Derek wrote a post about a question he asked Tim Keller, and it led to this from Rachel Held Evans. You all probably know that RHE riles me up. You end up some kind of "liberal" if you listen to her. But on the good side, she does help us find the limits of hermeneutics under the oppressive regime of Sola Scriptura. See, I believe RHE doesn't identify as a theological progressive. That's true. But for one, there is no way to know where you are in relation to some "center" if there isn't one. I digress.
But I read Derek's post and Keller's general comments in a different way: through the lens of virtue and vice. If you sin gravely (like say, sexual sin) and you repeat it, it gets harder and harder to think and act in the right way. You need a lot more grace to get back going straight. And that, I think, is the context which would lead Dr. Keller to ask a young person "Who are you sleeping with?"
Augustine's a rather excellent example, no?
Most of Rachel's questions most of the time illustrate that the Bible (interpreted by people, absent a charism) does not answer second and third and whatever order questions. A method cannot guarantee that you ask the right questions or get the right answers. What is "right" when the final arbiter of "what the Bible says" is me? I don't think every Episcopalian wakes up and says, "I'm going to disobey Jesus' word in favor of my socio-political commitments." I doubt I would even notice something amiss, if it happened slowly enough.
Being Catholic is great. I don't have to fear evolution, (to a point) and the Magisterium and the Tradition guide us in thinking about the great issues of the day. It's the Church, and aside from that, when she uses her gifts, it has innumerable practical benefits.
I should note that I do not have to say that Anne Frank or any other person who did not arrive at explicit knowledge or faith in Jesus Christ is necessarily in Hell. God knows, and rewards or punishes as He determines. That's liberating, as well. Would Rachel Held Evans be teetering on the edge of "liberal" Protestantism if she knew what the true Church has always taught?
But I read Derek's post and Keller's general comments in a different way: through the lens of virtue and vice. If you sin gravely (like say, sexual sin) and you repeat it, it gets harder and harder to think and act in the right way. You need a lot more grace to get back going straight. And that, I think, is the context which would lead Dr. Keller to ask a young person "Who are you sleeping with?"
Augustine's a rather excellent example, no?
Most of Rachel's questions most of the time illustrate that the Bible (interpreted by people, absent a charism) does not answer second and third and whatever order questions. A method cannot guarantee that you ask the right questions or get the right answers. What is "right" when the final arbiter of "what the Bible says" is me? I don't think every Episcopalian wakes up and says, "I'm going to disobey Jesus' word in favor of my socio-political commitments." I doubt I would even notice something amiss, if it happened slowly enough.
Being Catholic is great. I don't have to fear evolution, (to a point) and the Magisterium and the Tradition guide us in thinking about the great issues of the day. It's the Church, and aside from that, when she uses her gifts, it has innumerable practical benefits.
I should note that I do not have to say that Anne Frank or any other person who did not arrive at explicit knowledge or faith in Jesus Christ is necessarily in Hell. God knows, and rewards or punishes as He determines. That's liberating, as well. Would Rachel Held Evans be teetering on the edge of "liberal" Protestantism if she knew what the true Church has always taught?
Comments