New pope - no change - why care?

The title is a little unfair. There will, we are told, be change. However, the change will apparently be in the running of the Vatican and the outward style of the papacy; not in the spiritual foundations, philosophy and message of the organisation.

Let's face it: the RC multi-national state is like a socialist bureaucracy. Its equivalent in China is the Chinese Communist Party. It will change only what suits it in its constant efforts to maintain its control. On the other hand, the RC multi-national sect is also like a multi-national corporation. It regularly rebrands in order to increase its power or whenever things go wrong.

Why is this important?

The answer is simple. The world at large associates "the church" with politics and business, and the result of all this meaningless hullabaloo over a new pope is to reinforce that impression. It goes well beyond the Vatican. Few people outside denominations and local churches see much difference betweeen one Christian organisation and another. They are all seen as being similarly judgemental and hypocritical. Most people, and this includes a huge number of professing Christians, think that the political and business model of the RC sect (or something remarkably similar, albeit in different brand colours) is what Jesus is all about. And I repeat, this applies to all denominations, old and new. 

Jesus was never about denominations. Not only did he never teach such a concept; he actively and vehemently taught against it. 

I am not writing in favour of ecumenism, which is a total distraction from what is required. What is needed is for denominations of all shades is to dissolve, for local churches to close their buildings, members of hierarchies to renounce their titles and powers, and everyone who professes to follow Jesus to do precisely that. Following Jesus is not about turning up on a Sunday, attending a prayer group, sharing common rituals and liturgies, wearing symbols or following shared social norms, and is not about organised political action or ethical spending. None of these things is intrinsically wrong, bu nobody, unless they choose to be perverse in their interpretations, can conceivably read the teachings and example of Jesus in the four gospels in such a way. 

Yahweh is patient, but he is not forgetful; he is forgiving, but not a doormat. Jesus said that there is only one sin (i.e. rejection of Yahweh's authority and will) that is unforgiveable. The so-called "unforgiveable sin", is to "blaspheme the Holy Spirit". Blasphemy is not the same as profanity; it means to misuse or usurp the authority of the HS, to make false claims or justify self by claiming the HS's guidance; it means to claim falsely that your authority is his authority. This is what denominations and those in their hierarchies do with alarming certainty and regularity. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes on the day of judgement!

New pope loves gays and women...

It might come true, though I have to admit it's unlikely.  Still, we're all allowed to dream. If you like your dreams to be visual, have a look at this wonderful cartoon!

The more likely outcome of the conclave is that we'll see a continuation of what has happened over roughly the past 1,700 years. The RC sect/state has protected and furthered its own politial and economic ends since the Roman empire under Constantine made "Christianity" the official religion. When later emperors tried to reverse that decision they came up against a formidable machine - part political, part commercial, part mafia, and very little that could legitimately be called spiritual. 

Throughout its history it has ruthlessly stamped on anyone and anything that questions its self-declared authority. The Vatican wants the earth to be the centre of the universe? Result - persecute those who provide reliable evidence to the contrary. The Vatican decides it can sell forgiveness? Result - crack down on those who suggest otherwise. And so it continues.

Of course, when it suits them, popes have changed what was previously declared to be God's perfect and unchangeable word. Like most autocracies, the Vatican manages to be all things to all people. In countries where contraception is commonly used by members, the Vatican stays remarkably quiet on the subject. To do otherwise might lose members. Elsewhere, including in areas with AIDS at epidemic levels, it is as strict as ever in its insistence that contraception is evil.

The idea of equality for women and gays will eventually be acccepted by the Vatican, but only in countries where it is essential to the organisation's survival. Should the new pope declare that, for example, women will be allowed to "train for the priesthood" or that priests will be allowed to marry don't fall into the trap of thinking that the Vatican has undergone a cultural change. The purpose will be the same - to protect the power of the sect/state. Whatever the justification offered, we must never forget that the Vatican is masterful at spin.

We can dream that the new pope will dissolve the whole structure and urge members to follow Jesus instead of "Mother Church", and prioritise the teachings of the bible over "church teachings". The pope himself, the curia, ardinals, bishops, priests and anyone else in the hierarchy and bureaucracy should 'seek first the kingdom of God' instead of the Vatican state.
 

 

The Pope - Conspiracy theories

After my last blog, I can hardly complain about conspiracy theorists doing their thing! Of course, as I broadly said of myself, suspicions of one sort or another are pure speculation from most of us. Few outside the Vatican (or within I'd guess) are privy to the machinations of such a powerful, multi-national enterprise.

It has surprised me that the first time I have seen any reference to conspiracy theories is in today's newspaper. Of course, I may have missed an earlier article, but the mainstream media seem to have focused so far on what a holy and lovely chap Benedict is, as well as speculating on his succcessor. Why the delay in what is so obviously a good story? The media isn't usually shy about promoting controversy!

In truth, serious journalists should probably ignore conspiracy theories about the pope's resignation and focus on the more enormous Roman Catholic conspiracies that directly affect millions of lives every day.

• Contraception - the conspiracy to maintain numbers, reduce libertarian education and keep a power base in the developing world; largely ignored in N. America, W. Europe and Australasia.
• Re-writing history - the conspiracy to make itself appear not only institutionally innocent but even persecuted in matters such as child abuse; the pretense that institutional failure and corruption is really just a few bad apples.
• Patriarchy - the conspiracy to keep women out of anything important; closely connected with the wider conspiracy to make scripture say whatever the institution wants about itself.
• Confession and the monopoly on forgiveness - the conspiracy to maintain control of congregants' lives, donations and speech.

 The list could continue, but I'm getting bored, as you are too, no doubt.  Why does the press not plug away at these huge conspiracies? Are they frightened?

Gay marriage and hypocrisy

 The debate in the House of Commons about gay marriage fascinated me.

 

I am still bewildered by some of the strange and twisted arguments used by those opposing the right for homosexuals to marry. How on earth (or in heaven) is gay marriage supposed to undermine my ‘conventional’ marriage? If marriage is for procreation, then why are marriages allowed between people beyond child-bearing age? In what alternative universe has marriage ever been anything other than a civil contract, controlled by the state?

In the last case, institutional churches may rightly claim to have carried out vast numbers of marriage services, but the words of the actual marriage section are purely legal. No marriage that takes place in Britain is recognised in law without the correct form of words being used in the ceremony and until various other legal requirements are completed. The churches’ claims are legal and financial, not spiritual or religious. There is nothing to stop Christians, or people of other beliefs, from separating the legal and spiritual aspects of what currently takes place in religious buildings.

If people choose to believe that homosexuality is wrong, then so be it. There are also plenty of people who believe that all spiritual beliefs are wrong or that social norms are evil. So be it. Each to his own. But none of these people has the right to deny others a reasonable degree of social, legal and emotional equality. 

It is not the job of Christians to tell other people how to behave, to hold the copyright on the meaning of words or to deny others the same rights of marriage as they enjoy themselves. The job of all followers of Jesus is to represent Jesus, who came 'not to condemn but to save'. How dare divorced MPs stand up and preach on the sanctity of marriage? 

They should look to themselves. Moats and beams! Splinters and planks! Yet more ammunition for critics to claim that 'christian' and 'hypocrite' are synonymous.

Papal retirement - am I just cynical?

I just can't shift the idea out of my head.

Popes don't retire; at least, not voluntarily.  

Of course, throughout the shameful history of the Roman Catholic sect there have been many forced retirements.  These have usually been the sorts of retirement employed by the Mafia - fatal.  In a few cases, the retirements have taken the form of forced exile.

What about this one?  Is the poor chap really simply too old and frail to carry on? He's not nearly as feeble or gaga as some within living memory. Perhaps he has more sense than most and wants to die with some degree of dignity instead of being kept alive as a puppet figurehead. Or perhaps he has been forced out.

Is there something in his past that is in danger of coming to light? Is it blackmail by those who oppose his papal declarations? Could it be a personal fear of potential embarrassment? Is 'mother church' worried about something popping out of the closet? 

All this is very unfair. The truth, of course, is that I am taking the view that there is no smoke without fire. But this expression is not true when applied to people. It would be more true to say that there is no hurtful gossip without empty speculation. And, yes, I have to admit that these thoughts I claim are inexcapable are purely speculation. I have invented the smoke out of my own imagination; out of my prejudices and pride. 

The one thing in all this that I know is true, is that no one should be in the position of being a pope or any other form of leadership that is, to all intents and purposes, unquestionable. This applies as much to archbishops, moderators, apostolic leaders or whatever titles people take. If the RC sect wants to act as the body of Jesus then now is the time to renounce the wordly, commercial, power-based model of leadership. 

Naturally, this is no more likely to happen than with the Anglican's recent change of archbishop. These denominations - all denominations - are the same, with each wanting to maintain its own  distinctiveness and hierarchy.  

This is the opposite of what Jesus said.

Is that surprising? Not really! Or am I being cynical again?

False teaching

I am jot in the least proud to have to admit that I have spent years believing and teaching something false. I was thinking about something quite unrelated to the bible as I was driving home last night when the realisation suddenly hit me that something I have always said Jesus taught was, in fact, not what the bible shows at all.

I said and written on many occasions that Jesus gave us three commands concerning love: love the Lord your God…love your neighbour…love each other. The last of these is from Chapter 15 of John’s account of Jesus and could not be clearer: ‘My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.’ He repeats this in the same chapter: ‘This is my command: Love each other.’ No one in their right mind could argue that Jesus did not command us to love each other. The bible tells us that Jesus said these things directly to his followers. These are direct commands. But what about the other two, the commands to love God and love our neighbours?

You may rightly infer that I am going to suggest that the bible does not tell us that Jesus directly gave his followers these two commands. Let me be clear, therefore, that I firmly believe that Jesus wants us to love God and love our neighbours. Where I have gone wrong in the past is not in teaching that he wants us to do so, but in falsely claiming that he worded this desire as two direct commands.

Matthew 22 tells us that:

‘One of them (the Pharisees), an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
 

Jesus replied: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”’(1)

Did Jesus say the words “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, etc.”? Yes, of course he did. Did he say these words as a command? No! He was giving an answer to a Pharisee who was out to test his credentials and was certainly not one of his followers. His response that this was the greatest commandment from the Old Testament law demonstrates how important he thought it, but he did not give it as a command of his own. The second was likewise given as an answer, not as a command.

Jesus said, ‘All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments’ because he was speaking to those who remained under the Law. He was saying to the Pharisees, who constantly tried to trip him up with petty rules and misused quotations, that the Old Testament commandments were intended to encourage love, not to enslave people to rules and regulations. The message is, in fact, equally valid for those of us living under the freedom of the Spirit, but that is not the same as saying that Jesus stated these two commands. He did not.

I will no longer tell people that Jesus commanded us to love our god, Yahweh, with every fibre of our being and to love our fellow humans as ourselves. Instead, I will tell the truth, that Jesus wants us to do these things and described them as being exceptionally important. But we, who are under the freedom of the Spirit, love Yahweh through the person of Jesus, and love our neighbours not by following rules, but by sharing the love of Jesus. His only command was that we love each other (2), which he knew was not going to be easy when we have so many ways of disagreeing over so many things.

 

(1)   In reality, neither of these was accurately an Old Testament ‘commandment of the Law’. The first adds to the commandment; the second is a summary of several other commandments. This, of course, does not alter the importance of what we read, but we should be aware that Jesus was not a great one for quoting word for word. He placed more emphasis on the message than the letter.

(2)   I have believed and taught until now that he also commanded us to ‘Go and make disciples of all nations...’ He did not. It is true that he told us to do this and more, but he did not command this. Had he wanted to give a command he would surely have chosen to use the word ‘command’. This does not diminish the need for us to do all he asks of us, but we should not claim that scripture says something that it does not. Words are powerful and should be used carefully.

A new Archbishop of Canterbury - an old problem

So! A new Archbishop of Canterbury! Yippee!

Or, alternatively, so what? Will it change anything that actually matters? Will the Church of England and the Anglican Communion stop focusing on issues such as women bishops, gay marriage and economics? I doubt it.

The new man – and yes, of course it is a man – is no doubt a splendid fellow. He must be exceptionally talented to have risen through the hierarchy so fast. We might ask, however, what sort of talents we are talking about. I am not questioning his spirituality or beliefs – I have no evidence on which to do so and no right either – but it is surely not spiritual qualities that lead to the appointment of an Archbishop of Canterbury. His background before ‘going into the church’ was corporate business and it would seem that the qualities he demonstrated as a successful executive have brought him his new position. He is, after all, called to lead an organisation that is essentially a huge business with political and social influences far beyond its ostensible membership.

Will the new man refuse to wear those ridiculous mediaeval robes or end all the obsequious bowing and scraping? Will he advise those around him to focus on Jesus and him alone? Will he wash clean the gold-weighted hands, too heavy to lift in proper prayer? Will he rid the Church of England of its vast property portfolio, including all those cold, empty buildings that are nothing more than historic monuments to man’s folly and pride? Will he renounce his right to pass judgement on political, social and economic affairs, Caesar’s due. Will he stop discussions about Anglican policies and dogma and focus solely on his responsibility to proclaim Jesus?

I hope he will. I pray that he will.

We will know the true state of the new archbishop’s spirituality when we see the course he takes – a world-centred course or a Jesus-centred one.