Friday, February 1, 2008
comments on a controversial issue
I'm assuming that Kyle was giving us a link to someone's notes on InterVarsity heading up some Catholic/Prostetant reconciliation work. IV has become more involved with Catholicism over the past few years, and there are books and articles written by IV about the topic. My friend, Scott Bessenecker, is working a lot with the Catholic/Protestant reconciliation initiatives despite his reasoning against much of the Catholic faith. I don't quite understand the reasons behind why we are straining toward a goal of reconciliation, but would like to have some healthy dialogue about it here. I got to attend a seminar by the writers of the articles linked to earlier in the post, and came away a little more confused than when i went in. It seemed a little too experiential to me, as in the reasons why the person converted to Catholicism were basically because it felt good even though they still don't understand Catholic apologetics, and the reason one of them likes Catholicism even though they left the Catholic Church is because of an experience he had in mass. Seriously, we've got to have a better reason for this than an emotional or pragmatic one. I think there are better reasons out there, but i'm looking forward to some blogage on this!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Hey Andy....I came across this article from the folks at reformation21 on their blog. Thought it might pertain to the whole IV/Catholicism discussion.
Here's the link.
VERY interesting. Thanks Jeremy. I hear what Rick is saying regarding small groups being postmodern, but his view on inductive Bible study might have been a little off in my perspective. "Inductive" means we start with scripture and use good hermeneutics to understand what it is telling us about God, rather than starting with a motive or topic and using scripture to support it. In my experience we seem to be able to deal with incuctive bible studies without slipping into a "my truth" kind of mentality. He is right in saying small groups must be led to be directed toward the truth and supervised by someone who is trained, both ideas i don't think IV is against. At least it seems to be working here. How do you do small groups in VA Jeremy?
Actually you assumed wrong :-) The link I posted was in regards to the "inductive" Bible studies. Like I said, I had lost your email and didn't know how else to forward you a copy of that link. I read the Reformation21 blog, and it raised some points I had never considered before. I was hoping to get your two cents, which you provided below.
I do have a question regarding your thoughts.
You say: "but his view on inductive Bible study might have been a little off in my perspective." Not that experience is the ultimate way by which I judge all things, but most college Bible studies I have been to are in fact exactly how Rick summarizes it. So within IV (or other campus ministry stuff you may be familiar with) is there a big gap between how things "ought" to be and how they "actually" are? I mean does IV have one standard that most Bible studies fail to actually conform to?
Secondly, you say that we should start with Scripture and use "good hermeneutics." Now I know I don't have to tell you this, but what constitutes "good hermeneutics?" That field of study is a very controversial one, not to mention a very difficult one. Are we putting unfair expectations on college students to assume that they have "good hermeneutical" methods, when in fact, most can't even spell the word, much less come up a Biblically defined hermeneutic? Now this could just be a result of my critical standard of the world as I see it, or it could be my own insecurity in my hermeneutical method (which tends towards covenantal law/gospel), but either way it's a serious question that has to be answered. That's where I see Rick's objection holding a lot of weight, so much so that it has seriously caused me to rethink small group Bible studies. Anyway, thoughts would be wonderful!
Grace.
Oh yeah, as to the RC and Protestant reconciliation, I just have this thought. What is he thinking? In order to reconcile the two you WILL have to compromise the Protestant view of the gospel, is it worth it?
Thanks Kyle. We are asking too much of our bible study leaders. That is true. And hermeneutics is a controversial field. I'm sorry for your bad experiences of student bible studies, and i do beleive that represents a fault in training bible study leaders. But i am also conviced that there is a gap between the way bible studies normall are and the way they ought to be. I am concerned about the training Rick received in order to lead bible studies in IV, it doesn't sound like something that would go on around here. We want to facilitate students getting into scripture outside of church, and we try to train leaders to be reserved in their opinion of what scripture is saying but rather seek to understand the truth of a passage and what is tells us about the Lord. A focus on inductive bible studies was a response to the practice of picking and choosing pieces of scripture that we liked or taking a topic and finding verses that supposedly support what we want to say. With inductive Bible study the idea is to take a book of the bible and work through it slowly and deliberately, not skipping parts but dealing with all of it as a group. I've seen that practice done well by students, and heard of good things from your bible study. I think IV is a fan of that, and wouldn't generally support the idea of each student coming up with a "truth for them" out of a passage.
I cringe at the thought of putting small group leaders in place who are not ready to lead, but i think one of the cool things about the reformation was the enabling of the commoner to read scripture for themsleves. I fear the reversion back to having only certain "worthy" individuals handle scripture is a step away. I have more orthodox friends who believe there should be no Bible studies unless led by a pastor, and evangelism is not for every Christian but is only a calling for ordained ministers. Maybe soon pastors will be the only ones allowes to own a bible, or at least bibles won't be opened unless in the presence of an ordained minister. Don't get me wrong, i want badly to guard against mishandling the Word, but where do we stop in deciding who gets to interpret scripture? Are these part of your thoughts on small groups, Kyle? I'd love to hear more about that. And we'll have to talk more about hermeneutics later.
I would be with you in defying a return to Rome. But is there a difference between *common* folk reading Scripture and *common* folk teaching Scripture? This is where my thoughts naturally lead in thinking about this. We both know the warning that James gives, that not all should presume to be teachers. Likewise, Paul warns Timothy so clearly in 1 Timothy that the danger of false teachers is that they make bold assertions and yet do not know the law. How can they teach the law when they do not know it themselves? Now whether or not IV intends for small group "leaders" to be "teachers" this is a perceived role, and one which by default I think happens quite frequently. But teaching is dangerous and serious business. So I don't see that the discussion is so much about who can/cannot read and study Scripture, as much as it should be about who can/cannot teach Scripture. This doesn't stem from a hierarchy of thought, or a "holier than thou" attitude. It stems from a desire to protect zealous young people from themselves (even Timothy's youth is projected to be around 38 years old). They must be tested and approved, and where, in an organization like IV, does that testing and approving come from? I had some advice thrown my way by a mentor/friend/renowned pastor a couple weeks ago. He said, "Kyle, don't presume to be a teacher too quickly." This wasn't a comment denying possible gifts or abilities which are being exercised in the Church, but it was a warning that he passed my way to seriously consider how much, as a young fledgling, I should take on. I haven't been able to shake that comment from my mind. And it is in line with that thought that I wonder if para-Church organizations should abandon their desire to "teach" and leave that to the Church, to whom the keys of the Kingdom have been given, to whom the mystery of Godliness has been revealed, to the men who have been appointed by the Holy Spirit. Please don't interpret this as Kyle's angst against para-Church organizations. For six years I was highly active and involved in camp ministries (I ate, slept, breathed camp ministry), thinking I wanted to do that for the rest of my life. As my respect for the Church has grown I have struggled (as you know) with the role and function of para-Church organizations within the context of the Church. The reason I bring it up with you is because I know you have intelligibly considered some of this stuff and can give me some responses.
All this can be overthrown by the simple statement that IV small groups are not "teaching" situations (which was addressed a bit above). But then could I ask what measures IV takes to ensure that "teaching" does not occur? Something which is the way it is by definition only can't suffice here. What guard does IV have to ensure that students are not being put into positions by which they will be judged more harshly or positions in which they actually dishonor Christ more than honor him? And what precautions does IV take not to function like a Church?
Anyway those are some questions/thoughts. Do what you want with them...only love me!
Grace.
Kyle
Here's a link which seems relevant to the current discussion:
http://against-heresies.blogspot.com/
2008/02/on-novelties-theological-deve
lopment.html
Kyle,
Thanks a ton for your comments. I read the other blog and like it, and i want to throw a few thoughts out there about small groups and para-church, but am off to mtgs for the next few hours so i'll write late tonight or tomorrow after pondering your valid concerns and thoughts.
Nice post on The Lord's Supper, Kyle! Maybe i'm ignorant on this, but i'd never heard the term "covenant renewal service" before, i love it! I sent you a little email on your hotmail account if you still use it.
Anyway, again, good thoughts on small groups. The Bible study method taught to leaders in IV is manuscript study. I realize many small groups do not actually practice this, but it is the ideal in IV BECAUSE there is a fear of young Christian students teaching. At least that is what i gather from folks. In manuscript study there is a facilitator who should know the main truth and thrust of the passage being studied, at least enough to lead the discussion in that direction and guard against heresy. The scriptures are to do the teaching, and the students "mine the scriptures" (IV term) to draw out what it is teaching about what we must believe about God and what God requires of us. In theory, it is the scripture alone, with the illumination of the Holy Spirit, that does the teaching and changing. Of course, good resources are encouraged to be used in the "mining" of the scripture, and those resources are normally decided upon by the leaser. I've found that most leaders will go with resources provided by the staff, however. I think some things need to change and we DO need to work on changing small groups for the sake of our students and the glory of God, so please don't take this as an all-out defense of the way IV does their stuff, i'm just trying to help us understand our sometimes complicated and often uneffective system.
As for para-Church stuff, i want to email you and maybe get another discussion going on it here. I'm implementing a lot of exciting things with my church here, and want to create a model for what we're calling "para-local church partnership." Thank John Frame for the verbage, but i think it helps to get at what we're talking about.
Andy, My one bad experience leading small groups at Point, 'way back when you were barely a twinkle was with a group of women who were charismatic catholic (it was a movement...go figure), and you're right, the prep for leaders to work within that kind of multiperspective faith was nominal. Apparently not much has changed. I went on to take the correspondence course from the Catholic Knights so that I could understand "them" a little better, but it only made me see the similiarities in the basis of faith. How both sides act on that faith is what makes the biggest challenges.
I agree-why should we "merge?" And let's call it that. "Reconciliation" is not what either side means.
I just know I love my aunt and my sister-in-law, devout practicing Catholics who have a reason behind their faith that's not wrong.
Mr. Lickel,
Yeah I got your email, thanks!
Covenant Renewal Ceremony is a term that I first heard coined by Mike Horton, but also Ed Clowney. It's become a popular "Reformed" word for the Church services on Sunday mornings. Clearly covenant is the leading hermeneutic in the Reformed world and we believe that God is always interacting with His people on covenantal terms. Consider the OT when the people met to read the Law, those were covenant renewal ceremonies. In the same manner some want to use that for our services Sunday morning because we are renewing the covenant...I like it, it helps me focus on the significance of Sunday mornings.
That was probably a longer blurb than you needed.
Grace.
Protestants need to reconcile with each other. We keep splitting into more and more groups. Forget the Catholic/Protestant reconciliation talk.
Post a Comment