The challenging lives of English priests

[Dub]

Dec 23, 2023 8:53:25 GMT -5 theevan said:

The root problem is the church becoming corporate.

It is not an earthly power. Acting like it is has sapped the real power from it.

Church should have only ever been local, self-governing, self-sustaining. And without a professional priesthood.

Dec 24, 2023 16:17:38 GMT -5 millring said:

“What Lewis is describing is Christ’s narrow way: the path of the Desert Fathers rather than that of Emperor Constantine. The divine irony is that it is only by walking away from the world that we have any chance of changing it.”

After reading Paul Johnson's A History of Christianity–a comprehensive and eye-opening read–I realize that no organized Christian Church we've ever heard about was anything like what Jesus wanted for us. I don't mean they simply suffer from human failings, I mean they all set out with a purpose quite different from that of Jesus.

I highly recommend Johnson's book. You'll find recommendations and reviews all over the Web.

[Cornflake]

"After reading Paul Johnson's A History of Christianity–a comprehensive and eye-opening read–I realize that no organized Christian Church we've ever heard about was anything like what Jesus wanted for us."

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll probably read it. I don't need convincing, though, that Christianity as we know it is not what Jesus intended. I don't think he had any intention of starting a new religion. He was very much a Jew.

[coachdoc]

These posts have stirred up pleasant and deep emotions. When I left home for college I was planning on being an Episcopalian priest. All through my youth I was a member of the choir at Grace Episcopal Church in Haddonfield NJ as well as frequently being the acolyte in the early morning services before school. Then college happened and slammed that idea, even though it was a Quaker college. It was also a radical hippie college with professors whose names would show up in the news not infrequently for their protest activities. One even went to North Vietnam with Jane Fonda’s group. I guess I got radicalized in a manner I would now disdain. But that was then, this is now and I’m not the same. Still have enough liberal leanings to make Bruce squirm, but not enough off center to raise average folks eyebrows. All my beliefs point to tonight being a holy night and I probably should be in church for midnight mass, but my medical condition keeps me pretty close to home. So I’ll say my prayers at home and celebrate Christmas with my family. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

[theevan]

That's a sweet post, doc.

Looks like I'll be reading Paul Johnson's book.

[millring]

Dec 24, 2023 19:28:59 GMT -5 Cornflake said:

I don't think he had any intention of starting a new religion. He was very much a Jew.

I don't think he had any intention of starting a new religion either. Neither do I think he intended for Judaism to be or stay what it was at the time of his life -- hence his epic run-ins with the religious leaders of his day. I believe his "religion" pre-dated Judaism ("Jew" began during the captivity years).

The label "Christian" has almost no exact meaning in our current culture. People who currently go by the name "Christian" adhere to no agreed upon set of beliefs. And that non-agreement isn't one of inclusivity. The law of non-contradiction states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. A can equal B, given the proper framing, but the law of non-contradiction states that A cannot equal non-A when the very things that define each are contradictory. Yet people who refer to themselves as "Christian" hold contradictory beliefs.

And I'm not referring to paradoxes. Paradoxes fall under the "A can equal B, given the proper framing (that we may not in this lifetime come to understand)"

Some of the best Christians I know -- by their own definition of "Christian" -- that of following what they understand to be the teachings and examples of Jesus and thereby being good people -- are "Christian" rather ironically because among the orthodox views of Christianity to which they do not adhere is the belief in the divinity of Jesus. "Christ" was not Jesus' last name. It was a title referring to his divinity. So to follow the teachings of Jesus, while not believing he was God, would probably more properly make them "Jesusians", not "CHRISTians" ... but almost nobody even knows such distinctions exist in what is commonly thought of as a single religion -- Christianity. It's not a single religion. It's many religions with distinct and contradictory dogmas (and yes, those who bristle at even the notion of "dogma" are among the most dogmatic that their particular brand of Christian have no "dogma" .... as if some vacuum of such beliefs was possible within a religion). But if Christianity is a measure of behavior, these are among the most successful of those who refer to themselves as "Christian".

And some of the worst Christians I know believe that Jesus is God. Their orthodoxy is intellectually in place (though quite obviously their faith is not in that orthodox belief or, if it was, their lives might be bent toward more good), but their lives are a mess.

I cringe at the very thought of referring to myself as a Christian because most people think of Christianity as a moral code of behavior. Most people think Christianity is a religion. Knowing this claim to defining behavior is so, I may be a haughty, proud, arrogant ass, but even I cannot muster the audacity to think of myself as a "Christian" when I realize the claim I am thereby making -- that I am living a moral life that would make Jesus proud.

The word "Christian" means nothing. It's a cultural weapon used by all sides because it is vague enough in its current understanding to be an effective epithet or bludgeon. It's a cultural Rorschach ink blot. And the people who hate Christians the very most are the other Christians who are daily embarrassed to have to be associated with folks who adhere to polar opposite beliefs but tarnish the name "Christian" by claiming it for themselves.

[theevan]

Good points, John. The life of Christ is so "other", any attempted description ends up relating in some way to the Christian religion or other religions. I'm tempted to call myself a follower of the Way, as was common in the first century. But then moral expectations are assumed. I guess "believer" is as good as any term.

[John B]

Dec 25, 2023 7:51:46 GMT -5 millring said:

Even I cannot muster the audacity to think of myself as a "Christian" when I realize the claim I am thereby making -- that I am living a moral life that would make Jesus proud.

Isn't it more about the continual ongoing attempt to do so rather than the accomplishment, especially if the accomplishment probably can't ever be accomplished (ultimately, you are still merely human)?

[millring]

Dec 25, 2023 8:36:09 GMT -5 John B said:

Dec 25, 2023 7:51:46 GMT -5 millring said:

Even I cannot muster the audacity to think of myself as a "Christian" when I realize the claim I am thereby making -- that I am living a moral life that would make Jesus proud.

Isn't it more about the continual ongoing attempt to do so rather than the accomplishment, especially if the accomplishment probably can't ever be accomplished (ultimately, you are still merely human)?

Some may see it that way. I don't think most do. Hence the commonly heard "And you call yourself a CHRISTIAN?!" harumph.

And I've had many conversations with really smart, really good people who are offended at Christianity for the very reason stated -- that they believe it a claim to righteousness earned.

Your facebook feed must be different from mine (though we have more than 100 "friends" in common). Mine is daily full of excoriation and ridicule of Christianity -- usually aimed at one or another who claim the name but hold to views now VERY un-woke and therefore very UN-Christian. One proud atheist has the profile picture of Jesus with the caption "You know I'm the MOST woke of all, right?"

Also (and not to put a too fine point to it) the assumption in your parenthetical phrase -- that there is anything beyond "human" is also the very sticking point. Most see it as audacious, and again, even those who go by the name "Christian" don't accept the premise that Jesus was anything beyond human. A good man? ...maybe. But only that. And read the assumption presented in almost every definition of Christian extant today. It almost always is presented as a religion started by Jesus.

[Cornflake]

I try to avoid passing judgments about whether others are "real" Christians. That's not my assignment. I don't know enough to pass informed judgments. I don't think I'd fare very well if we started passing judgments on each other. Anyway I don't attach much weight to labels, including that one. If someone wants to think I'm not a real Christian, fine.

Over the years I've put a lot of time and effort into trying to understand Jesus intellectually. I never got there and it's pretty clear I never will. I put a fair amount of effort trying to get my head around the idea of "Christ." I reached an intellectual understanding of sorts but it has little or nothing to do with my faith.

My job is to love God and love my neighbor. That's what I try to focus on.

[millring]

Dec 25, 2023 8:44:38 GMT -5 Cornflake said:

I try to avoid passing judgments about whether others are "real" Christians. That's not my assignment.

Me too. And I'm really not trying to be argumentative (or audacious enough to assume that yours is a response to my post), but I'm not describing what I do (judge whether or not someone is a Christian). Nowhere in any of my posts did I say that one Christianity was "real" and the other less so. No, I merely pointed out that there is no set meaning to the word "Christian" -- that belief systems that are antithetical to each other, nevertheless go by the name "Christian".

I think I'm describing the world as it is -- and the world is very judgemental about what is referred to as "Christian". And I might even add: Rightfully so. Beliefs should be questioned. Christianity is making claims -- either those of earned righteousness, or those of undeserved grace -- that should be questioned. But what I think I'm trying to point out is that the world's judgement is clouded by the fact that "Christian" not only doesn't have a distinct meaning -- it, if fact, describes things that are antithetical to each other.

So, I get the "live and let live" non-judgementalism of our current age. And there's a place for it. But belief also requires judgement of the very tenets that comprise it.

[Cornflake]

John, my post was a response to yours but it wasn't my intention to argue with you or with anyone. Peace.

[John B]

Don, as a mostly-observer, what appears (to me) to be happening is a thoughtful, reasonable exchange of ideas! I don't think anyone is being argumentative... I opened this thread this morning and thought to myself, "Wow! This is the type of conversation I really enjoy eavesdropping in on!" So by all means, everyone please continue to be thoughtful!

[theevan]

Dec 25, 2023 8:36:09 GMT -5 John B said:

Dec 25, 2023 7:51:46 GMT -5 millring said:

Even I cannot muster the audacity to think of myself as a "Christian" when I realize the claim I am thereby making -- that I am living a moral life that would make Jesus proud.

Isn't it more about the continual ongoing attempt to do so rather than the accomplishment, especially if the accomplishment probably can't ever be accomplished (ultimately, you are still merely human)?

The way I see it is our utter inability to toe God's line. Our attempts are will always fall short. Jesus is the answer to man's failure. He took on him the failings of humanity so those who believe on him can be reckoned righteous with Jesus' righteousness. God never said "that's okay, I forgive you." Rather, he provided a substitute on whom the just judgment could be poured out so that we, in turn, could be declared righteous.

God does not accept everyone just as they are. That's a modern fallacy. He loves everyone right where they are, but people are only made acceptable in Christ, or as Ephesians states it "accepted in the Beloved (Christ)"

[Dub]

Dec 25, 2023 7:51:46 GMT -5 millring said:

The word "Christian" means nothing. It's a cultural weapon used by all sides because it is vague enough in its current understanding to be an effective epithet.

According to Acts 11, it was in Antioch that the Disciples were first called Christians.

What Acts doesn’t say is that it was a pejorative term used to taunt and ridicule the disciples. The disciples soon adopted the term as their own in much the way LGTBQ+ have proudly embraced the pejorative term queer.

[millring]

Dec 25, 2023 10:18:37 GMT -5 theevan said:

Dec 25, 2023 8:36:09 GMT -5 John B said:

Isn't it more about the continual ongoing attempt to do so rather than the accomplishment, especially if the accomplishment probably can't ever be accomplished (ultimately, you are still merely human)?

The way I see it is our utter inability to toe God's line. Our attempts are will always fall short. Jesus is the answer to man's failure. He took on him the failings of humanity so those who believe on him can be reckoned righteous with Jesus' righteousness. God never said "that's okay, I forgive you." Rather, he provided a substitute on whom the just judgment could be poured out so that we, in turn, could be declared righteous.

God does not accept everyone just as they are. That's a modern fallacy. He loves everyone right where they are, but people are only made acceptable in Christ, or as Ephesians states it "accepted in the Beloved (Christ)"

Exactly so. And because you and I see it the same way, I will, when talking to you, refer to myself as thankfully Christian. But in the cultural context wherein most see it as a claim to righteousness earned, I cringe.

[epaul]

I have always wondered if perhaps I should have become a priest. I will never know, but I think I would have been real good one.

[Cornflake]

"I have always wondered if perhaps I should have become a priest. I will never know, but I think I would have been real good one."

I suspect you're joking but you really might have made a good one.

[millring]

Does Thor still have priests?

[dradtke]

Dec 25, 2023 8:36:09 GMT -5 John B said:

Isn't it more about the continual ongoing attempt to do so rather than the accomplishment

I live by that, in more than just religion.

[aquaduct]

Got a couple of bottles of Glenmorangie for Christmas, but regardless, I'll try to make this sound like I'm sober.

Like John, I've struggled with these kind of questions through the years. At one point I ran into a question I couldn't resolve with Protestant theology. Something along the lines of "how do we know the Bible is true?"

That's when I found the twin pillars of Protestant theology- Sola Scriptura (salvation through scripture alone) and Sola Fide (salvation by faith alone). At some point this presented a lot of serious questions. Like, whose version of scripture? And, how do you know that a momentary declaration of faith (we'd participated in a number of alter call moments that seemed sketchy on long term commitment) is genuine.

Along the way I'd found a Catholic talk show on the radio and the more I listened, the more it made sense.

In response to Sola Scriptura, Catholic theology says no. In addition to scripture, you have to take into account Church tradition. Yes, there is a "proper" way to interpret scripture. It's not a democratic process of every man (or woman) for themselves.

And in response to Sola Fide, Catholics believe that salvation is up to God alone. Face your death with fear and trembling. There are no guarantees. Always keep trying.

So how do we know if we're going to be saved? When you die you will go, alone, naked and broken, directly to God where you will have to account for your life. Be afraid, be very afraid. And always keep working to the best of your ability. Even if you're Pope. Everybody.

So do the best you can and never give up trying. Help your fellow humans where you can and wrestle with this system as best you can. The biggest message of the Gospel is just how much time Jesus spends with sinners and the lowly and disadvantaged. Help where you can according to what you've been given.

And what does that mean in simple terms? Hell if I know. Just trying to do my best.

And just for more complication, do you have to be Catholic? No. The church is set up as a helpful mechanism, but it's not required.

Do you even have to be Christian? No. The thief on the cross next to Jesus wasn't.

So approach your salvation with the fear and trembling it deserves and get out and wrestle with huge unanswerable question.

And when you meet God, the answer is, "I tried."