I had a conversation with a close friend a while back. Himself a Pentecostal, he was concerned what my newly aquired Catholicism meant in a lot of ways for me, practically. He was specifically concerned with how and where I went to church, and how that would affect future decisions.
Question 1:
"For example, would you not move somewhere if there wasn't a Catholic church there?"
Of course, I briefly responded that the likelihood of that even being possible was slim to none. I'd probably have to move to the middle of West Texas, or something like that, to find myself outside of the (reasonable) reach of some Catholic church.
Nonetheless, this idea propelled us into a discussion on what it is to be "Christian first" or "Just Christian." In a lot of ways, I agree, understand, and even champion this idea. But in some ways . . . I can't help but see it as utter foolishness and lacking in circumspection. The main idea behind "Christian first" is that there is a higher loyalty to Christ than to any denomination, and that one's faith in Jesus weighs more than one's loyalty to a particular church or denomination. AMEN!
1 Corinthians 1:2
To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours
Now, we see from a number of passages in the Epistles that there were indeed theological disagreements among the early Christian churches. Nonetheless, what was prized more than anything else was (and still is) is faith in Jesus Christ, him crucified, and knowing God. If I were to speak to lots of Catholics (and MLP's for that matter) for a moment: you do not have salvation simply because you are Catholic or whatever else. It is more important to be a Christian (one who emulates Christ) than a Catholic, or Lutheran, or whatever.
Question 2:
"Are you a Christian who happens to be a Catholic, or just a Catholic"
Well, the two certainly needn't be at odds. Yes, it's unfortunate that there are many "just Catholics" who aren't really Christians, but that doesn't mean the real, honest-to-goodness Christians who are Catholic need to be checking their denomination-barometer every now and then thinking "Have I gone too Catholic, now? Let me get back to being Christian first." Again, they needn't be at odds.
I hope to always champion being "Christian First"-- loving Jesus more than anything else, including one's church. This even helps you relate to other Christians with whom you may disagree (hey, at least they love Jesus). When you love Jesus more than anything else, you love others who love Jesus too, despite "anything else."
BUT, I now must address the part of this idea that I called foolishness, and lacking in circumspection earlier, and that is "Just Christian"
You see
. . . there is no such thing.
Reason A: where you go to church
I grew up in a church culture where we pretended we didn't have a denomination. My Dad referred to people who really liked our denomination, the Assemblies of God, and were subsequently somewhat into the Assemblies of God, as having "AG Underwear." He also joked about some churches signs having a big AG logo on them.
We wanted to think of ourselves as above denominational practices, disagreements, politics, and the like. We wanted, really, to just love Jesus, plain and simple. A noble goal, certainly, but pretending you don't have a denomination that you have (admit it) some degree of loyalty to doesn't make you more of a Jesus-first-lover
it just makes you disingenuous about your loyalties.
After all, how many "Just Christian" people visit (much less attend) any old church they come across, as long as the people seem to genuinely love God? The funny thing I've noticed about AG-ers who are "Just Christian", when they move, etc. and look for a new church: they either find the first AG church, or one that pretends it's not AG even though it is, or one that is just like an AG church, but a non-denom-er.
Little Flower Catholic Church, where I attended up until I moved away a month ago or so, is somewhere where people really love Jesus. They may say it, show it, and act it differently, but you can tell very quickly, when you're there, that they really do love Jesus. I could tell it from the first Mass I went to there, and I wasn't even a Catholic then. Now, how many new-in-town-Evangelicals do you think would try that place out? I'm guessing, given the 'Catholic' part of the name, none. So, apparently, it's not just about loving Jesus.
To reverse question 1:
"Would you move somewhere where there was only a Catholic church?"
Reason B: what you believe
"I just follow scripture"
Those who claim this would like to think so, and you most certainly do try, but they don't follow scripture in the same way they think. Each of us, through forces far beyond our control, is indoctrinated into a particular Christian culture from the moment we recieve the faith (and often beforehand). These particular Christian cultures I speak of include certain vocabularies, practices, unspoken rules and taboos, liturgies, areas of Christianity they focus on, style of church governance, and yes: methods of interpreting scripture.
As much as a good many Evangelicals want to think, there is no such thing as a default, neutral Christianity that just follows the Bible. You interpret scripture and evaluate churches and church beliefs based on the Christian culture into which you were indoctrinated-- you cannot avoid this, it's impossible. If there is a "default" Christianity, it's Catholicism (sorry), because, after all, it's the oldest one there is. There is not, however, a neutral, Bible-only Christianity. Truly, Bible-only Christianity is itself a unique form, since it isn't practiced by everyone, and wasn't even a legitimate form, say, back in the 100's, when there was not yet a Bible, so to speak. There are only forms, traditions, and methods of scriptural interpretation, and so on; there is no "I'm just a plain Christian."
If I were to speak about this with someone who attempts this reasoning, I would have to tell them something like:
"You're an Evangelical, plain and simple. Whether you want to admit it or not, you talk like an Evangelical, worship like an Evangelical, attend Evangelical churches, and intrepret scripture like an Evangelical. If you observed an Eastern Orthodox Christian, in all his rituals, styles of prayer, and thoughts on scripture, would it not seem absurd to you if he claimed he was 'just Christian'? No, you'd want to tell him "you're not just Christian, you're obviously Eastern Orthodox."
So it is when Evangelicals attempt to brand themselves as "Bible-Christians," or something of the like.
Are you a Christian, first and foremost? Excellent. But let us not get into this business of being "Just Christian;" no one is above denominational differences, they just think they are.
It's a good point, but: Don't you think we should be trying to be "just Christians"? Admitted, we're all shaped by our past and by our life experiences, but that's something to be overcome, not surrendered to. We're all trying to be Christ-like. That's the point, ultimately. By my definition, that would be "just a Christian"; to see things as Christ sees them, and act as He acted. Sure, I'm not there yet, and probably won't ever be, but that's what I'm aiming for.
ReplyDeleteLet me say it this way: it's a willingness to disagree with or even disobey the things you're taught if you feel that Christ or the Bible is leading you to do so. If you're a good Catholic, aren't you not allowed to do that? Or maybe that's an evangelical misconception...
Cynthia and I are now going to a non-denominational church, and have since we moved from Carbondale. Now after going to a few, I recognize that non-denominational feels like it has its own traditions and obligations in terms of style and practice, but nevertheless I feel more comfortable here because I don't have a big monolithic denomination that I feel obligated to agree with everything it's doing. After all, by attending the church and partaking in worship aren't I tacitly stating that I agree with it's organizational goals and vision for the future? Doesn't that necessitate that I defend them through every scandal (I could be ugly to both A/G and Catholicism here) and every questionable policy decision? That seems to me to be a waste of time compared with the business of advancing the Kingdom of God. Maybe I'm being naive or individualistic (which should be an insult in the Kingdom of God), but that's the way I feel. Does that make sense?
It makes sense, Bobbo. I respect you very much for admitting your individualism while acknowledging that God probably wouldn't prefer you that way. Believe me, I know what you mean. When Rebecca and I first starting talking about God back in high school, I wouldn't even tell her my denomination when she asked. I wanted to be above groups.
ReplyDeleteAddressing what you correctly considered might be an Evangelical misconception: Catholics ARE allowed to disagree with teachings that they feel Jesus/scripture leading them away from, but outside of that leading, no. Why would you disagree if not lead by Christ? Believe me, it's really easy, and it's called "having an opinion on scripture without praying about it, openly and honestly, flesh on the cross, open to God's voice even if He contradicts us." We do it all the time.
Check out my blog "Raison d'etre," and what I wrote about Catholicism and "liberty of conscience" back there-- it should give you a brief idea of what it is: a privilege and a responsibility, not a get out of jail free card. I have some Catholic teachings that I still have to claim liberty of conscience with. Maybe I'm right, and the Catholic church will see things my way one day. After all, Rome no longer wants to hunt down and burn non-Latin Bible translations and translators any more. Wycliffe and his Ploughman's Bible were acts of liberty of conscience, and today, it is obvious that his conscience was correct. Maybe I'm wrong, and a new idea will change my mind-- I sure can't argue that it hasn't happened before.
Anyway, as far as your idea about tacitly agreeing with all procedures, policies, and goals of a church, simply by attending it, I must disagree. I'm an American, a West Virginian, a registered Republican (though I hate myself for that one, I see it as a necessary evil), and a member of St. Paul Parish in Weirton, West Virginia. None of those bodies are perfect, and there is not one with which I have no disagreements or issues, but that is no reason to throw in the towel when it comes to my participation. By that logic, we should all be teaching in our own house-church, because at least there we will agree with what is being taught. Sounds like a haven for pride, right? I know that example is extreme, but then consider the most numerous church in America: the Southern Baptist Convention. Why are there so many Southern Baptist churches? Every time a church has a disagreement, they split off and form two new ones. Great example of the Christian unity Jesus prayed for, wouldn't you say? We can disagree with our churches, and often do, but I'm not so sure jumping ship is the best option.
ReplyDeleteAnother option concerning our disagreements: don't claim a particular body. This is how we got The Non-Denominational Church of America. I capitalize it because, really, it is it's own denomination. If you meet someone who says they're non-denominational, or they go to a Non-Denom church, you know ALMOST EXACTLY what they believe right away, as if they had just named their denomination. No one hears of a non-denominational church and pictures robes, incense, and chanting-- they picture American Evangelicals. This is because the desire to not have a large church organization is unique to American Evangelicals, and thus, they make up 99% of Non-Denom churches.
ReplyDeleteThen we come to the saddest option of all when it comes to disagreements: have less to disagree about. The less complicated theology and depth in your church, the more freedom, and the better! The only problem with this is that it eats away at a church from within, and stifles it's growth from without-- non-believers don't really care if a church is outwardly religious or has lots of theology or not-- it's all Greek to them, anyway. Only Christians care to argue about that stuff, and non-believers aren't really sure why. The sad, sad example of this idea going wild is the Anglican Church, which is dying, dying, dead. When you take away your theology, what is left? Ask Bishop John Shelby Spong, not that he could tell you, really.
Anyway, the Catholic Church has a lot to say about what the Body of Christ/The Church is supposed to be, and honestly . . . I wouldn't recommend you read it too much. It's really hard to swallow, given how individualistic we American Evangelicals can be with our faith. I once found the Catholic Church's ideas about the Church infuriating, and sometimes still do, but if I'm sure of one thing, it's this: you can't understand how a church functions/is supposed to function until you are a part of it. No more can you understand the Catholic Church's ideas on the Catholic Church until you are part of it. I still find them hard to swallow, but I'm getting there, ever so slowly. It's not like Evangelicals have a better idea, anyway. I hate to sound harsh, but most evangelicals' idea of what Christian Unity and Ecumenism is supposed to look like is pretty empty and relativistic: something along the lines of everyone worshiping together, but not talking theology for fear of an argument, and if they do, everyone nods and pretends to accept each other's ideas while thinking "OH LORD, are you SERIOUS?"
ReplyDeleteAnyway, sorry for the barrage of comments. I open Pandora's box with every one of these blogs, and your comments most certainly help me with that. ;)
ReplyDeleteNo hard feelings though, my man-- I could do this all day, and I have a feeling you could too.