So I watched the media’s 24/7 coverage of the election of a new Catholic pope with mild interest. By far, the most interesting thing about the whole affair was the debate about changes the new pope might bring. Would he finally crack down on pedophile priests? Would he ordain women? Would he endorse same-sex marriage? While some fear such changes, others pine for them.
Like CNN anchor Erin Burnett. Here’s what Burnett admitted, rather candidly, after the nomination of Pope Francis (video link HERE):
I do not practice [Catholicism] now. I am ecumenical, and I’m not alone. Many people I know who were raised Catholic no longer attend Mass and many aren’t raising their children Catholic, either. Whether it’s because of the sex scandal, the Church’s views on women, perhaps it’s openness to other ideas, like homosexuality. The Catholic Church has a lot of issues but it does a lot of good for a lot of people. The Church helps the poor and the lonely, and I bet there are a lot of people who might return to the Church if it changed. After tonight’s celebrations are over the big question will be whether Pope Francis will be that change. (bold mine)
It must be enticing for the Catholic Church to learn that such “high profile” people as CNN news anchors “might return to the Church if it changed.” Just think of all those prodigals wandering, waiting for the Church to change? But should it? Should it matter WHO will return to the Church if it changed? Is the Church responsible to change its opinions about women in ministry (or whatever) so that the Erin Burnetts of the world will return?
I’m not a Catholic, nor a Catholic basher. But this mindset, this expectation, is so prevalent toward the Christian Church as to be ubiquitous. But how much should the Church change to suit culture?
- Should the Church change its beliefs about hell because some people don’t like them?
- Should the Church change its beliefs about the exclusivity of Christ because some people don’t like them?
- Should the Church change its beliefs about the Divinity of Christ because some people don’t like them?
- Should the Church change its beliefs about original sin because some people don’t like them?
- Should the Church change its beliefs about sexuality because some people don’t like them?
- Should the Church change its beliefs about future judgment because some people don’t like them?
- Should the Church change its beliefs about Scripture because some people don’t like them?
Of course, there’s a difference between negotiables and non-negotiables. Doctrinally speaking. Changing what the Church believes about electric guitars being used for worship is a lot different than changing beliefs about the nature of God or the virgin birth. Nevertheless, when the Church yields to public pressure to change any core doctrine or foundational principle, irrelevance is inevitable.
But isn’t this exactly what Erin Burnett is asking?
The Christian Church is the last politically-incorrect institution in America. Government, academia, the arts, business will all bend to cultural pressure. And well they should. There are no unbending, non-negotiable, transcendent laws which bind them. They are a product of democracy.
This cannot be true of the Church.
Once the Church acquiesces to public pressure to change its positions, then it abandons a God-breathed, preeminent center. It becomes little more than your local WalMart. Only in this case, the products that are shelved are doctrines endorsed by its patrons. Homosexual marriage might not be biblical, but it “sells.”
Here, I give Erin Burnett props. Rather than remain in the Church and gripe, she left. Kudos, lapsed Catholics.
Now, hopefully, the Church will not change to suit you.
Good stuff Mike…very good stuff. When my wife and I looked for a church, we of course were looking for a church that was reformed theologically like we were, but we were also looking for things (regardless of theological conviction) that are important and from what I’ve heard/seen, sought out less and less. Things like biblical church discipline for instance? We weren’t looking for a comfortable church really. We wanted to know the church and leadership wasn’t going to bend so typical pressure from a family causing trouble or a contentious woman spreading gossip or whatever else. I’ve seen the church neglect its very basic responsibilities to the detriment of many. There are many things missing in churches today that should be a core element of them. You have to wonder, how many REAL churches are there anymore and how many are simply self-help communities where the Bible is the general guidebook? The church in America is dwindling in my opinion, while more and more are being built…if that makes sense.
I found this fascinating and ridiculous. Different liberal media types hoping that the pope will meet their idea of what the church should be. If only he’d take the church into modern views of gay marriage, contraception, and women in priesthood.
Then they were quickly dejected because in the days of the internet they could find out that he had spoken in defense of traditional beliefs.
Social media and the internet has changed things so much. We all think we have to project our opinion and influence even the pope (and yes, I get the irony of writing this on the internet).
I’m not Catholic, but I have a good feeling about His Holiness, with his nods to the poor and humility. I’ll be praying he is able to influence and change the Catholic church, but in strengthening them in the Word and the centrality of Jesus, rather than anything else.
what a fine insight. If we become like the world, we have missed the calling entirely.
Just FYI–we are all members of the catholic church; what we are not all members of is the Roman Catholic church.
The word “catholic” actually means “universal”. So the Church in her entirety is properly termed the Catholic Church. Thus whenever you see me address issues pertaining to the Pope, the Vatican, etc. I’ll use the phrase Roman Catholic.
I’m not entirely sure why this is a big deal with me, but it is.
Martin Lloyd-Jones said as only could: “The church is never more effective than when it does what only it can do – be the church.”
It makes sense when you realize a lot of Catholics are ethnic ones. Being a Catholic is who you are and how you were raised, not what you believe. So they can believe in an entirely different world system, and yet have no conflict between identifying as Catholic and it.
It’s something that seems to afflict the liturgical churches badly. Protestant churches get hit with it too, in certain areas. But Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopalian and Anglican, and other high denominations seem to suffer this. You get a small core of these believers who really understand and follow the Church’s teachings, and a tremendous amount of ethnic believers who are often just born into a faith and identify as it, while believing in a secular worldview. This is why we get things like this; it’s really natural if being Catholic is about holy days, fish for lent, and going to Catholic school, and not about what the Church says about things.
No easier way to show the hypocrisy of those commentators than to ask if they’d make the same criticism of Islam. Like could you imagine Burnett saying this ont the air?:
“I do not practice Islam now. I am ecumenical, and I’m not alone. Many people I know who were raised Muslim no longer practice Islam and many aren’t raising their children Muslim, either. Whether it’s because of the sex scandal, Islam’s views on women, perhaps it’s openness to other ideas, like homosexuality….”
Ha! That’s a great point, Kerry.
Thanks.
Generally, mainstream journalists and pundits are cowards. They call themselves “brave” but only because they know that whatver they’re attacking won’t try to hit them back.
Of course, they’ll ACT like they’re being attacked. Just questioning their logic will seem like an attack to them.
Sad, really.
I really don’t understand the hubbub surrounding the pope (this recent election and the ‘office’ in general). It all seems very manufactured. I guess you have to be Catholic or a media elite.
Well the Vatican (to the dismay of some Protestants, perhaps) is the most visible face of Christianity. Differences aside, we share the same history with them and they reach back to when there was more or less one church. Because the RCC is so visible, any theology changes it makes can impact the entire Christian world. They have stood firm against changing the orthodox beliefs that Mike listed. This new pope sounds like he will continue that tradition. Will he initiate change to secondary issues (allowing priests to marry, women to be priests)? Don’t know, but he should.
I’m Catholic and will always be a Catholic even though I completely disagree with the Church on issues of birth control, gay marriage, women priests, mandatory celibacy, and their absurd “exclusivity.”
The sex abuse scandals are a prevalent evil in the Church and the new pope and cardinals are the last people who should be calling the general gay public “the work of Satan.” Satan is known as the father of lies. The Catholic church has lied and lied and covered up these abusive, power-greedy pedophiles in the church for years over and over again. The Church authorities should be looking in their own back yards to point to the “work of Satan.” Sexually abusing children under the disguise of being a trusted member of Christ! Is there anything more evil? And did they stop it? No.
And there was nothing exclusive about Christ and his ministry; he excluded no one, why should the church exclude certain people? The Catholic church will not change, not with this pope or any other. And that’s because it’s run by a group of small-minded men who may be experts in Divine love but understand nothing about true human love.
I’m loyal to the love and forgiveness that Christ preached and lived, not the Catholic church.
Yes, Paula, Christ preached forgiveness and love, but He never suggested an acceptance — or a redefinition that evolves with the times — of sin. Repentance is the first step toward forgiveness, not the other way around. And repentance requires a realization of sinful behavior that can only come from believing what the Word says about our behavior. No one sin is worse than another, but all sin — great or small — separates us from a holy God. Which is why we’re called to repent and to allow the Blood of Jesus to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
I attend one of those high churches, an Anglican Mission to the Americas church that grew out of the need for biblical worship in a denomination (Episcopal) that has been doing exactly what the world wants: succumbing to man’s ideas of righteousness and rejecting Christ’s.
Normandie, I don’t believe that sin separates of from God. Nothing separates us from God but our choosing to be separate by not believing He exists. God is perfect love in every way and does NOT reject us. If the Catholics taught me anything it was that God loves us dearly, no matter what. This is where you will truly find unconditional love. If a woman truly loves another woman or a man truly loves another man, then God is there in that love. Someone commented here that God “hates.” God does not “hate.” This is the Old Testament thinking that used fear to bring people to faith. It’s humans that hate. We don’t need fear, we need love and understanding. Homosexuals are not sinners. It’s not just sex. I know many gay couples who are good Christians, who love and honor all of us, actually far more than some far right Christians who pontificate bible verses to condemn.
When Christians (and the Church) stop focusing on judgment, sin, punishment, and focus on honest love and acceptance as Christ did, we will grow as Christians and members of Christ, instead of remaining stuck in Old Testament fears of sin and rejection.
I feel really sorry for gay people, quite frankly.
Because nobody is talking about how the Church went soft on divorce. Ever.
It’s quite horrifying, really, to see homosexuality targeted as the One Big Sin We Won’t Look Away From.
Meanwhile divorced people, recovering alcoholics and, well, pretty much everybody else gets a special logo and Recovery Program and all sorts of fuss made.
All of that is to say how soft we’ve been on The Culture for decades now. And how arbitrary it feels to have this line drawn in the sand.
It bugs me because no one in my family ever divorced, but now that we have homosexuals THAT sin doesn’t get a Logo and a special welcome reception in Fellowship Hall with coffee and cookies.
Having the Church change to suite popular opinion does not, nor can such an action, change scripture. The Bible is clear about the sinful nature of homosexuality. See 1 Cor 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10.
The Church can change to make people happy, but the sin is still a sin.
The Bible is also pretty darned clear on Divorce. You seem to have a concordance so I’ll let you look up the actual references for the verses that say God hates divorce and that divorce is an abomination.
So why do you get to sit next to divorced people in church but no openly gay people?
I think you’re a little confused here, Katherine.
Divorce isn’t the unforgivable sin, nor is it ongoing. By that I mean, once someone is considered “divorced” they aren’t sinning every moment since entering that state and are therfore beyond redemption. It is a one time failure that needs repentence and forgiveness and Christ’s blood just like every other sin.
The same goes for the behavior of homosexuality.
The problem with society today is that we’ve chosen to define homosexuality as a state from which there is no escape. (Similar to how, I think, you’re defining divorce.)
There is no sin in feeling one way or the other. Feelings are transient and ambivalent. Subject to everything from childhood conditions, to lack of sleep, to having too much to eat for lunch.
The position of the Christian church (indeed, the teaching of Christ himself) is that the sin is in willful lusts and actions.
It depends on your denomination. For an RCC, divorce is a sacrament, and a valid Catholic marriage is forever barring very specific (and technically rare) conditions. If you had a valid Catholic marriage, you cannot divorce in the eyes of God; to get a civil divorce is meaningless, and to have sex or marry after is committing adultery. The best you can do is separate indefinitely and remain chaste, or live together as brother and sister if you remarried because you would harm the kids if you separated to reconcile with your first husband. You can be denied the Eucharist if you don’t.
Katherine has a point about Protestants being loose on interpretations of this. While Catholics are too, they tend to abuse the rules in a different way; annulments are a big industry now. Rather than divorce, they try and prove the marriage was fraudulent and never really happened to begin with. They break them, but a lot of devout Protestants are just as bad at changing beliefs because people don’t like them. Modern culture infects us all.
I’d still argue there is a difference, but maybe in a different thread here.
blah, MARRIAGE is a sacrament. Freudian slip.
Personally, I’ll just go on what the Bible says. Divorce is terrible, it should be avoided at all costs, but nothing is beyond the blood of Christ.
It’s a complex thing man. I don’t really mean to bring it up to say “All people should believe in indissoluble sacramental marriages!” but that marriage can be seen as a condition as much as being gay is, although freely entered. There is no “escape,” and in some denominations the condition is very narrow indeed.
Katherine, the church is to love and welcome all people, because no sin is worse than any other. I think the issue here is not welcoming and loving–which we’d better do if we’re Christ’s followers–but an unwillingness to redefine sin. One sin isn’t worse than any other. Gossip, judgement, slander, envy, and covetousness are right up there with sexual sins and murder in Romans 1. So, if you find a church of folk who haven’t committed a single one of those sins, then someone’s lying.
We are to be in, not of the world. If we are so like the world that the world accepts us, we’re not doing our job and remaining true to what God asks us to do. We are to love sinners but dislike sin (ours as well as theirs!) And if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. I believe we Christians need to be out among people, preaching our faith by living it, by loving and helping people, and then being ready to tell why we believe what we believe when we are asked. We need to be winsome while staying true to our faith.
I am a gay woman and when I became a Christian, I joined the Catholic Church because I believe it to be the most correct based on the Bible and the evidence of the Early Church. I don’t expect the Church to change for ME. It is I that have to change to follow the teachings of the Church/Bible/Jesus Christ.
Some of those lapsed Catholics MIGHT return if the Church changed to suit them, though that is by no means certain. But what would happen, in that case, to the faithful Catholics? Should that vast body of believers be driven out in the hope of attracting some celebrity lapsed Catholics?
The thing is, people don’t seek out the Church to follow trends. They are looking for truth, which does not change with the times.
Nissa, what a true and courageous post. May you find all the joy and healing and love you seek in the Person of that Savior who loves you unconditionally.
Basiclly the Roman Catholic church is facing the same pressure from society all Christian churches are: Dumb down Jesus and make Christianity just another lifestyle option to guide you through life. Most of the issues being leveled at Catholics are being leveled at all Christians, Catholics just happen to be the most visible. Whether Protestants realize (or like) it or not, because of that visibility, any changes the Catholics make, will potentially effect all Christians. I don’t think they RCC will change the orthodox points Mike listed. Secondary issues like women pastors and priests marrying possibly could see change (and should).