So, after my recent discussions with my Catholic colleage, which had been leading me towards Rome, I have been having a new set of discussions with another colleage, who is Polish. She is currently in a Baptist Church, but while in Poland was in a 'Pentecostal' church.
The history of this church [my synopsis of what she said] is that it started as a charismatic group within the Catholic church. They started to study the Bible. Finding discrepancies (so far unspecified) between RC practice and the Bible, the group started to do what they understood the Bible to be saying.
The RC Bishop gave the group an ultimatum, that they should either return to the church's practices, or leave. So they left. They continued to exist as an independant charismatic group with a RC heritage but with Scripture as their plumb line.
At this time a Pentecostal (Elim I think) missionary came and started up a church in the town, but the Charismatic catholic group and the Pentecostal church soon realsised they were basically the same, and merged.
So, this moves me away from Catholisism. Confused as ever.
Showing posts with label Roman Catholic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roman Catholic. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 15
Wednesday, January 2
Evolution and Christianity
Which is the true church?
Rome claims this title, citing direct decent through an unbroken line of popes (unbroken except for the breaks, that is) descended from Peter.
Ireneaus introduced the idea of apostolic succession, but which church does not claim descent from the apostles?
Which church reflects what the Apostles taught? Well, the truth is, none of them do – they all err in one way or another.
Why have I written this under the title “Christianity and Evolution”? Well, while many of us are busy trying to prove that evolution is false; my hypothesis is that the church itself illustrates evolution.
In evolutionary theory, you start with one animal. Genetic mutations occur, and they result in one of the following:
The DNA self-repairs
The mutation is harmful and the animal dies
The mutation is inconsequential
The mutation gives the animal a slight advantage over others.
In the latter cases, the mutated animal can breed with other similar animals nearby, but not those beyond a barrier, say the sea. So each side of the barrier, different mutations replicate themselves and are compounded by subsequent mutations. The mutated animals become different species, no longer able to interbreed. Yet they both have the common ancestor and share its characteristics.
On the other hand the church is a single united body…as if! There was one single church at the beginning. But mutations have occurred – doctrines have been misconstrued, the state and politics has become involved, regional and cultural differences have influenced, bishops have allowed power to sway their thoughts…and so the ‘church’ has mutated. In some areas those mutations have been divergent. The Copts were separated very early on over minute differences in Trinitarian explanations, the Nestorians thought that ‘theotokos’ was a misleading title, and Orthodoxy split from Rome over the source of the spirit.
It might seem that these are branches of the metaphorical tree are coming off a vertical Roman trunk, but if we step back and examine the tree more honestly we find that the Rome is neither vertical nor a trunk. It is just one of the branches. And Luther sitting in that branch looked at the root and saw how far away he was, and set off as a new branch back towards the centre. But many twigs have come off him.
Some of these mutations of doctrine and practice, and splits, heal themselves. Others are self-destructive and lead to short lived churches, dead stumps on the tree. Others seem to have no effect on the health of the church in question, but mark denominational differences. And still others give rise to flourishing churches that dominate for their season.
Now I’m mixing my metaphors of a real tree and an evolutionary tree, but do you see where I am heading? Poodles, wolves and foxes are all the same family, different but all ‘dogs’. Moggies, lions, tigers and leopards are all cats, with a common ancestor – noen can say that they are the original cat. Rome, Orthodoxy, Lutherans, Copts, Baptists, Anglicans, and even those lunatic fringe charismatics, and the gay-ordainers and the gay-excommunicators, are all branches of the same tree, all expressions of the same true apostolic church. I can suggest that there are some branches that I would like to see pruned off, many that are growing in completely the opposite direction to what I think best, but that is not for me to decide. I can separate and grow in a different direction, but I must remain in the vine, which is Christ.
I shall have to change my name to “Captain Mixed-Metaphor”, but I hope you see what I mean. Separate from those you disagree with, grow in the opposite direction, but retain the unity of the common root and the common sap.
And coming back to evolution, if we can see it happen in the church, why not in the rest of God’s creation?
Rome claims this title, citing direct decent through an unbroken line of popes (unbroken except for the breaks, that is) descended from Peter.
Ireneaus introduced the idea of apostolic succession, but which church does not claim descent from the apostles?
Which church reflects what the Apostles taught? Well, the truth is, none of them do – they all err in one way or another.
Why have I written this under the title “Christianity and Evolution”? Well, while many of us are busy trying to prove that evolution is false; my hypothesis is that the church itself illustrates evolution.
In evolutionary theory, you start with one animal. Genetic mutations occur, and they result in one of the following:
The DNA self-repairs
The mutation is harmful and the animal dies
The mutation is inconsequential
The mutation gives the animal a slight advantage over others.
In the latter cases, the mutated animal can breed with other similar animals nearby, but not those beyond a barrier, say the sea. So each side of the barrier, different mutations replicate themselves and are compounded by subsequent mutations. The mutated animals become different species, no longer able to interbreed. Yet they both have the common ancestor and share its characteristics.
On the other hand the church is a single united body…as if! There was one single church at the beginning. But mutations have occurred – doctrines have been misconstrued, the state and politics has become involved, regional and cultural differences have influenced, bishops have allowed power to sway their thoughts…and so the ‘church’ has mutated. In some areas those mutations have been divergent. The Copts were separated very early on over minute differences in Trinitarian explanations, the Nestorians thought that ‘theotokos’ was a misleading title, and Orthodoxy split from Rome over the source of the spirit.
It might seem that these are branches of the metaphorical tree are coming off a vertical Roman trunk, but if we step back and examine the tree more honestly we find that the Rome is neither vertical nor a trunk. It is just one of the branches. And Luther sitting in that branch looked at the root and saw how far away he was, and set off as a new branch back towards the centre. But many twigs have come off him.
Some of these mutations of doctrine and practice, and splits, heal themselves. Others are self-destructive and lead to short lived churches, dead stumps on the tree. Others seem to have no effect on the health of the church in question, but mark denominational differences. And still others give rise to flourishing churches that dominate for their season.
Now I’m mixing my metaphors of a real tree and an evolutionary tree, but do you see where I am heading? Poodles, wolves and foxes are all the same family, different but all ‘dogs’. Moggies, lions, tigers and leopards are all cats, with a common ancestor – noen can say that they are the original cat. Rome, Orthodoxy, Lutherans, Copts, Baptists, Anglicans, and even those lunatic fringe charismatics, and the gay-ordainers and the gay-excommunicators, are all branches of the same tree, all expressions of the same true apostolic church. I can suggest that there are some branches that I would like to see pruned off, many that are growing in completely the opposite direction to what I think best, but that is not for me to decide. I can separate and grow in a different direction, but I must remain in the vine, which is Christ.
I shall have to change my name to “Captain Mixed-Metaphor”, but I hope you see what I mean. Separate from those you disagree with, grow in the opposite direction, but retain the unity of the common root and the common sap.
And coming back to evolution, if we can see it happen in the church, why not in the rest of God’s creation?
Thursday, April 26
Saturday, November 25
Heaven was never like this!
I had a dream last night. In it, I had died and gone to heaven, and was walking with the apostles. In fact, we were walking on water. The trouble is, in my dream, heaven was a sewage works - not the best place for walking on water! [I work as a civil engineer designing sewage works]
More seriously, I'm still perplexed by the contents of my previous post. Mrs was very dismissive, just laughing at me for taking it seriously at all. But if it was truly God and this was my Samuel in the temple moment, I can't dismiss it. Nor should I take any rash action, in case it was just a bizarre brain storm. Thinking theologically, I really couldn't make such an action now, there is just too much distance between me and Rome. I have read "Rome sweet Home" by Scott Hahn, and found it very challenging, but he still had fundamental flaws in his exegesis. (generally in the form of taking isolated scriptures and interpreting them without depth in a way suited to Rome rather than the rest of the Scriptures). I am a Sola Scriptura person: Tradition and Reason can help us (and hinder us) in the interpretation of Scripture and prevent "Judas went and hanged himself"..."Go and do thou likewise" episodes, but at the end of the day if there is any genuine conflict between the Scripture and the Tradition and the Reason, the Scripture has to win. Most of my formerly catholic friends cite discrepancies between scripture and RC tradition as being reasons why they reluctantly left.
And yet, theological perfection is unachievable. My church has errors. So if God told me to move from my original 'perfect' church to this flawed one, can he not also tell me to move to one that is even more flawed? Can I not be his messenger in that context? Can I remain true to my neo-anabaptist heart and say "I am a Roman Catholic?" Can I with integrity join a Roman Catholic church and subvert it with Sola Fides teaching?
Can I say to God "No, Lord, my theology prevents me from obeying you"?
I am in a mess on this one - the road is one I really don't want to travel, but if I am convinced it is comanded by God, what choice do I have?
I shall have to lay many fleeces, and take one step at a time.
More seriously, I'm still perplexed by the contents of my previous post. Mrs was very dismissive, just laughing at me for taking it seriously at all. But if it was truly God and this was my Samuel in the temple moment, I can't dismiss it. Nor should I take any rash action, in case it was just a bizarre brain storm. Thinking theologically, I really couldn't make such an action now, there is just too much distance between me and Rome. I have read "Rome sweet Home" by Scott Hahn, and found it very challenging, but he still had fundamental flaws in his exegesis. (generally in the form of taking isolated scriptures and interpreting them without depth in a way suited to Rome rather than the rest of the Scriptures). I am a Sola Scriptura person: Tradition and Reason can help us (and hinder us) in the interpretation of Scripture and prevent "Judas went and hanged himself"..."Go and do thou likewise" episodes, but at the end of the day if there is any genuine conflict between the Scripture and the Tradition and the Reason, the Scripture has to win. Most of my formerly catholic friends cite discrepancies between scripture and RC tradition as being reasons why they reluctantly left.
And yet, theological perfection is unachievable. My church has errors. So if God told me to move from my original 'perfect' church to this flawed one, can he not also tell me to move to one that is even more flawed? Can I not be his messenger in that context? Can I remain true to my neo-anabaptist heart and say "I am a Roman Catholic?" Can I with integrity join a Roman Catholic church and subvert it with Sola Fides teaching?
Can I say to God "No, Lord, my theology prevents me from obeying you"?
I am in a mess on this one - the road is one I really don't want to travel, but if I am convinced it is comanded by God, what choice do I have?
I shall have to lay many fleeces, and take one step at a time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)