In regards to "Church Space":
1) ALL Catholicism (whether it be Roman or not) is "scary" to Prots because they cannot separate the original Christianity from the corrupt political institution it became (and maybe still is). Therefore, ANYTHING Christian that is "catholic" is labeled under the Prot's file folder of "scariness."
(2) Putting Christian imagery all over your walls would overwhelm visiting unbelievers (or visitors from "The Church of Relevancy and God, Inc.") and "push" religion on them. We're not here to push any kind of standard on anyone. We're here to make them comfortable and complacent, remember?
(3) Putting Christian imagery all over the place would shout loud and clear a conformity to a particular tradition and worldview and offend our post-modern (or hyper-modern) aesthetics. We're not here to offend or rock boats, remember? I don't recall Jesus doing anything outlandish, like beating people with a whip, insulting religious leaders, dying as a criminal, or any other paradox invented by G. K. Chesterton.
(4) Putting Christian imagery up is old, therefore it is irrelevant. We're supposed to be relevant, remember? We are to conform to the norm, not live in the past.
-from the desk of the Pastor/Curator/Therapist of the Church of Relevancy and God, Inc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
My question is: Can Catholicism REALLY be separated from the "original" church, as you wrote in your first comment? The early church (from about 100 AD to the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD) sounds very Catholic to me... They:
1) Baptized babies (oh! pagans!)
2) Had written, traditional prayers (what! no spontaneous prayers spoken to God from the heart?)
3) Took communion seriously, to the point that it was celebrated every Sunday. Catachumens who were not members of the church were not even allowed to participate. They were asked to leave the service until they became full members of the church
4) had a church hierarchy complete with bishophs -- one of John's converts (Polycarp) became the BISHOP of Smyrna (Awful! Bishops in the early church!)
5) had an early creed (the old Roman Creed) that was recited in every service (more liturgy! even worse!)
6) and developed an early form of the lectionary, the ritualized readings of the old testament, gospels and epistles that is still practiced in liturgical churches today.
So, aren't most of these things associated with Catholicism? Many Protestants associate them with the Medieval Church (and these practices did develop and become more elaborate in the Middle Ages, I'll grant you), but they formed quite early in Church history, long before the Pope became an authority in the church, long before the Nicene Creed was written, long before the Canon of Scripture was agreed upon.... The "let's return to an early church" mentality like that propounded by evangelicals today just doesn't exist in fact. A "simple" early church devoid of thse attributes is a myth. And just for those of you who would prefer to try it anyway, just remember that there was no developed doctrine of the Trinity, no canon of Scripture, and no church organization. You might as well not have a Church if you want to go back to some idealized past that doesn't include these attributes. One could counter with, "Oh, but we'll just go back to the simple, early church structure WITH a canon of Scripture and developed Church doctrine to lean upon." True, but you might as well strip the Church of much of her glory. It's like taking a great, unified work of art -- like one of Shakespeare's plays -- and just taking the lines out that you like and leaving the rest. It destoy its beauty and unity.
I agree with you...uh...you did know that this blog entry was a satire, right?
Yeah. I knew that. :o) I was just ranting. Ignore me....
Shelby
Good...now I'll ignore you.
Post a Comment