Or at least the first draft is. Now I have 2 weeks off before my adviser gets it back to me, so I'm getting caught up on all the books I've been wanting to read. I just finished The Seven-Storey Mountain, and am now working on The Beauty of the Infinity. There's something satisfying about finishing books which you've started months (maybe even a year) ago.
I'm finding myself at an impasse with the whole Protestant-Catholic thing. I'm at the point where I don't like Protestantism enough to become Catholic simply because it seems better, not because I fully agree with it. After all, a position which claims that it is infallible, can still be mostly right and simply wrong on that one point, and I don't take either magisterial or papal infallibility to be my reasons for wanting to convert at this point.
The problem is, that I've resolved that the point of the magisterium would be to provide some sort of unity, which should be obeyed out of respect even if not completely believed. I'm just so tired of Protestant schisms, with no method of resolution. However, there is one issue where I don't think I can put my theory into practice: birth-control.
Or rather, the prohibition against it. It's one thing to say that I'll become RC and undergo some inconveniences for that sake of my convictions. It seems like another thing to say that either Joy, or myself, or both, pretty much have to give up our lives on the basis of rather murky arguments. If I were convinced that RC were really true, than I would have to do it; but the thing is, I'm not convinced and I'm not going to sacrifice everything my wife and I have been doing on a whim.
I don't know whether to feel like the rich man who couldn't give away all that he owned, or angry because conservative narrow-mindedness ruins everything it touches (to be fair, liberal vapidity destroys everything else).
9 comments:
Congratulations on your progress with your thesis!!
Regarding the other matter, yeah, that's a tough one!
So it sounds like you see benefits to joining the RC Church body other than its telling you what to believe on every point. I gather you agree with it (more than you do with Protestantism, whatever that is) regarding certain points you see as major theological issues, but reserve the right to disagree (as do other members of the RCC) on other points.
If the point of your moving is partly to improve your epistemic situation, you don't have to give the Church authorities total control or credit them with infallibility. It can be a better epistemic situation without being a perfect one. But if it is up to you to say what points at which you will diverge from the authorities, how is that different from your epistemic situation in Protestantism?
If the authorities dictate which beliefs you are free to differ on and which beliefs you are not free to differ on, that might help the situation. But not if you want to persist in differing with the authorities on beliefs that are not on their "disagree with us if you like" list.
Perhaps, though, the important choice is not between individualism and authoritarianism in theological belief-determination. Rather, it is a matter of what contributes to your belief-determination as an individual. I gather that you see Catholicism as a better environment in which to do theology than Protestantism, but not because other people are doing all the theology for you. Yet I also think you want more from Catholicism than a bunch of traditions you can selectively heed (you have that already as a well-read Protestant).
There must be a way to escape the dilemma of utter theological autonomy and utter theological authoritarianism. Each of these just seems so unsatisfactory!! I don't know if I've every succeeded in grasping what the third option is before; but it seems to be eluding me at present.
Meanwhile, you have a practical decision to make that is a fairly vital one (in the Pragmatists' sense). You could (1) postpone joining the Church until you and Joy have decided what to do about the birth-control issue, or (2) join the Church but postpone changing your practice. Meanwhile, you're either going to (1) change your practices now or (2) not change them now.
I feel (as I usually do here) that I'm not being very helpful.
I'm not really concerned with help so much as conversation. If help comes out of it, so much the better. If not, please share your thoughts anyhow.
You're right in assessing the problems I'm having with the epistemological position. I can no longer hold that RC would be different qualitatively, but merely quantitatively. It is troubling, but I still see unity as being a reason for conversion as well. Further, the different strands of RC come together in a unity which I don't really find in Protestantism. So, even if my theoretical reasons for conversion fail, I still have practical ones.
For this reason, I couldn't join RC and postpone changing our practice. I'd be joining out of a belief that obedience even to a wrong belief, as long as it's not sinful, is worthwhile to preserve unity. I couldn't then claim an exemption for myself because it'd be difficult for us. But the whole stance of RC on birth control really only makes sense for families in which one person stays at home. We both want our vocations, and would basically feel like we had wasted our last few years (and thousands of dollars) if we dropped out now. I think that whoever stayed home would also feel like the other person had gotten the better deal; not really a marriage-enhancing situation. So, I can't stand the Protestant churches around here, and I can't make the switch to RC. And there's no way at all I could ever convince Joy to join the EOC. So we'll probably go to a Protestant church, which Joy will like and I can't stand or vice versa, simply because it seems to be the most open option.
I'm sure not finding resolution, at least not yet, on this issue is frustrating for you. I'm sorry.
I respect your integrity in refusing to join RC and "opt out" of their ethical stance on birth control. (Although that doesn't mean that I think RCs who dissent on this issue lack moral integrity.)
To be frank, while I respect those who hold the Catholic view on birth control on the basis of NL reasoning (including non-Catholics like our common former philosophy prof), I feel strongly about the issue and I think there are significant reasons *not* to make the Catholic stance morally obligatory. Historically, it has just been unhealthy for women to keep getting pregnant; it can in many cases increase the risk of birth defects and women dying in childbirth. I disagree with the NL argument in favor of the Catholic stance, and so I come down opposing it because I think not using birth control is in many cases unwise and does not promote well-being for mother, children, or family.
Library time running out again!
To continue my comment...
I am in an interesting position with respect to the birth-control issue, however, because I'm quite sure that we would be granted a dispensation for medical reasons even if we were obedient Catholics.
I have in the past (beginning of and year or two before college) played around, at least, with the idea of joining the Catholic church for the sake of unity. However, my problem with that argument is that the Church is broken, and it doesn't seem to me that being part of the Catholic division would of itself foster unity more than being part of the Protestant division.
Taking part in ecumenical dialogue, and perhaps interfaith activities and services, however, seems a more proper way of dealing with the sorry state of the Church.
On the other hand, if the RCC better models unifying diversity than many Protestant churches, I can see the attraction. But you would I guess know more about whether this is the case than I do.
I apprecaite our conversations as well! They help sustain me often.
I certainly have no problems with Catholics who reject the stance on birth control; I have similar concerns as you do. I simply can't join due to the specific reasons which I would have for joining.
Ecumenical discussions are definitely important, but I don't think that they can really cross the Protestant/Catholic divide. To really solve the problem, either Protestantism (as a rejection of a single authority) or Catholicism (as acceptance of a specific authority) must be true, as they cannot both agree where they stand. So I can see how there can be unity on one side or the other, and I'm frustrated with the sort of unity that Protestantism has to offer. Also, even where the RCC has doctrines of infallibility, it tends to be much freer to allowing reinterpretation than equivalent Protestant churches. This together with the richness and diversity of its 2000 years of history I think helps it to be able to be unified without being too static.
I think that the only choice I really have left for churches is one or another typical Evangelical church... blech. I went to one today, and I was reminded tenfold of why I wanted to leave those denominations. There's no Mennonite church within half an hour of here, and I don't feel like searching through the more mainline churches for one with any sort of depth; I've seen nothing good come out of any to which I've been. There has only been one church which Joy and I have visited so far where we both liked the service; of course, it was Catholic. *Sigh*. If you could be praying for us, it would be much appreciated!
I don't know whether my problems are more of a truly moral outrage at the shallowness of the contemporary church, or merely a Niezschean fastidiousness. . . .
My prayers you have.
I suppose in theory you have the option of attending a Catholic church and attempting to be part of their community life...but of course you wouldn't be able to fully participate in the Eucharist.
And I'm guessing that you wouldn't find attending and not fully belonging satisfying.
Even if you went to a Mennonite church, of course, there's no telling whether or not your experience there would be similar to ours.
What *do* you have in the way of local community support while you're church-hopping?
Mainly the people around us. I'll sometimes spend time with people up at Trinity, and we get together regularly with Ruth. Also, there's a couple that we know (the wife works with Joy and the husband goes to Trinity) with whom we occasionally get together.
Even when we have been going to churches, that's about as far as we've gotten; most churches don't really seem to do too much in opening up. Of the two which have stood out, one felt at times more like a club than a church, and the other was so disorganized that we gave up trying to get into a house gathering after three or four months.
I'm a drive-by reader who found your site on Textkit. I'm a homemaker/student currently muddling my way through Ancient Greek and Religious Studies. I found this dialogue interesting regarding Protestantism and Catholicism. My husband and I made an exodus from the Protestant church about 3 years ago. We had been involved for about 15 years.
The question I would set forth is why must you attend an institutional church at all? It seems to be in diabolic opposition to the original intent of a true believer anyway. Jesus said, "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him." John 4:23. Jesus brought about a new covenant, not one made with stones and brick and mortar. With his death the veil of the temple was torn in two. This system had become corrupt, and with Constantine, the new Christian version of the same institution has become corrupt (Catholic as well as Protestant).
The Holy Spirit is our teacher and guide. We have not used birth control since our early first years of marriage (now married for 21 years) and we have never had a child. One may ask, is this God's will then? Catholics and Protestants alike may see us as barren and perhaps sinful because God is not blessing us. We've endured the advice and criticisms. I choose to trust that God is the One in control of the womb (whether we take birth control or not). I do not understand His ways all the time. I complicate things so much of the time. But lately, the simple lessons of finding my rest in Him, and Him alone, are the most fulfilling.
God bless you on your search.
I doubt "Anonymous" is returning to read this, but I just recently read this passage in a CT article which says well what I thought in response to "Anonymous"'s question about belonging to an institutional church.
This is from an essay by Scot McKnight, in which he contrasts what he calls "the little gospel" and "the robust gospel"; this is from his final, eighth mark of the robust gospel:
(Quote Begins:)
"8. A robust gospel emerges from and leads others to the church. The little gospel creates individuals who volunteer to attend church on the basis of their preferences in worship, friendships, sermons, and programs. The robust gospel knows that God's work, from the very beginning, has revolved around three words: Israel, Kingdom, and Church. Again, the words of Paul make this abundantly clear: "In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: that is, the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (Eph. 3:5–6). The mystery of the gospel is that Gentiles have become fellow heirs with Jews in the promise of Christ Jesus. The gospel's intent, in fact its substance, is the creation of God's new society with Jesus on the throne. The robust gospel emerges out of the church with good news and calls others into that same church.
...We cannot skip from the Fall to the Cross. God chose, instead of sending his Son to redeem Adam and Eve in Genesis 4, to wait. And what God did between the time of Adam and Eve and Jesus Christ was to work redemption in the form of community. The Old Testament is about Israel; the New Testament is about Jesus and the church. The Bible is about God's people, the community of faith. The church is not an institution that provides benefits for individual Christians so they can carry on their personal relationship with God until that church can no longer provide what they need. Instead, the church is the focus of God's redemptive work on earth in the present age.
So "joining the church" isn't an option for Christians. How often do we preach entering into the community of faith, the church, as inherent to what the gospel work of God is all about? The little gospel gives the new believer the choice about the local church; the robust biblical gospel offers the new believer the church along with its Lord. Because ultimately, only a redeemed community is robust enough to do justice to the problems we confront—and the gospel we proclaim."
(Quote Ends)
Post a Comment