First off, if you haven't yet, watch this to know what the hell I am talking about.
First I'll give my brief take on the guy. His name is Jefferson Bethke and this isn't his first dog-and-pony show when it comes to uplifting God-based youtube videos.
He seems like a nice guy, real believer. He's talented, attractive and involved with people who know their video editing.
Before I critique anything he says, I want to make it known that I am not "hatin" on the guy. I admire his faith. I respect it. I also fully acknowledge that I am a poor judge of many things and there's plenty of beams in my own eye to deal with before I try to remove the speck in his.
But that's not fun or interesting, so I'm going to deal with his message now instead.
Jefferson seems like a real believer. Jefferson seems like a guy who's popular at parties....he kind of says so in the video.
But Jefferson's message, one that I don't blame him for, is wrong. I don't blame him.
He is the latest in a long line of Christians indoctrinated into the idea that God is a personal notion, meant to be experienced individualistically and not communally.
His view that religion is the problem and God is the cure is illogical, but not without MASSIVE support.
I submit right now that if I asked my facebook list to decide if they like his video, it would be a massive yes.
And there is a lot to like. He talks about hypocrisy being bad. And self-righteousness being a bad thing. He mentions some important truths about God....but it's all dressed up in wrongs.
I would address all the things I find wrong, but as you all know, I'm a Catholic, and my views line up with the orthodoxy for the most part so here's parish priest/rapper known as Fr. Pontifex with his own slick edited reply.
I agree.
I believe Mr. Bethke's views are the natural conclusion of protestantism. I don't mean all protestants agree with the whole thing, they don't. I mean that when the word of God has no interpretive authority, when everyman should define the meaning his or herself, when no one has any more right than another to preserve the truth.....eventually we reach a point where religion become usesless, and the truth is lost.
Depending on how bad this blog post goes over, I've written by own poetic reply to Mr. Bethke. Should I post the text? You shant see me rapping.
You are equating protestantism with epistemological relativism, which isn't fair.
ReplyDeleteCite me something where a protestant voice is denying absolute truth. I don't believe it exists, at least in the "orthodox" mainstream of educated protestants.
The difference is that Catholics possess (and demand) an "authority" to interpret scripture for everyone. So they believe in absolute truth, and they also believe that they possess it too, in the form of the truth.
Protestants don't believe in that "authority", and thus don't demand it, or see it as useful. They still believe in absolute truth, but they don't believe that any church in particular has a monopoly or total understanding of it. It is not that "every man should define the meaning his or herself", it means that each should attempt to understand it his/her self. As a protestant might say "lean on the holy spirit to interpret for us".
"So they believe in absolute truth, and they also believe that they possess it too, in the form of the truth."
DeleteThat should be "in the form of the church", not "in the form of the truth".
Here's an example.
ReplyDeleteBaptism is needed for salvation. Some protestants say yes, some say no.
Catholics say yes.
One side of the argument is right, one side is wrong....or both are wrong, but both cannot be right yes?
That's what I'm talking about. We all agree (Christians I mean) that God exists, Jesus saves and the Bible is the word of God.
After that, almost anything is up for debate.
Each "reformation" has taken Christianity further from the truth (and yes, Catholicism). Luther's Christianity would be indistinguishable from Catholicism as viewed by many of today's protestants.
As Christianity continues to divide, it stops becoming a religion, and is instead some loose idea of a personal God.
Protestantism is not epistemological relativism, but that relativism is the result of the same attitude that pervades protestantism as a whole.
Luther thought he knew better than the Church, John Calvin knew better than him.
Now Pastor Dan and Second Street First Church of God knows better than his former pastor and First Street Free Will Baptist etc.
"That's what I'm talking about. We all agree (Christians I mean) that God exists, Jesus saves and the Bible is the word of God.
DeleteAfter that, almost anything is up for debate."
I'm glad you wrote this, because it's a good demonstration of the fundamental difference between the psyche of you and them.
You NEED to have an answer to the question of baptism, despite the fact that scripture is unclear (which to me means that it's maybe not so important of a question, but whatever). You NEED an authority to declare which position is ABSOLUTELY right, and which is wrong.
Protestants are willing to debate, and cite scripture etc etc. In other words, they have a case, but they don't KNOW FOR CERTAIN which is ABSOLUTE truth. You KNOW FOR CERTAIN the ABSOLUTE TRUTH, because you NEED TO KNOW FOR CERTAIN the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. The problem is not that they are relativists. It's that you have an intolerance for ambiguity, and associate that (ambiguity, along with diversity of opinion) with relativism. There's nothing "relative" about it at all. They just don't believe in your central authority, and they don't feel a need for one. That may make many of them, in God's eyes, wrong, but like you say, they agree on the basics.
But that's not really true either man.
ReplyDeleteThere are protestant groups that say it IS needed to be baptized. They're as sure as the Church is.
Sure in loosey-goose world of non-denominationalism, many things may be up for debate. But when I say protestant I mean all of them.
There isn't alllll that much debate. If you believe this way, you go to that church run by the pastor that agrees with you, if that way, this church with the other guy.
I think what you're talking about is present on both sides of the Tiber.
But much is up for debate even in the Catholic Church. We can debate and cite scripture too. But since our church was there in the early going, we know what the teachings are, and we preserve them. When we DO know the truth, we're not willing to re-open the case. I don't think that's bad policy.
Well, I don't want to put myself in position where I'm defending or explaining every possible configuration of protestantism (which is just another word for not-catholic).
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what your point is. At first you stated that everything was up for debate with protestants, but now you seem to be saying that's only the case with the wishy-washies. This guy on the video seems to be a wishy-washy non-denominationalist, but we may not be just talking about him again.
Can you restate?
Ok lemme try again.
ReplyDeleteAll Protestants are not relativists. But within the world of protestantism, is a pervasive attitude that each person can interpret the scriptures themselves.
This belief, while not a relativistic belief itself, leads down a tricky road. If we can all interpret it ourselves, won't we come up with different views? Of course we will. Hence the need for central authority.
The logical conclusion of a non-intepreted scripture left up to each person is indefinite schism, which is something most Christians say they don't want.
Did that help?
Yup.
ReplyDeleteYour point about independent interpretation leading to schism is something that everyone can agree on. But that's a practical kind of argument. It resonates with Catholics, but we're talking about theology, not practical matters. The gyst of this is about who has ownership of "truth".
Hardline protestants would put authority in senior church leadership, I'd imagine. Baptists/Reformed in Calvin and his modern legacy of scholars/theologans, Lutherans in Luther, etc.
More non-demoninational folk would put less emphasis on authority, but probably still place some in church leadership.
But all protestants, I'd guess, would be cautious of the Roman practice of putting supreme authority in The Church, and it's central hierarchy. Whether that results in more confusion and misunderstanding (even damnation) as a result is irrelevant to them, since they never accepted the Church of Rome as a viable alternative to this model.
Protestants accept a particular interpretation as true because of faith, same as you. The only difference is they don't have a central interpreter giving them some kind of tangible justification. They FEEL it's true, because of XYZ.
Now, if you're going to point out this one guy (in the video) and say, "this is wrong" because he's being so independent minded and denying religion as a whole (which is the whole controversy, with Protestants as well as Catholics): that's cool.
But it's not fair to claim that this guy is representing some dominant strain of thought in protestantism. Protestants are not that independent, on the whole. This is an "extremist" strain.
First, I don't see why practicality is inadmissible here.
ReplyDeleteAll Christianity and all Christians alive today call the bible scripture. And all of them agree that the bible is the word of God.
And I know this is an old argument, but how'd they get the Bible? God didn't write it on tablets, he inspired men. And who decided what books were and were not to be part of the Bible?
The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit.
If the present day model of personal Christianity were to be transported all the way back and maintained, there would be no bible, or a million bibles.
It's the practicality of the Church model that, through God, gave us the Bible. That practicality is an important, though not conclusive supporting bit for why Christians should become Catholic.
As to the rest, yeah I'm mainly criticizing this one guy, but I don't think that his views are that extremist, especially with people under 30.
My Christian peers that aren't Catholic anyway tend to really identify with this kind of talk and I see a lot of it on facebook too.
I just don't think practical arguments about schisms are necessarily persuasive to protestants. Hardcore fundamentamentalists or evangelicals might say, "You're right, it's a shame these people keep reinterpreting the scriptures. Why don't they just come to the true church - my church". Wishy-washy youngsters wouldn't really care about schisms because, to them, it's not so important which church you attend.
ReplyDeleteAs for the bible, canon and church history, I don't want to pigeonhole all protestants with a specific answer. I bet that many accept some of the things the Catholic Church has done as coming from God. Other's might take a more flexible attitude like "The lord will show me which scripture I need in my life". All of this is highly selective and illogical, yes. But that's faith.
And again, none of what I'm describing is relativistic. They still believe in the gospel truth, they just don't accept the Catholic claim on it, and may in fact feel that noone has a perfect grasp on it.
You're probably right about the under 30 crowd. But there's a lot of culture that goes into that trend (Atheist/Secular voices undoubtedly influencing it). Freethinking, untethered, individualistic Christianity is new and popular - for sure. But I dunno if it's largly because of "protestantism" in a meaningful way. I don't even know if it will last long. It could just be a pop-culture fad. What am I saying here? I guess that I don't necessarily see an ideological connection between Luther and Calvin and the tattooed Jesus Freaks of today.