I have stuck around because (a) I share a lot of their concerns, even if I don't always agree with them on the source of or what to do about those concerns, (b) I think these are important things to talk about and I enjoy talking about them and hearing other perspectives, and (c) one of the complaints I picked up early on after discovering Mike and Julie's blogs, was their saying things to the effect of: "evangelicals who disagree with us won't stay in dialogue with us – they either ostracize us or else do a nasty drive-by that lasts at most for a few posts and then we never hear from them again. They aren't interested in being in dialogue." I took them at their word that they welcomed continued dialogue even if we're coming from different places on a lot of issues.

I'm sure at times they have replied to me through clenched teeth as it were, but they have continued to surprise me by the generally civil and irenic tone of their replies even when we disagree.

From the posts I’ve read, Karl strikes me as a thoughtful, learned Christian gentleman who actually seems to be trying (in a very patient and gentle way, whether you can recognize it or not) to help you both engage in some critical thinking and faithfulness to the Christian tradition as you search for God.

I’m guessing that because of this, you might perceive him to be a thorn in the side, but he’s actually being a great friend to your souls. You might not be looking for him to play that role for you at this point in your lives, and that’s fair enough. We all have our paths to follow. But you really should take a moment or two today to thank God that a stranger would take such an interest in your spiritual development.

You might even want to thank Karl.

Grace and Peace

Of course asking questions should be permitted. But do you not see any difference between challenging abuse of children and asking whether a centuries or millennia-old understanding of the faith ought to be overturned? I would suggest again that the answers to how one questions the leadership, what one expects the process to be, and what one does when one’s questions have been heard but the results aren’t what one wanted
. . . are just a wee bit different depending on which of those scenarios we are talking about.

At some point as an ecclesial body you need to get on with things (i.e. the mission you believe you've been called to), and in order to get on with things some issues need to be treated as fairly settled. I doubt an emerging church with strong leadership would continue ad infinitum to have patience with someone who kept questioning (not just questioned once but kept arguing about it week after week) whether the poor aren't really responsible for their own plight and whether the starting-point Biblical text for the poor shouldn't be 2 Thessalonians 3:10 and wouldn't the church be better off buying a truckload of Chick tracts and going out and doing street evangelism in all their free time. Especially if that person wanted to be in leadership, or expected the leadership to stop everything they were doing for the poor until his "important" question had been fully heard and answered to his satisfaction. Even you Mike, have told me and others online at times that you have no interest in revisiting such-and-such an issue or debate, because even though "we" haven't discussed it before, you decided what you think about it during your undergrad days or whenever and don't want to waste time re-hashing it for our benefit. You have better and more important things to do, arent' going to change your mind about postmodernism (or whatever) anyway, etc. An ecclesial body has to be able to do the same.

Also what is the nature of the question – are we talking questioning settled doctrine, scriptural interpretation and historic teaching or are we talking about questioning people in power acting contrary to the church’s teaching, as in the abusers and those who covered for them?

Yes to all of the above. Why should anything in one's faith be off-limits for questioning? I couldn't possibly be a part of any church that put a "thou shall not question this… ever!" sign on any aspect of their beliefs, no matter how "settled" or "historic".

Julie, I think you might be making Sean's point for him again. If Benedict had in fact said that I'd be quite concerned. Thankfully for my own peace of mind and for Christian unity, I am pretty sure he didn't. Did you know the same document that was widely reported in the media as saying what you wrote above, also contains the following:

“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation . . . According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense."

Nothing new there. Maybe I'm wrong and Benedict has actually said somewhere that Protestants are going to Hell rather than simply reaffirming the teaching of Vatican II and the beliefs that Catholics including JP II have held about their church for a long, long time. Please point me to where he has done so if that's the case.

Julie wrote: "I find any system or religion that prohibits the questioning of leadership to be suspect in the extreme."

Yes, so do I. So does the Catholic church! So which religion are we talking about here that prohibits questioning of its leadership? Anne Rice freely questions the leadership of her church in widely published print, and is celebrated. So do enormous numbers of other Catholics, with no fear of excommunication. The issues are how one questions the leadership, what one expects the process to be, and maybe most importantly what one does when one's questions have been heard but the results aren't what one wanted. Also what is the nature of the question – are we talking questioning settled doctrine, scriptural interpretation and historic teaching or are we talking about questioning people in power acting contrary to the church's teaching, as in the abusers and those who covered for them?

I will only defend the Catholic church so far – some of these issues of Papal and magisterial authority are among the reasons I'm not Catholic. But I at least would like to be fair to the Catholics and the Pope when criticizing them.

Your sarcasm and your cat are both unwelcome visitors. Let me go over the ground rules. Julie’s questioning of other people is good. Other people questioning her is suspect in the extreme. Don’t you realize that? And by you, I meant you, Joseph, not you Julie. No, no, I wasn’t questioning you, Julie, I swear!! I’ll be good, I promise!!!

Joseph – for many of us, this isn't about going with the flow of culture. It is based on theological reflection and a desire to live out our faith. When we hear leaders saying things that seem to directly contradict the bible, or that simply fail to show love to neighbors we are bothers by that. Not because we might think it's more fun to sleep in on Sundays, but because we love God.

Karl – I think there is a fairly big difference between Pope's if one is willing to admit the salvation of Protestant and one is not, but maybe that's just me. That said, I find any system or religion that prohibits the questioning of leadership to be suspect in the extreme. Which may just be why I could never be Catholic, but the pain that has caused the families of abused boys stands as testimony to the inherent danger of too much power.