11 comments

• 

  raffi shahinian

  11 months ago

  I remember hearing an N.T. Wright lecture where he said something like the following:
  
  "I remember being phoned by a reporter one time and being asked what I thought about the blasphemy laws and whether I would like to see them abolished. And without really thinking about it (I must have been saying my prayers, or someone was praying for me) I heard myself say: 'The Jesus that I worship allowed himself to be mocked, beaten, and spat upon, and when one of His followers tried to defend Him, He said "We don't do things that way." And that is precisely the story by which the world is saved.'"
  
  I'd defer to the good Bishop on this one.
  
  Grace and Peace.
  reply
• 

  BDRhodes

  11 months ago

  Mercy alive, Biship Tom has a way with words. For being a high-ranking bishop in a state church, he sure does know how to pull out the stops for the King! :)
  
  (for what its worth, NTW has said that he really does struggle often to stay in the Anglican Communion for a variety of reasons, but finds it his calling to bring gospel life and faithfulness during an era of ecclesiological tumult... I think he talks about that in his third "Future of the People of God" lecture, not that I've listened to them many times...)
  reply
• 

  opus

  11 months ago

  I agree with much of what you've written -- truly, the "overreactions" of Christians have been a huge hindrance to the Gospel's spread.
  
  However, where does that leave the field of apologetics? Do you see any difference between apologetics and "defending the faith"? Do you see apologetics (e.g., the writings of C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, and even N.T. Wright) as a waste of time? And how would you interpret verses such as 1 Peter 3:15-16, which seem to imply that we should have some kind of response when people want to know why we believe what we believe.
  reply
• 

  mike

  11 months ago

  opus - I would say the difference is whether we're being asked to defend our faith or if we're projecting our defense. If someone wants to know why I believe I'll definately tell them - or more likely show them. But if I see someone mocking God I don't feel the need to defend God's honor by proving this person wrong.
  reply
• 

  hewhocutsdown

  11 months ago

  That's exactly the distinction I would draw as well. The one is saying "here are the spiritual concerns that drew me to X, or the intellectual arguments that convinced me of Y" and the emphasis is on oneself, leaving action to the one's audience.
  
  The other is a more antagonistic defense, where one demands a change of mind or behaviour of the 'attacker'. It is this defense that I argue is unnecessary; the first one is a healthy one and should be regarded as such.
  reply
• 

  opus

  11 months ago

  Thanks for the clarification. I thought that's probably what you meant.
  reply
• 

  toddh

  11 months ago

  I really like the post, but I would just object to the idea that Christians are co-opting in any way the behavior of some Muslims. I think this type of response is ubiquitous and crosses any kind of cultural/religious lines when something is desecrated (i.e. the U.S. flag for some people).
  reply
• 

  hewhocutsdown

  11 months ago

  That analogy was drawn from extensive time and studying of Islam and particularly Arab tribal history over the last thousand years or so by my father, and to a lesser extent, myself. There is a strong felt mandate, particularly amongst Arabs, to defend Allah, Mohammed and Islam.
  
  This is a core part of many Muslims' identity, which is why I used it as an example; unlike the faith of Islam, this need not be part of the core identity of Christians; there is no need to defend our faith in that manner. Mohammed killed many of those who mocked him; Christ himself was killed by those who mocked him, and his disciples followed suit. The difference is striking.
  reply
• 

  new guy

  11 months ago

  You know, there are times when discerning the right course of action is a very cloudy and complex decision.
  
  But as you've illustrated so well in the above post, sometimes it's really simple.
  
  Thank you for such simple clarity.
  reply
• 

  Slider

  11 months ago

  A wafer is just a wafer until it finds it's meaning into the heart of the of the participant. Why defend a wafer?
  reply
• 

  lsomers

  11 months ago

  Any deity who needs defending is an idol. Why defend an idol?
  reply