A quick comment before reading the linked articles: almost from its very beginning, the Church has needed to be reformed. Why is this? Because it is a human institution. The standards Our Lord set are lofty, and mere mortals quickly fall into their normal state of quarrelsomeness, hauteur, bullying and advantage taking, greed for power and for money. The epistles of St. Paul and others show that within a short time of the faith's establishment, and long before it became the state religion of the most powerful empire the world had ever known, there were abuses and cutting of corners and winking at irregularities.
It seems to me it's inaccurate to say one *is* a Christian - Catholic, Methodist, etc. One is becoming a Christian. It's an ongoing process of striving to meet the standards Our Lord set. All too many people who call themselves Christian either don't fully understand what that means or are too lazy to put in the work. It's much easier and takes far less thought to hate, to be greedy and violent than to love, to be humble, patient and peaceable.
We are taught to love our neighbor as ourselves and, beyond that, to love our enemies. Well now, what does that mean? If I love my neighbor as I love myself,, why, then I will want my neighbor to be safe, well clad, well housed, decently employed, adequately taught and cared for in illness... And what does that translate to? Why, working (and voting) towards those goals. But that's not all. I must love my enemy. What does that mean? Why, nothing less than wishing and working for all the same things for him as I wish and work for for my neighbor. If I wish my enemy to be safe, I do not bomb his cities and power grids. I do not spread Agent Orange on his fields... I consider him a human being, work of the Creator, just as am I. If I have differences with him, I talk and reason, struggle and compromise, considering his ultimate welfare equally important as my own.
But, holy shit, that's difficult! It takes time and effort, hard thinking and hard work. Who needs that? It is much easier to say, "Neighbor, what neighbor? He's just a lazy, no good black (or Porto rican, Poloc, or Jew or on and on). He's not like me. I have to buy an expensive second home, a flashy car, jewelry... I have to become a partner in my law firm, or climb the corporate ladder. I have no time or energy to help *him*. As to my enemy, he's not human at all. He's vermin to be exterminated. Why should I care if his country is bombed back to the Stone Age; if his children die of famine or disease? He has nothing to do with me.
Trump is by no means the only person who considers himself a Christian who lives by such lights. So, there always have been and always will be reformers, those who endeavor to guide the errant back to the process of becoming Christian. Sometimes they succeed for a time, only to be corrupted themselves by fame or power. The Christian path is not for sissies.
I hold to the proposition that one cannot harm another without directly harming oneself--no need to postulate an intermediary. Depending on the conditions the harm to oneself may vary and may be delayed--but it can't be avoided. But there are other points of view. Different frames of reference can coincide at many points.
Yes, I had noticed lately that the Methodists are going through quite a rough spot. In studying about my German ancestors who settled in Canada in 1794 I learned something about the religious disputes of that time and place. They arrived Lutherans, but at least some of their children (including my direct ancestor) became Methodists. At the time the anti-Methodist propaganda was frankly rabid, and they were legally disadvantaged to boot. Legal marriages could only be performed by Anglicans, Catholics, Lutherans and select Presbyterians, who were described (as memory serves me) as "liturgical" religions. Evidently what that meant was that if the followers followed the guidance of their betters and participated in the established rituals, they would get to heaven. Methodists, on the other hand, emphasized the need for what I suppose we would today call "rebirth," a personal experience of God, as a requisite for salvation. I believe this is called evangelicalism. I can certainly empathize with that. Maybe I misunderstand this; if so I would welcome correction. Certainly it is very simplified and reflects the popular religious ideas of two centuries ago. There were some incredible religious goings-on back then. BTW, I understand that the Holiness Churches evolved from Methodism; they have some theology I can empathize with that seems to be rather unusual among Christians.
Alan I, personally, wholeheartedly concur with the proposition that one cannot hurt another without hurting oneself. As to the division between liturgical and evangelical churches, AFAIK that's right. Unfortunately, the evangelical side has continued to fragment, with seemingly ever-increasing social and political conservatism, not to say radicalism in proportion to the further they move away from the liturgical churches on the one hand and the more vehemently they deny that other sects are evangelical or even Christian on the other. I have come across, on the innertubes, the assertion that Catholics are not Christian. Honestly, I don't know what God some of these sects worship, but it sure isn't one I recognize.
Cat-thanks for confirming my understanding. And I agree that the fragmentation of the evangelical churches and what goes along with that is dreadful. My great-great grandfather, who moved his family out to western Ontario from a little east of York = Toronto in the 1820's had a reputation (I found it in a local history book) as the most even-handed person there could be, never exhibiting any prejudice toward anyone of another religion. He was also notable as the first person in the township to build a barn without providing whiskey for the workers; no report of whether it was any straighter than usual! I only knew my grandfather after he had the stroke that took his adult memory, but there was never any hint of religious extremism or prejudice in the family. My mom remembered him taking her to see/hear Aimee Semple McPherson.
Depends on what you mean by personal experience. Evangelicals just want you to say you believe in Jesus as your personal Saviour. Then you’re saved and you’re “in.” If you’re referring to actual personal experience, you’re getting into the realm of mysticism and the contemplatives. In my experience of various denominations, many evangelicals would be afraid of a true mystical experience. Control issues would get in the way.
On Biden’s Big Poll Lead Cameron Joseph at Talking Points Memo
Former Vice President Joe Biden has so far maintained his wide lead over the rest of the Democratic field. That’s a good early sign for the front-runner — but some talking heads are getting way over their skis in anointing him the heavy favorite. [Rest behind a paywall.]
Answers on previous thread...
ReplyDeleteTrump’s Tariffs Are Like a Massive Tax Hike [Click]
ReplyDeleteJames Carroll: To save the Church, Catholics must detach themselves from the clerical hierarchy—and take the faith back into their own hands. [Click] A depressing analysis of the current situation, and a hopeful prediction of the way forward. With my limited knowledge of Christian philosophy, the course the author predicts seems to have some similarity to Methodism. I am reminded of Maria Vittoria Longhitano [Click] of the Italian Old Catholic Church. [Click]
ReplyDeleteHere is The Guardian’s story about Longhitano’s ordination [Click]
DeleteA quick comment before reading the linked articles: almost from its very beginning, the Church has needed to be reformed. Why is this? Because it is a human institution. The standards Our Lord set are lofty, and mere mortals quickly fall into their normal state of quarrelsomeness, hauteur, bullying and advantage taking, greed for power and for money. The epistles of St. Paul and others show that within a short time of the faith's establishment, and long before it became the state religion of the most powerful empire the world had ever known, there were abuses and cutting of corners and winking at irregularities.
DeleteIt seems to me it's inaccurate to say one *is* a Christian - Catholic, Methodist, etc. One is becoming a Christian. It's an ongoing process of striving to meet the standards Our Lord set. All too many people who call themselves Christian either don't fully understand what that means or are too lazy to put in the work. It's much easier and takes far less thought to hate, to be greedy and violent than to love, to be humble, patient and peaceable.
We are taught to love our neighbor as ourselves and, beyond that, to love our enemies. Well now, what does that mean? If I love my neighbor as I love myself,, why, then I will want my neighbor to be safe, well clad, well housed, decently employed, adequately taught and cared for in illness... And what does that translate to? Why, working (and voting) towards those goals. But that's not all. I must love my enemy. What does that mean? Why, nothing less than wishing and working for all the same things for him as I wish and work for for my neighbor. If I wish my enemy to be safe, I do not bomb his cities and power grids. I do not spread Agent Orange on his fields... I consider him a human being, work of the Creator, just as am I. If I have differences with him, I talk and reason, struggle and compromise, considering his ultimate welfare equally important as my own.
But, holy shit, that's difficult! It takes time and effort, hard thinking and hard work. Who needs that? It is much easier to say, "Neighbor, what neighbor? He's just a lazy, no good black (or Porto rican, Poloc, or Jew or on and on). He's not like me. I have to buy an expensive second home, a flashy car, jewelry... I have to become a partner in my law firm, or climb the corporate ladder. I have no time or energy to help *him*. As to my enemy, he's not human at all. He's vermin to be exterminated. Why should I care if his country is bombed back to the Stone Age; if his children die of famine or disease? He has nothing to do with me.
Trump is by no means the only person who considers himself a Christian who lives by such lights. So, there always have been and always will be reformers, those who endeavor to guide the errant back to the process of becoming Christian. Sometimes they succeed for a time, only to be corrupted themselves by fame or power. The Christian path is not for sissies.
Brief comment. Ahem, yes, well. Sorry about that.
DeleteI hold to the proposition that one cannot harm another without directly harming oneself--no need to postulate an intermediary. Depending on the conditions the harm to oneself may vary and may be delayed--but it can't be avoided. But there are other points of view. Different frames of reference can coincide at many points.
DeleteEpiscopal Diocese of VERMONT, that is!
DeleteYou can watch the Electing Convention live, by clicking on the link you need HERE: https://diovermont.org/2019/05/15/watch-the-electing-convention-online/
Yes, I had noticed lately that the Methodists are going through quite a rough spot. In studying about my German ancestors who settled in Canada in 1794 I learned something about the religious disputes of that time and place. They arrived Lutherans, but at least some of their children (including my direct ancestor) became Methodists. At the time the anti-Methodist propaganda was frankly rabid, and they were legally disadvantaged to boot. Legal marriages could only be performed by Anglicans, Catholics, Lutherans and select Presbyterians, who were described (as memory serves me) as "liturgical" religions. Evidently what that meant was that if the followers followed the guidance of their betters and participated in the established rituals, they would get to heaven. Methodists, on the other hand, emphasized the need for what I suppose we would today call "rebirth," a personal experience of God, as a requisite for salvation. I believe this is called evangelicalism. I can certainly empathize with that. Maybe I misunderstand this; if so I would welcome correction. Certainly it is very simplified and reflects the popular religious ideas of two centuries ago. There were some incredible religious goings-on back then. BTW, I understand that the Holiness Churches evolved from Methodism; they have some theology I can empathize with that seems to be rather unusual among Christians.
DeleteAlan I, personally, wholeheartedly concur with the proposition that one cannot hurt another without hurting oneself. As to the division between liturgical and evangelical churches, AFAIK that's right. Unfortunately, the evangelical side has continued to fragment, with seemingly ever-increasing social and political conservatism, not to say radicalism in proportion to the further they move away from the liturgical churches on the one hand and the more vehemently they deny that other sects are evangelical or even Christian on the other. I have come across, on the innertubes, the assertion that Catholics are not Christian. Honestly, I don't know what God some of these sects worship, but it sure isn't one I recognize.
DeleteCat-thanks for confirming my understanding. And I agree that the fragmentation of the evangelical churches and what goes along with that is dreadful. My great-great grandfather, who moved his family out to western Ontario from a little east of York = Toronto in the 1820's had a reputation (I found it in a local history book) as the most even-handed person there could be, never exhibiting any prejudice toward anyone of another religion. He was also notable as the first person in the township to build a barn without providing whiskey for the workers; no report of whether it was any straighter than usual! I only knew my grandfather after he had the stroke that took his adult memory, but there was never any hint of religious extremism or prejudice in the family. My mom remembered him taking her to see/hear Aimee Semple McPherson.
DeleteDepends on what you mean by personal experience.
DeleteEvangelicals just want you to say you believe in Jesus as your personal Saviour. Then you’re saved and you’re “in.”
If you’re referring to actual personal experience, you’re getting into the realm of mysticism and the contemplatives. In my experience of various denominations, many evangelicals would be afraid of a true mystical experience.
Control issues would get in the way.
Alan in CA5/17/2019 01:29:00 AM
ReplyDeleteIn re the New Democrats, why vote for someone who is partly Republican when the real article is on offer?
Abso-blooming-lutely!!!
Elizabeth Warren Just Transformed the Abortion Debate [Click]
ReplyDeleteSanders Calls for Ban on For-Profit Charter Schools [Click]
On Biden’s Big Poll Lead
Cameron Joseph at Talking Points Memo
Former Vice President Joe Biden has so far maintained his wide lead over the rest of the Democratic field. That’s a good early sign for the front-runner — but some talking heads are getting way over their skis in anointing him the heavy favorite. [Rest behind a paywall.]