Friday, December 16, 2011

Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild?

One of the charges against religious people by the atheists is that we believe in a sugar daddy in the sky who will take us to heaven when we die. In other words, for all our talk of self sacrifice and helping others and doing good--in fact it's simply self interest. We're investing in a great big life insurance plan. We pay in the good works and faith and love and all that good stuff and we get happiness and heaven and forgiveness and a chance to see Grandma and Grandpa and all our loved ones again.

I blame Evangelical Protestantism for this one. At least, the form of watered down Calvinism that passes for the Christian religion in America. Most especially I blame the distorted doctrine of 'eternal security'. This is the idea that once you accept Jesus and 'get saved' that you've got your ticket to heaven and everything will be just fine. No need to worry.

When you stop to analyze the Catholic faith--the form of the Christian religion believed by most Christians in most places at most times down the ages--you will realize that the atheist's charge doesn't stick. Here's why: Catholicism teaches that you may very well go to heaven if you have faith in Jesus Christ and are transformed by his grace into the saint you are destined to be. However--and that's a big 'however'--it's not a guarantee. There is still everything to play for. You might just get into heaven, but there's a high mountain before you, and there's many a chance to slip and fall into the pit.

So. This means heaven is a sure hope, but not a sure bet. Therefore, the real message is one of hope, but not one which should make us feel cotton candy happy. There's work to be done, and we only get into heaven if we move beyond the self interested form of religion to something which really is self sacrifice. "Unless you take up your cross and follow me you cannot enter the kingdom." This is a serious business and far from the nauseating, little family reunion--class trip to heaven which the atheists rightly criticize.

Furthermore, the idea that God in heaven is an avuncular figure who chuckles indulgently and forgets our sins and welcomes us into bliss if we just sign on the dotted line and weep for a moment and repent and 'get saved' is not the idea of God for Catholics.

Oh, yes indeed, he is the forgiving father--but road back to the Father is long and hard. It is full of reality, and humankind cannot bear very much reality. The loving Father is also the stern judge, and he is there to judge us for what we've done and left undone.

Certainly some shallow forms of Christianity can be blamed for sugary wishful thinking, but if I were thinking wishfully, the stern judge of all, and the long road of purgation is not what I would have wished for. Consequently, those who take this seriously cannot be accused of believing something comforting, or something which is all sweetness and light. This form of the Christian faith is not for sissies. It's not something which I actually like very much to tell you the truth.

Christians of all sorts--and Catholics too--should throw out the sentimental clap trap. For the sake of our own souls we need to get rid of gentle Jesus meek and mild and look for the one who cleared the temple and turned over the tables. Probably the most dangerous trend in the modern church is this sentimentality--which give us a false sense of security about our destiny. It lulls us to sleep.

It's spiritual poison.

18 comments:

  1. Pantokrator doesn't even sound avuncular.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Watered-down Calvinism." As a Calvinist, I think that's a pretty good description, or at least it's in the right direction. I think a closer comparison, though, is that of watered-down grape koolaid to wine.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fr Longenecker for once I actually agree with what you say here, and I can say that from the Evangelical Protestant side there is a lot of that sentimental gooey mush-Christianity in Evangelical Protestant Christianity and also what you might call feel-good-therapeutic Christianity with a lot of psychobabble. Also what passes for Eternal Security/OSAS in much of Evangelical Christianity is a far cry from the actual Reformed "Perseverence/Preservation of the Saints" where yes the person could know they were saved but at the same time one had to strive and persevere in seeking Holiness in the power of the Holy Spirit Sanctifying them to "make their calling and election sure".

    I know its not Catholic but you read or read to your congregation some Sunday the sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Jonathan Edwards, see what the reaction is, but I predict two reactions, many will hate the truth of that sermon and the hearts ready for harvest will fall on their faces before a Thrice Holy God and Repent and be Converted.

    ReplyDelete
  4. John,

    I have heard so many Christians talk about the love of God, and insist that God is so loving that he would tolerate anything.

    The thing is love involves sacrifice. Nothing worth it is ever easy. Why do people think that living a good life is supposed to be easy?

    We can't change the Gospel to fit Disney.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If other ages felt less, they saw more, even though they saw more, even though they saw with the blind, prophetical, unsentimental eye of acceptance, which is to say, of faith. In the absence of this faith now, we govern by tenderness. It is tenderness which, long since cut off from the person of Christ is wrapped in theory. When tenderness is detached from the source of tenderness, its logical outcome is terror. It ends in forced-labor camps and in the fumes of the gas chamber.

    ReplyDelete
  6. sorry that quote was from Flannery O'Connor

    ReplyDelete
  7. I always let a "concentrated" dose of "Saint Gregory the Great" put things into the proper perspective.

    For example, read
    Homilia XXXVIII
    (Habita ad populum in Basilica Beati Clementis Martyris)

    Link:
    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/10/true-man-of-peace-bad-are-many-and-good.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well said, Father! Thank you!
    I like going back to G. K's Orthodoxy, where he saysd a lot of good things along that line. One of my favorite quips of his is: "Christianity even when watered down is hot enough to boil modern society to rags." or something very like that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well put, Father. The points you make here had a great deal to do with propelling me down—or rather, up—the road to Rome. As an evangelical, I was jolted to hear a rather fundamentalist Bible teacher say that once someone had sincerely believed and “accepted Jesus as his Savior” at some point in his life he was saved, period, no matter how he lived the remainder of his life, but that another person who always tried to help others, live a good life, and please God as he understood him, but who did not accept Jesus as his savior, would be condemned to hell—even if he never had a chance to know Jesus. That seemed so unjust, and I believed God to be just.

    Later on I noticed that some of my fellow evangelicals believed that not only were you saved by faith alone ("faith" being defined solely as belief in, with no element of fidelity to, Jesus), but that you had to believe that you were saved by faith alone to be saved. I’m putting this rather badly, but it was as if the emphasis had shifted from faith in Jesus to faith in faith, belief in God to belief in belief. They thought that if your “faith” was tainted by the belief that how you lived had something to do with your salvation, you might not reach heaven. Perhaps that’s why some thought Catholics weren’t going to make it. And yet I find no passage in scripture that says we’ll be given a theology quiz when we stand before the Lord to be judged—certainly not in Matthew 25 nor in Matthew 7! However, the Lord himself says the way we live and the way we treat others will matter greatly.

    To give a very sad example of where extreme “sola fide” thinking can take us, I was sitting by my Lutheran father’s bed shortly before he lost his long battle with cancer, and we were talking about the people he looked forward to seeing in heaven. I mentioned my grandmother, who had truly lived her love for Jesus, and Dad began to cry, saying that he was worried about her theology because James was her favorite book of the Bible, and Martin Luther had said James didn’t even belong in the Bible. I tried to comfort Dad by saying that the Holy Spirit, not Martin Luther, was responsible for which books made it into the Bible, and the Holy Spirit didn’t make mistakes. I added that after you accept Jesus, something is supposed to happen—you are supposed to grow in the Christian life, and James is a manual for that. But it wrung my heart to see my father fearful for his mother’s salvation because she believed that how she lived her life had something to do with her eternal destiny.

    Sorry for the lengthy comment. Keep up your good work. You give us much to think about, and help equip us to give well-reasoned answers to others when they ask why we believe what we believe.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @John,
    as Fr. Longenecker's road to Rome passed through Bob Jones University and the evangelical branch of the Church of England, I'm willing to bet that he's read Edwards' "Sinners" many times over.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Aren't we saved only to be JUDGED??

    ReplyDelete
  12. As soon as I saw the title, I reflected on a passage from Chesterton's The Everlasting Man:

    "In any case there is something appalling, something at makes the blood run cold, in the idea of having a statue Christ in wrath. There is something insupportable even to imagination in the idea of turning the comer of a street coming out into the spaces of a market-place, to meet the petrifying petrifaction of that figure as it turned upon a generation of vipers, or that face as it looked at the face of a hypocrite. The Church can reasonably be justified therefore if she turns the most merciful face or aspect towards men; it is certainly the most merciful aspect that she does turn."

    It's tempting to blame the I'm-okay-you're-okay sentimental mushiness on Evangelicals or on the corrupting influence of '70s secular psychobabble. However, I suspect it's been with us for some time, and stems from the tendency of some priests to shy away from teaching the hard truths of the faith for fear of alienating their congregations. The result, though, usually reduces to a tepid, insipid "Catholicism Lite".

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wow, John, that is a ringing endorsement of Calvin. I do not believe Calvin was right, but I know enough about Calvinism to wonder what in the world many Calvinist-based churches today are doing. The people I've asked say that their church's beliefs have "progressed." If people are not Calvinists, then I don't see why they would want to be Presbyterians, etc. As I said, I don't agree with Calvin, but at least you can figure out what Calvin meant and why he taught what he did, and decide whether you agree with it or not. He was quite clear.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I dunno, Fr. D. Quite honestly the fault seems every bit as much with Rome as with BJU. What;s the difference with eternal security and "hoping" everyone will be saved, as Benedict XVI reassuringly does? The nice grandpa posture to me seems in full flower here:

    http://pontifications.wordpress.com/2008/02/16/counting-the-saved/

    ReplyDelete
  15. What's the difference with eternal security and "hoping" everyone will be saved.

    The difference between "I am secure in the certitude that I will inherit a million dollars" vs "I hope to inherit a million dollars"?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous5:39 PM

    If this comes out of Calvinism, it must have been really watered down to get rid of all the traces of the doctrine of predestination... Anyway, very many Catholics are guilty of this sentimentalizing. I completely agree with you, Father - in our times it is imperative to recover the Christ of the crusaders, the Chouans, the Vendeans, the Cristeros and the Spanish requetes. The only question is, how do we do this?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thank you, Fr. Longenecker, for a great reflection.

    I have quite a bit of contact with Evangelicals and Baptists. The zeal is appreciated, but it's misdirected, and it's based on a very dangerous assumption (that, no matter what, our salvation is secure if we're "saved"). I had an Eastern Orthodox friend once tell me "there are no guarantees". How true.

    If our relationship with God is predicated on charity, analogous to a Christian marriage, then we have to realize that a LOT of work needs to be put into that relationship. God never fails us, but we fail Him frequently. "Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool that repeats his folly" Proverbs 26:11 and "It has happened to them according to the true proverb, 'The dog turns back to his own vomit', and 'the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire'." 2 Peter 2:22

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ultimately we must remember how much indebt we are to Christian non Catholic beliefs ;they acted as a buffer againist outright atheism taking over the British Isles(with the exception of Ireland).For over 300 years the Catholic Faith was in semi hibernation or semi comotose until the Holy Spirit reawakened again the True Faith with the rumblings of the Oxford Movement,mainly instigated by High Church Anglicans.Augustine Welby Pugin(low Church mother),Blessed Henry Newman(initially of a Calvinist persuasion),Cardinal Manning to name but a few ,all had non Catholic parentage(high and low church).Without this basic foundation the Catholic Spring would have been very much harder but of course'with God nothing is impossible'

    ReplyDelete