pecunium | Abiding

Abiding

On the flip side of my last post, there are those Christians who don't subscribe to the pernicious doctrines I was railing against in my last post (disjointed though the beginning was).

Sojournors

An excerpt.

Confessing Christ in a World of Violence

Our world is wracked with violence and war. But Jesus said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (Matt. 5:9). Innocent people, at home and abroad, are increasingly threatened by terrorist attacks. But Jesus said: "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). These words, which have never been easy, seem all the more difficult today.

Nevertheless, a time comes when silence is betrayal. How many churches have heard sermons on these texts since the terrorist atrocities of September 11? Where is the serious debate about what it means to confess Christ in a world of violence? Does Christian "realism" mean resigning ourselves to an endless future of "pre-emptive wars"? Does it mean turning a blind eye to torture and massive civilian casualties? Does it mean acting out of fear and resentment rather than intelligence and restraint?

Faithfully confessing Christ is the church's task, and never more so than when its confession is co-opted by militarism and nationalism.

3. Christ commands us to see not only the splinter in our adversary's eye, but also the beam in our own. The distinction between good and evil does not run between one nation and another, or one group and another. It runs straight through every human heart.

We reject the false teaching that America is a "Christian nation," representing only virtue, while its adversaries are nothing but vicious. We reject the belief that America has nothing to repent of, even as we reject that it represents most of the world's evil. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).

...The Lord Jesus Christ is either authoritative for Christians, or he is not. His Lordship cannot be set aside by any earthly power. His words may not be distorted for propagandistic purposes. No nation-state may usurp the place of God. "

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I am not hidden in mind not to believe that the Lord made me a Jew and the Lord did not make a Jew a Christian to allow people to take a wafer and get absolution, until one English King divined himself a lothario and loved to watch women giving birth, so the Protestant was born and in Asia we have many religious teachers that make meditation and then we all sing ring around the rosey devotedly and love the mother earth and remember ourselves first until the ends of the earth and as the aboriginee or native american our forefathers know a different truth and for all the Moslems who are cousins of the Jews I believe and within the 12 tribes at one point or another before they go on their way to religious awakenings we have any religion not mentioned as only a possibility of my true ignorance of the ways and teachings of the one true diety that governs man in religion.

It is a subject that I cannot logically equate to knowing everything in or declaring that the way I pray is the only acceptable way.

Each man has his own truth and women are categorically not allowed in the most devout to have a say in anything but to follow.

So what do we do as a gender to find a place with G_d. Why we say our prayers outloud for you and introspectively pray within in ourselves that one day we will see the light of the Lord as he intends us too. Without a man to explain it to us ever again.

Each man has his own truth and women are categorically not allowed in the most devout to have a say in anything but to follow.

That means a very great deal on what you mean by "devout." If you mean fundamentalist or socially conservative, you are probably right. If you mean that they make following God the most important thing in their lives, you are most certainly wrong: Episcopalians (in the U.S.), Lutherans, UUs, Prebyterians, some forms of Judaism all accept the inclusion of women as clergy. I would argue that even in Roman Catholicism women have more influence than you recognize, even though they are prevented from being priests.

Also, identifying Henry VIII as being the source of the Protestant reformation is historically dead wrong. (Not to mention that the Episcopalians view themselves as catholics, except that they do not recognize the supremacy of the papacy. Which in practice means that they have diverged from the Roman church in many areas of social policy -- more so in the US than elsewhere in the world.) Lutheranism was flourishing in Europe, and would have done so regardless of the situation in England. The Reformation was about far, far more than the desire of one man to have an heir: had it not been, it would have died out quickly after Henry's death.

I have always wondered whether Henry VIII didn't start out by sincerely questioning the legitimacy of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon and seeing the lack of a male heir as a punishment from God. It appears from his own writings and contemporary ones about him that he did not see himself as leaving or breaking with the Catholic Church, but with Rome.

There is a long argument about that sort of thing. When it was weak, and trying to spread, the Church allowed a lot of power to rulers, even in affairs which were rightly church matters (the appointment of Bishops and abbots).

Then came security, and they tried to take those privileges back. Various rules were more, and less acquiesent in that.

Comes the Reformation, and all sorts of headaches ensue, not the least of which was rulers figuring they could use it as leverage to get concessions from the Church, and the Church fighting to keep what it had so hard won (in part to keep doctrinal purity).

That Henry VIII had gone to a lot of work to get the permission to marry Catherine, and that having been done for dynastic purpose; and his being very religious (not for nothing did he "Defender of the Faith", which England still keeps in her royal titles), he came to think he had committed a sin.

But Phillip (who was in a better position to pressure the Pontiff) didn't wan't his sister put aside and embarrassed... which led to the Anglican Church.

TK

Sure, I know I'm not the only one to speculate on it! It's just that I'm one of those people given to endless discussion of things that can never be proven . . .

(Fortunately, I married the same kind of person.)

My fundamental inner beliefs are that Orthodox Judaism is the guide for any tenet after in that faith. Just because I cannot know how myself to be a good Orthodox Jew, I am Jewish all the same. Women sit above away from the main service as not to distract from the religious Service.

In Catholicism, the Catholic Church was the original St Peter's Church I guess, the place where the Vatican is, for me, because my mother was of that religious origin, is my belief where the Christian began.

All other forms of religion, are around that dynamic. I am not familiar with most.

I just know it's not as easy to be a Christian or a Jew in these formats or religion. I do recognize I am prejudice and hold true value to praying hard in these faiths.

Now Moslems have the same practice of covering the head of their women. Nuns shave their heads and sure men have sinned in these religions, but it takes nothing away from the religious doctrine itself.

Other forms of Christianity were adapted is all. An the Protestant faith came about because of the right to divorce, men again, or one king.

So when I pray, I talk everything I know about that and hope for the best.

I am sure you know more. My faith in G_d carries me to believe that there is one G-d and he made all religions but the same thread is carried in the most orthodox and most observant and I won't laugh at that at all.

Women wear yamikas is not the point. Is it an issue of being equal or being a dynamic an a prayer group that makes a beautiful prayer dynamic to a faith you believe in and does not work like a ring of prayers so G_d listens? Who is to say who is in the spirit of the prayer? I don't know. I just know we are taught that men pray and we watch or we pray and fewer women are recognized as powerful in history or as wise.

I would hope that each gender steadies the other in times of doubt.

Henry VIII (whom I know a fair bit about, his daughter's reign being one of my areas of interest) did not start the Reformation. He was, in fact, against it for quite some time.

The seeds of the reformation go back more than a hundred years before Henry, and are much stronger in Europe, esp. the northern portions then they were in England.

The first real evidence of reformative tendencies in England were when John Wycliff translated the Gospels into English, in the IIRC, Mid-4th century.

When Wycliff's ideas (Scriptural referent was all which was valid, no dogma, nor doctrine, nor yet even church was needed) got to Jan Hus in Bohemia (now the Czech Republic, around Prague) he tried to have the ideas discussed (in a slightly less dramatic way then Luther did, and with fewer theses; 45), but they were shelved.

A small spat between King Wenceslaus (of the carol) and the university led to the foreign (mostly German) faculty leaving, and taking Hus' heresies with them. Because of Hus' questions, the doctrines of Wycliff came to the attention of the pope, Gregory XII whodenounced it,and Wycliff was summarily excommunicated, and burnt at the stake, posthumously (his bones were disinterred for the punishement).

The heresy spread, and Hus was forced to leave Prague, which only made it worse.

Because the things he was teaching (or thought to be) he was condemned, in a stacked trial, offered opportunities to recant (which he said he could not, as the chaarges were false; which was basically true, at least as they were presented) and burned at the stake.

His martyrdom (even if it was for a heresy) and his belovedness to the people of Bohemia, led to schism and war in Bohemia. While the hussites were supressed (and the region is still primarily Roman Catholic) this was the kindling spark of Protestantism, at the turn of the 15th century.

TK

I bow to your superior knowledge. I am supposing that you are interested in Elizabeth's reign, not Mary's?

My faith in G_d carries me to believe that there is one G-d and he made all religions but the same thread is carried in the most orthodox and most observant and I won't laugh at that at all.

I will not laugh at it, but I will respectfully disagree with your equation of "most orthodox" with "most observant." I cannot speak to Judaism, as I am not Jewish. But I can speak quite clearly to Christianity. For Christians, to be observant is to follow the path of Jesus. I know many who are observant and devout Christians who are not Roman Catholic or Greek or Russian Orthodox. The fundamentalist Christians historically have no more claim to orthodoxy than any other Protestant sect.

Christianity is a commitment to follow Jesus. It is not a political agenda. Even the theology gets argued about. What it is is a belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the redeemer of mankind. The understanding of what that means, and how we are called to be in the world, can vary from sect to sect, or even believer to believer.

An the Protestant faith came about because of the right to divorce, men again, or one king.

I would respectfully suggest that you not discuss Christianity, especially Protestanism, since you have no clue what you are talking about.

Protestantism was at heart a rejection of the worldly values and corruption of the Roman Catholic church in the middle ages and renaissance. Martin Luther -- who really is the father of Protestant belief, *not* Henry VIII -- said nothing about divorce when he posted his 95 Theses. He did speak a lot about corruption in the church, the sale of indulgences, and the redemption of the believer's soul through Christ Jesus, however. The Roman church of the pre-reformation era was a far far cry from the circle of believers who gathered around the carpenter's son from Nazareth. If anything, the Reformation was an attempt to return to Jesus's teachings, rescuing the church from the moral drift and corruption that had occured over centuries.

Even in England, where you so dismissively state that Protestantism arose because of Henry VIII's desire for a divorce, the situation is far more complex. Again, had it only been Henry's desire for a son driving it, the Reformation in England would not have survived his death. It did, and flourished, in spite of Mary I's (admittedly bloody) attempt to return the country to Rome. People died -- a lot of them -- in defense of ideas that had nothing to do with Henry or divorce. (Technically, what Henry was calling for was a dissolution of his marriage -- a recognition that the marriage was invalid from the beginning, with his children from that marriage made illegitimate. This is not the 20th century understanding of divorce -- it is closer to the Roman Catholic concept of annulment.)

...but I will respectfully disagree with your equation of "most orthodox" with "most observant." I cannot speak to Judaism, as I am not Jewish.

Oh no, she is right. The orthodox are more observant. The question is whether or not those sorts of observance is still required. This has been one of the most difficult questions in talmudic argument, one might argue is the only question in talmudic argument.

The hasidim are observant to an extreme (and the Ba'al Shem Tov would, I think, take them to task for losing sight of his primary message, but that would be a major digression).

But, as the Jewish understanding is that there are two parallel bodies of Law (think of it as the Constitution, and the decisions of the Supreme Court), and as a result differing sets of rulings lead to a host of variants on the religion. The three most of us are aware of are Orthodox, Conservative and Reform, with the various flavors of Hasidim being added to the understanding of the outside world in the past few decades.

TK

As I said, I cannot speak to Judaism, not being Jewish and having really little knowledge of Judaism. I was if anything reacting to the assertion that "more orthodox" = "more observant" is applicable in Christian thought. I was especially reacting to what I perceived to be an assertion that Roman Catholicism by its nature had a greater claim to theological/moral legitimacy than "less orthodox" or "less rigorous" Christian sects.

The nature of faithfulness to God is a difficult thing to determine. This is especially true of Christianity, which in its canonical writings rejects the idea of salvation through law. My sister. who is the wife of an Antiochean Orthodox priest, once told me that "we can tell where the church is, we cannot tell where it is not." Simply because the expressions of faith do not follow a specific form does not mean that faith is not there. Only God knows the heart of men.

I certainly agree, with respect to Christian faiths. Being a Catholic (though not quite apostate) I understand the dilemma.

Elizabeth I said it best, "I will not make a window into the hearts of men." Henry was, at heart, a Catholic, just not, after all was said and done, a follower of the Pope.

TK

Yes, I am more interested in Bessie than Mary (though to understand the one, you need to know a bit about the other). I wish I'd not typoed the date above... Wycliff was in the 14th, not the 4th. His Gospels can still be found, one just has to search a bit, and understand they are closer to Chaucer than to Shakespeare.

Luther, to elaborate, was the tipping point, past which reformationist urges in various places could not be restrained, as such he is certainly the father of the reformation, without whom the rest would not have gone as it did.

So much of the advancements of the reformation (at the higher level, that of state involvement) had to do with what perogatives the Church was claiming, and how desperately the local ruler wanted to arrogate (or keep, depending on one's perspective) them to himself.

TK

I think Henry had 8 problems and he loved watching childbirth. Very interesting. Heir?
Women are able to wait in the waiting room for any baby please.

But seriously, even with my typos above. Those religions were not as strict. More manageable. NOt totally according to religious laws. I do not kid myself that it does not matter that I do not know how to practice my religion in orthodoxy does not matter. I just hope my human being is acceptable if necessary on judgement day.

If not then I am too weak. Or not well off enough to pay the dues or perhaps too worldly for a woman married to an orthodox jew. OK?
Maybe that is why I would not allow myself that much cleaving without being able to say no. MY first word I was told was "NO".

I think my response to this is covered in my reponse above. I respectfully suggest that you know very little about Christianity.

As far as religious laws, whose religious laws? Moses's? The Mosaic law has not been followed since the very early days of Christianity. St. Paul's entire ministry was to gentiles -- and developing the doctrine that one did not need to follow the Mosaic law in order to be saved. Jesus's? Jesus had two basic laws: love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind, and will, and love thy neighbor as thyself. The doctrine promulgated by the Roman Catholic church are interpretations of Scripture and tradition, not "laws." To say that by its history the Roman Catholic church carries claims to some special moral legitimacy above other Christians (which was traditional RC thought, although having left that church, I am not sure the ways in which that might be changing) is to ignore much of its history.

I think Henry had 8 problems and he loved watching childbirth. Very interesting. Heir?
Women are able to wait in the waiting room for any baby please.

No. Henry had a daughter at the time he sought the dissolution of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. He specifically wanted a *son*. I have seen nothing that stated Henry loved watching childbirth -- I have read that about Louis XIV of France, though. (In fact, Henry was not present at the birth of his son, and I don't think he was at the birth of either of his daughters.) Perhaps you are getting your monarchs mixed up.

You keep mentioning a fetishistic aspect to Henry and the observation of childbirth. I have never seen any reference to this, and he was specifically not present when any of his legitimate offspring were born (the word, for example, of Elizabeth's birth being brought to him in the great hall, with courtiers all about).

TK

thanks, tk. we're not all hateful and bigoted.

i personally want to know what happened to the separation of church and state. in a nation where people can (almost) successfully petition to have the words "under God" taken out of the pledge of alleigance, how can we suddenly want to put God back in? what the hell is this nation coming to?

the whole concept baffles me, and i am scared for our country, scared for the world. i am a believer in Christ, not in religious fundamentalism.

i don't even know if i am making any sense, but it's my two cents anyway.

I'm in the boat with you. I believe in Christ and his teachings, yet I also believe that what is going on is unjust. People are ruining God's name and using Him to justify atrocities- much like they did back in the days of slavery. It's amazing how history continues to repeat itself, and many never seem to learn from it. I believe God will bring justice and punish those who use Him to justify their totalitarian political agenda.

Amen.

I think the author hit the nail on the head when he talked about GW's misuse of Scripture -- which as far as I'm concerned was blasphemous (especially referring to America as the "light in the darkness" from John).

This was an excellent piece -- the second from Sojourners that I've been directed to this week. Thanks for posting it.

To be geeky, it isn't blasphemy (which is a very specific thing, and very hard to commit, it involves cursing God, with the name of God).

But it most certainly is heresy. We know (from a Catholic standpoint) that he is a heretic (for protestantism is a heresy). But the heresy he invokes most is the Americanist (yes, there is one named for us, and it's more than 100 years old, IIRC).

The americanist heresy is a belief the US is destined to fill some special role in the world, fulfilling some specific plan of God.

I would also argue that Bush is holds the Manichaen heresy of a world divided into the good and the evil, with no spots in between.

TK

I was familiar with the Manichaen heresy, but not with the Americanist. I does not surprise me at all that there is a heresy named for us, and that it at its core revolves around pride.

And yeah, I frequently flub the blasphemy/heresy distinction.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Abiding

Respect means that G_d is a word that entails many religious teachings

Re: Respect means that G_d is a word that entails many religious teachings

Re: Respect means that G_d is a word that entails many religious teachings

Re: Respect means that G_d is a word that entails many religious teachings

Re: Respect means that G_d is a word that entails many religious teachings

Re: Respect means that G_d is a word that entails many religious teachings

Re: Respect means that G_d is a word that entails many religious teachings

Yes, what he said.

Re: Respect means that G_d is a word that entails many religious teachings

Re: Respect means that G_d is a word that entails many religious teachings

Re: Respect means that G_d is a word that entails many religious teachings

Re: Respect means that G_d is a word that entails many religious teachings

Re: Respect means that G_d is a word that entails many religious teachings

Re: Respect means that G_d is a word that entails many religious teachings

Re: Respect means that G_d is a word that entails many religious teachings

Re: Respect means that G_d is a word that entails many religious teachings

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject