When we say, ‘I love Jesus, but I hate the Church,’ we end up losing not only the Church but Jesus too. The challenge is to forgive the Church. This challenge is especially great because the Church seldom asks us for forgiveness.
The question is simply do you agree or not? I do. I believe that to hate the Bride of Christ is to hate Christ Himself and I also believe that that the Bride sadly fails to recognize, confess, repent, and ask forgiveness for Her sins.
So whether or not Nouwen is a heretic, I cannot, nor will not say. What I can say is that I believe he spoke truth.
Bill Walsh recently posted on the concept of accepting the truth wherever it may be found. Walsh quotes John Calvin who may also be a heretic ... or may be a "God-fearing reformer who made some errors along the way" (see the comments between Rick Frueh and Daniel in my post). In Calvin's Institutes we find:
In reading profane authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us that the human mind, however fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from the Creator. If we reflect that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we will be careful, as we should avoid offering insults to Him, not to reject or condemn truth wherever it appears. In despising the gifts we insult the giver.
Walsh then cites the following quote from Hilary Brand and Adrienne Chaplin.
Dualism is a word that can be applied to any split-vision worldview. It separates God’s creation into distinct and opposing realms, one representing good, the other representing evil: holy versus profane, sacred versus secular, material versus spiritual....
[A] truly biblical worldview will not let us get away with such simplistic divides. The Bible frequently speaks in paradox, explaining truths not in terms of either/or by both/and: creation is both gloriously beautiful and tainted by sin; humanity is both made in God’s image and fallen; Jesus is both fully human and fully divine; Christians are both redeemed from the curse and still suffering its consequences.
The problem comes when the line is drawn compartmentally rather than spiritually, putting certain aspects of culture inside the Kingdom of God and others outside. Rather we need to understand that the battle lines between good and evil run across all aspects of culture and every facet of life.
I agree. Can one make "errors along the way" and still be godly? Can one speak or teach a heresy and not be a heretic? Can both blessing and cursing come from the same mouth? I think it ought not be so but I think it can and I think Walsh makes an interesting argument.
So this is how I can quote Nouwen. I first do not judge him either way and then I evaluate his words. At least for these words I find them to be truthful, penetrating, and helpful. I hope that from time to time you might find the same for the words here in this blog.
5 comments:
Rick Ianniello,
the problem is not so much that quoting a heretic is wrong per se, but we are commanded to abstain from every form of evil (1 Thess. 5:22). The question therefore is not, "Why do you quote heretics?", but rather "Why do you want to give an appearance of evil by quoting heretics?" Are there better people that can be quoted who say the same thing who are not heretics themselves? Isn't it better that you do not unwittingly stumble another Christian through such a quotation?
In a blog when you find a quote from a guy you don't have time to research, it may be wise to say "I saw this quote today from an author" or something like that. Problems arise when someone like Rob Bell quotes Marcus Borg and leaves the discernment to the multi-layered maturity of the flock.
Of course we've arrived at a place now where it might be wise not to quote Bell.
Rick/Daniel - valid points. Daniel's thought is more thorough but researching Nouwen (or anyone else) was out of scope for what I wanted to say. Therefore I will quote another who has been accused of being a heretic without completely researching this guy's opinion.
"If you get something out of it, great. If not, don't complain, you got what you paid for." ~ Rick Ianniello
I don't think any two people on earth believe exactly the same things in the same way. So how could anyone quote anyone else properly? If Person X is 100% right, and I quote him, I don't believe the way he does 100%, so I'm a heretic. If I'm 100% right, and I quote Person X, who is not 100% right, then I'm a heretic again.
Perhaps it's OK to quote the world to express a point. I think there is some grounds for doing so by following the example of Paul, who quoted heretics to "prove" that Cretans were liars. (I would hope he wasn't quoting a Cretan, because then I'd have to solve another philosophical conundrum of believing someone who's telling me he's a liar.)
Abstaining from the appearance of evil != not quoting secular (or not quote 100% orthodox) sources.
I don't know that one could live a life that didn't "stumble" another person. People who tell me that my actions might "stumble" them are paying too much attention to me. I thank them for their flattery, of course, and then I advise them that I'm not the one born on Christmas.
Everyone should have a standard. Would anyone quote Fred Phelps without a caveat? Of course not. Would anyone quote Spong as if he was an "approved source"? Let's hope not.
So the matter distills into what is your standard and what should be accompanied by a clarification, even if short. A quote, a footnote, a recommendation of a book, what written mentions require some caution.
Post a Comment