The Problem of G.K. Chesterton
do you ever just feel completely overwhelmed?
Sometimes life seems so big, i don't know what i've gotten myself into. Is it safe to believe in things so strongly in such a wild, chaotic place? As i thought about the White/Caner mess, I kept feeling like there's no point in even saying anything. I'll make posts like the one i spent an hour typing last night at 1 in the morning, and will anything change? Will the Caners stop acting so immaturely (frankly, the fact that Dr. Ergun Caner is dean of the seminary at Liberty is appaling- no one in his position should behave as poorly as he has throughout the entire conversation) and actually answer any of Dr. White's questions? Will Dr. White be a bit more gracious in his handling of the whole ordeal? I can't criticize that much- having read the Caner's e-mails, I can't say I'd be any different from Dr. White who has probably been far more gracious than they deserve- yet should I even have this information? Why did Dr. White publish it? I know he felt it neccesary, but what good has come of it? If the Caner's are as ignorant of the issues as they seem to be, then that will become clear this fall in their debate. And what good comes from showing the world how immaturely they've behaved? I suppose it helps us understand Dr. White's frustrations, but is Dr. White's goal to help us understand why he's frustrated or to bring clarity to a complex theological issue? If it's the latter, then how does publishing the e-mails work toward accomplishing that?
Lately I find myself constantly saying, "I don't know," or "I don't understand."
I hate it. I want to understand everything, and yet there is so much that is simply incomprehensible to me. I just spent a month seeing a bunch of people living in community, learning to love each other. So why do we waste so much breath being so stupid and immature?
If you're Arminian and you want to talk about election, I'm up for it. If you believe in limited atonement and want to discuss that, I'm in. If you're a Dispensationalist, and you want to talk about end times, I'm ready. But let's have a conversation about it, let's not get caught up in name-calling, thoughtless misunderstandings, and arrogant know-it-allism.
And if you have no idea what any of those things are, God bless you, you have no idea how lucky you are. Eventually, becaues we live in a broken, divided world and a broken, divided church you'll probably have to learn about them, but enjoy your time of freedom from these endless debates.
We're in such an ugly mess right now, strong opinions and big ideas are what make life worth living. Ugly, unity-destroying arguments are what make life frustrating. But can we have the former without the latter? Is it possible for two people with strong opinions to respectfully, civily discuss their disagreements? Or are we so bound by our pride and arrogance that any sort of thoughtful debate invariably turns to immaturity, failure to listen, and know-it-allism.
A great man in the early 1900s found a way of discussing big issues without acting like an ass (if the language offends, suggest a better term and I'll use it, but I can't think of one). He debated in public forums the leading intellectuals of his day, but these intellectuals were not only opponents of his, they were his friends, friends he routinely criticized in his books, but whose character he praised whenever opportunity presented itself. Christians today could learn a lot from him. His name was G.K. Chesterton.
But when fundamentalists actually listen to and learn from a Catholic, our problem will be solved. In fact, one could almost call this whole problem, The Problem of G.K. Chesterton because the whole problem is seen so clearly when one looks at GKC. The man who has a cure to know-it-allism simply becomes another one of it's many victims.
