Embarrassement of riches

Servant?  Or Princess? Clothes make the man.

So, in the course of my normal readings, I have come across a number of topics which really deserve discussion.  On the one hand, there is a prescient discussion of the marginalization of homosexuals within the RC church which resonates with me as someone who has always been a social 'outsider'.  There are a series of discussions (here and here, for a start) of the rise of fundamentalism and dogmatism which is something that I have seen as well.  There is a particular scripture reading I found which I will talk about at a later point, but I think I will engage probably the most controversial and problematic topic which has been presented to me - the Scriptural challenge of the authority of the RC hierarchy (and, possibly, the hierarchy of most apostolic churches).

Warning - potentially inflammatory statements below.  Check flame-throwers at the door.  You have been warned.

The can of worms was first opened last night when I read 1 Timothy 3, wherein Paul outlines the qualifications for a deacon and for a bishop.

Therefore an overseer (ἐπισκοπῆς, bishop) must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity (gravitas) keeping his children submissive (under control), for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Tim. 3:1-8)

A bishop must be the husband of one wife?  That counts out arguably all the clergy (some deacons excepted).  On a less literal note, you want to have leadership who has practical understanding of the laity's daily concerns to provide context, understanding and the ability to 'lead from the front'.  Thus, a long-term, spousal relationship is rather key, whether the bishop is male or female...straight or gay.

Must manage his own household and keep the children under control? Again, this disqualifies all the orders (some deacons excepted).  If you don't have a household or children to manage, how can you gain the skillset needed to care for God's church?

Able to teach?  Before you can teach, you must know the material yourself and it is painfully apparent that there is an entire generation of clergy who have only the vaguest knowledge of Scripture and Tradition.  If you have the Magisterium spoon-feeding the laity, that's one thing.  When the Magisterium is arguably as ignorant as those they are supposed to instruct, then you get double-think.

Gentle? Hospitable? Not quarrelsome? Consider the rhetoric of Corapi, Zuhlsdorf, Dolan, Burke, the African bishops of the Anglican Communion and others.

Not a lover of money?  The Vatican bank has had ongoing scandals for the last 30 years.  Further, as one archbishop stated, the driving reason for not coming forward regarding the priestly abuse of minors was that it would expose the Church to nearly unlimited liability claims.

Speaking of priestly abuse of minors, the slow-roll train wreck has shown over and again that leadership (the bishops) were complicit, if not active in covering up the scandal.  That would go to 'above reproach' and 'well though of by others' requirements.  If leaders cannot be trusted and/or respected, they lose all authority.

So, let me see about bringing this home.  The basis of leadership is the establishment and use of rapport with the followers to gain respect and inspire.  If those in leadership are categorically disbarred from having those points of commonality, then they are intrinsically incapable of true leadership.  This isn't about a few 'bad apples' or even a cadre of good ol boys.  It is a systemic problem of self-imprisonment within an ivory cathedral.  The parallels between the pharisees/sadducees of the 1st century and the institutional, apostolic churches of today are disturbing. 

Reflections on Theologia and the Web of Jewels

The very center of our religious experience is our relationship with the Divine.  Indeed, Augustine defined the word theologia (the root of theology) as the reasoning and discussion of the Divine.  As to how that has morphed into a study of institutional religions, I will leave that as a 'finger-moon' problem. To enter into that discussion, one should identify our perception of the Divine.  Note that it is my contention that the Divine is both infinite and ineffable.  Therefore, full understanding of Her is beyond the capability of our finite minds. Thus, I wish to focus on our capacity of understanding certain facets of the Divine.

When I was growing up, I had the fortune of being 'exposed to' two disparate depictions of the Divine, both being familiar to the readers.

The first is that of Strict Disciplinarian Father.  This is the Old Testament YHWH, replete with long beard, Elizabethan English and smiting ready for all those who are naughty in His sight.  The parallel thought process with that is that we are all inherently (dare I say, intrinsically) naughty in His sight and it's only by the direct intervention of the Pascal Lamb that we can avoid the smiting that we are well and truly deserving.

As a compliment to the Disciplinarian Father model is the Nurturing Mother.  This vision of the Divine is a (mostly) maternal figure who is filled with love and acceptance - a non-judgmental and comforting figure full of mercy and compassion who emphasizes the innate value and worth of every human being.  In some versions of this understanding of the Divine, there is no Hell in the afterlife, for all are brought into the loving embrace of the God.

The second depiction of the Divine I grew up with was a variant on the Divine Watchmaker.  In this scenario, the Divine created all and was active in the lives of mankind.  At some ill-defined time between the Apostolic era and the Protestant Reformation, however, he stepped back and has let the watch run from there.  In this envisioning, God is a distant figure...neither overly loving or reproachful.  It is for us to read the book and follow the instructions, pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps when needed.

Then, there's the facet of the Divine which I perceive at present - a old friend and mentor who knows you better than you know yourself.  This aspect of the Divine gently guides, reminds and chides but doesn't overtly condemn.  Choice and self-responsibility is key, with a strong emphasis on fraternal love which can mean the occasional pat on the back or kick in the pants.

The question arises, which image of God is the correct one?  The answer is yes.  Our image of God reflects ourselves and what we, individually, bring to the table.  Those who feel a certain innate guilt about themselves or wish for divine punishment exacted on others for perceived sin see God as the Disciplinarian.  Those who have a need for love and compassion or wish to bring those traits into the world, see the Nurturer.  People who have a strong belief in self-reliance and a rational/scientific world without miracles have a distant deity.  I think you see the point.

reflections on the daily reading

Today's reading is the Mark account of the Golden Rule.  What is significant in this account is that we have the scribe's reply to Jesus' interpretation of Hillel.

The scribe said to him, “Well said, teacher.
You are right in saying,
He is One and there is no other than he.
And to love him with all your heart,
with all your understanding,
with all your strength,
and to love your neighbor as yourself
is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

So, we're back to the Hosea 6 quote about how the Divine wants mercy, not sacrifice, acknowledgment instead of burnt offerings.  This is repeated in Micah and Isaiah (amoung other places) where the concept is transmitted in a bit more classic OT-Elizabethan english style (lightning bolts and fire from heaven sold separately).

All of these are talking about inward religion vs. outward religion.  The outward trappings are unimportant to the Divine.  It is that recognition of the Divine, within and without ourselves, the understanding that we are all connected and that to love God is to love one another that is vital.  If you have that, then the external signs will manifest as they should without effort or worry.

"It's not the rosary that you wear or that comb up in your hair;
It's not the direction that you pray or the number of times per day;
It's not what kind of food you nom, or where your parents are from.
What matters is what lies within, the love of God which resides therein." -T.Shead