Religion and Politics
I have been thinking more about issues of religion these days, and it is a subject that has always intrigued me. Perhaps the proximity of the election is highlighting it in the media more, but since I had always intended that one purpose of this journal would be to ramble on the subject of religion, what the heck
( Read more... )
It seems to me that as Christianity was mainstreamed, beginning in 313 AD when Emporer Constantine effectively made it the state religion of the Roman Empire, the religion has been adapted and applied much much more to temporal and political issues than the original "source material" ever suggests.
For example, the Catholic Church has a "Just War" doctrine. I can open the handy dandy "Catechism of the Catholic Church" that I keep at my desk for religious discussion, and sections 2307 through 2317 concern war, whn it should be avoided, and when it is legitimate. Here is a quick except:
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."
It goes on for another page or so examining what is required for a war to be legitimate, prospects of sucess, not produce a greater evil than already exists, etc.
My question is how is such a matter derived from a guy who said "Turn the other cheek?" A guy who allowed himself to be executed as the ultimate sacrifice? I've put some effort into pondering this question, and have read the Bible, and frankly I cannot for the life of me find where this leap is made.
I therefore conclude that it is instead a matter of pure practicality.
The early Christians were kind of like what we would consider a cult today. They were set apart from mainstream society, and did not participate much. As they were assimilated into the mainstream, they were forced to adapt to the nitty gritty practical matters of the society at large. But isn't Christianity at its heart a complete rejection of that? Isn't this this religion based on the man who said "Drop everything and follow me?" How did we get from that to "Tithe 10% and come to Church on Sunday?"
In my opinion, modern Christianity tends toward two extremes. Nut jobs like Creflo Dollar... And yes, its wrong of me to be so perjorative, but seriously Prosperity Theology? Someone can read the New Testament and conclude that Jesus and God want us to be wealthy and successful through the tenets of Christianity? It literally BOGGLES my mind. I am boggled.
The other "extreme" is the mainstream. Watering down of the Christian message to "fit in" to a modern society. When *I* read the Bible, I get anxious and apprehensive. Why? Because I know in my heart that I do not, in any way shape or form, even come close to what Jesus asks of his followers. He expects unbelievable sacrifice. Jesus wants us to be /uncomfortable./ I don't know if my rant on that subject is still around,maybe I'll re-write it at some point.
But what do I see from mainstream Christianity? Do I hear calls for extraordinary, uncomfortable sacrifice? No. Quite the opposite, the message I take away is how can I participate fully in our materialistic, secular society, and still be Christian? What is the least effort I need to put in?
So when you talk about the Jesuits or other groups that have adopted a doctrine designed to advance church policies in the mainstream, part of me wonders if they aren't just trying to make the best out of acting in the system.
Now, yes, I got way off topic here, so let me go back to your main point... I do not believe that activism in the form of "Help the poor, feed the hungry, house the homeless" is really comparable to "Abolish abortion." For one thing, issues of social justice are secular issues as well as religious ones, so there is a lot more synergy there. And again, I am not really saying that ALL forms of anti-abortion advocacy should stop. I was really kind of restricting that to extreme forms, and this perception that a Christian could never vote for a pro-choice candidate without it being a "sin." I mean, it isn't like electing John McCain would magically end abortions, so I find it kind of disingenuous for some groups to suggest that voting for McCain is the morally necessary choice.
Reply
I was taking small issue with Jayson's point about action in faith traditions, I suppose. Not even really an issue really...just something that I felt should be pointed out.
Seriously though Nick, this reply and your original post are very well put indeed.
Reply
Reply
As for the rest, well, the short version is that I agree with what you are saying regarding popular Christanity. The things you cite as Catholic tradition and teaching are things I disagree with, and I disagree with many more of their teachings for reasons you seem to be finding when reading the Scripture, though not really the point. I'm going to happily follow you on your rambling tangant because frankly I think it is more important.
I don't see an unbelievable sacrfice asked by Jesus. I also wouldn't say he wants you to be uncomfortable. There is a call to give of yourself to God. Call it sacrifice or submission or any other similar word, it amounts to the same thing. So its not so much a matter of suffer for him as much as it is the result of doing these things. Perhaps some semantics, but there is a difference. Your commentary on the nature of mainstream Christianity is disturbingly accurate, more so considering the apostasy that was spoken of. Its troubling to see something that you feel is so clearly wrong and pointed out in the book that is claimed to be the source of the actions, and yet see people so very blind to it. That is my rambling bit.
To center myself a bit better, the biggest piece of advice I would offer you is to read the Bible and formulate your own thoughts based on what you read there. Not based around any given church's traditions or their own book of rules. If you are reading the Bible and being pricked in your heart about all the things that are not right, then you should follow that up. Research it, grab a Strong's and verify the original meanings as best you can. USe the Bible as the authoritative text when determining if this tradition or that rule is scripturally sound. After that, its just a matter of responding in the right way. Acts 17:11 is a great thought regarding this concept.
Reply
And I don't necessarily see "suffering" as necessary, but this is what I mean by "uncomfortable." In the Gospels, whenever people ask Jesus what they should do, or say "Hey, look at what I did, isn't that great?" Jesus' reply always seems to be "That's great, but you need to give just a little bit more." The line about it being easier for a camel to thread the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven comes to mind.
Whatever it is that we do in Jesus' name, whether its donate some money to charity, volunteer our time, whatever it is... I think God expects it to be a /sacrifice./ And that means that if we're totally OK and comfortable with it... it really isn't a /sacrifice./ It needs to be a meaningful imposition on us, hence there is no objective standard. A $100,000 donation by a wealthy tycoon might not even be noticed by that person, where a $100 from a struggling person would be. A few hours a week of volunteer work might be just keeping a retired person busy, while it might be a real sacrifice for a single mother.
If Jesus were to have appeared to Mother Teresa I suspect he'd say "Great job! Now what else will you do?"
Do I think God expects us all to abandon the material world and take up sackcloth and ashes? No, we're flawed that way. Some will be called for that, but I suspect the rest of us will be called to some other purpose, but if we are entirely /comfortable/ in our lives, I suspect we're doing it wrong. It isn't the volume or quantity that we give back, it is in our willingness to give up, even just a little, more than we really want to give up.
Or at least that is what I have been taking from it of late.
Reply
I've since become...not-christian, as I'm mostly agnostic. I was raised very lazy-catholic, in part because when I was in England, I of course went to school there, and was actually in the ENGLISH school system. Which meant some part of religion, was just part of normal school life. So, I've grown up with bits and pieces of catholicism/christanity in my life.
To make this OT, and which is why I quoted your passage above, what I always thought, was that a sacrifice also shouldn't be 'painful' or even that uncomfortable, so much as it should make us 'think'. Be MINDFUL...as it were.
I did this once, when I was still actively practicing, for Lent. It was a very small sacrifice, in that I gave up chocolate milk for Lent. Not a huge deal, except that I'd always gotten it with my lunch at school. So, whenever I didn't have it, I would think--and remember why I was sacrificing it, and from that remember the purpose behind lent.
To me, that was what was important about a sacrifice--and was the impression I'd always gotten, so to speak. You start 'small', and make yourself think. From there, when you're mindful, you can become 'more' mindful, as it were.
*Shrug* Just my two cents. I'm enjoying reading all of this, btw.
Reply
However, that does nothing for the second part, which is helping your fellow human beings.
I may agree in some respects with Overfreak that there are some problems with the Catholic Church, but I do not discount the entirety of its doctrine, and one thing I agree with is that there is a necessity for good works. Just being a "good person" is insufficient unless that includes doing good for others. The old "hiding a light under a bushell" yadda yadda. It is that respect I was talking about with regard to sacrifice and being 'uncomfortable.'
Reply
Sometimes it can just be reaching out to someone, giving them your time and attention--a small sacrifice, to be fair, but one none the less.
I suppose, for me, it's all about proportion. And yes, from the catholic viewpoint, being a good person alone isn't enough, in that sense... But that doesn't mean we also all need to be martyrs, too.
Reply
(And this is just my theory anyway)
On several occassions Jesus tells his followers or those seeking his advice that they need to give up everything, be born again, etc.
Now, maybe I am overstating the case a bit. I suppose he also does suggest that doing even a little bit is a great thing too... but my impression isn't that there is a minimum we should aspire to. Also, I wouldn't say that if someone doesn't do a tremendous amount that they're bad or won't be rewarded. I just read "Love thy neighbor as thyself' as being a pretty high standard to aspire to.
Reply
*shrug*
Reply
Reply
It originally involved 40 days of fasting (although the exact requirements of the fasting varied by location). Over time it got less and less strict, to the point that nowadays even something as simple as "abstain from meat on Fridays" is considered onerous. And by the way, I'm not tooting my own here, I've broken this rule, either accidentally or purposefully, on many an occassion.
You may or may not be familiar with the Stations of the Cross. Originally this was part of a pilgrimage to the Holy land, to visit the actual sites. After the Muslims recaptured the Holy Land and travel became far more perilous these were created by the Franciscans as a kind of substitute pilgrimage. I believe at first people still needed to travel to what was essentially a replica of the Holy Sepulchre, but eventually you could find Stations set up in just about any local parish. So a trip to the Holy Land gets replaced with a stroll around the local church :-p
Reply
One could argue that so much of the church/Christianity, is ultimately adapting. If that becomes more 'lenient' as somethings become more difficult (not onorous--sometimes the two intertwine, but not always), it's not always practical to keep truly to the old ways.
*shrug* I am enjoying this discussion though, Nicholas. My mom goes with no meat on Fridays during lent, and does her best--even with her diabetes. She's liberal as a catholic, and surprisingly thoughtful about it all.
Reply
But this is the key line I think you said: "...it's not always practical to keep truly to the old ways."
Consider that a moment. That is perfectly find if we are discussing whether or not we should put us as many Christmas decorations, or whether we really need to have a 30 pound turkey on Thanksgiving after the kids all move away, or other traditions. BUT if the "old ways" being referenced are religious mandates that God wants, that is something else entirely. If you believe that you are supposed to do X because God wants it, then that just doesn't go away or change for convenience sake, no?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment