 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1665 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 06:11 pm |
|
This topic comes up a lot. It's sort of an "occupational hazard" of the apologetics vocation. Apologetics is the process of defending the faith, and it is a bit ironic that we so often have to defend our practice of defending, as well: making "apologias" for apologetics, so to speak. But I'm happy to do so, especially on a forum like this, where I want my motivations and methodologies (as "Network Apologist") to be crystal clear, so as to avoid any misunderstanding of what I am "about" -- and to clarify what we try to accomplish at CHNI itself: whom I represent in my capacity as a forum moderator and the one most responsible for overseeing this particular forum.
One must grasp, first of all, exactly what apologetics is: what its purpose and goals are. This board is not solely apologetics-oriented, by a long shot. It's also (I'd say about equally) a "pastoral" and support group, which is a more "personal" approach to the faith. Helpers David Emery and "Cajun Rick" excel in that approach, and the three of us have always thought that we complement each other in that way. Rick's specialty is catechetics; David's is spirituality, and mine is apologetics. All three are important and necessary; indeed crucial, for a well-rounded Catholic faith.
I've devoted myself to the apologetic and evangelistic task for over 27 years now: the last 17 as a Catholic apologist. Naturally, then, this specialization will influence the way I go about things. There's no mystery about that. It's what I am and who I am. Marcus Grodi and Jim Anderson hired me, knowing full well that this was what I do (and we had all known each other for over ten years). This is what they wanted to help make this forum more well-rounded and in accord with the CHNI mission.
The apologist (rightly understood) is largely a "truth-teller." The emphasis is on the mind, without ever imagining for a second that intellectual and doctrinal aspects are the sum total of Catholic faith, or even the most important part of it. No! Apologetics neither requires nor implies any lessening of the importance of the heart or soul or faith, or spiritual or mystical elements of faith. It's not "either/or" but "both/and." We specialize in matters of the mind, and the "reason" aspect of the equation of "reason and faith": in other words, "why we believe what we believe" as Catholics. But truth is always -- ALWAYS -- a means to the end of saving or reclaiming or aiding souls. We're trying to help people: not "tear them down."
I want to stress to the highest degree: any apologist worth his salt knows that the work of persuasion and conversion is ultimately one of grace, wrought by the Holy Spirit. All the apologist does (if one were to sum it up) is remove the roadblocks of false thinking and ideas, and inaccurate understanding of Catholicism (or larger Christianity, as the case may be). It's systematically taking away or eliminating (through reason and explanation) the reasons not to be Catholic.
As for specifically so-called "negative" papers and posts that I write, here and on my blog, where I critique other non-Catholic viewpoints, one might wonder why I do that. Why couldn't I just stick to the "positive" or "proactive" approach of explaining the Catholic faith in an entirely "warm fuzzy" or "touchy-feely" way? Everybody's happy, then, right?, and no one gets their toes stepped on. We can "all get along," like Rodney King said.
Well, often I do indeed write posts of that sort, and am more than happy to do so. I don't like being embroiled in "controversy" any more than the next guy, believe me (and I've been in plenty through the years: never by my own preference or desire, but because it is the nature of the game in apologetics to sometimes be markedly unpopular). But a lot depends on what the task of the moment is.
Apologetics has many different facets, and by nature involves frequent critiques of other points of view. This cannot be avoided (at least not by an apologist). To defend one belief is to (logically speaking) be opposed to several other ones (i.e., because one differs with other views that contradict one's own). And when one critiques other views, naturally, some folks will be offended, either because they themselves hold, or have held the view, or because they incorrectly think that to do this is inherently "intolerant" or "uncharitable." Often, things are taken personally, because in matters of religion, we have strong, heartfelt beliefs, and they are part of our very being and identity. This is as it should be.
To the contrary, however, to correct someone who believes a falsehood (in religious matters or any other, but particularly in the former, because of possible eternal consequences) is one of the most charitable things a person can do. It does a person no good to believe a falsehood. Falsehood is not of God; it is from the devil. He's the father of lies. Usually (I've found), people who believe errors do so sincerely and innocently. They simply need more education.
The Bible talks (in Proverbs) about "faithful are the wounds of a friend" and "rebuke a wise person and he will love you; rebuke a fool and he will despise you." We can't determine how a person might react on a personal level. If he or she is the proverbial biblical "fool" they will react with irrationality and hysteria when corrected. That doesn't mean we don't ever correct, because some people are fools. The goal of apologetics is always reform and reclamation, not some presumed "tearing down" or putting-down of people, on a petty personal level. It's not "personal" at all, as I see it.
A "negative post" could have any number of legitimate rationales. Nothing I write as an apologist (rest assured!) is without a deliberate, self-conscious purpose, or else I wouldn't write it. I wouldn't waste my time if I thought it was frivolous and without any edifying value. I have a (I think, justifiable, defensible) reason for everything that I write. Some of the reasons for so-called "negative" posts or papers (i.e., those that critique other viewpoints) would be the following:
1) In public disputes involving the strong criticism of Catholicism or aspects thereof (some of which have occurred, on occasion, on this board, in cases of "controversial" members: most of whom have departed in a huff), a strong public response is required. If it were solely a private exchange, then a more "baby steps, pastoral approach" would be preferred. But when it is public, and the person is promulgating (often anti-Catholic type) Protestant understandings that are hostile to Catholicism, what is expressed may make many other people stumble. Then an apologist like myself has to come in and undo the potential of folks being led astray by false doctrine. It's my particular responsibility as head moderator of this forum. That is theological and objective, and thus fit for public consumption.
The "controversial" person indeed has very private, pastoral needs, too (no doubt about it), but there is more at stake than just that. It becomes a battle of competing truths. There's no way out of it. The person can also be approached (preferably privately) in the more pastoral, counseling sort of fashion, but we can't just let this stuff go by unopposed on the board (unless we decide to simply delete: always the very last resort, and then chances are the person would have gotten mad anyway).
It's not a question of "truth" vs. "souls." Rather, it is the importance of considering this one person's soul AND also that of the hundreds who are reading the thread. I can't approach every reader of the thread pastorally (because that is usually or best one-on-one and personal), but I can give an objective theological answer to everyone reading (common ground). We do both on this forum. I'm quite different one-on-one (in writing or in person) than I am when doing public apologetics concerning objective matters, because it is a different thing. But the two things are complementary, not contradictory.
2) My own particular apologetic methodology is usually "socratic." In a word, I love dialogues and the challenge therein. For those unfamiliar with the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, his style was to question the other person and to examine their premises. He did that because, very often, people build false beliefs and belief-systems on premises that are themselves questionable. We do not always think through what we believe, and examine the basis for it. I'm constantly doing this in my apologetics, and (as in Socrates' case) this often makes people very uncomfortable (he was eventually killed because of the uproar; and many observers and his admirers consider that he was a "martyr for the idea of truth").
But it's not intended to be "personal" or to put down at all. Socrates was trying to seek truth by dialoguing together with other people, and arriving at deeper truths together. He was just as willing to have his premises challenged and questioned as he was to do so to others. This general sort of dialogue was highly stressed by Vatican II. It doesn't mean that we are to always put our own Catholic beliefs up for grabs. Not at all! Not in the slightest!
The purpose of dialogue, according to the Church, is ultimately to persuade people of the Catholic position. But we can be open to hearing other views and approaching people charitably; assuming that they hold their beliefs sincerely and in good faith. One big reason I am a Catholic myself, is because two Catholic friends of mine approached me in this way. I was won over on a personal level by both their charitable approach and their confidence as Catholics, in their beliefs.
3) Particular objection has often been made (at least in some quarters) to my papers that critique what happened in the early period of the origin of institutional Protestantism, in the 16th century. This is interpreted by some to mean that I somehow despise Protestants or accuse today's Protestants of agreeing with all that went on in those sad, tragic days, or that I am fundamentally "anti-Protestant." Nothing could be further from the truth. I've written many papers about my respect for Protestants and Protestantism, that can be read on my Ecumenism web page. C.S. Lewis is my favorite writer, and I maintain one of the largest Lewis pages on the Internet. I have a particular respect and love for Anglicans and Lutherans, but also many other Protestant traditions. So many of my favorite writers were or are Anglican: Dorothy Sayers, Ronald Knox, Malcolm Muggeridge, G.K. Chesterton, Thomas Howard, Cardinal Newman (my web pages for some of these are linked). I could go on and on about this. But (bottom line) it is a bum rap, pure and simple.
So why do I write stuff about the early Protestants and particularly their leaders, that can make for some very difficult and unpleasant reading at times? Well, there is ample good reason to do so, and I explained in a post on this board, concerning my documentation of the widespread theft of Catholic properties in England in the 16th century. Asked about what good it does to write such a post, and how it would affect those looking into the Catholic Church, I replied:
These are historical facts that few have ever heard. What learning about these facts generally does for people interested in the Church, in my experience, is to wipe out the objection that the Catholic Church is uniquely evil in the annals of religious history (because they had heard very little of corresponding Protestants scandals and bad behavior).
With that bogus objection out of the way, the "scandal score" (that is always a secondary, mostly unfruitful side-discussion) becomes essentially a wash, and people can get back to the business of comparing theology rather than scandals, in order to find the fullness of spiritual and theological truth. People use scandals and hypocrisy all the time, in order to avoid accepting something they don't wish to believe.
As an apologist, part of my work is to remove objections or "roadblocks" to acceptance of the Catholic faith, and this is one of many ways to do that.
. . . In almost all the Catholic feedback I have received on matters like this, people were thankful for finally having heard another side of the story. Virtually the only ones who don't like it are anti-Catholics who don't like it when sins from their own denominations' past are brought up. They love to only talk about the Inquisition and the Crusades. It's supposed to only be a critique one way and not the other.
Not when I'm around to do something about that . . .
My new book about Luther (hot off the press as of yesterday) actually is about 34% devoted to things we agree with him on. I tried to strike a balance. It's not all bad stuff by any means. But on the other hand there are many skeletons in the Protestant closet that very few people ever hear about. I'm just trying to urge people to look at both sides of that overall vexed issue.
And this was confirmed by other posters. For example, Lutheran member Abby wrote:
Is there any one book wherein I might find all of this? Frankly, I'm horrified, . . . Makes me wonder once again ...... "why did I never hear this before?" But, I guess with this question, the answer is obvious, isn't it? I have your book "The Early Church Fathers Were Catholic" but I don't think it's in there. Any place I can find a composite of it?
Catholic member Mark wrote similarly:
I've listened to Moody radio for well over a decade, never heard about many of these Protestant scandals......I did however hear many of the Catholic ones though......go figure?
These two members "got" my purpose. It wasn't "anti-Protestant" or trying to imply in any way, shape, or form, that "Protestants are rotten, immoral people." It was in the interest of folks hearing both sides about the "Reformation" period so they can have a fuller picture of what happened, and not accept the standard notions that the Catholics were always the "bad guys." That's simply not true. This is removing the objection to becoming Catholic based on a distorted and highly selective presentation of historical facts. If you take out the objection as bogus, then you remove that particular roadblock to becoming Catholic.
I contend, therefore, that it is ultimately a positive endeavor, not a "negative" one, since it aims at historical truth, whatever it is, and fair play in historical presentation. Again, we have a right to give a Catholic side of things, and to critique the other (Protestant) side, in light of their historical attack against the Church in many ways. It is never "negative" to present historical truth, though the contents of it might be unpleasant, because truth is a good and worthy thing.
Now, I understand that this is a particularly "controversial" form of apologetics, that can ruffle more than a few feathers. CHNI as a whole might conceivably decide that it is too much so for the purpose of this board. If so, that's fine. I'll accept that as a matter of the judgment of CHNI as to what is appropriate here (no problem whatsoever if that happens). I understand why one might object, either on principle or as a purely "policy" matter.
But my motives in presenting such papers have been directly attacked and distorted by some in the past, and I wanted to make clear exactly what my true motivation is in posting it (and other things similar to it). It had a positive intent. In other words, if one sincerely objects to my posting, they should at least have an accurate understanding of my motivations and reasons for doing so, which were not only amply explained in the thread itself (so I thought) but clarified again at present.
4) A primary part of my task as an apologist is to deal with objections to Catholicism that people hear all the time. They are presented with non-Catholic options that are supposedly superior to our beliefs. How does one deal with that? Well, we defend the Catholic views as more supportable from Scripture, Tradition, and reason, and we also do our best to demonstrate the flaws in the other position, presented as superior. In any real dialogue that is not merely a "mutual monologue" one has to deal with the "meat and potatoes" issues presented by the other side of the discussion.
We can't just ignore the reasons given for the other view. We have to interact with that (out of respect for the other person, among other reasons). And to do that entails criticisms, and so we're right back to the alleged "negativity"" that is often irrationally frowned upon in our "oh-so-tolerant" age (ha! "tolerant" my foot!). To defend one view is to oppose others, whether one comes right out and says so or not. It's unavoidable and inevitable.
5) Apologetics (especially on a board like this, comprised mostly of new or potential Catholics), has a pedagogical, or teaching function. When I am critiquing another view, partially it is so others can learn to do the same in their own encounters: "this is one possible way that one can give a good reply to belief-system a, b, c, or critique of Catholicism x, y, z." There are plenty of folks out there who want to dissuade Catholics from the Catholic faith, and persuade them to become good Protestants.
Part of my apologetics is to show that their arguments against Catholicism fail, and also that their own supposedly preferable arguments cannot hold water. That's not "anti-Protestant"; it is "pro-Catholic": designed to bolster the faith and confidence of Catholics (especially new ones), who have to face considerable opposition from Protestants or atheists (whatever the case may be): often from within their own close family or circle of friends.
One might call this "reactionary" but in a basic sense, what in the world is wrong with it? If our beliefs as Catholics are pilloried and attacked, do we not have a right to defend them and to do a counter-critique? Usually, we didn't choose to be in such a situation of having to defend our theology. The "controversy" usually comes to us; we don't seek it out (that's true most of the time even for an apologist like myself, whose life work is to encounter objections to Catholicism). But if the "controversy" is now here, presented to us, usually not by our choice or personal preference, we can give solid answers.
6) I submit that the biblical model of apologetics thoroughly backs up what I am saying. It wasn't always touchy-feely "positive" only. No; our Lord Jesus and the Apostle Paul in particular grappled mightily with opposing positions. The very nature of the prophetic function was to critique and judge the sins of Israel and to lead to a better way. It was mostly "negative." John the Baptist opposed the sin of Herod (and was killed for it). Jesus opposed the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the moneychangers in the Temple (read, e.g., Matthew 23). He had to constantly defend his reinterpretations of the Jewish Law. He was accused of casting out demons by Beelzebub.
St. Paul is very often described as "arguing" or "disputing" or "reasoning" with both Jews and Greeks. You better believe that he was critiquing their position, as well as proclaiming his own. It wasn't just preaching, or else these particular descriptive terms wouldn't have been used. Paul engages in extended criticisms of churches under his care (especially the Corinthians and Galatians). Paul opposes the false notions of the Greeks, such as an overly intellectual approach (1 Corinthians) and aversion to "bodily" aspects of the Christian faith, and the resurrection of the body, over against Greek Gnostic notions. He severely rebukes over-reliance of the Jews on the Law (in the wrong sense) and the distinctive marks of Jewishness as making the Jews somehow superior to others (Romans, Galatians). He even opposes the atheist mentality (Romans 1).
Paul even names people who have opposed him (Hymenaeus and Alexander the Coppersmith). Posterity knows who Paul's personal detractors were! Paul rebuked Peter as a hypocrite at one point, and Peter rebuked several people (book of Acts) who were abusing the new gospel message. The Gospel of John was written in large part (so most biblical scholars believe) to oppose Gnostic notions. Six of the seven churches in Revelation are roundly rebuked by Jesus. We're told to "contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 3). I could go on and on about this. Examples are legion. So I am doing nothing that is not modeled over and over in Holy Scripture.
7) The apologist is to be charitable at all times (1 Peter 3:15; 1 Cor 13). But the problem comes when various folks limit the parameters of charity. As I noted, it is also charitable to correct someone in error and to remove objections to Catholicism by critiquing them and showing them to be groundless or greatly exaggerated or distorted. It helps them. No good can come to anyone from believing falsehood, and much harm usually results. So to take that negative element away from them is an act of charity indeed.
Thanks for reading! I'd be happy to discuss any of this further, either on this thread or privately in PMs (preferably the former, though).
Last edited on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 06:53 pm by Dave Armstrong
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
abbycat
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 147 |
| First Name: | abby | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Non-Denomational Charismatic, Lutheran |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 01:07 pm |
|
Good morning, Dave ....
Quite honestly, and remember this comes from a present Lutheran, former Evangelical/Charismatic, so I realize that this may be rather worthless input, but ... I honestly don't see how true apologetics is critical and negative. If we expect to be comfortable with everything the Catholic faith teaches and believes, then we are just fooling ourselves. Perhaps we just swallow without thinking, or perhaps we think ourselves to be so very holy that we have no need for direction and correction. Obviously, I for one, have several things (although less now than before) that I find difficult to assimilate and believe, but does that make the teaching of it wrong, critical, or negative? Highly unlikely ... it is more likely it is my own heart that needs to be changed. I don't know if any of this makes sense to you, Dave ... like I said, not being Catholic I can be pretty ignorant. But, truth is truth ... if we find it difficult to hear, receive, and accept ... so be it. That does not change or diminish its "truth-ness." I hope this makes sense to you ... I realize it sounds a bit "out there."
abby
____________________
<*)))><
|
|
|
sewnsew
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 849 |
| First Name: | Kim | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle Anglican, Episcopal /Catholic-04/07/07 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 03:06 pm |
|
| never really heard much about Martin Luther growing up in Canada and until I came here to the US I have to say that he still wasn't in my top 500 topics of interest. However my kids must have heard a whole lot more about him in Sunday School than I ever did,they certainly were programmed with an anti Catholic bias that they didn't get at home and I wasn't aware even existed until I started the swim to Rome. Martin Luther was a hero to my son , he single-handedly saved all Christendom from the depths of hell. Since my son has autism he sees things in a very black and white way- it is very hard for him to understand that not everything is set in stone according to rules etc. If the speed limit is 45 mph one drives exactly that- not 46 or 43 mph. even now as he enters RCIA he is still having problems coping with Martin Luthe
|
|
|
abbycat
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 147 |
| First Name: | abby | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Non-Denomational Charismatic, Lutheran |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 03:26 pm |
|
Oh Kim, I am so sorry. And to think your son got this in Sunday School ... well, to me it is unconscionable. But, I am sorry to say that many Protestant denominations view the RC Church in a very similar way, but I don't think I have ever known it to be actually poured into a child in S.S. It is more what the "chatter" is regarding R.C. Some of the other wretched things that are believed are that the Pope is the anti-christ, the RC church is the whore of Babylon. He may have said these things to you also. I'm so sorry. God's Spirit needs to convict the person(s) who told these things to such young minds, and God's Grace needs to be there for them when they feel that conviction. And ... whether some like it or not, Lutherans (true Lutherans) have more in common with the Catholic Church than they realize ... that is what often they do not say. Sadly, when all of that happened, those in the Protestant Reformation, "threw the baby out with the bathwater. Now, I believe that is why a lot of us are discovering new things and possibly returning to what was God's Original Plan.
I will pray for you and your son. God's Peace and Blessings to you,
abby
____________________
<*)))><
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2098 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 04:47 pm |
|
Abby, there is no need to say that your input “may be rather worthless.” It does not matter than you are a “present Lutheran, former Evangelical/Charismatic.” What matters is that you are actively looking at reality on your own instead of defaulting to inaction and allowing others to dictate to you what reality is and where you may find it. Having both sides of the story really does fill in the gaps and makes the reality you eventually find much more true.
Something I wrote to someone else recently may have bearing on this thread, so I will repeat it here:
Having a wife with Alzheimer’s disease, I know a bit about brain malfunctions and delusions. Misconceptions work in almost exactly the same way: one’s perception of reality does not square with the objective reality, but it’s what the person feels he has to believe because perception is all he has to go on. To have other people telling him that things are not what they seem is like being a prisoner of war and being fed propaganda; one’s instinct — indeed, duty — is to resist.
Coincidentally, this is also why so many Protestants — very reasonably from their point of view — resist the very idea that the Catholic Church could possibly be the one true Church. To them, it just isn’t possible, given what they have been taught since childhood. So to be presented with arguments showing that it is not only possible but actually true is seen in the majority of cases as a satanic lie, not a liberation from falsehood. This, in my opinion, is what makes apologetics so difficult and the apologist such a popular target for abuse.
As you say, Abby, truth is truth. Our contemporary US culture is so subjectivist that this truth is often obscured; but it does not make it less true. So I accept and even rejoice at what you say here, and invite you to continue wrestling with God’s reality, approaching it from whatever angle necessary, until you have a firm grasp of it.
David
|
|
|
Intercessor
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 1238 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 10:09 pm |
|
abbycat wrote:
... I honestly don't see how true apologetics is critical and negative. If we expect to be comfortable with everything the Catholic faith teaches and believes, then we are just fooling ourselves.
Perhaps we just swallow without thinking, or perhaps we think ourselves to be so very holy that we have no need for direction and correction. Obviously, I for one, have several things (although less now than before) that I find difficult to assimilate and believe, but does that make the teaching of it wrong, critical, or negative? Highly unlikely ... it is more likely it is my own heart that needs to be changed...
But, truth is truth ... if we find it difficult to hear, receive, and accept ... so be it. That does not change or diminish its "truth-ness."
abby
Love it, Abby, love it! ! !
A+++++ 
Becky
____________________
"He who will persevere unto the end is not he who will never fall, but he who after every fall will humble himself and rise again, relying on the infinite strength of God." Divine Intimacy, p. 885 Father Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
Intercessor
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 1238 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 11:19 pm |
|
Dave,
My view of humanity is darker than yours; my expectations are far lower after thirty-four years in education and several decades of dealing with people in general.
Dave Armstrong wrote:
Usually (I've found), people who believe errors do so sincerely and innocently. They simply need more education. . .
In my experience, too many persons do not want an education.
They want to be heard. They want to be right. They want affirmation.
Too many do not want to be proved wrong or to be held to standards of logic and common sense and facts. Too many lack the wisdom, docility, and humility that dispose one to receive an education.
it aims at historical truth, whatever it is, and fair play in historical presentation.
Truth and fair play, in my book, are worth fighting for and worth dying for; my experience with others, however, has taught me that many of them find other values more important than truth and fair play. It seems impossible, but they are not prepared to abandon a view or an argument or an assessment, simply because it fails to honor truth or fair play. Sad.
6) I submit that the biblical model of apologetics thoroughly backs up what I am saying. It wasn't always touchy-feely "positive" only. No; our Lord Jesus and the Apostle Paul in particular grappled mightily with opposing positions. The very nature of the prophetic function was to critique and judge the sins of Israel and to lead to a better way. It was mostly "negative." John the Baptist opposed the sin of Herod (and was killed for it). Jesus opposed the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the moneychangers in the Temple (read, e.g., Matthew 23). He had to constantly defend his reinterpretations of the Jewish Law. He was accused of casting out demons by Beelzebub.
St. Paul is very often described as "arguing" or "disputing" or "reasoning" with both Jews and Greeks. You better believe that he was critiquing their position, as well as proclaiming his own. It wasn't just preaching, or else these particular descriptive terms wouldn't have been used. Paul engages in extended criticisms of churches under his care (especially the Corinthians and Galatians). Paul opposes the false notions of the Greeks, such as an overly intellectual approach (1 Corinthians) and aversion to "bodily" aspects of the Christian faith, and the resurrection of the body, over against Greek Gnostic notions. He severely rebukes over-reliance of the Jews on the Law (in the wrong sense) and the distinctive marks of Jewishness as making the Jews somehow superior to others (Romans, Galatians). He even opposes the atheist mentality (Romans 1).
Paul even names people who have opposed him (Hymenaeus and Alexander the Coppersmith). Posterity knows who Paul's personal detractors were! Paul rebuked Peter as a hypocrite at one point, and Peter rebuked several people (book of Acts) who were abusing the new gospel message. The Gospel of John was written in large part (so most biblical scholars believe) to oppose Gnostic notions. Six of the seven churches in Revelation are roundly rebuked by Jesus. We're told to "contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 3). I could go on and on about this. Examples are legion. So I am doing nothing that is not modeled over and over in Holy Scripture.
BINGO! I underlined your final sentence, Dave. You are absolutely correct in that statement!
I think I'd rather deal with you any day than with either St. Paul or St. Peter or John the Baptist. (You are FAR gentler!) Matter of fact, I would not want to face ANY of the apostles or early bishops after having "messed up."
Click here to see St. Peter at work. 
7) The apologist is to be charitable at all times (1 Peter 3:15; 1 Cor 13). But the problem comes when various folks limit the parameters of charity. As I noted, it is also charitable to correct someone in error and to remove objections to Catholicism by critiquing them and showing them to be groundless or greatly exaggerated or distorted. It helps them. No good can come to anyone from believing falsehood, and much harm usually results. So to take that negative element away from them is an act of charity indeed.
Again, I agree entirely. The apologist should have humility and genuine love for the other person. However, one must come to love undiluted Truth. When I hear a little of it from a good spiritual director or from a good confessor, it feels like a slap across the face. It's bracing, mainly because we walk about in a misleading fog of ego-stroking and face-saving behaviors from others and become crippled by self-deception. Most of us have no idea how full of pride we are. It is that foolish pride that causes us to smart so sharply when we hear an undiluted Truth from the spiritual director or the confessor.
We must love Truth in order to appreciate fully the spiritual director, the confessor, or the apologist. 
Becky
(Intercessor)
Last edited on Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 11:27 pm by Intercessor
____________________
"He who will persevere unto the end is not he who will never fall, but he who after every fall will humble himself and rise again, relying on the infinite strength of God." Divine Intimacy, p. 885 Father Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
Current time is 01:10 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
