In the light of the Anglican Communion's drawing of a line in the doctrinal/ethical sand - well, kind of - I was interested to read this from our old friend Karl Rahner:
...a church cannot be a church if it would never have the courage to declare something anathema, if it could tolerate absolutely everything and anything as an equally justified opinion among Christians. (p. 382 Foundations of Christian Faith)
However: has there ever been such a church? Even the ultra-liberal revisionists have anathemas. They are forced to show where and who they would definitely exclude in order to meet precisely this criteria.
Immediately we have to ask about specifics. What are the core and basic truths? What are the negotiables? Rahner won't admit, as he goes on, that the dogmatic propositions of the faith are so easily detatchable from one another. They have a structure, which may be dislocated if even a small part is changed.
1 comment:
Quakers were founded to be non exclusive. I had a friend who believed nothing much, but cheerfully went along to quaker meetings. Apparently no one is ever challenged, so you can just say the most outrageous heretic twaddle, then you sit down, and someone stands up, thanks you for your contribution, and then completely contradicts you. They must get mischief makers who try to push them too far...
Post a Comment