Why Church? (Part I)

Old_Stone_Church
The subject of church and how it does or doesn’t fit into a faith-filled life started to be of interest to me as I reflected on the last year or so and my association with the Episcopal faith.

That caused me to recall experiences I had a couple of years ago on a bizarre little forum called “Christianet.” It is extremely limiting, and is poorly administered, allowing only rather short comments on subjects.

I soon discovered that it was peopled in large part by fundamentalists who took sport in demonizing the Roman Catholic church. For the first time in my life, I learned that some folks actually contend that Revelation and the “whore of Babylon” was considered by them as the Roman Catholic Church.

Now such nonsense was and is laughable of course, since no respectable expert on the bible would support such a thesis. When questioned as to what church taught them this, I was informed that they had no church; church was the place where “man-made” doctrine was made, and that every true believer was perfectly guided by the Holy Spirit, and thus needed no instruction.

Skipping past the illogic that drives such thinking (after all isn’t one’s “self-interpretation” just as man-made? ), I was introduced thusly to what I had never known existed: the “unchurched believer.

Now, certainly I would have been the first to agree that many believers are unchurched. But we take that to mean they are believers in name only pretty much, and faith barely if ever intrudes on their day to day life. God is called upon in extreme situations only. But I had never heard that there were fundamentalists who believed that church was some false place that stood between them and true understanding.

As I recalled this strange experience, I was struck by what should have been obvious to me then: namely the degree to which fundamentalists, like most of us, are so adept at ignoring those parts of the bible that cut against the theology they have developed regarding it. In this case, it seems particularly blatant, since the bible fairly speaks against self-interpretation and against the idea that faith is expressed without benefit of a believing community.

So you see, there are really two issues here: the degree to which the bible supports the conclusion that one can and should self-interpret it without reference to experts or teachers of any kind, and the degree to which the bible supports the conclusion that the Judeo-Christian God is meant to be experienced in a community of believers, namely church or synagogue.

Fundamentalists are fond of saying that they believe the literal words in the bible as the “holy word of God” himself. As such, it would seem that everything within it should be followed to the best possible degree one can. Of course, it takes no genius to realize that no one, fundamentalists included, do this.

The mouth that tells us that Leviticus states that God abhors homosexuality as an “abomination” also tells us that we need not avoid pork, blood of animals, usury, and other Levitical prohibitions because Christianity supplants the Old Testament. Go figure. Its a cafeteria, as the ultra-orthodox Catholic is wont to say, and you can pick and choose what is in fact the “word of God.”

Let’s look at the issues in the Hebrew Testament. Certainly there is nothing to suggest that there were church buildings in the time of Abraham. There were none it seems among the other tribes and peoples of the region either. Yet, Abraham, like the followers of Baal and El, erected altars and offered sacrifice, albeit, animal and never human.

I’m not sure these events were witnessed by the people, but certainly people performed certain communal acts, such as making sure their homes had “household gods” and presumably helping to support the the sacrificing.

By the time of Moses, we add the ark of the covenant, and thereafter, it was considered the “home of God.” Moreover, Moses “taught” the people the meaning of the commandments. A priesthood was developed from the tribe of Levi. Clearly the people both looked to the priesthood and to the place of God as sacred and began observing ritual as a people.

In I believe Kings (don’t hold me to it), the Torah is discovered and read to the people continuously in one sitting, reminding them of their duties to God. This of course was the work of Moses, designed to explain in detail to the people God’s wishes. (Of course all serious experts also agree today that Moses did not author the Torah, and that in fact it was the editing of re-editing of at minimum four authors.) Moses didn’t suggest that anyone should read it as they determined and then off and implement it in their own way.

The prophets throughout the Hebrew Testament are another example of “teaching.” I’m not certain if the prophets, any or all, came from the tribe of Levi or not, but certainly the lesson of much of the Testament is that one ignores their teaching at one’s peril. In fact, the mishnah is tribute to the importance the Hebrews have, since ancient times, placed on the value of experts who study Torah and then teach the people the intricacies of the faith.

Similarly the ark of the covenant was moved first to a large tent, and then ultimately to it’s own Temple, built by Solomon. Jerusalem thus became the religious center of Judaism. Believing Jews went on pilgrimage for high holy days, and offered sacrifice as required.

Throughout the environs of Galilee and the land, synagogues were the norm, and indeed throughout the Roman world as well. These were centers of learning and education for all faithful Jews. They were centers of worship for all as well.

So the evidence is clear and convincing that the norm of the Hebrew Testament is both that teaching by those who were specially trained was the norm, as were those specially called. The teaching was interpretation of the sacred writing of Torah and later, the psalms and prophets and other writings. It is just as clear that a physical entity was the gather place where worship and faith issues played out in community.

Tomorrow we look at the New Testament and see what we can find there.

Bookmark and Share

Advertisement

23 comments on “Why Church? (Part I)

  1. One of the things that I my days as a Quaker led me to consider was that when it comes to people with special training giving teaching, two individuals with the same training may end up being poles apart on matters of theology or interpretation, and so relying on a single pastor to impart to you their wisdom has always struck me as problematic,. What teaching one person gives isn’t necessarily the same as what another person gives. I think there is value in having things imparted to you by people with wisdom, insight, and training, but if it is the same person all (or most) of the time, it is kind of like going to college and taking all your classes from the same instructor. I feel like there should be more symbosis involved in this somehow. Thus I’ve always found the role of a single pastor as the primary sermon giver a little problematic.

    That being said, I do think there is tremendous value in a faith community, because one thing that fundamentalists don’t understand is that religion is not a set of dogmas handed down from above, but rather a process and a journey, and as a process it is informed by and shaped by the faith community. That is where a faith community can be valuable. It isn’t about having all the answers, which is what fundamentalists seem to believe and that is why they can easily be unchurched. The funny thing is that even though I say that, I am unchurched myself. My problem is that I am too much of a heretic for most churches and the church experience for me is only somewhat satisfying in general. But despite that, I recognize the value of being part of a community.

    • A couple of responses. I agree, relying on one teacher is probably never very good. I believe ultimately that we must each forge our own theology. But that that cannot be done well, unless we listen to many many voices, both in and out of Christianity. We must evaluate them, as objectively as possible and never though another sides lens. Then we come to agree or disagree with intelligence, and I think we realize that theology like faith itself, is a journey, and we, at least I, alter, add, subtract, and rework mine as facts and logic deem prudent.

      I agree with your last part about fundamentalists, who seek faith “truths” as a means to feel security in an insecure world. Being unchurched is not the point, as such, such we all are, or at least many of us, for various times and reasons. I surely have been. My point, to be made in the 3rd and final essay is that it is unbiblical to reject both Church and teaching as such. There are times and places to do both as a natural part of the journey, but never forever.

      You might look at Episcopalianism, especially that under Bishop Katherine Sciori. We do very much try to allow people to roam freely in theological thought yet partake of the community as fully welcome. We downplay doctrine I think just for the reason you cite, it is a process not a finality.

      Thanks for the comment.

    • mompriest. I surely agree. Midrash is an amazing commentary and gives so much richness to the scripture. I wish we all spent more time with it too.

  2. I think one important function of church is as a place where it is safe to explore our questions. (Obviously, I no longer go to either a fundamentalist or Catholic church.) Having teachers who are more educated than we are can help with that process if they aren’t driven by their own ego. It’s one of the things I’ve gained most from my time in the Episcopal church.

    • That certainly is the tone set in my church. I was careful at first, but it’s been made clear that we are that safe haven to explore without judgment. Such was also my pleasure when I was a student at Marygrove. The priest and nuns who taught me, very much pushed me to explore.

  3. Thanks for the thoughts. I believe the NT has a passage saying the Followers of Christy should gather together for prayer and worship.

    Am so glad that the Catholic Church doesn’t have 15,000 sects or viewpoints of Church teaching. We were there at the begining, and we know the detailed histories of every ‘new idea’, like Christ was only a man, not God. The Council of Bishops met every few Centuries to determine what we believe. an outstanding example is the Apostles Creed most churches still say.

    Not many know that a Catholic Priest is required to receive 3-4 Years of Post-Graduate education just to Become a Priest.]

    And every Catholic Bishop is requiured to have a Doctorate, In Addition. The 4 years of Post-Graduate To become a Priest do Not count for Academic Degree.

    Very many have become Catholic, especially Protestant Ministers preciselly because many ministers have many interpretations. A central authority on teaching is Very much needed, and welcomed.

    There are in fact Very Very few disputes in Church Teaching. Pope John Paul II decided a decade ago that he does not have the Authority to ordain Women Priests.

    And as Fr Corapi said famously, Women are too Ideal, Special for the 70 hours a week duties of a Priest.

    • I certainly have had the priviledge of knowing may extremely well educated priests and nuns and have learned huge amounts from them. Mostly I learned to read critically and to think. They also taught me to read broadly, both those I felt comfortable with, and those that I don’t. It has served me well on the journey

  4. Oh, Sherry, you bait me badly! No Fundy I know would credence this nonsense or regard those perpetuating it as authentic Fundamentalists. If we believe anything, it’s the necessity of communal worship/fellowship and submission to pastoral guidance. And despite the closed-minded image projected by so many of our media-crazed crackpots, a truly sound body of Fundamentalists is encouraged–and relishes–wrestling with opinions and ideas. If we stopped at the obvious and literal, swallowing Scripture whole with out chewing, we’d have nothing to do! (You know how much time we spend at church…)

    Perhaps the reason we’re so slow about adapting to new ideas is because we take so long to mull it over. But we do change over time, especially when change is forced on us. This happened when I was a kid during the “Jesus Movement”. Our churches flooded with faith refugees who had been divorced and remarried, smoked, drank, went to movies, danced, and did all sorts of things we thought were sinful. At first we tried to change them, but when that didn’t work, we headed back to the Word and–ta-da!–we discovered God changed His mind about these things. (It’s silly, but no exaggeration.)

    The literal Word of God thing is what drags us down. But since that’s our calling card, I wonder how these self-interpreting “Fundamentalists” could possibly misinterpret Hebrews 10.25: “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much more, as ye see the day approaching.” OK, it doesn’t say “church” but a blind man could see that’s what the writer means–active participation in a faith community.

    And I won’t even begin to rattle off the verses admonishing us to seek wisdom and instruction from leaders who are more knowledgeable in the Word and experienced in the faith. This weird doctrine you bumped into isn’t Fundamentalism; it’s Pharisaical arrogance–straining out gnats but swallowing camels. (Fresh on my mind, this, given today’s S-F post…)

    I too can’t wait for the next installment!

    • Great post, Tim!

      Just a detail thought: The earliest Christians knew the Bible was not to be read Literally. Much of it is Figurativelly written. It’s just knowin How to read it that disputes arise.

      (And the Bible weren’t written 30 years ago in English, in case anyone wondered. :) )

    • Tim, there are fundies and there are fundies. I was shocked to find people actually advocating the lack of need for formalized church, and in fact arguing that it impeded true faith.

      I agree, we build upon the work done by others before us. That is how faith progresses in understanding. Since theology is defined as faith seeking understanding, it seems positively stupid to continue reinventing the wheel.

  5. An Important example of How to decide Problems/Issues in The Church.

    The Apostles had the question of whether Jewish Converts should continue to follow Jewish Law.

    The Apostles Met, in what has been called the Council of Jerusalem, and decided That Jewish Converts should not continue to follow Jewish ‘laws’ like the Sabbath Holy Day, circumscicion of males, public ‘bathing’ of women adfter they give birth, Blood Sacrifice, etc., etc. Thety also chose the Apostle to Succeed Judas.

    Again, History in 2000 years has proven the wisdom of Church Elders, not popular opinion deciding Issues.

    Celibacy among Catholic Clergy was also begun in the First Century, called for in the NT by Christ Himself.

    • your reply to Tim was spot on! lol…I just giggle at the fact that for the unchurched self-interpreters, somehow the KJV is the “real” bible. Actually it just allows for the interpretation they find most palatable. It’s a horrid translation in actuality. But you can’t convince them of that by any means. Thanks for the contribution!

  6. Exactly, Sherry, everyone: searching for answers and evaluating everything is everything, learned in Catholic Schools. I’ve done that with everything Catholic while I was away from the Church.
    Perhaps it is our orientation on where, what We want the answers to be that differentiates us.

    • Anthony, your reply was spot on. (For a second thar, I was a-thinkin’ I knowed ya!)

      And Sherry, you’re also right; the KJV fetish gets Fundies in big trouble–Elizabethan language applied to post-modern problems is just nuts. The smarter Fundie set moved on the NIV long ago and some of the looser churches get all hopped up about The Message and such. (I’m personally not too crazy about them; I like my Scripture a little less colloquial.)

      In the end we are all searching for answers. But the KJV isn’t the best place to look.

  7. Intriguing topics raised by all.

    I think faith-filled lives do require a community in which to share exploration and worship. Applying a strand of thought from the previous post, sometimes these communities are churches, and sometimes faith-filled people are fed in other ways.

    Clergy are important to me. I like that they are scholars, contemplatives and servants. It’s because they are “just people” though, that they are fascinating to me. “Here’s one way to fashion a faithful life.” Not the way, or the only way.

    Apostolic succession, catholicity, intriguing. Imagine walking upstream from the denomination you’re in today back to the birth of Christ. At each junction, you acquire companions as various Christian denominations “undivide” themselves from the main channel. In fact we all have some of that Christ DNA in us, not just the Romans (Catholics). Just as surely as all humans are linked to the first human by a securely connected succession of reproductive events, so are all Christians united in Christ.

    See you on the next thread.

    • You evidence a deep understanding of things I think. I love the imagery of walking back upstream and reuniting. I rather think most would be surprised at how the early believers thought and operated. We have grown way too attached to our comfortable theologies.

      I agree with your take on clergy. Mine is so wonderfully accessible and so thoroughly normal that they are true gifts.

      I am so pleased you have joined the conversation!

  8. Welcome, Entangled!. Great site, the first Blog Site that has caught my attention. We have all beliefs here, including atheist, who have become rather silent. We have great Humor and wisdoms and thoughts here.

    Careful looking back into early Christian History! Many Protestants, including Ministers find Only the Catholic Church fills All Christ’s, Biblical teachings. All 7 Sacraments initiated By God are listed in the New Testament.

    There is an awesome program on EWTN Monday nights, about 8-9PM Eastern: Journey Home. Hour long chat with Why people, esp Ministers, became Full Catholic.

    But Catholics are taught to Respect Everyone: (as the New Testament teaches). That is rare to hear Anywhere in modern society, except a few Grandmom’s wisdoms.

    When I returned to Church, I watched an RCIA (8 month course for those wanting to discover, or join the Church. I was almost shocked to hear that “it Can be a Sin to “Look Down” on any other Faith or believer”. AMEN.

    No bashing others! (Except we are Morally Required to tell the Truth about RNC, Reagan, George W, Chaney!!!!) Luckily, The Truths are not Bashing.

    We welcome Republicans, atheists, socialists, libertarians, Even economists!

  9. I know a former Catholic who went Independent thinker: He and his reading of the Bible are the only thing necessary.

    His Name is still on another Web. A Couple years ago he actually posted that his Misreading/Misquoting of one verse is His Biblical quote that All Catholics, All Christians are going to Hell. (Because All religions are evil).

    And thus goes One persons Misquote, Misread of the Bible; self serving to his opinion.

    I Corrected his Misread Scripturally. But he quite answering. He is stuck on His Opinions, misquoting the bible flagrantly. I’ve prayed for him. At least he tried an Easter Mass, didn’t complain too much.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s