Tuesday, 12 May 2009

Solidarity with Everything Modern is Much adoe About Nothing

Yesterday afternoon was spent in the hospital waiting on my daughter to come out of surgery. While waiting, I was reading Principles of Catholic Theology by Ratzinger. It is really an outstanding book that shows the depth and breadth of formal Catholic principles for our world. What we find so much in liberal Protestantism is the desire to give Christianity a new face and public value that disregards the traditional faith as something too anxious about sin created by an antique narrow-minded moral theology that keep men and women in the chains of self denial. So much of this type of progressivism seems to presently be shaping liberal Protestantism and has sadly gripped many in the church around the world and particularly it can be seen in the Anglican Communion. To embrace such a worldview and theological progressivism is really embracing nothing more than the wind. The real call to Christianity is a call to conversion of life if man really wants to be free and liberated. What so much of Anglican praxis seems to want to embrace today is adaptation to the world. So many of the arguments I find for the progressiveness of the church around the communion involves this sort of adaptation. To adapt, this worldview teaches, is an act of liberation, renewal that surrenders the past and any sense of guilt about how one leads his or her life. How does the Anglican Communion or any individual for that matter get rescued from such emptiness? I believe the answer lies in these words.
A Christianity that believes it has no other function than to be completely in tune with the spirit of the times has nothing to say and no meaning to offer. It can abdicate without more ado. Those who live vigilantly in the world today, who recognize its contradictions and its destructive tendencies--from the self-destruction of technology by the destruction of the environment to the self-destruction of society by racial and class struggles--such people do not look to Christianity for approbation but for the prophetic salt that burns, consumes, accuses and changes. Nevertheless, a basic aspect of metanoia comes thereby into view--for it demands that man change if he is to be saved. It is not the ideology of adpatation that will rescue Christianity, although adaptation is still operative wherever, with sycophantic zeal or tardy courage, those institutions are criticized which, in any event, have become the powerless butt of world publicity (and in so doing, incidentally, have entered once again into the apostolic tradition [1 Cor. 4:13]; nothing can rescue it but the prophetic courage to make its voice heard decisively and unmistakably at this very hour.

18 comments:

john said...

'A Christianity that believes it has no other function than to be completely in tune with the spirit of the times has nothing to say and no meaning to offer.'

Why is this piece not worth reading? Because of the immediate and gross misrepresentation inherent in the above quotation. This misrepresentation is so gross that one is driven to the conclusion that either (a) the (present) Pope is stupid; or (b) he argues in bad faith. Just consider: NO OTHER FUNCTION; COMPLETELY IN TUNE; SPIRIT OF THE TIMES (NOTHING to do with substance, then). Has ANYONE ever met ANY 'liberal Christian' who believes that Christianity 'has no other function than to be completely in tune with the spirit of the times'? Have you, Jeff? I add: (c)gross lack of charity: he has no interest whatever in UNDERSTANDING why 'liberal' Christians think the things they do (which, of course, vary a great deal).

You see, Jeff, I think such writing is disgraceful, and I'm deeply sorry you're a party to it.

Fr Jeffrey Steel SSC said...

Thanks for the concern John. How do you respond to the fact that liberal Christians attempt to give Christianity a new public face value by seeking to place it in a more positive relationship with the world via adaptation to culture rather than historical/biblical theology?

In place of calling this pope names and connecting me to him via my own writings, why not engage and help me see how your adaptations to culture are not an unqualifiedly positive relationship built by adaptation to modern culture rather than biblical and historical theology? I don't see how you cannot deny that this is the liberal argument for so many changes in the church today from the issues of Holy Order to sexuality. If I'm in error with this judgment can you theologically provide for me a way out of my errors?

Thanks in advance! Blessings.

Anonymous said...

After interacting in & with this stuff (i.e., the AC and Her adherents) for years, I find I'm more concerned with the well-being of your daughter. I do pray she is doing well. pax

Fr Jeffrey Steel SSC said...

Anon, thanks! I must admit that I found her surgery to be much more interesting as well and perhaps I could have blogged on that with more popularity.

She is doing well and is relaxing at home recovering.

Anonymous said...

How good that your daughter is relaxing at home recovering.

You surely entrusted her to our Lord's care.

We can surely entrust the Anglican Communion to Our Lord's care. He will provde for it, and keep it, in accordance with HIS will.

Fr Jeffrey Steel SSC said...

Yes, it is undoubtedly in His care. The question is, if the Anglican Communion recognises this and returns to her first love and then seeks unity of the Western Catholic Church. What a remarkable answer to prayer that would be. So, I entrust the AC to God's care for that cause.

Anonymous said...

Good grief - of all the things that truthfully are disgraceful somehow a it's a bit of theological frankness that puts the liberals on edge.

Fr Jeffrey Steel SSC said...

Anon,

Thanks for the comment. How do you prefer one express their theological positions? This is really a confusing charge to be honest. Could it be that if John the Baptist was a bit more politically correct he might have saved his head? Maybe our friends who are less theologically sure about positions can let him know that on the Great Day?

Seriously, is confidence, not in one's self but in the truth, really such a bad thing? Or is it best simply to communicate uncertainties to people as possibilities? Does this sort of later approach possibly have something to do with our practically empty churches save those (God bless them!) who are over 70? I'm uncertain, what do you think?

kevinrbranson said...

Fr Jeff - I am glad to hear that your daughter is doing well. KB

john said...

Jeff,

It's the absolute polarisation I object to. That's obvious, isn't it?

How about take a case? Bishop (or 'Bishop') Gene Robinson. Very 'liberal' on your - and your Pope's - estimation. Except he isn't. Apart from his homosexuality and homosexual practice, he's pretty orthodox - even pretty Evangelical. (Listen to him -read him.) You can say - you will say - his avowed practised homosexuality problematises everything. Except it manifestly doesn't. Just consider: does he fulfil that offensive, ignorant, stupid, formulation: NO OTHER FUNCTION; COMPLETELY IN TUNE; SPIRIT OF THE TIMES (NOTHING to do with substance, then). No, he doesn't, and neither do I and neither do ANY of the 'liberal' Anglicans or 'liberal' RCs that you personally know.

William Tighe said...

He's a sodomite masquerading as a Christian, "as though to deceive the elect," and since he seems to accept the Nicene Creed with his fingers crossed, he stands self-condemned -- as do you, if you do the same.

Anonymous said...

Father,

1. Of course it makes sense to have confidence in truth. I was commenting on the first reply in this thread.

2. Of course, Bishop Robinson plays the "I as orthodox as anyone" card from time to time. It's extraordinarily rhetorically useful. One saw a slightly different side of his theology when he proclaimed that he didn't believe that he and Rick Warren even worshipped the same God.

Fr Jeffrey Steel SSC said...

Sorry Anon. Thanks for the contribution. We'll wait for #1 to respond.

Meg said...

I was shocked by William Tighe's comment here about Bishop Robinson.

William Tighe said...

Why? Am I mistaken in any point of fact?

Meg said...

I do not agree with biblical injunctions on homosexuality. I understand your position, but feel your comments are of low tenor (and in any other context remarks of this tone might well be censored on these pages).

William Tighe said...

Well, that's for Jeff to say, not you -- and he hasn't. And, anyhow, who constituted you arbiter and censor of discourse? I certainly don't accept you authority as such.

Fr Jeffrey Steel SSC said...

I think Mr. Robinson is an apostate by definition given by the Church. I believe God is calling him to repentance and to a life of chastity and purity without which will be his own self-willed rejection of what God has intended for him as a Christian. The result of him not reforming his life is not a favourable position to be in. May God give him the eyes of faith to see what Jesus is saying to all who live lives not in conformity with love and responsibility in holiness.