![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumReligion:
It gives me trouble. Not for myself. I am very comfortable with mine, and the choices I've made. I'm an American. A, heterodox, Roman Catholic who has problems with one major aspect of Church Doctrine (the bull Ex cathedra which claims the Pope is infallible in matter of doctrine. I can't swallow this, he is man. Ideally a learned man, perhaps even a holy man, but a man. He must also be one who was skilled in the politics of the church. He is, at best, primus inter pares. Looking at history, and the things which have shaped who got to wear the Papal Mitre, I don't have faith that the Spirit is the sole moving force in the selection of the pope. I can even accept that he gets to set doctrine, and shape dogma. All that I can suffer. I can't, however, accept that his election by the College of Cardinals lets him put God on retainer, but I digress).
This is all part and parcel of being an American. America is a country shaped by the Reformation. It is full of little pockets of personal interpretation of the Christian scriptures. This is for good and ill. Dogma (a teaching that is seen as a key part of a religion's core tradition, spelled out in some specific way that is considered definitive, authoritative, or binding on all, usually by reference to some sort of holy writings)is useful, but we; as a culture scorn it, because we are a nation of iconoclasts.
Which is where the trouble comes in. I wish the rest of the religious landscape was as calm about it as I am.
As I said the other day, Micah 7-8 are important texts to me. They elaborate on the central teachings of both the Jewish religion Jesus was reared in; and his teachings, and the tenets of the Church I was reared in.
"Love thy neighbour as thyself." Hillel said that was the whole of The Law, all else is commentary (in addition to, at one time, considering holy orders, [can you see it, me in the clothes of the priesthood. A memento mori, every day. Father Terrence] I was active in my college Hillel. No man is all of a piece, though perhaps those are similar cloths).
But there are those who do not see this as being all important. They see rather the beliefs of those whom they assist as being more important than the assistance.
Church halts aid because of Roman Catholics
One of Charlotte's best-known churches has withdrawn support for a food pantry that serves the needy because the pantry works with Roman Catholics.
Why, one wonders, would one church refuse aid to the poor because a differing denomination was involved? It seems they are afraid the work of Catholics may taint the people being helped, "Central Church of God explained its decision in a letter March 1 from minister of evangelism Shannon Burton to Loaves & Fishes in Charlotte: "As a Christian church, we feel it is our responsibility to follow closely the (principles) and commands of Scripture. To do this best, we feel we should abstain from any ministry that partners with or promotes Catholicism, or for that matter, any other denomination promoting a works-based salvation."
There you have it. Because the Catholic Church believes that faith, without works, is dead, they can't be allowed to help the poor keep body and soul together.
Loaves and Fishes, mind you, isn't a Catholic agency. It's an ecumenical agency. But the presence of Jews and Presbyterians wasn't the reason they couldn't be supported. Nope the it was the near occasion of sin in the form of Catholics which raised there hackles here.
In the face of criticism they seem to have decided that Catholics, all in all, aren't quite so badm they did issue an apology. CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The pastor of Central Church of God says the huge Charlotte church will continue supporting two ministries it had decided to quit helping because of the presence of Catholics.
"I'm apologizing," the Rev. Loran Livingston said at the second of two Palm Sunday services. "I'm telling all the people for the hurt, 'I'm sorry.' As long as we can, we're going to help until the Lord tells us to redirect our wealth."
So twp of the four aid groups they said they couldn't support, because they had the support of a denomination they thought to be heretics will get money again.
The others, well one is being, "reconsidered,", though the means by which they shall be judged are not clear. The last, The Charlotte Rescue Mission (which has has been in business since 1938. Billy Graham's father was one of its founders) is still off the list, because it allowed three Muslim students to work the line.
I wonder what scriptural principle they are following, because the one which comes to mind for me is,
Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
Matt 7:9-20.
And what of these fruits? This is from the apology, The minister said the earlier decision "made us look like we are better than everybody else."
I would have to disagree.
It gives me trouble. Not for myself. I am very comfortable with mine, and the choices I've made. I'm an American. A, heterodox, Roman Catholic who has problems with one major aspect of Church Doctrine (the bull Ex cathedra which claims the Pope is infallible in matter of doctrine. I can't swallow this, he is man. Ideally a learned man, perhaps even a holy man, but a man. He must also be one who was skilled in the politics of the church. He is, at best, primus inter pares. Looking at history, and the things which have shaped who got to wear the Papal Mitre, I don't have faith that the Spirit is the sole moving force in the selection of the pope. I can even accept that he gets to set doctrine, and shape dogma. All that I can suffer. I can't, however, accept that his election by the College of Cardinals lets him put God on retainer, but I digress).
This is all part and parcel of being an American. America is a country shaped by the Reformation. It is full of little pockets of personal interpretation of the Christian scriptures. This is for good and ill. Dogma (a teaching that is seen as a key part of a religion's core tradition, spelled out in some specific way that is considered definitive, authoritative, or binding on all, usually by reference to some sort of holy writings)is useful, but we; as a culture scorn it, because we are a nation of iconoclasts.
Which is where the trouble comes in. I wish the rest of the religious landscape was as calm about it as I am.
As I said the other day, Micah 7-8 are important texts to me. They elaborate on the central teachings of both the Jewish religion Jesus was reared in; and his teachings, and the tenets of the Church I was reared in.
"Love thy neighbour as thyself." Hillel said that was the whole of The Law, all else is commentary (in addition to, at one time, considering holy orders, [can you see it, me in the clothes of the priesthood. A memento mori, every day. Father Terrence] I was active in my college Hillel. No man is all of a piece, though perhaps those are similar cloths).
But there are those who do not see this as being all important. They see rather the beliefs of those whom they assist as being more important than the assistance.
Church halts aid because of Roman Catholics
One of Charlotte's best-known churches has withdrawn support for a food pantry that serves the needy because the pantry works with Roman Catholics.
Why, one wonders, would one church refuse aid to the poor because a differing denomination was involved? It seems they are afraid the work of Catholics may taint the people being helped, "Central Church of God explained its decision in a letter March 1 from minister of evangelism Shannon Burton to Loaves & Fishes in Charlotte: "As a Christian church, we feel it is our responsibility to follow closely the (principles) and commands of Scripture. To do this best, we feel we should abstain from any ministry that partners with or promotes Catholicism, or for that matter, any other denomination promoting a works-based salvation."
There you have it. Because the Catholic Church believes that faith, without works, is dead, they can't be allowed to help the poor keep body and soul together.
Loaves and Fishes, mind you, isn't a Catholic agency. It's an ecumenical agency. But the presence of Jews and Presbyterians wasn't the reason they couldn't be supported. Nope the it was the near occasion of sin in the form of Catholics which raised there hackles here.
In the face of criticism they seem to have decided that Catholics, all in all, aren't quite so badm they did issue an apology. CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The pastor of Central Church of God says the huge Charlotte church will continue supporting two ministries it had decided to quit helping because of the presence of Catholics.
"I'm apologizing," the Rev. Loran Livingston said at the second of two Palm Sunday services. "I'm telling all the people for the hurt, 'I'm sorry.' As long as we can, we're going to help until the Lord tells us to redirect our wealth."
So twp of the four aid groups they said they couldn't support, because they had the support of a denomination they thought to be heretics will get money again.
The others, well one is being, "reconsidered,", though the means by which they shall be judged are not clear. The last, The Charlotte Rescue Mission (which has has been in business since 1938. Billy Graham's father was one of its founders) is still off the list, because it allowed three Muslim students to work the line.
I wonder what scriptural principle they are following, because the one which comes to mind for me is,
Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
Matt 7:9-20.
And what of these fruits? This is from the apology, The minister said the earlier decision "made us look like we are better than everybody else."
I would have to disagree.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-23 03:27 am (UTC)I've been lectured to on airplanes, buses, streetcorners, in libraries and outside classrooms.
Usually I can give as good as I get (or better, I did, after all, consider becoming a Jesuit, so not only did I familiarise myself with the books, I had more than a little exposure to the doctrines of the Church).
It has, on occasion, allowed me to piss the crap out of those trying to "save" me. On others it has just confused them (the one I said was engaging in hubris, because he "knew" he was saved; well he never got it, and told me I was doomed, because I said I didn't, and none of us could).
The Church doesn't believe that works alone will save one. But faith without works is not going to do it either (well, no, there are exceptions, but perfect contrition at death seems risky, not least because to depend on that smacks of either pride, or a supreme contempt for God).
Jesus demanded both faith, and works. The Church doesn't see how it can contravene His word.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-03-23 03:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-23 04:03 am (UTC)TK
no subject
Date: 2005-03-23 12:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-23 06:59 pm (UTC)Did I miss anything, Terry?
no subject
Date: 2005-03-26 06:31 am (UTC)It was always amusing to me to be "witnessed" to. I usually knew the text better, and had more coeherent arguement.
There was the night, standing in line for a movie (and hence a captive audience) when I quoted numbers (chapter and verses) and caused someone who was railing at us (there were some thirty of us, in renaissance garb, it was the opening for Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves, on my birthday, and I'd gotten no small number of friends to attend, in garb) to scream, "I'm not a hypocrite, I'm trying to save your goddamned soul!"
I don't think he noticed that I must be, at least passing familiar with the book, to be able to quote those chapters and verses.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-03-26 04:34 pm (UTC)Of course, one cannot remain a fundamentalist without having to do violence to the text and perform all kinds of mental gymnastics to explain away contradictions and inconsistencies. E.g, when I was ~10, I noticed that there seemed to be two Flood stories. In one paragraph, Noah brought onboard the Ark a breeding pair of each critter. In the next, he brought one pair of each type of "unclean" animal, and seven pairs of each type of "clean" animals. I was quite puzzled, since I knew the concept of clean vs. unclean wasn't introduced until the time of Moses, many centuries hence. No one was able to explain that adequately.
This may interest you: The minister of my church, First UU Austin, gave this sermon on the fundamentalist agenda in 2002. He describes how the Fundamentalism Project of the U. of Chicago ID'ed several characteristics that all types of fundamentalist religion share:
http://www.austinuu.org/sermons/loehr020302.html
no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 07:31 am (UTC)Heresy, if you ask me, and evil to boot, because it allows one to cast aside all the teachings of Christ. If one truly believed, in that moment, one has done all they think one is required to do.
I read Matt. and I can't accept that.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 11:39 am (UTC)(shudder) Yikes, I'm having Baptist flashbacks! It has taken years of study to go back and unlearn all that indoctrination.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 06:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 07:28 am (UTC)We don't "idolize" Mary. In some ways we idealise her, and that may be worse.
The Immaculate Conception (which was the conception of Mary, not the conception of Jesus) puts her, theologically in a strange place, much the way the lack of sin on the part of Jesus puts him in a strange place (more strange than the divided dualism of his completeness as man, and his not ceasing to be part of the Godhead).
But Mary's nature is that of any other saint, Teresa of Avila, or Catherine, or Anne (mother of John the Baptist) all of them have traits which are idealisations of the aspects of humanity, and some of them are specific to women (I recall reading, in Butler's Lives of the Saints, the horrors inflicited on some of the women who were martyred for thier virginity) and that, as well as the ideals held up in the lives of male Saints (esp. those from the Middle Ages back to the dawn of the Church) is a burden.
How does one live up to that? In some ways, perhaps, the lack of women being able to attain that level of transcedence, in life, might make it harder for many Catholics to treat them as well as they deserve, because they fail that ideal, but in the main the teachings of the Church don't support that (any more than many of the calumnies levelled at Dworkin are supported if one reads the texts referrenced) interpretation.
As for the trinity, the fundamentalists do believe in it, just not in the way the Catholics do (for one they make Jesus supreme, if the Church makes any aspect of the Trinity Supreme is is probably the Father, followed by the Spirit). Jean Calvin had Michael Servutus burnt at the stake for making an argument which would be seen as almost Unitarian, and not that objectionable, today (he also discovered the circulation of the bood, in the 16th century). Some of his views, about the unity of the tri-partite nature of God have been widely adopted, but the greatest distinction between the Catholic Church and the fundamentalists (in my opinion) is their belief in a more Dualistic universe, with a Devil who is, if not quite the equal of God, so close that he might manage to win, push come to shove.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 07:30 am (UTC)