Tags
There is a paradox at the heart of our Christian lives. We see it portrayed in the Old Testament. Israel is God’s Chosen People. Yet its people are often disobedient, unfaithful and they provoke God’s wrath. It is likewise with the Church. Membership of the Church is no guarantee of salvation, or indeed, even of good behaviour. It is hard to read very far in Catholic social media without coming across expressions of asperity about the Pope, the Bishops, the liturgy and, indeed, the Church itself. This is excused, as all who resort to such criticisms in whatever area of life excuse it, by concern for right-thinking and right practice, or, in Christian terms orthodoxy and orthopraxis. That the ideal exists only on paper, or in the imagination of the critics, or (which is the same thing) in an idealised version of some past “golden age”, is no bar to the critic. It reminds me of the old excuse for corporal punishment – it is necessary to inflict pain in order to stop the person being punished doing something worse. It seems as insufficient an instrument for Christian discourse as our fallen nature could contrive – hence no doubt its prevelance. The irony, in a Culture Wars context is indeed black. Where, I sometimes wonder, do its Christian critics think the idea of “cancelling” someone for their unorthodox views came from? Naturally, when ideas one holds oneself become targets for “cancellation,” one protests. For those doing the cancelling, nothing short of recantation and orthodxy and orthopraxis will do.
This paradox has been with the Church from its founding by Christ. The man to whom He entrusted His sheep loved them, as he loved Jesus, but that did not stop him being a deeply fallible human being, any more than it stopped him from bringing souls to Christ for salvation. St Paul was clearly a man who aroused strong opinions, and to judge from the tenor of his letters, he was hardly the easiest person to get on with. None of that stopped him being the most effective missionary in Christian history. His letters were kept and copied and circulated because they touched the early Church in so many of its concerns, practical as well as theological.
Perhaps we might learn something from St Paul here? We can see from his letters to the Corinthians that, to put it frankly, he considered some of them to be sinful and wayward and in danger of straying from the Way. But not once, in all his criticisms, does St Paul tell them that they do not belong to the real Church, composed of the faithful. They are, as he makes clear, desperately unworthy, and yet they are the ‘elect’ and they are ‘saints’ and members of the body of Christ.
St Paul looks forward, as does the whole Body of Christ, to the age to come, but he lived, as we live and as the whole Body of Christ lives, in a present where things are far from perfect – and chief among those things is us. The Church is one, even as we are sanctified by baptism, but that is in an echatalogical context; in this fallen world it is hard to see that in the divisions we have caused. Not all who are in the Church will be saved; not all who seem to be outside it will be lost. God alone is the Judge.
We have to live, as Paul’s Corinthians did, with the knowledge we fall short. But we know that what matters is not the falling, but the getting up again. Sometimes all I can say is “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.” Sometimes I think it is all I need to say. Knowing you are actually the tax collector in the Synagogue has only one advantage, it stops you thanking God you are not like yourself, which may be the beginning of wisdom, in learning how to be more like Him.
If I were deeply, grievously wrong about something, either a belief that I held or a practice I was carrying out, then how would I like to be brought to an understanding of my wrongness and pointed in the direction of rightness? Only if I think that being yelled at, abused, ridiculed and boycotted is the best and most efficacious way of making me revisit my first principles and reevaluate my actions will I be justified in applying these same tactics to anyone else.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That is so on the nail. If we treat others as we. ourselves would like to be treated, we do not go far astray. If I was right half the time I think I am, I’d be twice as wise as I am!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Part of this lies in virtue epistemology. We have to be willing to do the work and bear the cost of learning. I have changed a number of my beliefs over the years, but at times this has put me at variance with others. That is a price one must pay sometimes. Sometimes the wisest thing to say is, “I don’t know. “
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is a bit of irony in this picture that you paint of the Church and the eternal struggle to adhere to the teachings of the Church; which are to be found per se (in “right thinking” and “right practicing”) as taught by Scripture and the Lord God Himself.
Without Orthodoxy and Orthopraxis what standard do you use to accuse yourself of wrong thinking and doing? And if the Church is not Teaching Truth but error and is not handing on the Traditions but creating novelty as it goes then the Church has no purpose; as you have taken error to be of the same value as Truth. It makes scripture and tradition that which can be twisted into any shape that we fallen men might want to mold it; as long as it fits with our view of the world.
In this way it very much like saying “defund the police” or burn the constitution. Are people who were taught to believe in the values of our country and in the laws instituted for the good of all men who live in our country abandon our love for the Good and embrace anarchy and rebellion? Nobody expects to live completely up to the laws of the land (I’m sure everyone has at least broken the law in same way . . . like speeding down the highway etc.). So should we do away with speed limits? Should the people not be alarmed when someone’s rights are being violated or a crime is taking place?
It seems that you are making of the Church a toothless and useless vehicle of false brotherhood and hand holding. For if error now has rights and Truth has no value then what does the Church do that is a benefit to men? If I have no goal that is common to all souls due to our teleological goal then goals are useless and teachings are worthless. Like in a country of anarchists the winners are those who can terrorize the people into accepting their view whether right or wrong.
How can a Church strive for unity without a structure that is plain and understandable even for the most unschooled people on the planet unless it continues to at least attempt to teach in its entirety the Truths and Traditions given to Her? If even the least of men sees error and recognizes Truth (which they learned from their Church) then is it to say that they should simply let that Truth be ransomed or destroyed by error and the fallen desires of men? I don’t find silence and cowardice a virtue and I don’t find bullying a form of fortitude. The Church taught me the differences and I thank Her for that. Now for the short time that I have left on stage before the next act am I not to leave the set in tact or should I allow others to burn it to the ground?
Preservation, consistency and the revelation of deeper meaning in these teachings is the whole point of the Church lest the whole thing gets swept away in a few generations by novelty and error. We cannot sit idly by when error confronts the truth. Not MY truth mind you, but the Truths as handed down for 2,000 years by the Church Herself. It seems a bit strange that fortitude and perseverance in such things and our striving to preserve that which has been handed down to us is now looked upon as hate speech. And how interesting it is when we look at the societies of today doing exactly the same.
LikeLike
Quite how you derive any of this from what I wrote, I really can’t fathom Dave.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Misunderstanding is always a possibility. Since I loathe social media and avoid it like the plague maybe I am conflating the rightful outrage of outrageous things with the crazies on social media.
LikeLike
Chalcedon – well, Paul does give instructions to expel people –
But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
So there are some things that are completely beyond the pale in 1 Corinthians.
More importantly – I’m interested in whether you see `The Church’ as a continuation of the church BC in some sense, or if you take the view that Jesus founded a totally different church (built on the foundational ministry of Peter and the eyewitness apostles).
We see the paradox there – it is because of the job that the church is doing that the Ethiopian eunuch knows Isaiah so well. At the same time, the church is the leading force in the persecution of Jesus.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And do we see a parallel in the selling out of Christ by one of his own, Judas, for money?
[video src="https://nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/churchmilitant/videos/dist/spec-2020-06-26-a.mp4" /]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Judas sells Jesus out for money, Peter denies Him thrice and runs away. The difference is that the former killed himself in his pride whist Peter lived and learned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed and it is easy to imagine who might be a Judas or a Peter just by reading the news: Did you read the AP story about the fleecing of the American Taxpayer for $3.5 billion dollars and counting? Add to that the $2 billion from the Chi-coms and you run into something that truly is systemic unlike the false narrative of systemic racism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That didn’t work. Try watching the short video that is on this page: https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/vatican-china-sellout
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Paul does indeed, but my point stands, I think, that he does not condemn the Corinthians wholesale. In other words, there is something here between black and white, and we, who are not Paul, might benefit from thinking before we condemn.
Jesus seems to me to have founded a Church on the rock that is Peter, at least that is what I understand Him to have said. I am unsure what Church you think existed BC, although in an echatological sense the Church has always existed.
LikeLike
Chalcedon – well, `church’ (as I see it) has two meanings. One meaning is the collection of all those who are `in Him’, but that is not what I mean here. Here, I mean the organisation (or collection of organisations) which are supposed to be looking after the spiritual well-being of God’s people.
You are the historian, so I was rather hoping that you could tell me what existed in Old Testament times, but it is completely clear that, when Paul was laying down guidelines, they didn’t come `ex nihil’ out of his own head, but were firmly based on what was going on (even if it was some idealised form). So even if you take the view that the Church of Christ, where Peter laid a foundational ministry was a new and different church, it had very strong connections to something that had gone before.
In the Old Testament, the Aaronic priesthood is explicitly ordained, with all the rules and regulations for when to sacrifice, what to sacrifice and how to sacrifice it, etc …. At the same time, other things sprang up and it isn’t completely clear to me where they came from.
For example, Ezra preached at the sacred assembly. The sacred assembly must have originated from somewhere and what they did at the sacred assembly.
There must have been some mechanism by which people understood that they were supposed to listen to Ezra, even though he was a racist gestapo officer who saw it as his duty to duff up perfectly good marriages, just because the women were `foreign’.
So there was a church and this church was instituted by God. Other than that, I have no information other than the few details and signs given in Scripture. (For example, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts was asking Philip `who is this man?’, not `this is completely incomprehensible, what does it mean?’ Unless he really did have a brain the size of a planet, he must have got to this point in understanding Isaiah from somewhere – and you can probably look to `the church’ for that).
LikeLiked by 1 person