Quote:
But isn't "deciding" on validity of dogmas, truth of the Bible etc based on "observations" (like prayers answered, or good and bad, "deserved" and "undeserved" events in life) a no-no? At least that's what my Catholic brother told me
This sort of depends on what you mean by “observations”. If we simply defer everything we believe to our own interpretations, then we end up inventing a religion that tells us what we want to hear, and history tells us what evil that can bring (along with bending an established religion to meet an agenda). As an Evangelical Christian, all such inspirations must be aligned up with the bible, as it is considered by use to be the “infallible rule of faith.” If I truly feel like homosexuality isn’t a sin, but the bible says it is, then I must defer. This is because we as a church have found enough of the bible to be true that we believe its claims of being our source of instruction (that positive feedback loop again

However, that is not to say it is unacceptable to challenge a belief or to listen to “observations”. The Christian faith is absolutely open to challenges of established beliefs and reasonably questioning doctrine. Before I go on, I should mention that there is a significant difference here between Catholics and Protestants: I think the Catholic Church officially takes the responsibility of doctrinal interpretation upon itself, meaning that average people do not have the right to read scripture and decide for themselves what they believe. I could be wrong in how strong I’m putting this, as I’m coming from an “I’m a Protestant and that’s what I’ve heard the Catholic Church believes” viewpoint, which is not unbiased.

What I do know more, about, is the Evangelical Christian church. One of our fundamental beliefs (and one major reason for the reformation) is that the burden of determining belief rests with the individual. It is the individual’s responsibility to read scripture and derive truth from that. That’s not to say that an individual should simply go what whatever feels or seems right, and to that end there is a huge role for teachers and tradition to provide shoulders to stand on. But the responsibility ultimately lies with the individual, and with that comes the important question of how to respond to “observations”. And of course, many times it is these “observations” that allows a person to come to faith in the first place. I should mention that one of the weaknesses to this approach is that individuals do not take this responsibility seriously enough and simply adopt whatever the strongest person around them believes. The Catholic Church doesn’t have this problem (as it sets down exactly what the people are to believe), but Protestants view this as an acceptable risk for the freedom the individual has to forge his or her own beliefs.

Having said all of that, the Protestant church does has a few non-negotiable beliefs: the doctrine of grace being the most fundamental, though there are a handful of others. But it’s not that you can’t question these; just that if you do and you decide that you don’t believe them, then you’re not a Christian. There’s much more to say about this (what are the essentials? What about churches that disagree, etc.), but I don’t want to get sidetracked. The bottom line is that Protestant churches generally encourage questioning of beliefs, which is why my best friend and I go to churches that have completely different views on baptism (his believes in infant baptism, mine only in baptism for believers) and yet we still consider one another strong Christians and brothers in Christ. I think baptism is an important doctrine, and I truly think he’s wrong in his belief, but the beauty of Christianity is that we serve the same Christ, despite our differences. Even more to point, I don’t agree with my own church’s belief about the pre-tribulation rapture (which is a big deal among evangelicals) however that doesn’t cause any real issues at our church because those I worship with respect our differences.

In reality, there are many issues that have become a dividing line in the Protestant church that shouldn’t have. That’s the problem with having a church full of people! The great thing about being a Protestant is that we can question our beliefs and overcome false doctrines even if they’ve been engrained for a while. You’d be surprised to know the number of issues that evangelical churches wrestle with today (“Are seeker sensitive services appropriate?”, “is expository or topical preaching better?”, “Is speaking in tongues a valid worship practice?”, “Should our music be hymns or more contemporary”, the list goes on). Sometimes these cause divisions, but many times we just agree to disagree, knowing that we all share the most important component of our faith in Jesus Christ.

But the bottom line is that faith to an Evangelical Christian is not a blind belief without premise; rather it is an informed belief carried to its logical conclusion. Or put another way, just because it is unseen doesn’t mean it is unreasoned.

edit: sorry for the long post. I'm just sensing a disconnect between what you've observed and my daily experience as a Christian. Since you have expressed interest in understading this better I'm trying to give you as compelte a picture as possbile. Also, I'm just longwinded!


Edited by JeffS (19/11/2004 17:29)
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.