street theologian

Here are some brief notes on Roman Catholicism. As in all things I’ve posted for Sunday School, this was meant for 1 to 2 45-minute class sessions. Naturally, there is no way to go into as much depth as is possible. Forgive me then, if I gloss over something serious.

Roman Catholic Church

Roman Catholic Church Complete

Dear all:

Of the reasons usually submitted on this subject, I don’t think any are particularly new. St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians clearly deals with factionalism, immorality, and disunity within the fledgling Church. The people who make up the Church have never been perfect, and they never will be. The First Century Church was able to grow in a world without religious freedom. We have religious freedom but can’t even fathom anything resembling growth. Instead the best we can do is “slow” the exodus. I for one believe the teachings of the Orthodox Church are objectively true; we are the Church that Christ established. That being said, what good is having the fullness of the Gospel in theory when in practice we are either ignorant of or simply don’t care about the real content of our Faith?

In my own spiritual journey I can honestly say I had no idea about my Faith until I made a concerted effort to learn about it on my own. I never learned about our Patristic mindset or monastic heritage until I encountered it in books first and then within my college Orthodox Christian Fellowship. I learned that there is an unbelievable depth to our Faith which spends most of the time sitting on the shelf. For example, within Orthodoxy we have innumerable Saints, Fathers, and Mothers of the Church who have had a hand in forming our Tradition. In actual liturgical practice though, we venerate about five. And while I’ve heard countless references to Gandhi from the pulpit; not once have I heard a mention of the venerable saints who really exist within our tradition such as St. John Chrysostom or the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste.

There is much to be offered within Orthodoxy that simply does not get taught or actualized within our daily experience of the Church. How much have we emasculated the Sacrament of Confession by giving no-questions-asked absolution? We have neither interest in iconography nor any theological reasoning behind our Church art and layout. We don’t preach that each and every person can truly pursue a profound personal relationship with Christ within the corporate body of the Church. We have no catechesis program for new converts into the faith (especially by marriage), and we have rationalized our way out of doing any meaningful evangelism work. Therefore, I ask the question: Are people really leaving the Orthodox Church, or are they leaving a shell organization with the word “Orthodox” written on the sign outside?

I realize that I am, of course, painting with broad brush strokes and there are very many reasons to be optimistic. My point though remains the same: people don’t leave the Church because we are “too Orthodox.” They leave because we aren’t “Orthodox” enough and they get a stronger, clearer message elsewhere which gives them a better feeling of fulfillment. We have the tools within the Church, yet we need the resolve to act accordingly. Overcoming the language barrier is but the first step in the process. We can no longer be simply carriers of the Faith, but rather proclaimers of the Gospel as we believe it was really intended to be.

“Thus the writer who wisely tells us of the birth of the Universe does not fail to put these words at the head of the narrative. “In the beginning God created;” that is to say, in the beginning of time. Therefore, if he makes the world appear in the beginning, it is not a proof that its birth has preceded that of all other things that were made. He only wishes to tell us that, after the invisible and intellectual world, the visible world, the world of the senses, began to exist.”
-St. Basil of Caesarea, Hexaemeron, Homily I

If “In the beginning God created,” the presupposition must necessarily be that God existed even before time itself, in a manner of existence which must be beyond our understanding. This means that God does not “change” nor is subject to change, but works within the universe of time from outside of it.

We perceive God in time because we are created beings, but God Himself is beyond the beginning and end of things; He knew exactly that Adam would sin, and when he did sin God knew exactly how He would redeem humanity. He knows exactly what will become of each and everyone of us because all of time and space are held in His hand.

-Steve K.

This is neat.  Still working out the bugs and kinks…bear with me

I just saw Dinesh D’souza debate Peter Singer at Princeton University. The experience was absolutely amazing, though, admittedly, I’ve seen most of the arguments before on the web or in print.

I think the part that resonated most with me was how profound existential questions can be answered by orthodox (lowercase o) Christian theology. Note, I’m not giving a complete appraisal of the debate in this blog posting. What I am saying though, is that, very often in the debate, Singer would ask a question framed as “If a God exists than this…” or “Why would a God in the Judeo-Christian sense allow for this…”

Very specifically he asked D’souza why people lived morally before Christianity. To this D’souza gave the Christian answer, “because all people are stamped with the image of God.” Now, I don’t think Singer gave this argument much thought, seeing as how he already presumed the non-existence of God. But that was besides the point, the debate was about whether man can be moral without God, not on His existence. I don’t think Singer gave a positive affirmation of morality without God other than saying the ways in which morality developed and why biologically it is ingrained in us.

Well, because something is ingrained and biological, doesn’t make it absolute. If we are moral because we are helpless to do so, is it really morality?

-Steve K.

Conservatives within the Episcopal Church angered by the liberal views of the church’s leaders plan to form a rival denomination.

The new Anglican Church in North America will include four Episcopal dioceses that recently split from the U.S. church, along with breakaway Anglican parishes from Canada.

The announcement comes after decades of debate over what Episcopalians should believe about issues ranging from salvation to sexuality. Tensions erupted in 2003 when Episcopalians consecrated the first openly gay bishop.

My question: What makes an Anglican “conservative?” Fidelity with the founding tenets of the Anglican communion? Does that mean as Henry VII or Blessed Augustine (the English one…not the “real” one)? The Anglican Church was founded on a tension between Roman Catholicism and English Reformation.

I believe Henry VIII wished for a Church in all things Catholic with the English language as a medium, but settled for what he and his daughter Elizabeth could get. To me that makes a true “conservative” Anglican indistinguishable from a modern Catholic who’d pretty much espouse the same ideas (am I wrong about this??).

The Episcopalian response:
“And we reiterate what has been true of Anglicanism for centuries: that there is room within The Episcopal Church for people with different views, and we regret that some have felt the need to depart from the diversity of our common life in Christ,” the Rev. Charles K. Robertson said in the written statement.

Diversity within a single communion? Just because the Anglican Church has committed neither to Catholicism or Protestantism since its very beginning doesn’t make it a good idea. There’s a good reason why the Church is seeing declining membership in Western Europe, while its more “traditional” branches in Africa and Asia are flourishing.

-Steve K.

Just in time for Christmas, the Planned Parenthood gift card, for use with all of PP’s various products….including abortions.

Let’s go over this:
Good Gift: Delicious Sausage & Cheese

Bad Gift: Abortion

- Steve K.

(photo from yes-zim.com)

“WCC, an ecumenical fellowship of 349 Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican and other churches representing more than 560 million Christians in over 110 countries, has criticized the current international financial system for not only being “inefficient,” but also “based on injustice.”

“Rich, industrialized countries have … an ethical and moral obligation to pay for the ecological damages they have inflicted on poor countries through their disproportionate appropriation of natural resources and unsustainable lifestyles,” the WCC statement declared. “
- Full Article from Christian Post

So here’s the wish list for the World Economy:
1) Must be climate friendly
2) Must be “just” and “efficient”
3) Must be “sustainable”
4) Must be one global system (does that mean central planning)

Sure, this sounds peachy, but people aren’t pawns on a chess board and you can’t have massive economic regulation without massive abrogation of individual or local freedoms. Churchmen aren’t exactly economists, and economies happen even when nobody’s looking.

Can you even “manage” a world economy? What about third world countries with corrupt and/or extremist regimes (or constantly changing regimes)? Needless to say that central planning has never…ever…worked, and the terms “just,” “efficient,” and “sustainable” all are subject to interpretation.

To me a “fair” trade would be one where neither side puts up a barrier to exchange, to them “fair” actually means favoring the side they deem more aggrieved.

-Steve K.

I found this out rummaging through wikipedia today. “Kyrie” by Mr. Mister actually repeats:

Kyrie Elaison down the road that I must travel
Kyrie Elaison through the darkness of the night

So apparently is was Mr. Mister (80s band name…irritating after the first time you hear it) reciting a short prayer. You see, my brother and I always swore he was saying “Carry a laser.”

Carry a laser through the darkness of the night!

That actually makes MORE sense.

-Steve K