Monday, January 30, 2012

Working theologies

Regardless of a religion's official positions, it also has a "working theology", a set of attitudes and values and behaviors that reveal an underlying point of view. (In Bionian organizational psychology, this is called a "basic assumption group", the unconscious agenda hidden beneath publicly trumpeted aims.) A great example is the contemporary Episcopal Church, the US Anglicans. Underneath the Bible, the Prayer Book and the Creeds, Apostolic and Nicene, what really drives those folks is "radical inclusivity." One of their own pointed this out in devastating detail. Other groups, both within and beyond that church, embrace vehemently --as the "essence" of Christianity-- this very same theology. Which, being the reduction of a vast bimillenial and complex world-founding religion to two words, is a classical and shameful example of ideology.

[This is an old liberal Protestant game. Along with the Quest For The Historical Jesus, we have the quest for The Essence of Christianity, which Protestant liberals of the 19th century pared down to the content-less The Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man. Now, of course, that is revealed to be oppressive patriarchal bias!]


After yet another lapse in my addictive and disheartening perusal of PrayTell, it seems to me that for a goodly chunk of the Catholic commentors, certainly of those who are most vehement and passionate, their working theology is a sentimental and resentful stance of Little People Populism vs the Corrupt Institutional Church. The "assembly of the baptized" vs the "hierarchy of the ordained". The Great Washed, as it were, vs The Temple Priesthood. Almost any issue eventually comes down to this theological narrative. Popular power vs traditional power. So what if "the assembly of the baptized" means twelve middle aged white ladies in Virginia Beach?

I would call that attitude Protestant were it not for the fact that it lacks even the basic theological commitments of classical Protestantism: solus Christus, sola Scriptura, sola Fide, sola Gratia. Instead it is merely warmed over secular humanism of the spiritual, adolescent and therapeutic sort.

Of course, radical inclusivity and Little People Populism are rampant in our dissolving culture as well. Which is where these religious folks got the idea. Certainly neither from the Bible nor the Christian or Catholic tradition. It comes down to little more than a spiritualized version of Occupy Wall Street.

What led to this morning's rant was a thread about the current state of funerals in American Catholicism. A dentist from Palo Alto, one of the LPP's on the site, exploded in self-righteous resentment that anyone should care about things like doctrine or liturgical rightness when people were hurting...We should give them whatever they want. I stupidly opined that his viewpoint made people into little combos of victim and consumer. Is there not a crucial difference between pastoral care and customer service? He interpreted this as an attack both on him and his good friend The Lord Jesus. (You can see what a fruitful exchange this was fated to be.)  He was half right.

What I was actually thinking is that I would rather be buried with dignity as Muslim --yes, me-- than subjected to the unmanly sentimental caterwauling and contentless drivel that I witnessed at the death ceremonies of my sister, uncle and father. The Great Traditions provide a ritual shape, a containing form, to life, and to death, to time and to eternity. Each tiny individual's life is set in a cosmic context, in a long line of ancestors, before the awful mystery of God, by the rites of death. What we have achieved instead is the reduction of the cosmos and our ancestors' visions to the cramped confines of our current ego and our feelings of the moment. What an accomplishment. I wonder sometimes if the religious and cultural wonders of the Christian Faith and its Western children are not as Newman suspected about the Dominicans in the 19th century, when he considered joining them and abandoned that path: "A great idea, but extinct."

So I let go. Here is the status quaestionis twixt Ex Cathedra and the Tooth Fixer.

by Ex Cathedra on January 30, 2012 - 11:29 am


At the last three American Catholic funerals I took part in, what I saw was –with little exception– the collapse of Catholicism in the triumph of the therapeutic, of the worst of the sentimentality of the surrounding Protestant culture, and at the place –death– where you would expect the Christian rubber to hit the road of real life, the surrender of vivid proclamation from a profoundly sacramental, ancient, and world-creating faith with content and confidence to vague accomodationism and comfortable platitudes, reduced to the horizons of the egos in the room at the time.

by Dr. Dale Rodriguez on January 30, 2012 - 12:15 pm


“reduced to the horizons of the egos in the room at the time.”
I think the only ego in that room was yours.




I need a Twelve Step Program for Compulsive PrayTell Reading.


Update on Jan 31. I am feeling better today. Finding all this kind of funny. But the Tooth Doc is still roiling, not having a good day. Someone else provoked his populist conscience worse than I did. (I did a little editing to translate abbreviations for the non-specialist.)

#94 by Dr. Dale Rodriguez on January 30, 2012 - 8:57 pm
If you don’t like it then go to a Latin Mass and leave the rest of us alone.
Typical. You are upset that catholics “disparage” the Latin mother tongue but you have no problem “disparaging” fellow catholics. Then you talk about “lack of charity”. Christ will use the same yardstick you use on others to judge you.
ps go back to the "New Theological Movement", you guys deserve each other.





4 comments:

Anonymous said...

And yet what drives PrayTell is Catholics' implicit ('implicit' as unthematic, mostly unconscious etc) feeling and conviction that being Catholic really matters and that the RCC is "the" Church. ... In Anglo-Saxony, RCs were gradually given rights to the term "Catholic" -- but as a denominational name, even though Catholics have only a universal-institutional doctrine.

Formerly Protestant things weren't worth considering by RCs. Now Protestant things are worth considering, and Prots are returning the favour. But the difficulty remains for Catholics that Protestants and their estimable stuff aren't "Catholic." Protestants don't face this obstacle: Prots are ready to praise Catholic things as "Christian." Catholics can't think their de facto denominational system as a denomination.

This is quite different from Prots -- whose clergy and especially whose seminary professors can be just as "absolutist" as any RC personnel, but the absolutism doesn't have a universal-institutional handle. With Prots it's first the Bible, as a formalist (bohu) principle at least, then a confession or creed, that purports to be based on the Bible, as the only plausible Christ-centred, Spirit-fill'd interpretation of the Bible.

What 'other churches' or 'other denominations" are doing is consider'd valid by a Prot to the extent that it congrues with his own denomination's creed and practices etc, or his own social economic political and world-religions agenda if that's the sort of protestant he is.

If a denomination cares to comment on whether there's one universal or 'catholic' church, this will be the Church as unify'd under Christ's rulership. No Lutheran needs to extend the label "Lutheran" over a Presbyterian individual or group he wishes to approve of. But when a Catholic must balk at labelling a fellow-Christian a "Catholic," he or she feels that this must be a tremendous hurt to the fellow-Christian.

Implicitly there's 'arrogance' on each side: on the one hand, the RC might be shock'd or offended to see that approval from "the" Church as "Catholic Christian" doesn't matter to a Protestant; he would like Christians to agree on stuff, and Prot-Catholic mutual misunderstandings are only the most long-standing of these in the West.

On the other hand, the Protestant might feel offended that the purpose of ecumenical dialogue is for the Protestants to gain the blessing of the RC institution.

Yet the RC really does feel this blessing and understandably benevolently wishes to be able to extend this blessing to the Protestant: "Such approval will be nice for him."

But within "the" Church, institutional approval still really matters. Perhaps somewhat absurdly, even the most "radical inclusion" Catholics feel angst when their opinions and lifestyles are officially disapproved of by the Vatican -- even though they hold that the Vatican is a racist sexist homophobic patriarchy that Jesus would replace with a coalition of oppress'd women and subalterns.

I mean, if one can make up one's own version of what "true Catholic spirituality" is why not endorse it oneself or with a community of like-minded Catholics?

Plus, if they like they can believe if the original democratic no-hierarchy pre-Constantine Christians approved of the very agenda you have today, so they are in communion with the true Catholic Church, and the Vatican are anti-Christian interlopers! Censure from Benedict 16 shouldn't matter to them more than censure from John Knox. ... It's like radical feminists felt some need of approval from the white male racist sexists whom they condemn -- not merely that the white male racist sexists will capitulate, but that they constitute a ruling group that will approve of radical feminism as their official "working theology."

Anonymous said...

Some high-church Anglicans jump up and down that apostolic succession is a sign of any real church, along with baptism and eucharist and maybe the rest of the seven sacraments.

But this is perpetually a point that needs to be "rediscover'd" by Anglicans. And externally it doesn't occur to the RCC or the East to puzzle about Anglican "orders."

Even for Eastern Orthodox Church, apostolic orders can be valid only via a tie-in to an autocephalous (is that the term I mean?) church. Canterbury isn't one of these autocephalous Sees -- Rome, Jerusalem, Constantinople, etc.

Considering stuff apostolic-successional, Anglicans are part of Western Christendom, thus tributaries of Rome. All their clergy and bishops would have to be re-ordain'd in order to be really elevated above the spurious, self-appointed unapostolic officials who manage Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans etc.

But as for RC ?theorists who go on about 'radical inclusion' and so on, does any of their theorizing matter to actual church-goers?

When Marx wish'd to give Christians a new self-concept, he based this new concept in the toil they do and named them "workers." This was a plausible identity. He told them to rise up and grab ownership of the mines and factories etc. This was intelligible. Gaining control of the economy was an appealing trade for promises of heavenly bliss.

But todays 'radical inclusion' agitators in the RCC and Prot institutions don't try to make their replacement identities intelligible let alone advantageous to church-goers. The "community of the baptised" and "pilgrim people" etc have no meaning to Catholics -- definitely no meaning that can replace "Catholic."

Benedict 16 presumably understands that he can ignore the pilgrim intellectual community without affecting attendance at mass, financial contributions, etc. ..

Benedict 16 could have said so years ago in "Introduction to Christianity" (1969) but at that time Heidegger, Bultmann, Tillich et al were still going on, and even RCs study'd Kierkegaard. Ratzinger begins that Introduction with a parable from Kierkegaard as re-told by Harvey Cox in the Secular City ! Times change, eh?

Anonymous said...

I don't know nuffin about Bionian organizational psychology, but I suppose it's possible that the real "working theology" of mainline Prot denom leaders is Calvinism -- or Sufi Islam. Definitely their foreground theology is not Calvinism or any other Prot or semi-Prot doctrine and creed.

"Radical inclusivity" seems to be their foreground theology, since no one expects to hear anything but that from such denom clergypersons and spokespersons.

if the UCC leaders began proclaiming Congregationalist Calvinism we would all be astonish'd!

Anonymous said...

Cf the posting Ex Cathedra made last week: »As for Martin Luther himself, over at PrayTell, the issue came up of whether he was a saint. I noted that at least from the Roman side, a monk who marries a nun and then sets about to break up the unity of the Church is hardly a likely candidate. I was serially instructed on my uncharitable, unnuanced, ahistorical and pre-Vatican II attitude and that mutual acceptance of responsibility was important for healing and the unity of the churches.«

Ecumenically minded Catholics think-feel to approve of Protestants and Protestant things via the Catholic things that feel important to them. I don't suppose that the Catholics at PrayTell have a definite concept of "saint." My assumption is that they would say that many clerics who have been designated "saints" were no true saints at all. (And admittedly, perhaps many famous saints (e.g. Dominic?) would not pass canonization muster by the criteria(?) used today!)

Nevertheless PrayTell RCs naively and finely feel that Protestants would like to hear that Catholics consider Luther a "saint."

Now there are Protestants or at least non-Catholics who consider the lives of the saints a fine place to seek out edification, including for homilies. But these nonCatholics aren't interested in Luther, and are appal'd at Calvin. Mainline Lutherans and Presbyterians, who are burden'd with the formal impossibility of disowning Luther and Calvin, seem to wish to reduce their founders to a set of 'good ideas' for stuff for Christians to do.

IMHO, then, ecumencially minded RCs' inclination to to deem Luther a saint comes from their assumption that Prots can and even already do think of "Church" and "Catholic" (universal) already as Catholics do, whereas, ecumencially minded Protestants think of the RCC only as the most important denomination.

Any serious Catholic consideration of Luther would be most unwelcome to mainline Protestants, and "evangelicals" would find it merely irrelevant.

Maybe this simile: suppose Marxist-Leninists decided to make an ecumencial gesture to American liberals by taking up the Federalist Papers with serious consideration, and they allow for instance that there is very great realisticness in Madison's assertion that »the first purpose of government is to protect the unequal ability of acquiring property« (Federalist 10).

They could propose only that Madison's principle should be seen to pertain even more to classes than to individuals, so that democratic politicking in America from 1776 onward has proved an excellent way for individuals and groups to acquire property.

This serious Marxist-Leninist ecumenical reading of the Federalist Papers would hardly be welcome at the NYT, PBS, etc. It would be perceived as a sarcastic attack on American political culture, and that perception would surely be accurate.

Similarly, a serious Catholic reading of Luther could seem to today's Lutherans as a serious substantive attack on Lutherans as resistant, fail'd Lutherans. ... They might retort with a serious reading of the Summa theologiae to see just how damn well RCs really love "Saint" Thomas Aquinas.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...