Again I am pushed to think by McLaren in Generous Orthodoxy. In his chapter on Anabaptists/Anglicans he talks about the need not only to fight against being nominal ("existing or being something in name or form but usually not in reality" - dictionary.com) but also being notional ("conveying an idea of a thing or of an action" but again not existing as such in reality - dictionary.com). Nominalism is when we associate ourselves with Christ but don't make him the most important thing in our lives. Notionalism is when he is the most important thing in theory but not practice. We get really excited about stuff but don't do anything about our excitement. Both of these "isms" destroy influence. It seems that anything that doesn't result in action but simply stays in the realm of label destroys influence. Consider politicians that claim they "care" about specific people groups or social issues, but when we evaluate their platform and what they have done for the country, these agendas seem to be strangely absent.
This line of thinking inevitably forces me to evaluate myself. Am I nominal? Am I notional? I think because of my personality type nominal seems mostly out of the equation. However, notional becomes the trap. I can care a whole ton about something but not do anything about it. I can have big ideas but small accomplishments.
Would you consider yourself to be more tempted by notionalism or nominalism? What can we do to avoid these traps and make a difference in the world?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Are you 100% sure that all forms of nominalism are our enemy? I'm wondering if there are two very different things that might look very much the same... purhaps there is a good nominalism and a bad nominalism that might at a surface glance look very similar but when looked at more deeply are completely different things. Does a person of faith need to always look like a person of faith, or can a mature faith sometimes look much less extreem than a younger faith while the individual is accomplishing God's works but not recieving a great deal of praise for it.
Purhaps sometimes grace is expressed as what looks like a shade of nominalism but is actually great faith?
Jesus instructed us to let the wheat grow up with the tairs (sp?) so that the wheat is not accidently uprooted. I think this illustrates how hard a healthy nominalism of faith and an unhealthy nominalism are to distinguish.
In the end, personally, I'm not sure that I'm that disturbed by all forms of nominalism.
Is Jesus talking about two different types of believers in that parable? I seem to read it more like he is talking about believers and non-believers. God is waiting to destory the non-believers of the earth so taht he does not destory believers along with them. Essentially, weeds are not harvested with the wheet. They are left in the field to wither and die.
In regards to nominalism. If we think of it as a non-committal form of labeling it's not really that appealing. Why would it be good for people to say they are Christians and not really care or mean it. It's another thing for a believer to be struggling with his/her faith and thus not always look like a believer. It's something entirely different for someone to be ok with wearing the Christian label but not caring about it in anyway.
Just some thoughts I may be totally wrong.
ya, sorry I didn't explain how I was using the parable very well. I think that the weed's represented non-believers also. What I was trying to say is that sometimes the person who you might think is a nominal Christian isn't. I think that a strong faith can look nominal.
I like the quicktime video on the church's website! Did you make that and take the pictures for it and everything? It looks great!
Yea I made it but I didn't take the pictures. I doctored the last one with the couch but the others I just found on the internet. Heather thinks it's weird.
Post a Comment