Thursday, April 14, 2011
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
On the "Emergent Church" and becoming Catholic
It was probably the fluidity, variability, and equivocation that had to do with my own questioning and rejection of what's going on in many, if not most of the Protestant denominations these days, let alone for the last 500 years or so. Not that I'm particularly intolerant, socially, but when it comes to faith, well, sorry if people find it uncomfortable, but it is what it is. It's funny, one of my major problems with Christianity in the past was my own rebellion against authority, exclusivity, and rules, and yet, when God restored my faith, I chose which church? Only the MOST authoritarian and conservative!
I do try to avoid a we/them conversation, in particular because I haven't quite become one of "we" Catholics yet, but more because I think unfair to characterize others who are living in profound relationship with God, even though they may believe in one or more of the many variant doctrines out there. It was that doctrinal variability, the ability to simply change the rules to become more inclusive, to reject the unpopular, to gain or use temporal political power (whether to the right or the left, Palin, or Kennedy), all to make more people more comfortable. It's as though the goal has been to make them feel that the church is an extension of their opinions and politics, rather than the foundation of their relationship with God, and to get people in the pews, no matter what you might do their souls. That's what I've found extremely troubling. (Read as: Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, Rick Warren, ad nauseum) Those guys were recognizable, but now, it's not just feel good pablum, but something more dangerous, and the list grows longer, the leaders are less flamboyant and noticeable, and it's less about lining their pockets immediately, than it is about gaining power and altering the message. It's gone almost underground, or at least under camouflage.
Even now, some of the more conservative denominations, Nazarenes, Foursquare, AOG, the Church of God in Christ, and many Baptist organizations are being pulled into the "emergent church" conversation. There are parts of that conversation that "sound" good, but there are dangers within it that I don't think people are foreseeing. For one thing, I doubt they really understand the underlying, wholly worldly philosophies that it began with, and many of those furthering it are (to my mind) deliberately avoiding discussing those fundamentals by cloaking it in terms that don't feel so foreign to those churches as they would if they were up front about the genesis of the movement. It's deception, plain and simple.
I think that many of their congregations will, as did the Anglicans in the US, wake up one day and find their churches nearly unrecognizable, and sadly, find that the very reasons for their existence has been made secondary. The core of their faith community is arguably, altogether lost in the social conscience oriented thrust of these "conversations". The proponents of these ideologies carefully avoid calling them movements, ideologies, or new denominations, but that's exactly what they are.
They're called conversations, which don't sound as threatening as doctrinal displacement, overhaul, or takeovers of their churches. Much of the language seems to have come from the old Werner Erhard/EST mindset, which in and of itself, probably did a lot of good for people as individuals. When applied to matters of faith and doctrine, however, not to mention being bent by the ambitions and denominational rebellion so common to many Christians today, it becomes much more inclined to err. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.
Those efforts do not seem to me forthright, open, and honest methods and tactics for causing Spirit driven change in the church. It's ecumenical, but in a way that isn't what we would want if we understood it fully. This latest threat is growing and becoming ever more popular, because it rebels against some of the problems of the older Protestant denominations. Concepts like "missionality", the so-called "emergent church", messages of moral tolerance, social relevance, etc., attract younger, more morally or religiously disconnected and ambiguous "seekers".
The fact that it does so by diverting the focus away from the message of the Gospel and more toward an amorphous "spirituality" and social involvement seems to get lost on the older, more conservative members of the church. It makes that easier by couching it all in familiar sounding terms. On the surface, these are attractive to people who easily reject the more difficult path, and reasonably acceptable as "more modern interpretations" by those conservative people who have long been part of those churches.
There's a reliance on a post-Christian message and watering down of the Gospel in order to make it more palatable, more inclusive, and accessible. I could go on about the dangers, pitfalls, and problems of this extremely widespread change in Protestantism, but for now, just this: Narrow is the gate; even if it's unpopular and un-hip to consider that important warning.
That's one of the many reasons becoming a Catholic was really the ONLY choice for me to make, no matter how hard it is to get in, or how hard it is for others to understand. I can only hope that someday I will have the skills to explain my choices and to help others who want to, to understand.
God bless and keep you,
James
I do try to avoid a we/them conversation, in particular because I haven't quite become one of "we" Catholics yet, but more because I think unfair to characterize others who are living in profound relationship with God, even though they may believe in one or more of the many variant doctrines out there. It was that doctrinal variability, the ability to simply change the rules to become more inclusive, to reject the unpopular, to gain or use temporal political power (whether to the right or the left, Palin, or Kennedy), all to make more people more comfortable. It's as though the goal has been to make them feel that the church is an extension of their opinions and politics, rather than the foundation of their relationship with God, and to get people in the pews, no matter what you might do their souls. That's what I've found extremely troubling. (Read as: Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, Rick Warren, ad nauseum) Those guys were recognizable, but now, it's not just feel good pablum, but something more dangerous, and the list grows longer, the leaders are less flamboyant and noticeable, and it's less about lining their pockets immediately, than it is about gaining power and altering the message. It's gone almost underground, or at least under camouflage.
Even now, some of the more conservative denominations, Nazarenes, Foursquare, AOG, the Church of God in Christ, and many Baptist organizations are being pulled into the "emergent church" conversation. There are parts of that conversation that "sound" good, but there are dangers within it that I don't think people are foreseeing. For one thing, I doubt they really understand the underlying, wholly worldly philosophies that it began with, and many of those furthering it are (to my mind) deliberately avoiding discussing those fundamentals by cloaking it in terms that don't feel so foreign to those churches as they would if they were up front about the genesis of the movement. It's deception, plain and simple.
I think that many of their congregations will, as did the Anglicans in the US, wake up one day and find their churches nearly unrecognizable, and sadly, find that the very reasons for their existence has been made secondary. The core of their faith community is arguably, altogether lost in the social conscience oriented thrust of these "conversations". The proponents of these ideologies carefully avoid calling them movements, ideologies, or new denominations, but that's exactly what they are.
They're called conversations, which don't sound as threatening as doctrinal displacement, overhaul, or takeovers of their churches. Much of the language seems to have come from the old Werner Erhard/EST mindset, which in and of itself, probably did a lot of good for people as individuals. When applied to matters of faith and doctrine, however, not to mention being bent by the ambitions and denominational rebellion so common to many Christians today, it becomes much more inclined to err. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.
Those efforts do not seem to me forthright, open, and honest methods and tactics for causing Spirit driven change in the church. It's ecumenical, but in a way that isn't what we would want if we understood it fully. This latest threat is growing and becoming ever more popular, because it rebels against some of the problems of the older Protestant denominations. Concepts like "missionality", the so-called "emergent church", messages of moral tolerance, social relevance, etc., attract younger, more morally or religiously disconnected and ambiguous "seekers".
The fact that it does so by diverting the focus away from the message of the Gospel and more toward an amorphous "spirituality" and social involvement seems to get lost on the older, more conservative members of the church. It makes that easier by couching it all in familiar sounding terms. On the surface, these are attractive to people who easily reject the more difficult path, and reasonably acceptable as "more modern interpretations" by those conservative people who have long been part of those churches.
There's a reliance on a post-Christian message and watering down of the Gospel in order to make it more palatable, more inclusive, and accessible. I could go on about the dangers, pitfalls, and problems of this extremely widespread change in Protestantism, but for now, just this: Narrow is the gate; even if it's unpopular and un-hip to consider that important warning.
That's one of the many reasons becoming a Catholic was really the ONLY choice for me to make, no matter how hard it is to get in, or how hard it is for others to understand. I can only hope that someday I will have the skills to explain my choices and to help others who want to, to understand.
God bless and keep you,
James
Monday, May 24, 2010
Love the sinner, hate the phrase.
The phrase so many people like to use to try to mask their self-righteous condemnation of others isn't scriptural at all, it's at best Arminianism. The closest or at least the oldest quote from a Christian (before being abused as it now is) that's anything like it, actually came from St. Augustine.
One of his letters from around 424 AD contains the phrase:
"Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum,"
Which translates roughly as:
"With love for mankind and hatred of sins."
Doesn't have the same false, self-righteous ring to it, does it? Next time you're tempted to use it to justify your own intolerance and biases, think about these verses instead, and maybe just pray for them. God will judge their sins, just as He judges yours.
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Matthew 7:3-5
Why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying, `Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,' when you can't see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log from your own eyes; then perhaps you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye.
1 John 4:20
If anyone says, "I love God," but hates a Christian brother or sister, that person is a liar; for if we don't love people we can see, how can we love God, whom we have not seen?
Romans 14:10
Who are you to judge another man's servant?
I Corinthians 13:4-8
One of his letters from around 424 AD contains the phrase:
"Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum,"
Which translates roughly as:
"With love for mankind and hatred of sins."
Doesn't have the same false, self-righteous ring to it, does it? Next time you're tempted to use it to justify your own intolerance and biases, think about these verses instead, and maybe just pray for them. God will judge their sins, just as He judges yours.
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Matthew 7:3-5
Why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying, `Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,' when you can't see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log from your own eyes; then perhaps you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye.
1 John 4:20
If anyone says, "I love God," but hates a Christian brother or sister, that person is a liar; for if we don't love people we can see, how can we love God, whom we have not seen?
Romans 14:10
Who are you to judge another man's servant?
I Corinthians 13:4-8
Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful and endures through every circumstance. Love will last forever ...
God bless and keep you,
James
God bless and keep you,
James
Monday, May 10, 2010
Prayer for Peace
Merciful Father,
We are together on Earth, alone in the Universe.
Look at us and help us to love one another.
Teach us to understand each other, just as you understand us.
Make our souls as fresh as the morning.
Make our hearts as innocent as the Lamb.
May we forgive each other, and forget the past,
and may we have peace inside - and in our world.
Today and forever.
Amen.
We are together on Earth, alone in the Universe.
Look at us and help us to love one another.
Teach us to understand each other, just as you understand us.
Make our souls as fresh as the morning.
Make our hearts as innocent as the Lamb.
May we forgive each other, and forget the past,
and may we have peace inside - and in our world.
Today and forever.
Amen.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
So........why?
I'll add to this as time goes on, no doubt, because there are a lot of reasons, a lot of thoughts about why, but I will never give you a better answer than this: To learn to always live in Christ.
Even so, if these prayerful interpretations were always, entirely, and universally accurate, there would never be disagreement regarding what it says, what it means, how it is to be understood, nor would there be any division in the "church". Ha!
Tradition AND Scripture, whether we like it or not, is the truest expression of God's continued and unceasing will, and the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit on earth. How is that way of receiving the Truth any different from making it up as we go along and changing it to meet our requirements and design in our own comfort with it? Because it's been handed down for two thousand years, with consistency, mindful of and in obedience to the actual Deposit of Faith and not invented in support of protest or rebellion, convenience or greed. So, it's different alright, but as compared to what? Five? Fifty? Five Hundred years of protest and rebellion?
Or maybe, just now, when you thought of this great new scriptural concept when you picked a verse or two at random? Personal revelation is intended to help us ask questions, to deepen our understanding in our efforts to be more holy, more like Jesus, to facilitate our study, to grow, and to learn. Not to start new denominations out of disagreements and rebellions. It's hard to keep our egos in check and just follow God though, huh? I know!
Shall I quote the scriptures that define how these differences should have been handled at EVERY stage within the church, every time it happened or now, when it is happening, and point to the incorrect behaviors? I hate that. Don't make me. It makes me sound mean and cynical.
So many examples in scripture defy every argument men have or ever will try to make against God's calling to them, in both the Old and the New Testament. It's simple really, people just don't want to have to actually bear the cross. We mostly don't, but God wants us to. We have and will go to extraordinary ends to reshape His intentions to our own liking, even though we deny ourselves His gifts in so doing. Silly people, God really is on our side.
As to scripture: faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing, the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority. But such trust in one's own light is not faith.Some will say their efforts to read, interpret, and understand scripture are prayerfully undertaken,and always guided by the Spirit. I have done so myself. IT seemed to me that I had EVERY right to assume so. Pretty arrogant, in hindsight, especially considering how little I actually knew then, let alone now. Now, amazingly, I would say that personal revelation should not be, as it has been, the impetus for denominational development or the creation of a "personal faith" because "I'm not into organized religion."
Even so, if these prayerful interpretations were always, entirely, and universally accurate, there would never be disagreement regarding what it says, what it means, how it is to be understood, nor would there be any division in the "church". Ha!
Tradition AND Scripture, whether we like it or not, is the truest expression of God's continued and unceasing will, and the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit on earth. How is that way of receiving the Truth any different from making it up as we go along and changing it to meet our requirements and design in our own comfort with it? Because it's been handed down for two thousand years, with consistency, mindful of and in obedience to the actual Deposit of Faith and not invented in support of protest or rebellion, convenience or greed. So, it's different alright, but as compared to what? Five? Fifty? Five Hundred years of protest and rebellion?
Or maybe, just now, when you thought of this great new scriptural concept when you picked a verse or two at random? Personal revelation is intended to help us ask questions, to deepen our understanding in our efforts to be more holy, more like Jesus, to facilitate our study, to grow, and to learn. Not to start new denominations out of disagreements and rebellions. It's hard to keep our egos in check and just follow God though, huh? I know!
Shall I quote the scriptures that define how these differences should have been handled at EVERY stage within the church, every time it happened or now, when it is happening, and point to the incorrect behaviors? I hate that. Don't make me. It makes me sound mean and cynical.
Romans 3:28If those look like a contradiction, then your mind is failing to grasp what your heart already knows.
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
James 2:24-26
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
So many examples in scripture defy every argument men have or ever will try to make against God's calling to them, in both the Old and the New Testament. It's simple really, people just don't want to have to actually bear the cross. We mostly don't, but God wants us to. We have and will go to extraordinary ends to reshape His intentions to our own liking, even though we deny ourselves His gifts in so doing. Silly people, God really is on our side.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Snake in a Tube
As a person might have gathered from this blog, I’ve spent a good deal of time studying the denominational differences in protestant and/or Baptist churches, evangelical, charismatic, fundamentalist, Pentecostal, whatever. I’ve read too much, and no where nearly all or possibly enough, of the various general representative doctrines, theologies, dogma, traditions, origin, liturgy, hymnal traditions, current musical practice, currently fashionable influences and near heretical influence, preaching style, exegesis, translation selection(s), disposition of funds (by model, as opposed to financial statements), preaching priorities, pastoral services, community services, political message(s), etcetera present in modern Non-Catholic Christianity. I’ll admit it, I was being critical. With good reason. For one thing, I’ve always thought of myself as one form or another of Protestant, but before this effort, I only thought I understood, but I’ll admit it, I didn’t really get the distinctions.
Having been arguably a Christian for all of my adult life, with varying degrees of compliance, rebellion, abandonment, wrestling against, and fighting Christ in one way or other, I’ve reached a conclusion. Wherever the heck I finally figure out I’m really at in all that, it’s nevertheless my responsibility as a father to explain God to my daughter. I had to really look at whatever my own terms and beliefs may have been, were, or are; and have the kind of meaningful and TRUE conversation I could have with my seven year old daughter, and not in a while, later, but pretty damn SOON! If desirable to them, I’d also talk with my elder children on it. That’s up to them, not me. There’s an interesting degree of responsibility in that, and a rare opportunity to apply some critical thinking to one’s “conclusions” about the subject.
Imagine if you will, yourself as a Father, dealing with the questions of existence, the meaning of life, sin, Jesus, Buddha, Rainbow Clown, the Elf Goddess, whatever, and make sense of it to a seven year old who’s no dummy, so that it has an impact on her that you would want. Shouldn't that be something you can be proud of, and shouldn't it communicate who you really are to that person, shouldn't it protect her soul, provide her life with true joy? Well...duuuuuuh! This is not a time for amorphous concepts and half baked imaginings. This is the time to be knowing exactly what you DO believe enough to pass on to your child. Not to mention that because of the kind of commitment to the conversation you’ve made in this effort, where you wind up is important to YOU, too. I think God may have a stake in it as well. I dunno.
This really all started as a simple inquiry on behalf of my daughter. I wanted to give her a basis in faith. I didn't realize it would require that I actually operate from faith and commit to my beliefs as well. Whoops. I wanted to understand the “church” as I defined it. I took a non-catholic, probably even an anti-catholic perspective, that being the water I swam in when I was young. As I looked around at all the various Protestant denominations, currents of thought over the last 500 years, and “emerging” forms of the faith, here’s what I saw. Disagreement, disunity, difference of opinion, non-scriptural teaching, feel good make money messages, I get tired just listing all the denominations and conversations I DIDN’T want to be a part of.
What does a person do with that? Assign each, maybe all of it, to the scrap heap of conversations in the world because being so screwed up, it isn’t even worth pursuing? Believe me, at times I wanted to, after arguing, rather than discussing and learning about various points and points of view with increasingly bitter, argumentative, narrow minded, politically focused christo-bigots. Sorry. Have to call it like I see it. I got pretty argumentative myself, though, so clearly a more charitable assessment of those persons and groups is in order and necessary. It’s simple exasperation after trying for months to have useful and worthwhile conversations about the foundations of faith and belief. To them I can only say: Accepting unquestioningly everything one hears hoping to catch the "off-notes" of one's self and others, and doing so without critical investigation does not seem to me to be faith, but laziness. If my reason does not lead me to faith, then is it my faith, or my reason that is lacking? You just gotta know Who to ask. It IS important enough to at least question it.
Well, instead, after tiring completely of stupidity, bias, and self righteousness in that bunch, I delved into as much available information as I could get my hands on or tolerate. I read every mission or values statement, doctrinal dissertation, theology, soteriology, scripture interpretation methods, viewpoints and methods for experiencing scripture, faith, and religion in general. I stayed entirely away from anything remotely Catholic, coming close only when looking at Lutherans Episcopals and Anglicans of various kinds and types and affiliations. None of which totally satisfied me. I look also at all the old and new evangelical, charismatic, fundamentalist, Calvinist, puritan, Baptist, Anabaptist or Hutterite, Mennonite, Amish, or any of several ideologies and utopian viewpoint.
At long last, I've found out what GOD wanted for me to do about going to church. For one thing, stop deciding for myself. Turns out that the efforts I’d been making were sort of unknowingly designed to find and “decide on” a church that would agree with all my concern and not offend my sensibilities. In other words, find one that fit me, not for me to fit His church. I can say this for sure, what finally happened wasn't what I expected when I started looking into what I wanted to do about this, I only knew that I HAD to do it. God wouldn't leave me alone, and He certainly wasn’t about to let me tell my daughter a bunch of amorphous semi-quasi-spiritualish, new agey/pagan, buddhistic, sufist, kabalist. Tacit, if not yet overt acknowledgment of His existence in some form or another, and my inability to meet the obligation He presented me in my daughter put me in the position of following it as I had thought with no small trepidation, that I might. One might have asked in earlier times…follow what, where? How does a person follow many paths to one Truth? He can’t. If you don’t do one thing, you do no thing at all. So I slithered into this appealing burrow to see what good thing might be within.............
Let’s just say I read enough to be clear about one very important and surprising set of concepts. That the largest single “denomination” and largest single percentage of Christians are Catholic, at about 46%. The remainder are divided into adherents to one denomination or another, most certainly at some odds over doctrine with both the Catholic Church, and anywhere from many, to most other Protestant or Baptist denominations, on one or more points of interpretation and/or application, among other important distinctions such as were listed earlier. The remaining and ever growing percentage of Christians are, in varying degrees, “not into organized religion” and because of that are previous, future, or current members or ex-members of one or more of those same institutions.
If a person with an inquiring mind and little to no bias regarding these distinctions among the Protestant forms, say a merely Christian person seeking a home, were to enter into this inquiry with vigor, he would be quickly overwhelmed with the sheer variety and diversity of opinion in evidence. It takes education beyond the resultant value to become expert and fully versed in the subject. Enough can be understood at a much less granular level for an unbiased man to recognize the folly of the whole idea.
By contrast, there is the Roman Catholic Church, with one Scripture, one Magisterium, one Tradition, one
As John Cardinal Newman said, “To study history is to become Catholic”. So, I read the Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church, re-read Protestant theologians and founders again as well. I understood much, but know there’s more to learn. To do so required that I acknowledge the biases I brought to the conversation and let Jesus lead me. I can’t do that for you, I can’t do that for anyone else. It was a miracle of His grace and mercy that He did it for me and my family. All I did was ask Him to help.
Here’s why: I know I believe in God. I have for a long time. It is my experience that God cares about me. I know I was “saved”, baptized, and that I felt filled with the Holy Spirit both at the Water Baptism, and later as I lived out my faith. I can attest to occurrences in life that look as though they had to have been manipulated by His hand. What I didn’t know, what I’m learning, is how to love Him. What I asked for was the chance to try. Let’s see…I know I have a problem with authority, especially as it relates to God and issues of faith. Check. What happened at Our Lady was the beginning. Now, my family and I are joining the Catholic Church. We start RCIA this month, and we’ve already begun our homegrown family catechesis. This morning, we recited the Apostle’s Creed on the way to school. Well, THAT’S different. I’ll keep you posted. LOL
How do you teach a snake its shape? Put it in a tube.
God Bless and Keep You,
James
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
