the susie solution

Every time I publish a post, I am aware that there will be those who disagree with what I say.  My last post, “Catechism vs. Christ”, caused some deep offence to some of the people close to me.  (For which reason I pulled it within days of posting.)  I have debated on whether to respond privately or publicly, but have decided that since the original offence took place in the public arena, so, too, should be the response, on the assumption (as any teacher will tell you) that if one person asks a question, ten are waiting to hear the answer.   So, I am following up with some clarifications and a few mea culpas.  Hoping that I don’t end up in even more trouble by trying to explain things better, here goes…

First, my title – “Catechism or Christ” – was poorly chosen.   No question.  As I often do, I titled the piece after I had written the post, to reflect off the closing line, so I was looking at the title through the eyes of what I had said (or intended, at any rate) in the post, and did not give sufficient thought to how the title would read on its own without context.  1)  I was using the term catechism in its generic sense of “an exposition of doctrine”, not as a specific reference to any particular catechism (so named, or so in function) used by any particular denomination.   2)  I also did not give adequate consideration to the fact that without the context of the entire piece, the title reads as if the two – catechism (doctrine) and Christ – are in opposition to each other.  My intention was to refer to the empty situation of knowing all the details of the former, yet not actually knowing the Christ of whom such an exposition speaks – not to imply that the two are in opposition to one another, or that it is not possible to learn of the latter by means of the former.

I wrote the post to explain why I have ended up attending a Covenant church after growing up Southern Baptist and then spending 25 years as a Missouri Synod Lutheran.  For the entire time I was a Lutheran, the subject of the declining numbers in the church was a frequent subject of angst, with much speculation on why folks were leaving.  As I know much of my story is similar to that of many others now in Covenant, I thought it would be better – even helpful – for those I have left behind to know the reasons so there need be no conjecture about it.

I related how, coming from an intellectual and academic bent, I had come to realize that I tend to fall into the trap of focusing on knowledge itself rather than on the Christ Who should be the object and point of all learning.  Knowledge should be a means to an end – Christ – not an end in itself.  Some apparently read what I said as denying Christian scholarship altogether.  I was writing of my own state of mind, not making any sweeping statement about Christian scholarship in general.  What I said was that for ME, I have realized that the pursuit of the intellectual is a temptation to be puffed up.  Of COURSE there are true Christian scholars whose gift and calling is to pursue Christ through the study of Scripture, theology, doctrine and then use their knowledge to build up the Church. 

When I stated in my post that I did not find the focus of the churches I’ve been in to be on knowledge for the sake of knowing Christ better and becoming like Him, I was not saying or nor intending to imply that NO ONE ELSE could find Christ and being like Him as the focus at those churches.  I just said that I didn’t.  (The same sermon that my dh enjoys may leave me cold – and the sermons I get the most out of, he may have a million criticisms of.  The church one person finds warm and welcoming another feels is cold and uninviting.)  Nor was my statement aimed at any one specific church or denomination; as I said in the intro to the original post, I have attended MULTIPLE churches in my life. 

On these points, I am grieved that what I said was taken in any way other than what I intended, and sincerely apologize for not being sufficiently clear in my wording.

On the second thread of my post, I have only one mea culpa.  I do apologize for one of the statements I made that was a rather sweeping and harsh imputation regarding how some of us judge other Christians who don’t view things the way we do. I let myself get carried away and forgot to get that edited before posting.  There is no excuse for it.

Beyond that, however, I continue to hold to what I said regarding issues aside from basic Christian orthodoxy.  Being convinced of one particular interpretation over another isn’t the problem.  Gathering together in like-minded groups isn’t necessarily a problem, either.   The problem is that although thousands of theologians working from the same texts have not been able to agree, many denominations continue to insist that their, and only their, interpretation is The Only Possible Right One.  They then use that position to fence off their little section of God’s pasture in a modern version of the old Corinthian game of “I am of Peter.”  “I am of Apollos.”  “I am of Paul.”  “Well, I’m of Jesus – so there!”  This denominational territorialism cannot be considered as making every – if any – effort to preserve any kind of unity in our one Lord.  One of the things that draws me to the Covenant church is that it loves beyond its denominational doors in a way no other church I have been at has done, and actively works to support other churches, not just its own.  Their focus is on the faith that unites all believers, not the definitions that divide us.

Again, I am sorry for offence I gave in my first post because of insufficiently clear writing.  For offence because I hold the opinions I do, there is no remedy, I’m afraid.