Caution--Protestant lurking

One great strength of the Protestant movement is that interpretation of the scriptures is not left up to one or a few people.

Now I can already hear my R.C. brethren/sisters shouting out their protestations (if you'll pardon the expression). "That's the trouble, not the strength, of your protest movement. Everyone does (or believes) what is right in their own eyes. Look at all your different churches." Or as the Pope likes to call them, not churches at all but merely ecclesiastical communities.

Actually I'd rather not look at them thanks. But I have three reactions to this common complaint. Firstly, the German Shepherd to the contrary notwithstanding, there does seem to be a good deal of variation of belief among Catholics on many topics, even if there is a widely taught official position--the role of women in the church, the celibacy of the priesthood, gays, and contraception being four that come quickly to mind.

Secondly, there is a pretty wide consensus among Protestants on most of the major theological issues, the greater portion of which are shared with the Catholics and the Orthodox church.

And thirdly, I would rather have various groups of Protestants have a few things wrong, than one gigantic denomination not get it right. Imagine if the Pope were to receive a phone call in the night from the Lord. "Joseph, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that I am going to unite all the people of the world under one leader centered in one historic city. The bad news is that I'm calling from Salt Lake City."

At any rate, the reason why I call Protestant individualism a strength (and yes, it is also a weakness, like most strengths) is that we are thrown back on the scriptures, creation, the Holy Spirit, Christian experience, prophecy, and so on for guidance rather than putting all of our eggs in one basket--a basket which was constructed largely in the medieval period.

I said all of that to tell you this. I'm not a fan of systematic theology--Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. I reserve the right to look for new insights, even better understandings, of the character and will of God than we have traditionally been taught. Systematic theology is a speculative human endeavour, trying to piece together from the Bible an airtight explanation for every theological matter, and then being prepared to die (or kill) for those speculations.

So we had the Catholics burning the Anglicans, and the Calvinists imprisoning the Anabaptists, not to mention the Inquisition, for digressions in systematic theology. The Church even burned Bibles lest they get into the wrong hands. What nonsense. This is the purest speculation on my part, but I can't help but think that there has been the odd Pope who, in the quiet of his study or bedroom, has said, "I wish I weren't stuck with this doctrine!"

Therefore, I am willing to listen to earnest, devout, open-minded discussion on biblical topics without immediately writing it off as heresy if these conversations veer into new understandings of what God's intentions are for his creatures.

I call this form of doctrine-building 'theology from the ground up'. I use Scripture pretty widely in my religious ramblings, but since the Bible speaks to human experience, I also understand it, to some extent, from human experience as well.

Thus while I am looking at some of the issues that are raised at neXus, I want you to know that I am bringing a Protestant and earthy approach to it.

Now back to Ron Sexsmith, universalism, and why I reject this particular view of unconditional love.