Spring Into Action Fundraising Drive

Thanks to all our Touchstone and Salvo friends who responded so generously and helped us surpass our goal!
God bless you all.











WWW Mere Comments





« Twelve Condoms a Week | Main | 1928 Common Prayer On-Line »

February 08, 2006

A Bracing Sermon: Are You Ready?

I received this from contributing editor Anne Gardiner--a more bracing sermon than the usual fare, coming from the new Roman Catholic bishop Philip Tartaglia of Paisley in Scotland:

Today's gospel begins with a brief but arresting summary of the mission of Jesus to his contemporaries. It bears repeating. 'The time has come·and the kingdom of God is close at hand. Repent and believe the Good News.'

The time has come. What time are we in? I think we are in a key time, possibly a defining moment, for our society and for the Church in our society. Recently the Scottish Parliament has enacted legislation that allows for same-sex partnerships to be registered in what are officially termed civil partnerships. The purpose of this legislation is to give same-sex partnerships recognition in law similar to the legal status previously accorded only to the institution of marriage, including the right to apply for the adoption of children. . . .

In a word, I feel sadly that the Church and contemporary society are in danger of waving goodbye to each other. You could say that was already happening with the existing legislation on divorce, abortion, genetic experimentation, and in the current pressure towards the legalization of the direct killing of terminally ill people. But the dangerous and deeply unwise social experimentation and engineering involved in these same-sex civil partnerships seems to me to be taking the alienation between the Church and society to a new and potentially disastrous level.

So the time has come. The time has come for what? Well, if the Church and contemporary society are waving each other goodbye, are you ready to belong but not really belong? The other Christian Churches in this land have largely given up the fight on these things. So the time has possibly come to stand alone. Are we ready to stand alone? Do we have the conviction, and the spiritual energy? Am I being fanciful if I say that in the not too distant future there will be some kind of legal challenge against the church for its opposition to civil partnerships and for its teaching on sexuality, marriage and the family, judged homophobic by the intolerant canons of political correctness? Are we ready to be persecuted in our own land? Do we have the courage of our faith, do we have the unity of purpose to stand with the Pope and with our bishops? We have in the past, but can we now?  Have we become too complacent and comfortable? Have we compromised too much with the spirit of the age? Have we lost our edge? Are we made of the stuff of the martyrs? We are in a new time, and these are the questions which arise for this time.

…  The Church can only fulfill its mission in the world if it has the spiritual integrity and the depth of faith which allows us to respond to the Lord with a ready and generous heart, and to be faithful as we face what is a new and testing time for the Catholic Church in Scotland and for all people who believe in Christ.
--St. Peter's, Glenburn, 22nd January 2006

I would add that it is the Christian's vocation to always be ready for persecution. If one is to be ready at any time to give a defense for the hope that we have, then one must always be ready to be ridiculed and despised for that hope. If one is prepared for that, then one is on the path. Levels of persecution rise and fall, but the path is one with the Cross.

Do we and society wave farewell to each other? In a sense, this has always been so, for friendship with the world means enmity with God. Society's friendship with the world, by which the Apostle means, I think, the spirit of anti-christ, or perhaps the lust of the eyes, the pride of life--the world, the flesh and the devil--also rises and falls, but the alliance, through sin, is pretty strong.

But it's not time for pessimism, or despair, which is a sin. It is always time for hope, for speaking the word of truth in season and out of season. The latter seems to be the case increasingly, but we have hope because our hope was never based on the relative health of society anyway. But truth-seeking also means realizing the possibility of persecution.

Posted by James M. Kushiner at 02:47 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d83472b33c53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Bracing Sermon: Are You Ready?:

Comments

>The other Christian Churches in this land have largely given up the fight on these things.

A bit presumptuous. I suspect the various Free Churches of Scotland might beg to differ.

Posted by: David Gray | Feb 8, 2006 4:00:33 PM

Exactly, Mr. Gray. Ditto the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

Posted by: Will S. | Feb 9, 2006 2:42:23 AM

To retreat is not to surrender, but it remains a means of giving up the fight. I bless the Free Churches for not surrendering, but I observe that they've abandoned the fight insofar as they've abandoned the kind of rational language in which others -- not only liberals, but even Catholics -- might recognize as a common field for the fight.

If the Free Churches are the best example of continuing the fight, then they're the kind of exception that proves the rule.

Posted by: David | Feb 9, 2006 6:27:19 AM

And he didn't say all the other churches had surrendered. He said that they had largely given up the fight. The examples given do not contradict that.

Posted by: Ranee Mueller | Feb 9, 2006 11:42:49 AM

>I bless the Free Churches for not surrendering, but I observe that they've abandoned the fight insofar as they've abandoned the kind of rational language in which others -- not only liberals, but even Catholics -- might recognize as a common field for the fight.

Could you provide an example of what you consider irrational language that they've used?

Posted by: David Gray | Feb 9, 2006 12:42:26 PM

It takes a certain suspension of one's critical faculties to define one's interlocutors in ways they themselves would not recognize. Of the Catholic Church, the Free Churches web site says:

"Yet Roman Catholics are expected to suspend their critical faculties when the teachings of their Church are presented to them; they are required to accept as true whatever doctrines Rome teaches, whether they are aware of them or not. In any case, it requires the total suspension of one's critical faculties to believe that a priest can change bread and wine into the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, while the bread to all appearance remains bread and the wine remains wine.

"Although, until now, Rome has claimed to believe in the infallibility of Scripture, that claim was fundamentally flawed because she gave the same authority to tradition."

The site unreasonably conflates breadth of interpretive possibilities with dishonesty and "explaining away":

"When theologians in other churches claim to be in a 'broad church', they mean that there is a wide breadth of interpretation of the Bible allowed. We do not accept the dishonest interpretation of scripture which only too often explains away the plain meaning."

It seems irrational to me to exaggerate the Catholic Church's demands for doctrinal assent, complain of this, and at the same time construe a more liberal approach as a dishonest rejection of Scripture.

I could go on and on. I was particularly amused by the proposition, "We oppose the use of instrumental music in the public services of God's house, and at the same time maintain that the Book of Psalms is the divinely appointed manual of praise in the worship of God." Never mind that the Book of Psalms explicitly calls for instrumental music in the public service of God's house.

I don't intend to express contempt for the Free Churches. As a matter of Christian practice, for all I know, they be reckoned by Christ as heroes. Moreover, I am not aware of any Christian community that is entirely free of self-contradiction and other offenses against reason. Reason, anyway, is probably not high on the list of criteria according to which Christians will one day be judged by the Lord.

Nevertheless, the more solipsistic one's discourse, the harder it is to say that one is carrying on the fight for society's mind. My chief point is that the language employed by the Free Churches essentially expresses a retreat into a fortified enclave rather than a campaign across the land.

Posted by: David | Feb 9, 2006 7:57:50 PM

I found bishop Tartaglia's sermon thought provoking. He provides kernels of clear insight in most instances, but his underlying perspective seems to miss the unfortunate reality that the West is a post-Christian West. Recognizing this reality does not automatically lead one to despair - it properly should lead one to focus on what's vitally important.

The bishop notes: "Well, if the Church and contemporary society are waving each other goodbye, are you ready to belong but not really belong?" This assumes that the Church and contemporary society were ever on the same page. The clumsy accommodationist approach employed by my faith has enable rabid secularist to define the debate. And if it's a choice between being faithful or being "relevant" than one would think it is better to be faithful -- to simply led by example rather than contorting oneself to be everything to everything inevitably being nothing to no one. Mother Teresa always said: God calls us to be faithful not necessarily successful -- and accepting this does not mean despair.

Also, I guess I missed something, but I wasn't aware that despair was a sin per se -- rather it is the level of indulgence in despair that would make it sinful. I think it is important to be careful and contextual rather than paint with a broad brush...

Posted by: Michael J. Keegan | Feb 10, 2006 3:47:31 PM

Post a comment