The great difficulty is to get modern audiences to realize that you are preaching Christianity solely and simply because you happen to think it true they always suppose you are preaching it because you like it or think it good for society or something of that sort. This distinction, which is demanded by honesty, also gives the apologist a great tactical advantage. 25: on a certain point the has “no commandment of the Lord” but gives “his judgment.” No one is left in doubt as to the difference in status implied. Paul has given us the model in I Corinthians vii. When we mention our personal opinions we must always make quite clear the difference between them and the faith itself. We are defending Christianity not “my religion.” But as apologists it is not our business to defend them. Each of us has his individual emphasis: each holds, in addition to the faith, many opinions which seem to him to be consistent with it and true and important. This must be clearly distinguished from the whole of what any one of us may think about God and man. We are to defend Christianity itself-the faith preached by the Apostles, attested by the Martyrs, embodied in the Creeds, expounded by the Fathers. What we deny is that he can honestly continue to be a Conservative agent and to receive money from one party while he supports the policy of another.Įven when we have thus ruled out teaching which is in direct contradiction to our profession, we must define our task still further. We always knew that a man who makes his living as a paid agent of the Conservative party may honestly change his views and honestly become a Communist. We never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held: what we complain of is your continuing you ministry after you have come to hold them. But this simply misses the point which so gravely scandalizes the layman.
#CS LEWIS MOST FAMOUS BOOKS PROFESSIONAL#
In defense of these opinions they are prepared to suffer obloquy and to forfeit professional advancement. Men who have passed beyond these boundary lines in either direction are apt to protest that they have come by their unorthodox opinions honestly. There is a danger here of the clergy developing a special professional conscience which obscures the very plain moral issue. This is your duty not specifically as Christians or as priests but as honest men. I think it is your duty to fix the lines clearly in your own minds: and if you wish to go beyond them you must change your profession. But I insist that wherever you draw the lines, bounding lines must exist, beyond which your doctrine will cease to be Anglican or to be Christian: and I suggest also that the lines come a great deal sooner than many modern priest think. It is not, of course, for me to define to you what Anglican Christianity is-I am your pupil, not your teacher.
It may depart from Anglican Christianity in either of two ways: (1) It may be so “broad” or “liberal” or “modern” that it in fact excludes any real supernaturalism and thus ceases to be Christian at all. It seems to the layman that in the Church of England we often hear from our priests doctrine which is not Anglican Christianity. And here at the outset I must deal with an unpleasant business. The first question is -What do you propose to defend? Christianity, of course: and Christianity as understood by the church in Wales. If I address you it is in response to a request so urged that I came to regard compliance as a matter of obedience. I have never helped to organize youth, and while young myself I successfully avoided being organized. It is for priests to teach me, not for me to teach them. Some of you are priests and some are leaders of youth organizations.
0 kommentar(er)
