rethinking some things, so I have no clever answer at this point. I remain convinced, however, that we should not leave the hard work of deep reading, reflection, and experience to the academics. Who says a plumber, a lawyer, or even, perhaps, a forklift driver can't read widely, learn languages, and take on difficult works by folks like Athanasius and Anselm without trusting the clichés larded on us by those very academics?
2. Do I have, perhaps, too pessimistic a view of, well, human communication? Or is my level of pessimism just about right?
3. How to make clear that I'm not making an epistemological argument about the necessary and sufficient conditions for certitude, or a methodological argument about the proper way to go about all that stuff I talk about in #1, but rather a moral point about avoiding the grave sins of bearing false witness and causing another to stumble and so fall away from the faith? In other words, I don't suppose there is any ironclad way to obtain certitude that this one scholar, this one study, this one book, this one theologian, this one crazy ass blogger has nailed it all definitively. I don't suppose this because it's impossible to do so. One can, however, test preconceived opinions against the texts, and evaluate true scholarly work against certain standards. But that's all beside the point. What's important to me is the moral obligation we have to not, well, lie our asses off even inadvertantly because we've bought received opinion and read everything through it. Just what the hell that means, however, I'm not able to articulate, so please nobody jump on me just yet.
4. What the hell is a blog, anyway? As I noted in the first entry to this very blog, I still don't know. I don't believe in private confessions, although I have gotten quite touchy about stuff that's truly important to me. I don't believe it's some sort of journal that I just happen to show the world. But, I can't say what it truly IS, at least not yet.
Let me, however, violate my policy against confessions and make some that may just shed light on why I'm agonizing over all of this. I don't believe in self-expression, nor do I care much for opinion. I know, I know, I've got a lot of 'em too, and folks reading this have been abused by those opinions more than anyone should be. But the fact remains that I think we have to earn our opinions, that not every opinion matters, and that we aren't simply entitled to 'em. This has raised a great deal of indignation, as though I could, or should, dictate what someone can say on their blog, or in any other forum for that matter. Let me be clear. Folks can say whatever damn fool thing they want, wherever they want, whenever they want. As can I. I just think most of what we say when we're trying to be serious (as opposed to when we're just messing around, for play is always good) is garbage. This goes for me as well as everyone else on the planet. We tend to believe whatever sounds the most profound, we take the word of 'experts' and academics over the evidence in the texts themselves, each of us loves the sound of his own voice (how long is this post so far?): and that's only the beginning.
Here's another thing I find odd, and it's truly baffling to me. I can't seem to work up the requisite feeling of opposition to any particular group. Even groups I think in error, like the Reformed; even groups I think arrogant and pig-headed, like the Orthodox. When I was a Lutheran, I could never work up the necessary anti-Roman sentiment. I could never bring myself to call 'em Papists and associate 'em with the Antichrist. I never said that the Reformed were heterodox, although they are in many ways. I knew all this, but I just didn't care. I read Calvin whether he was right about everything or not. I love Anselm even though I can do without some of his weirder arguments. I would often take Luther to the Cistercian monastery I like to visit. I found his commentaries fine reading of a hot summer day spent under the sun waiting for the bells that called us to Terce or Vespers. None of this is offered in a triumphalist spirit, for I simply think it's a neutral fact of my life. It's neither good nor bad, as far as I'm concerned.
I offer this in explanation of why it's alien to me to define my faith over and against other groups. That I may, despite all this, do that very thing unconsciously I have no doubt. But insofar as I am aware of what's going on, I just don't ever say things like 'Watch out, you don't want to become a Calvinist!' or 'Mystics are subjectivists who value human striving for virtue over the grace of God' in counterpoint to something offered up as the Truth.
What's more, I had overwhelmingly positive experiences as a Lutheran. True, they crapped all over me at the seminary, but I did the same to them, so who's really to blame? No, what I know of holiness, devotion, love, and evangelical liberty I learned as a Lutheran. I was baptized at the age of 16 by a pastor who remains to this day the image of holiness for me. As he was dying of Lou Gehrig's Disease, he told me that he would continue to proclaim the Gospel until he could no longer breathe. And that he did. He was a man of great faults, weakness, and tremendous holiness and devotion to our Lord. In that congregation I learned the Nicene Creed, not as a set of dry propositions but as the very story of our God's gracious work for the salvation of losers like us. I learned the love of liturgy. I received the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus. It was no shangri-la, but a real community of screwed up folk who could not have cared less about rebellion against Rome or Constantinople, but who simply struggled to live as Christians in an alien land.
Such was my first experience of living as a Christian. If anyone were to say that he was a heretic, that he was just another 'sectarian,' because, really now, everyone knows that's what he would be, well, I would have to kick their ass so hard my steel-toed boot would hit the back of their throat. I'd say the same for any of the strange gaggle of Calvinists, Cistercians, Jesuits, Baptists, Lutherans, and, over the past three years, Orthodox that have so influenced me.
Having said that, I really have no trouble asserting that now the ELCA is in apostasy, for that's an objective statement, easily verified. What isn't is that 'Them damn Lutherans are responsible for Hegelian totalitarianism' (yes, I've read that); 'Calvinists are responsible for secularism because they believe in a distant deity' (remember, I object to the form of the statement, not simply the content). The list could go on and on. Nor does that mean I believe every ELCA member is in apostasy, because I know that's not true. (I know it from experience, which I'm told is an epistemologically valid source of knowlege.) That's just an example of what I'm talking about. There are more. Whatever I thought of Roman Catholic doctrine and practice, I still loved talking to and reading Catholics and hanging around their monasteries and cathedrals. Though the Orthodox annoy me to no end, I attended the Divine Liturgy today in honor of St. Mary of Egypt. The Reformed just can't get their heads on straight enough to simply confess the Real Presence, yet just this evening I read a wonderful study of Calvin by the late Heiko Obermann, a Dutch Calvinist minister himself and one of my favorite people. Tomorrow I'm scooting over to a PCA church in town to meet the pastor. And I feel deep affection for the Missouri - Synod, even though their leadership was the first to embrace Creation Science as an alternative to 'modernism.' So, I'm either just damn virtuous and open-minded (doubtful, to say the least), or something else is going on. Again, I can't seem to clarify just what I'm damn well saying here, so what I think I'm saying may not be what I wrote, or what you think I said. Got that?
Still, let's have a shot at this. Am I another confused ecumenistical heretical westerner? Well, no, because despite everything I don't believe in the so-called 'Branch Theory,' for the Church is One, it can never be divided, and so the existence of Christian communions living in separation one from another reflects a gravely sinful division in the hearts of Christians. The list could go on and on. And yet, and yet, I won't have strangers who know them not impugning the holiness, orthodoxy, devotion, and fidelity of any of these folks I have known and, by extention, the communities that formed 'em. Moreover, I just can't bring myself to hurl anathemas at whole traditions. If this is incoherent, well, I'll just have to live with it.
Anyway, I'm sure that makes everything crystal clear. At the very least, I hope it's a bit more clear why all this stuff bothers me so.
Peace.