Jesus Was Just Wondering

Tags

Catholic, Christianity, faith traditions, progressives, right wing evangelicals, social justice issues, theology

I assume that Jesus understands us better than we understand him. At least I hope that’s true. Otherwise, . . . well, I’d rather not think about it.

Still, I imagine sometimes that even Jesus picks up the phone after watching his super HD TV, dialed in on Fox or the Chinese equivalent for state-supported “news.” Dialing 4-6-3 (G O D), I over-hear this:

“Yo, Dad, how goes it? Say, have you been watching channel 3845? (E V I L)

“No?”

“Well, let me tell you and maybe you can explain why. . . .”

I figure a lot of stuff down here just befuddles even Jesus.

I read the other day that Marko Rubio was a Catholic but went to a Baptist church most of the time. That seems weird. Then I read that the NOM’s (National Organization for Marriage) main man, Brian Brown, is a former Quaker turned Catholic. That seems even weirder.

I noted, when I was a frequenter of Catholic Answers Forum, that some of the most vociferous “orthodox” types were former Baptists and Seven-Day Adventists. Now converts are more orthodox than the mainstream, that’s clear, but this goes beyond being orthodox, this goes to a self-righteously expressed proclamation against the poor, gays, women, and other marginalized groups.  I daresay most of them don’t like the Catholic position regarding immigration one bit. They are for war and for the death penalty. They consider social justice issues the heresy of the modernist lefty Cafeteria Catholic.

The only difference between themselves and the self-styled unchurched interpreter of “what the bible says,” is that  these Catholics mine the bible and encyclicals and Vatican documents for sentences and paragraphs to justify their arguments.

Frankly, what we find is that the right-wing of the Roman Church is most simpatico with the general home of fundamentalists–Southern Baptists. It seems that those who are “teaching” these new converts turn a blind eye mostly to their propensity to embrace biblical literalism and a failure to embrace things like universal health care, global warming, and even evolution. It seems more, that anyone who will sign on the dotted line, is okay. Just don’t ask too many questions.

I don’t know how other denominations are doing with this. I know the The Episcopal Church has been painfully working through a growing split between the left and right. And Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Methodists all have, are, or will be, doing the same.

The truth is, that most members in all these denominations are moderates. Most that leave their churches do so for no church, or another,  because they are tired of the warring they see.

I frequent NCR a lot, and read a significant number of the articles there. The comments are always the same, mostly supportive of the article or writer, but always with a few who warn of dire consequences if we continue to listen to voices of the progressive left. The Church is either on the perfectly right track and needs to go further, or is dangerously off track and in need of a rescue if it is to survive.

Indeed, many on the far right of the Roman church openly wish that we progressives would leave, even if it means that their church is drastically reduced in numbers. Is this true of other denominations? I have no clue. But I wonder.

Is it the right who cannot stomach “others” in their midst because it makes them uncomfortable in their well-ordered theology? Or is it the left that finds the right an unacceptable drag on the business of getting on with the Kingdom’s agenda of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned? It’s hard to know.

Are there as many “new” conservative churches as there are “new” Catholic denominations. or new Methodists? Are well equally running away from each other?

If we are, they we are both to blame. This hardly comports with “loving neighbor” as Jesus for saw it. I mean Jesus scandalized his world by consistently eating and drinking with all the “wrong” people, all the “others” of his land.

It seems to me that it’s not supposed to be easy. If it were, humans would have realized the efficacy of it long ago and done it. It’s hard to work with those who continually threaten to throw a monkey wrench into the works. Ask any congress person and they will be happy to tell you about gridlock.

Compromise forces us to release our own desires and focus on incremental progress as being marginally better than no progress at all. Not something to throw a party about, but something to feel some satisfaction about.

Are there those in your congregations whom you find embarrassing for their views? How do you deal with them? I know that these Catholics whose political and social views I frankly abhor, are most difficult for me to embrace even in prayer.

 I frankly cringe when I read that some awful hatemongering right-winger like Bill Donahue or Brian Brown is a Catholic. They model Catholicism to an unknowing spectrum of America and the world. A lousy model, but a model nonetheless.

Do you find some “spokespeople” in your faith tradition embarrassing? Do they make you cringe? If you don’t, then need you ask if you are in a tradition that has become lazily easy for you? Is that bad?

I think Jesus wants to know what we think. Have you talked to him lately? I think he wonders about us, and perhaps it means we should wonder about ourselves.

Related Articles

• Marco Rubio tries to still debate over his religion (telegraph.co.uk)

Opening our Arms and Hearts

Tags

Anglican, Catholic, Episcopalian, faith, ritual, social concerns, theology, worship

It’s funny to me how a church picks me. Yes, you read that correctly, a church picks me. I don’t believe I pick it. I simply come into it and wait, with patient hope. Is this the one?

Plenty have not been the one, and I have tarried a few weeks, seldom longer before moving on. Sometimes I know it at the first step inside the door. This is not my place. God doesn’t speak to me here. I listen. I act. There are plenty of places to wrangle about truth and comfort. I follow the Spirit on where to church myself.

Similarly, the attributes of a church are not always apparent early on. Much must often be worked through, experienced and digested before the finer points of a congregation and its structure can be realized for the precious pearl that it is. Such has been my experience anyway.

I could write volumes day after day of the joy I find in Christ Church. Most of it, I was unaware of until months had gone by. As I become more and more a part of this family, I learn new things that make my choice (the Spirit’s choice) to reside here among these people of faith, the right thing for me.

One thing I realized recently is that Christ Church is a radically open atmosphere in which faith is tenderly received and nurtured. For those of you unacquainted, an Episcopal church is often referred to as “Catholic light,” meaning that we look a lot like a Roman Catholic church in ritual. Dogmatically we are not so much alike.

That means there is a rather extensive list of physical actions that are available. There is genuflecting,  deep bowing or head bowing, curtsying, kneeling, sitting, standing, crossing. There is worship with heads and hands uplifted, or not. There are those who sing during communion and those who don’t.

All of these are practiced in my church. Everyone does “their thing” as it were. Most anything is acceptable, though I suspect anyone dancing down the aisle speaking in tongues and waving snakes might meet with some shocked looks and sharp intakes of breath. But you get my point. Rituals are broad, and people execute them as they see fit, more or less.

We in a word, tolerate, some significant differences in our congregation and the means by which they wish to worship. (We actually have two rites, one much more conservative than the other.) Yet we are one family, and we come to, I believe, rejoice in our differences. They cease to be matters of tolerance and become the beauty of the diversity that we are.

We are told each week, that Jesus calls us to the table, not the church. He calls us whether we have been “good” or not so good. The church provides the facility for God’s call and serves in the capacity of “hands” for God.

While this is all well and good as is, there is more to this type of openness I believe. By supporting and upholding us all in our varied personal ritualistic practices, the church draws us toward being more tolerate of each other’s theological differences.

Indeed we have theological differences. And some of them are deep and painful to us. Some of them you know for they are published by article and lawsuit. Yet, we have come to find in the faces of those with whom we disagree fundamentally on some issues, more places where we are able to agree.

I don’t want to make more of this than there is. The disagreements, as I said, run deep. Yet, we are able to still look upon each other as persons with sincere feelings and beliefs. We are not judging each other as evil or intentionally mean spirited. We see the humanity, the face of Jesus more clearly in the faces of those whom we have difficulty understanding.

I have concluded that the openness of our worship practices, the willingness not to be stultifying in our routines, stretches us in ways that pay off when we are called to work out the real issues that divide our faith tradition. It may not make the critical difference, but it helps.

It is another of the many reasons that I find myself so happy in Christ Church. Last Sunday, we were asked to group together in small numbers and discuss briefly why we are here, in this place, in this church. Joyously, I laughed as I turned and realized that my conversation would be with a couple of “visitors” from Minnesota. I was so happy to share my joy with them, and I could see from their faces that my words had an impact.

They are not contemplating driving from Minnesota every weekend of course, but I suspect they will take something home to their parish. Joy spreads, and the reasons for it become known. New ways of seeing and relating are explored. Opportunities become available. We must and should take advantage of each one in furthering the mission of Jesus.

Jesus was about compassion, forgiveness, and in including those who have so often been denied and turned away. We are a welcoming church. We welcome you, should you ever find yourself with nothing to do on a Sunday morning in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Wandering Through Christendom

Tags

abortion, Catholic, Christians, Episcopalian, gay rights, terrorism, torture

There are times when I might be hard put to define what a Christian is. Oh not from a technical standpoint. Any good dictionary will do for that, and certainly either the Nicene Creed or Apostles’ fits the bill.

What I mean is that in examining the speech and behavior of some people, I’d be hard put to define them as Christian, and this from a person who loathes the judgmentalism that is prevalent among some of the faithful toward those whom they disagree with.

I’ve been known on a forum to exclaim more than once, that I am “stunned and would surely never assume this place was a religious forum but for the sign on the door.” I hear things said that are to my mind at least decidedly unChristian in nature. I refrain, I truly do, from the judgment that might follow, for I recognize that only God truly knows the mind of another.

Yet the post at AlterNet is truly troubling. It’s not that I haven’t read the statistic before, but well, this article is simply devastating in fleshing out the numbers. Fully 54% of non-Hispanic, Catholic, white evangelicals and mainline Protestants find torture okay in some circumstances.  More appalling perhaps is that these folks are “regular” church goers.

It’s almost incomprehensible that the teachings of Jesus can be so misunderstood, ignored, or twisted in order to support the intentional infliction of serious pain on another human being as a means of “getting information.” More shock? Those who rarely attended church were rather convincingly against torture.

Those of you who recall The Brothers Karamazov, recall the Grand Inquisitor having Jesus before him and saying:

“Didst thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil? … We teach them that it’s not the free judgment of their hearts, but mystery which they must follow blindly, even against their conscience. … In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet [and] become obedient. … We shall tell them that we are Thy servants and rule them in Thy name. … We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated if it is done with our permission.”

It sounds indeed as if someone in the Bush Administration read the book and discovered the means to controlling people–fear.

There is much more in the article and I urge you to link up and read it. It is chilling.

***

Hats off to the Quakers! For some decades at least, Quakers have blessed same sex relationships. Now their full communion, meeting at York University, has opted to extend their efforts to legally marry same sex couples.

This relates to Britain, but I understand that American Quakers also bless same sex relationships, so I wonder if they are moving in this same direction.

I recall in reading Robin Meyers’ book, “Saving Jesus from the Church,” (reviewed here recently) he mentioned that he thought that perhaps Quakers had gotten Jesus and the early church most right of anyone.

This move would tend to suggest that at least to me.

***

Meanwhile, the Vatican is said to be none too pleased by the actions of the Drug Agency in Italy which has approved the use of an abortion pill in the first seven weeks of pregnancy.

It is not believed it’s use will be wide since it is considered to be “self-excommunicating” to use it, prescribe it or administer it.

It has however been being used on a trial basis and is commonly used throughout Europe.

It seems that even Italy is no longer safe from what religious would refer to as secularism.

 

***

As many no doubt have heard, at the recent General Convention, the Episcopal Church voted to end the moratorium on GLBT members who seek discernment as priest and bishop. All are to be admitted for discernment and processed without regard for sexual orientation.

It appears that such matters are underway as dioceses in California and Minnesota to elevate  gay priests to the office of Bishop.

Previous to this the Archbishop of Canterbury had urged that TEC continue to honor the moratorium. The decision to not do so was passed by a rather strong majority of voting members.

***

Benedict and Obama

Tags

Catholic, encyclical Caritas in Veritate, environmentalism, new world order, Obama, Pope Benedict XVI, redistribution of wealth, social issues, unions, Vatican Pontifical Council

No doubt you have heard that President Obama met with Pope Benedict XVI yesterday. By all accounts the meeting was cordial on both sides, and both men got their respective points across. This is in keeping with reports from the Vatican, that insiders there actually have great hope for working with this President, contrary to the beliefs and dare we say hopes of the reactionary conservative Catholic branch in this country. As one  forum poster put it, “I just don’t understand why they were smiling at him like they actually were happy to have him there!” Another answered cryptically, “Why it’s perfectly understandable that the Pope would be friendly with Obama, the last Pope is friendly with the antichrist.” So much from the peanut gallery.

Such bizarre thoughts are no doubt fueled by the release of Pope Benedict’s encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, or Charity in Truth. In it, while addressing as one would expect, the usual issues of abortion and other life issues, the Pope took a bold step in calling for a move away from a free market economy so beloved by the religious right in this country. In fact, he called for what some would argue sounds much like a “new world order.”

Now, to some in the extreme right of the Roman Catholic Church, and surely to all those fundamentalist evangelicals, such talk is dare we say apocryphal? It brings forth all that noise about the antichrist and Armageddon and all that jazz. Right in line with the barely subtle argument that Obama will be the leader of the NWO and that will make him, according to some, the antichrist, which brings on Jesus and his legions returning from heaven, all just after I guess the faithful are gathered into the clouds in a twinkling, no doubt to get their horses to join in the Jesus army.

This all comes from our dear friend Jack van Impe, linked above. He’s been a preachin’ the end times for 50 or more years, always that said times were “any minute now.” He’s been claiming that Benedict was on the same page with him, though I find that highly doubtful. Jack has a way of stretching the scripture and most else he reads (400 periodicals a month he claims) a tad. So I’m not sure if the encyclical supports or not his current views of how close we are to Jesus return. He can improvise pretty darn quickly in my opinion.

In any event, the Catholic right is not so very pleased with the Pope’s pronouncements. More or less, they tend to be in favor of business, and free markets, and against any such nonsense as global warming, labor unions, and stuff like that. Worse, the Pope actually talked about REDISTRIBUTION of wealth. You remember the horror that caused with Plumber Joe and all the sanctimonious Fox Noise people as they screamed that Obama was a socialist about to “redistribute wealth” across the nation.

The political left, and religious left, as you might imagine are rather more warming to the Pope on this encyclical. They find much to be pleased with, and see in some sense that the Roman Church is acknowledging what they have believed for a long time, namely that the Church has always evinced a strong socially aware message to the world. Echoes of Rerum Novarum cannot be missed here.

A more reasoned approach comes from Catholic Culture, which sees this as a clash between Benedict and his more liberal Pontifical Council for peace and justice.  Benedict, it is claimed rejected 2-3 drafts of the encyclical, determined to keep it within his theological framework. Still, it seems the progressives in the Church have much to be happy about, for it is being widely reported that it leans to left, and as we have seen again and again, perception is everything in politics.

I don’t know what all this means in practicalities since it doesn’t seem that the Vatican wields much power across the globe in terms of real pressure. But it is gratifying to see that the progressive arm of the church still seems to have some input into the decision making process, and it seems the Obama administration can feel that in some sense it has a ally in the Vatican City. Meanwhile, the ultra conservative left will attempt to spin this in a manner than most favorably supports their views.

It seems, that both sides got something, but on balance, I think politically the left is a bit happier today.