I can give you a pretty basic definition of religious indifferentism: It is the belief that it doesn't matter what one believes about God. There are dozens of reasons why someone might find it appealing. But I can say without a hint of hesitation that my journey toward Catholicism began at the catching of a more than faint whiff of religious indifferentism.
Secondarily, it was about ecclesiology, because the ekklesia is supposed to be the place where I am formed and shaped by God, who is Truth. It is simply not correct to assert that a desire for that truth is some vestige of Enlightenment rationalism; ironically, in fact, it is that rationalism that makes indifferentism popular. In any case, we do not fear to find that Protestants and Catholics have different doctrines concerning God, and different sources (to some extent) for identifying and applying what God says. We should vehemently reject any notion that we cannot and ought not know what He has said, for indeed, the basis of any theology is revelation. And in fact, ecclesiology's only real purpose is to contextualize the truths of revelation, to filter out what a person or group of them may add to God's communication. Because the Church is the very communion where God dwells, because we who believe are that dwelling-place, (Ephesians 2) there is a limit to how much we can say, "I don't know" in theology without slandering God, who wishes to be known. At a minimum, what is asserted theologically is presumed to be the content of revelation, or something that necessarily follows from it. Otherwise, the theological assertion in its particularity is not important enough to be asserted. And if one cannot know the truthfulness of what is asserted, it is unwise to assert it.
Because the Church is the dwelling-place for God, the very place where His salvation is realized, the Church on some level must know what God has revealed. The biggest problem with the notion of an invisible Church (a notion that follows by necessity from the unavoidable individualism of Sola Scriptura) is that it implicates the Holy Spirit in the dogmatic/epistemic doubt that follows from the concept. God cannot contradict Himself, so the concept--which by its very nature asserts that God the Holy Spirit teaches contradictory things about non-negotiable matters--cannot be the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. They may well be His People, and they may be trying to be the Church, but the concept won't survive, if we desire to reject indifferentism. Indifferentism is in fact one outcome of the problem caused by the concept. If visible unity is neither desirable nor necessary, we must still live with the theological implications of that reality. If we are not willing to concede that the faults in the process belong to humans, and that the process itself may be wrong, the only other choice is to call God a liar. This is not an acceptable Christian position.
Secondarily, it was about ecclesiology, because the ekklesia is supposed to be the place where I am formed and shaped by God, who is Truth. It is simply not correct to assert that a desire for that truth is some vestige of Enlightenment rationalism; ironically, in fact, it is that rationalism that makes indifferentism popular. In any case, we do not fear to find that Protestants and Catholics have different doctrines concerning God, and different sources (to some extent) for identifying and applying what God says. We should vehemently reject any notion that we cannot and ought not know what He has said, for indeed, the basis of any theology is revelation. And in fact, ecclesiology's only real purpose is to contextualize the truths of revelation, to filter out what a person or group of them may add to God's communication. Because the Church is the very communion where God dwells, because we who believe are that dwelling-place, (Ephesians 2) there is a limit to how much we can say, "I don't know" in theology without slandering God, who wishes to be known. At a minimum, what is asserted theologically is presumed to be the content of revelation, or something that necessarily follows from it. Otherwise, the theological assertion in its particularity is not important enough to be asserted. And if one cannot know the truthfulness of what is asserted, it is unwise to assert it.
Because the Church is the dwelling-place for God, the very place where His salvation is realized, the Church on some level must know what God has revealed. The biggest problem with the notion of an invisible Church (a notion that follows by necessity from the unavoidable individualism of Sola Scriptura) is that it implicates the Holy Spirit in the dogmatic/epistemic doubt that follows from the concept. God cannot contradict Himself, so the concept--which by its very nature asserts that God the Holy Spirit teaches contradictory things about non-negotiable matters--cannot be the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. They may well be His People, and they may be trying to be the Church, but the concept won't survive, if we desire to reject indifferentism. Indifferentism is in fact one outcome of the problem caused by the concept. If visible unity is neither desirable nor necessary, we must still live with the theological implications of that reality. If we are not willing to concede that the faults in the process belong to humans, and that the process itself may be wrong, the only other choice is to call God a liar. This is not an acceptable Christian position.
Comments