Read on Twitter
basically my opinion about evaluating possible divinely appointed authorities is that the evaluator should play dumb. point me to a sign of divine power or to a really super persuasive bit of philosophizing. otherwise leave me alone.
don't talk to me about the "loftiness" of your ideas or the heavy weight of your long tradition. that's such a murky way of talking. who knows what it could mean. show me something spicy, or at least SAY something spicy.
I developed this opinion by studying the Christian scriptures and thinking, concurrently, about how in the hell we're supposed to know what's up.
It would be simplistic to say I'm a Christian because of testimonies of supernatural physical healings and the powerful domination of clearly seen, opposing spiritual powers, both in Christ's day and down to people I know who are living today
but it wouldn't be far from the truth.
I posit that epistemic clarity in the church flows outward from the clear works and words of God and into everything else, not the other way around. We begin with testimony, not with epistemic authority.
It's a pity the wires have been crossed so many different ways, and that the "powers of the age to come" are so rarely engaged, consistently and freely and honestly and in good faith,
and that most Christians are oddly hesitant to spread the stories about when these things do happen --
it's a pity that all this makes the simple, stupid, trustworthy epistemology almost inaccessible to the vast, vast majority of Christians.
it's a pity that all this makes the simple, stupid, trustworthy epistemology almost inaccessible to the vast, vast majority of Christians.
Bunches of the educated and intellectually honest Christians are doing their best to peer through the mists of textual criticism and God knows what else. Good luck taking anyone on that journey across the epistemic void with you, if you manage to complete it yourself.
and they're the lucky ones! the masses are believing things for murky, suggestive reasons. "such a perfect book," "I notice how my life improved when I went to church," "well I think apostolic succession probably means . . ."
murky murky murky, all of it. I am a cow. I am a sheep. tell me something amazing. if you can't, get off my yard.
if this sounds like a Protestant way of thinking, you have been deceived! It's a Jewish way of thinking.
I could say that the *assumed ground state* of Christian espistemics is Protestant, or ex-protestant (whats this talk of a canon?), or pre-Christian, even ("On what authority do you claim to be the Christ")
but that doesn't mean the *facts on the ground* are Protestant, ex-prot, or pre-Christian. If God can testify to Christ he can testify to whoever he wants.
I'm a Christian because Christ's and the Spirit's authority are amply attested to, if you know where to look.
I am what most people would call a Protestant because the Spirit keeps being at work among all God's people and I have sought in vain for an indication that one person or a group of people have anything more than murky testimonies in their preference,
or have seen among them miracles beyond what God's doing in all the other groups anyways.
the rest of the arguments for preference strike me as just supposition. "Wouldn't God preserve his word," "The most ancient traditions," "Well Christ did say 'On this rock," and so on.
Murky! If you want to claim authority over the body of Christ, do the deeds of Christ.
Murky! If you want to claim authority over the body of Christ, do the deeds of Christ.
This is not a great way to land immediately on top of the Great Tower of Right Doctrine, but the lie has been that there's an easy answer to that tower, or that you have the tower and then you have Christ.
Problem is that "right doctrine" is a really, really big tower. It covers so much ground, and it is very tall. The only way you're going to get a testimony to all of it is if you have something to funnel it through, which is testified to in turn.
Example: "I believe both that abortion is bad and that priests shouldn't get married. I believe these because the magisterium teaches them. I believe what the magisterium says because [___]."
Example: "I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, because the Bible says so, and I believe the Bible because [__]."
I used to think it scary and unfortunate that it was very difficult, very murky to start talking about these authorities that tied right doctrine in a bow (the canon of scripture, the tighter bow of the magisterium, etc.).
because like, there's so much you've got to get right just to be OK. Anathema on your left, anathema on your right. it's all very stressful. How is one to navigate this?
but then it dawned on me, and eventually I accepted, that, for various reasons, this is a crazy anti-scriptural way to think about it, but I'm trying to think how to say that tonight without merely stoking controversies.
Maybe I could say, obliquely:
1. He who has the Spirit has Christ and that's the end of that.
1. He who has the Spirit has Christ and that's the end of that.
2. The NT keeps claiming that we'll be judged for our deeds, and the list of deeds is extraordinarily banal.
things like "Do not steal" and "Don't deceive your neighbor" and "Don't neglect the poor" "be kind to your slaves." Paul just like word-vomits a list of them at the end of his letters because it's not that tricky, not in the broad outlines. might not even be that heroic, usually.
Only thing that's tricky for us to figure out maybe is the sex stuff.
but I guess what I'm saying is like ... my God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, and I would be willing to die on about half of them, and afterwards he's absolutely not gonna ask me about monophysitism or the authority of 2 Timothy or the perpetual virginity of Mary.
I mean, if I acted wickedly in regard to those topics, sure. but it's not this fucking game in the dark that so many of us have been taught to play. Seek God, honor him, obey his commandments, seek justice and mercy, walk humbly with your God.
3. Piggybacking off of that, I'd argue that the eternal destination rhetoric in the NT is broadly works-based and anyone who claims otherwise is not reading the words on the page.
Those who have the Spirit have confidence of a good resurrection because Christ has irrevocably "circumcised their hearts" and they therefore do what's pleasing to God, being already perfected in spirit in the act of receiving Christ as Lord through faith by grace etc. etc.
That's not an anti-forgiveness take but I'm tired so I'll leave that one to the reader.
This is so much more reasonable imo than "the one question God will ask you is, 'What did you believe about Jesus?'"
Not in the NT: "God will ask you, 'What did you believe about Jesus, my son?'"
Not in the NT: "You will give an account for your deeds (what you believed about Jesus, my son)."
In the NT: "You will give an account for your deeds."
Not in the NT: "You will give an account for your deeds (what you believed about Jesus, my son)."
In the NT: "You will give an account for your deeds."
What about those who don't now have Christ? They'll be judged by their deeds, too. They don't have the assurance now that they'll be judged positively.
Don't talk to me about five hundred different judgement seats of God, if you're so inclined! There is one judgement for the righteous and the unrighteous and they're all asked the same question. Fair's fair. I'm almost literally quoting scripture verbaitim here, fight me.
I uh see no reason to insist that everyone who dies an unbeliever ends up in the lake of fire.
The closest we get to that is "whoever doesn't accept Christ is condemned to the lake of fire" (paraphrased from several verses).
The closest we get to that is "whoever doesn't accept Christ is condemned to the lake of fire" (paraphrased from several verses).
That seems fair, if possibly premature or unfortunate, because Christ is the king of the universe and the life of the world and what are you gonna do if you don't accept him, mope around outside the pearly gates of his universe forever?
(Some of Scripture's visions of the afterlife seem to envision something similar to this. Outside in the dark are the dogs, those who do evil...)
But as far as I can tell, we only get to the like radical exclusionary interpretations (gotta know Christ before you die or else you fry) by playing jigsaw puzzle with prooftexts spread across like half a dozen different books.
in other words
there are red flags all over that.
in other words
there are red flags all over that.
I don't suppose anyone is getting into Heaven without being united to Christ but who knows when he stops uniting with people.
Maybe he'll have mercy on those who gave a shit, or could give a shit, just like he had mercy on Paul before his death:
"Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief."
"Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief."
The funny thing, too, about "judged by your deeds" is that in the OT and the NT even THAT is kind of a metonym for "judged by the condition of your heart."
Don't think I can support that now but if you look for it you can find it. https://twitter.com/ThePerilousDeer/status/1323228106044428290
Don't think I can support that now but if you look for it you can find it. https://twitter.com/ThePerilousDeer/status/1323228106044428290
like, the deeds are how you know the heart.
likewise the deeds are how you know the Christian.
A lot of Christians will say that the the thief on the cross entered paradise because, despite his bad deeds, he accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior and so God looked past that.
likewise the deeds are how you know the Christian.
A lot of Christians will say that the the thief on the cross entered paradise because, despite his bad deeds, he accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior and so God looked past that.
which isn't wrong
but you could also say that the thief entered paradise "because of his deeds," ->because of the condition of his heart.
but you could also say that the thief entered paradise "because of his deeds," ->because of the condition of his heart.
if you have shitty deeds, doesn't mean you definitely don't have the Spirit. Maybe you're going through a rough patch, idk. that's why I think it's Peter writes to make your salvation more clear by seeking God. not to throw you into doubt.
it's just like, as you seek God you recognize some ways you're like him and you learn what he's looking for and more about who you really are and what he'll put up with.
as you don't seek God, the memory of his Spirit's works becomes distant, and your eyes are clouded with sins and accusations of "The Accuser."
so one of the reasons to follow God is simply to have confidence in what you ought to know.
so one of the reasons to follow God is simply to have confidence in what you ought to know.
we've been trained by certain Protestant theologians to think of "works-based salvation" as like this massive goal-oriented survival game of ticking all these boxes, but that's not the OT understanding and it wasn't quite the understanding of all of Christ's contemporaries.
that's why I've pointed out it being almost a metonym for the condition of one's heart. You don't have to go to the NT to find really reductive interpretations of the law, of what God requires. One of the "It's so simple" bits I quoted above is from the OT, and there are others.
The reason I've brought up this "judged by the condition of the heart" thing is it's kinda the best of all the competing systems?
Schizophrenic system: "Can you complete this truth claim -- 'In life I believed that Jesus was ____.'"
Schizophrenic system: "Can you complete this truth claim -- 'In life I believed that Jesus was ____.'"
High-achieving meritocratic Goal oriented system: "In life I did a lot of good things, many good things, you wouldn't believe it, and not a lot of bad things."
Actually good system, "In life I sought to walk with you." something like that, idk.
Actually good system, "In life I sought to walk with you." something like that, idk.
notice too that James, that dodgy Jew, who may have been responsible for sending certain troubling "men from James," doesn't say "oh, you have faith? But what use is faith? Don't you know you will be judged by your deeds *instead*?" That's kinda what it seems like he's gonna say.
But instead he says "Oh, you have faith? Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. Faith *without deeds* is dead."
In other words, he's getting all worked up saying you'll be judged by your deeds but even at the most deeds-y moment he doesn't really make it not about faith, because he's not saying "God's gonna give you the checklist." He's agreeing with the actual OT here.
something about this 
that has been very beautiful to me, and a balm to my soul: https://twitter.com/ThePerilousDeer/status/1323228106044428290
that has been very beautiful to me, and a balm to my soul: https://twitter.com/ThePerilousDeer/status/1323228106044428290
as I've sought God in the desert of the real, and opened my heart to him, and listened quietly for his voice, and fought with him
I've heard unexpectedly, over and over and over, about the most shameful, most cruel and inconsiderate moments of my life,
"I knew what you were trying to do, I knew what you wanted to do but couldn't figure out how, and I'm proud of you for that."
"I knew what you were trying to do, I knew what you wanted to do but couldn't figure out how, and I'm proud of you for that."
like, Paul was right when he went so far as to claim that it wasn't even he who sinned any more, it was sin within him.
what a ridiculous thing to say. just as bad as a child saying "my imaginary friend did it."
what a ridiculous thing to say. just as bad as a child saying "my imaginary friend did it."
but I've paid more and more attention to that oft ignored verse because of these sweet, tender moments with Christ.
I don't really think Christ would say anything different to the average non-Christian. at least to the one who's willing, at some point or another, to face him?
"Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
here he's *poking fun at him for it* before he's even repented of it. lolz for days
here he's *poking fun at him for it* before he's even repented of it. lolz for days
This thread has wandered far from the original tweet but actually it was all part of my plan. https://twitter.com/ThePerilousDeer/status/1323200371884478464
but actually it was all part of my plan. https://twitter.com/ThePerilousDeer/status/1323200371884478464
because I'm convinced that ... the Tower of Right Doctrine is great, if the doctrine really is right, but the role it's been made to play in a lot of Western Christian thought at least has been deeply sick for a long time.
I'm not exactly a broad church Christian. divorce the wrong person in my church and remain obstinate in unrepentance and I'll hope to God you get kicked out of the assembly until and unless you change your mind.
and idk, if you're an Arian I don't know that i'd say "we're completely not in communion" (whatever that finally means) but I don't know that I want you teaching my kids Sunday School or determining the church bylaws either.
but I do think this "tower of right doctrine," or some of its uses, traces partially to wrong beliefs about judgement and about Christian identity and thus about the church.
I'm not the only one who thinks this! Many are saying it.
I'm not the only one who thinks this! Many are saying it.
(not sure the questions about non-Christians and the day of judgement fit in there in the same way, I kind of threw that in because I'd been meaning to talk about it for a while.
mm maybe this is where I first got irrelevant. https://twitter.com/ThePerilousDeer/status/1323228104735756288
