Whatever happened to Charity?

-
Eigenheim Mennonite Church (Rosenort) Sanctuary - 1894
“ . . . suppose I have enough faith to move mountains. If I don’t have love, I am nothing at all.” (1 Corinthians 13: 2b, NIRV).
So your church is in trouble . . . again. Join the club. Conflict and Disunity might be the inherited middle names of the Bride of Christ ever since Paul and Peter quarreled over the status of non-Jews in the fellowship: meet Mary Conflict Disunity Church—bride of Christ.

In order to maintain the inherited reputation of our divisive natures, we’ve had the Spanish Inquisition, the Reformation/Counter Reformation/Radical Reformation, the Crusades. We’ve burned enough heretics at the stake to heat all of Europe for a generation. We’ve hounded people like Galileo into recanting for the audacity of suggesting that the earth spins around the sun. We’ve split ourselves into so many denominations that we’re getting close to the place where there’ll be one for each of us.

The abbreviated story of the last century of church, for instance, might well be, “He arrived in a Model T Ford, but left in a Huff!”

Although “unity,” as they say, “ain’t everything.” It’s like water. Water ain’t everything either but without it, “Ya ain’t got nothin’!” Or am I exaggerating? When does a family that quarrels and pulls in different directions all the time cease being a family?

Here’s one problem as I see it. We have this book we call The Holy Bible, (and here comes a tautology), a teaching/learning tome of great import in the formation of what we call “The Church” (as if there were only one). It was basically written in the years from 600 BC to 100 AD, give or take, and for the last 19 Centuries, no new insights have been allowed entry; it’s tightly bound with a back cover.
The implication is that God started inspiring scribes and sages during the Babylonian Exile . . . and stopped after Jesus’ apostles were all dead.

Now if Galileo was audacious, what does that make us who declare that God no longer inspires new insight? He’s probably turned his back on us in frustration, whiling away eternity in a game of solitaire. “You won’t listen; so I won’t talk.” (Or as philosopher/theologian Frederich Nietzsche is reported to have said, “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”)
The above are meant to be understood metaphorically.
Two reminders: One, the worship of objects is idolatry; don’t let’s think of the Bible as an object; it’s a conversation on paper about our evolving understanding of creation that’s, unfortunately, missing a huge portion going on 19 centuries long now. And two, the fact that you or I can peruse and speak every word in the Bible doesn’t mean that we can actually read it. Without the historical context and an understanding of how language was used at the time of writing; without knowledge of the processes of translation; without the willingness to allow tradition and experience to inform us about what is relevant and what’s not, about what’s timely and what’s obsolete; without scholars and teachers, prophets whom we should honour and not denigrate, unity is doomed—we will always bog down in the morass of pooled and prideful ignorance.
Same is true of the writings of Shakespeare, Chaucer, even James Joyce, come to think of it.
Fundamentalist religion, fundamentalist politics, fundamentalist anything: these are the ingredients of the dross on which the world periodically chooses to feed. We’re doing it again. Knowledge, wisdom, discovery, even facts are disdained in a dive off a deductive cliff. Black is white, cold is hot, mud is custard pudding
 . . . and someone will surely catch us before we hit bottom.

As if.

So your church is in trouble . . . again. You may as well get used to it. It’s been with us since the beginning; a new, progressive development on the unity front just isn’t likely, unless . . . 

“And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” (1 Corinthians 13:13, KJV) Love (charity) is the foundation; faith and hope are structures we build upon charity’s sure footing. Anything else, according to Paul, is a never-fail recipe for division and disillusion.

If the coordination of doctrinal understandings is assumed to be the foundation of our charity and our hope . . . our unity . . . we will have failed again to let history teach us.

Alternately, we could set to work gathering wood for holy bonfires.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Democracy or bust

-
Image
  Politics . You can tell how people relate to this word by the way they use it. “I’m not much interested in politics,” for instance, equates it with the day-to-day news about our current government, elections, party dynamics, etc. A narrow definition.                By whatever word we use, it’s clear that the setting and enforcing of the principles under which we form community—and function as community—existed before the word was coined. In families, in schools, in workplaces, on the roads, in the economy, the making and respecting of agreed-to behavioural expectations in a community is the necessary defense against chaos.                How behavioural expectations come to be, how they are altered, how they are enforced … and most importantly by whose authority … is fundamental. The “benevolent dictator” model has a long history: give...
Read more

Do I dare eat a peach?

-
Image
  All the talk of Joe Biden’s unfitness for the position of president of the USA must have others of his age—80 plus—wondering about their own fitness. Most of us octogenarians are well aware of our physical limitations, I think, but mentally? How can I know, for instance, if the lines I’m writing are logically sound, or if they fall somewhere between inane and gibberish? How can I know if my diminished capacity can be trusted to make such a judgment? And what if my friends are too kind to tell me when to close my laptop? Hearing an aging loved one tell the same stories to the same people every day has the able-minded nodding knowingly and cluckingly (that’s a word, isn’t it?). We’re obviously too kind and too hip not to know that people experiencing obvious dementia deserve to be “handled with care,” and we’ve devised places and strategies to preserve for them whatever dignity is still possible. But it’s not dissimilar from the pain-relieving, ointment applying, chair-exercisin...
Read more

Stories We Live By

-
Image
  David Brooks, writer, philosopher and journalist, said in a recent speech to the Aspen Ideas gathering that the current divisive, belligerent mood among the people of earth can’t be attributed to our real-life situations. We have space, food, water, shelter, healthcare enough for everyone, and more. We don’t fight because we need to, he said, but because we carry stories in our heads to which we respond. It's clear that he doesn’t mean story in the same way I meant it when I published a collection of short stories , but there’s something to be gained in connecting the two, particularly when behaviour is guided by, for instance, The Holy Bible , or the Quran , each telling a story by which adherents understand life and by which their actions are governed. Scientists, as a rule, act according to a very different story of life, their exploration guided very much by the saga of evolving nature and the incontrovertible principles that govern all things. Our stories —I think Broo...
Read more