Wade Hodges on Faith

Very good thoughts, indeed. I don't agree with all of them, but they definitely provide much needed prospective.

I'm interested in what you take issue with. I'm not certain that I agreed with everything there, but there was nothing that jumped out at me when I read through it.

When ever someone says "I don't agree with everyhting presented.", I get nervous. Why didn't I didn't find anything to disagee with? Did I miss something important?

I think I'm a little paranoid or something.

Great link! I am so glad I took the time to read that. I, too, would like to know what issues pinakidion had with it. I didn't pick up anything either.

I have said for a while that we tend to put faith into a two-dimensional box and assume that we know what it is all about. His analysis takes it and breaks it apart in a different way and it illustrates the reasons why we need to be careful and open when we are talking with people.

I had a post on my blog about a conversation between myself and my Buddhist boss. That experience was really a lesson in tolerance and being patient enough to explore other philosophies without being offensive.

Thanks for sharing Salguod....

Just to clarify - I wasn't meaning to suggest that pinakidion shouldn't have had issues, just that I'm curious what they are.

Doug, Thanks for this post and the links. Wade has many good things to say. And I must say that I am really impressed that you linked to this series, because doing so shows an incredible amount of faith and openness on your part. What Wade (and McClaren, and me, I think) are saying essentially is that any human who claims to have this whole thing figured out is self-delusional and dangerous...

--ok, this is too weird. AS I WAS TYPING THIS, I received an email from you about your latest comment on my blog, which basically says just what I'm saying above. We're all searching. And that's exactly the way God wants us. Not smug. Not self-confident in our doctrine. But on our (literal or metaphorical) knees asking questions.

I find it interesting that you are surprised (my impression of your words) that I would link to this. I went back a year ago to this post where I wrote this:

As soon as an opinion becomes so sacred that it is unquestionable, we've abandoned the desire for truth in favor of comfort or stability. Frankly I think that there is a core we can look to the Bible and agree on, if we are willing to open our minds, set aside our own opinions, at least for the moment, and listen to someone else's. If we're not willing to be wrong, how can we be sure we're right?

I had remembered making that comment about the folly of 'sacred' truths, but hadn't remembered the context. The point of that post was my introduction of a series that intended to nail down Christian Fundamentals. I never did finish that series, there's a draft post in MT on my site called "Fundamentals: The List" that's been awaiting completion since last July. I guess my perspective on Chistianity has changed a bit in the past year, I don't see as much value in finishing that list now.

Re-reading my comment above, I realize that it sounds as if I was saying something like "Finally, that stubborn, self-righteous Salguod is opening up to the possibility that he's wrong." Not at all my intent or sentiment. What I was saying was that given what I know about the doctrinal history of the CoC, Wade's posts must strike a theological open nerve that is still close to the surface of your faith, and therefore somewhat uncomfortable to probe.

Sorry if I offended. I really shouldn't write comments late at night!

No offense taken, I hadn't taken you comments at all as you re-interpreted them. I was just surprised at your surprise. The thoughts expressed there made complete sense to me and didn't feel 'new', but I guess to some degree they are. They reflect a directon I have been moving for some time, but I hadn't looked back to see where I came from in comparison.