Why Catholics Don't Sing

[DCJ]

Which brings to mind the conundrum of conservative fundamentalism. If everything that one disagrees with is judged to be "bad" how can there be anything that's good other than one's own selfish desires?

Isn't conservative fundamentalism disagreeable and therefore "bad"?

[cunninglily]

Which brings to mind the conundrum of conservative fundamentalism. If everything that one disagrees with is judged to be "bad" how can there be anything that's good other than one's own selfish desires?

Isn't conservative fundamentalism disagreeable and therefore "bad"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps, perhaps not, but it is most assuredly argumentative.

 

What is bad is to see the mite in your brothers eye and not the beam in your own, or to maintain a position of righteous stone throwing without the compassion which comes from facing your own darkness first, or to glory in the "wrong" of others because it makes you "right".

 

If it weren't for their concepts of "sin" and "damnation", some Christians would have nothing to do...

 

lily

[FredP]

...well, i think the main thing to realize is that we are all bad, relatively speaking    This realization engenders what can be known as "knee-deep" psychology". 

:lol: Love it!

[jamesAMDG]

Now I tend to believe that there are more hypocrites "inside" religious institutions than there are "outside" such places. This is because, as you pointed out Fred, such institutions are, of necessity, intimately tied to political agendas. The serious thinkers "outside' such institutions are only trying to find or devise a new, better thing to fulfill our spiritual needs and that's a good thing. Religion may not progress without risk taking by people who gather (electronically even) in places like this which tolerate such discussions. Even though we're occasionally violating all sorts of orthodox, doctrinal, dogmatic, and political taboos, that's ok. I don't feel guilty. As I mentioned elsewhere here, one doesn't need to go to church to be a good Christian. I believe that Jesus, and God would  approve if they could voice an opinion, or maybe they will someday.     

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nobody seems to have picked up on it in the subsequent posts. But I thought it was important to point out what I think the main difference is between orthodox Christiainity and the relativistic versions which seem so popular these days.

 

There are more hypocrites inside of the Church then anywhere else. They're there because their hypocrites. Being a Christian means acknowleging that you are a sinner. Someone who commits offences against God. As a sinner you deserve to receive God's justice (ie: damnation). However, God tempers his justice by his mercy for those who are willing to repent and take up their crosses. This doesn't perfect a person, but it sets them on the path to perfection which can only be found in the grace of God

 

There are less hypocrites outside of the Church because they refuse to acknowledge that what they do is wrong, so when they keep doing they aren't hypocritical, they're just unacknowledged sinners.

[FredP]

There are less hypocrites outside of the Church because they refuse to acknowledge that what they do is wrong, so when they keep doing they aren't hypocritical, they're just unacknowledged sinners.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's kind of you to judge the hearts of everyone outside the Church, even if you did make a disclaimer that there are more hypocrites in the Church than outside. I'll grant you that there plenty of unchurched folk "out there" who are profoundly lacking in self-knowledge, but that goes for the churched too. Having a "we are sinners" doctrine, however true, doesn't necessarily entail that you understand your sinfulness beyond the level of being able to mouth it back when asked. I'm not sure how much church attendance has to do with self-understanding, in my experience.

[flowperson]

Conservatism and orthodoxy say," look here!" We've got this ten point plan that tells us specifically what you must do to lead a holy and righteous life.

 

Why, we can even put the ten points on courthouse walls or on rocks beside sidewalks leading to our capitols, just to make sure that if you are an important person who must lead and make judgements in the halls of humanity, you are aware of " the rules" by which God judges your actions

 

And further we have this book of books that is the law of God handed down to your ancestors to teach you the "correct" ways to lead your lives. We interpret the books for you in these certain ways, and if you miss the mark and sin, you are excluded from the paths of the righteous. And if you will only crawl on your knees and lash your own back with a cat-of-nine-tails, and then put on this scratchy hair shirt while you are recovering, then you just might have a chance at redemption from your sins.

 

Obviously I exaggerate aspects of certain sects and individuals who seek to unreasonably control the behaviors of others, and to coerce such "sinners" to live their lives only according to traditional standards. But I believe that such systems of thought and behavior lead to meaningless repetition and sprirtual death over time, both on the part of the controllers and the controlled. Believe it or not, it is my opinion that this nation was originally created to forestall just that from happening, ever.

 

I do not begrudge anyone's right to worship God in any way that they see fit to do it, and I don't, as an American citizen, expect to be judged for the ways in which I worship God and the wonders of his/her creation. But, as noted on another thread here, we are all bad and we are ALL sinners and SOME of us EVEN know that about ourselves. We ALL exist in a relativistic universe, world, community, church, home. Everything about us must reflect that fact or we are not in resonance with the creation, and we are not fully participating in what God has made.

 

This is the conundrum, the core of belief, for I firmly believe that if one does not know him/herself and still love themselves after such intense self-reflection, then they are incapable of loving anyone else, including God or Jesus. One might be able to "go through the motions", but such gyrations and rituals will never enable loving and being loved on such an individual and personal level.

[cunninglily]

Nobody seems to have picked up on it in the subsequent posts.  But I thought it was important to point out what I think the main difference is between orthodox Christiainity and the relativistic versions which seem so popular these days.

 

There are more hypocrites inside of the Church then anywhere else.  They're there because their hypocrites.  Being a Christian means acknowleging that you are a sinner.  Someone who commits offences against God.  As a sinner you deserve to receive God's justice (ie: damnation).  However, God tempers his justice by his mercy for those who are willing to repent and take up their crosses.  This doesn't perfect a person, but it sets them on the path to perfection which can only be found in the grace of God

 

There are less hypocrites outside of the Church because they refuse to acknowledge that what they do is wrong, so when they keep doing they aren't hypocritical, they're just unacknowledged sinners.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the main difference between orthodox Christianity and "heretical" Christianity is that the orthodox believe that God has spoken his last word in Jesus and we "heretics" believe that He speaks still through Christ in YOU, ie, we believe in revelation. You may call this "relativism" if you like. We also, if I may generalize, believe that we are to follow the Holy Spirit and not the doctrines of men. You may call this lawlessness if you like. We don't mind; we've heard it before.

 

...and James, a hypocrite is a person who condemns others for the "sins" that he or she commits themselves, though it is typical of this type that they do not acknowledge this, even to themselves. Jimmy Swaggert comes to mind as a good example of a hypocrite. While he was most viciously condemning "lust" from the pulpit, he was hiring young street whores to hike up their skirts. The "church" is full of people who do not acknowledge their sinfullness...they're way too busy sniffing out other peoples sins and stroking their precious sense of righteousness at the expense of others. You don't have to tell me. I've been a fundamentalist and in fundamentalist churches. I know first hand what goes on among the bible-thumpers...i've thumped a few bibles myself. Their favorite activity after Sunday lunch at the Golden Corral is talking about how everybody else is "missing it". When they're feeling especially "spiritual" they may indeed beat themselves up for "falling short of the glory of God", which is about as constructive as the first. In both cases, they reveal that they have no real concept of Gods Love, either toward themselves or others, and so they vacillate between hatred of themselves or hatred of other human beings. It's all "sin and condemnation" with these people...one has to wonder what the sacrifice of Jesus was for...

 

 

lily

[DCJ]

Isn't conservative fundamentalism disagreeable and therefore "bad"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps, perhaps not, but it is most assuredly argumentative.

 

What is bad is to see the mite in your brothers eye and not the beam in your own . . .

 

Unfortunately, some of the public faces of evangelicalism (and many within the church as well) fall short of being ambassadors for Christ. But the constant ridicule from the other side is equally appalling.

 

So "conservative fundamentalism" doesn't hold the monopoly on contentiousness. No, what distinguishes it is a set of truth-claims about God, man, Jesus, the nature of the universe, etc. Liberals hold contrary truth-claims that must be backed up with sound reasoning. The ideas stand or fall on their own regardless of the people who hold them, though some attitudes can certainly hinder or promote the acceptance of those ideas by others.

 

After all, the Southern Baptists were quickly on the scene after Katrina. One could argue that it was their belief that James was speaking the words of God when he said, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

[cunninglily]

Isn't conservative fundamentalism disagreeable and therefore "bad"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps, perhaps not, but it is most assuredly argumentative.

 

What is bad is to see the mite in your brothers eye and not the beam in your own . . .

 

Unfortunately, some of the public faces of evangelicalism (and many within the church as well) fall short of being ambassadors for Christ. But the constant ridicule from the other side is equally appalling.

 

So "conservative fundamentalism" doesn't hold the monopoly on contentiousness. No, what distinguishes it is a set of truth-claims about God, man, Jesus, the nature of the universe, etc. Liberals hold contrary truth-claims that must be backed up with sound reasoning. The ideas stand or fall on their own regardless of the people who hold them, though some attitudes can certainly hinder or promote the acceptance of those ideas by others.

 

After all, the Southern Baptists were quickly on the scene after Katrina. One could argue that it was their belief that James was speaking the words of God when he said, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not at all sure, DC, that "liberals" hold contrary "truth-claims". It seems to me that the biggest difference is not in held "truth-claims" but in the conclusions drawn based on these "truth-claims" and the way in which the two walk these things out, and reason according to them. In many cases, yes, the two differ in ways that may seem dramatic. My Dad, for instance, believes in a literal heaven where he will be reunited with his loved ones who have passed before him. I believe in a heavenly realm, but not a literal heaven (or hell). I believe in an ever-present Eternal realm that can be entered in this life, and my father believes in an Eternal place that he enters after death. Both of us believe in Eternity and both of us are Christian. We've just arrived at different conclusions based on what we have heard, but neither one of us consider the other to be "not christian" because we understand the doctrine differently. Fundamentalists, of whatever stripe, and I've encountered fundamentalism within pagan circles as well, condemn those who interpret or believe or understand differently from the way they do. They are the ones who will say, "You are not really a christian" or "you are not really saved then" or "you are going to hell" and ad nauseum...Condemnation and militant adherence to a set of doctrines set in concrete is what distinguishes the fundamentalist conservative from the simple conservative, with which I have no issue.

 

As for the "Southern Baptists" being quickly on the scene after Katrina, I have no doubt, but many "atheists", many "secular humanists", many "pagans" were quickly on the scene too. The local pagan group here (most of which are Wiccans or Druids) have been tireless in their efforts to assist the evacuees which fled here to Lafayette and are still hard at it. The "religion undefiled" teaching of James once did distinguish Christians from non-Christians and in the history of the church, Christians did distinguish themselves by burying the dead of whatever religious belief and providing rescue to the weak, hungry and suffering irregardless of the beliefs of the victims. But this took place in a still largely Pagan, and therefore tribal society in which people took care of their own and the rest were left to fend the best they could. But, our society as a whole has evolved (largely as a result of wide dissemination of Christian mores) and there are likely to be as many irreligious doing volunteer work, or non-Christians as there are Christians. This is not to suggest that this passage in James and what it teaches is not important, because it is, but only that it no longer distinguishes Christians from non-Christians as it once did.

 

lily

[DCJ]

They are the ones who will say, "You are not really a christian" or "you are not really saved then" or "you are going to hell" and ad nauseum...Condemnation and militant adherence to a set of doctrines set in concrete is what distinguishes the fundamentalist conservative from the simple conservative, with which I have no issue.

A Christian should never judge on his own authority, but he is bound by God's self-revelation. He can only appeal to the clear teaching of Scripture, history, church fathers, etc, that have defined the parameters of essential Christian doctrine. But my point wasn't to try to discern who was Christian or not, I was merely pointing out that each side thinks the other has a distorted view of reality. The progressive may generously grant that the fundamentalist or conservative is still Christian; nevertheless, he still thinks those views are incorrect, or "wrong". Also keep in mind that the truthfulness of a belief doesn't always correspond with a friendly demeanor. He may not persuade anyone, but it's possible for a loathsome individual to hold correct beliefs.

 

many "atheists", many "secular humanists", many "pagans" were quickly on the scene too. . . . This is not to suggest that this passage in James and what it teaches is not important, because it is, but only that it no longer distinguishes Christians from non-Christians as it once did.

While I praise the influence of Christianity in times of crisis, it sounds like some beliefs are unknowingly borrowing capital from the Christian worldview. Consider the "atheists" and "secular humanists"... While they may hold the ideal of humanity in high esteem, they don't have the best track record ministering to individual humans. Indeed, much of it may fly in the face of what they believe about human evolution. The same could be said of certain flavors of eastern religions, whose teachings on suffering or karma may not adequately address the extreme emotions people feel in times of trials. Being made in the image of God, we are driven to the truth...

Edited September 21, 2005 by DCJ

[cunninglily]

Also keep in mind that the truthfulness of a belief doesn't always correspond with a friendly demeanor.  He may not persuade anyone, but it's possible for a loathsome individual to hold correct beliefs.

 

To what purpose? If the "correct beliefs" leave the person who holds them "loathsome", then the beliefs held are already called into question, if not held of no consequence at all. We are judged by our fruit, DC, not according to the "correctness" of our beliefs.

 

While I praise the influence of Christianity in times of crisis, it sounds like some beliefs are unknowingly borrowing capital from the Christian worldview.

 

What?! "Borrowing capital"?! Is it now considered thievery for any who do not profess Christ to be inspired by the philosophy and humanitarianism of Christianity and to emulate it? This is just the sort of double-bind fundamentalists impose on others. "How dare you be good, you're not saved and you're still going to hell, in fact, you're not even good, only God is good..."

 

 

Consider the "atheists" and "secular humanists"...  While they may hold the ideal of humanity in high esteem, they don't have the best track record ministering to individual humans.

 

And Christians do?

 

 

Indeed, much of it may fly in the face of what they believe about human evolution.  The same could be said of certain flavors of eastern religions, whose teachings on suffering or karma may not adequately address the extreme emotions people feel in times of trials.

 

This is debatable. In fact, many of the eastern teachings concerning mankinds suffering and the law of karma are of great comfort to a great many people. Christians, on the other hand, and I generalize for lack of an option, as there are as many different "flavors" of Christian as there are eastern teachings (not to mention that Christianity itself is of eastern origin) are more apt to impose their beliefs upon suffering individuals than are those of "other" beliefs.

 

Being made in the image of God, we are driven to the truth

...

 

Yes, and we are ALL made in the image of God DC.

 

lily

[des]

Some of the above (not your comments, Lily) come on strongly as Christian propaganda. Only Christians can do or do good things. Anything done by non-Christians is copying Christians, not really doing good. Nobody but Christians do good for society (think about those "Orientals"-- not that it was put that way), totally disregarding anything Buddhists did in Vietnam, say. And nobody but Christians will help individuals.

 

Sounds like a nice little self-righteous discussion for Christianity.

 

In fact, it is more logical, imo, to see the good expressed by all people everywhere (admittedly not so well publicized in the west) is an example fo the love of God expressed thru humans, regardless of their particular beliefs. Rather than discounting good done by others or saying that it is somehow not so good or just copied or somesuch.

 

 

--des

[DCJ]

To what purpose? If the "correct beliefs" leave the person who holds them "loathsome", then the beliefs held are already called into question, if not held of no consequence at all. We are judged by our fruit, DC, not according to the "correctness" of our beliefs.

All I'm saying is, if God can speak truth through Balaam's ass, no one's immune from being a mouthpiece for the truth once in awhile.

 

What?! "Borrowing capital"?! Is it now considered thievery for any who do not profess Christ to be inspired by the philosophy and humanitarianism of Christianity and to emulate it?

Only Christians can do or do good things. Anything done by non-Christians is copying Christians, not really doing good.

Again, you're conflating beliefs with individuals, when I only addressed the former ("some beliefs are unknowingly borrowing capital"). I'll try to be more explicit: By displaying Christ's love to others in times of need (yes, they really, really are) and experiencing its effects, perhaps, by God's grace, they may be receptive to truths their heart feels that their head doesn't quite accept yet.

 

Consider the "atheists" and "secular humanists"...  While they may hold the ideal of humanity in high esteem, they don't have the best track record ministering to individual humans.

And Christians do?

As organizations centered around the principle of showing Christ's love to the world? Of course. Consider the countless hospitals, relief organizations, and charities that are doing it every day...

[MOW]

" No one is immune from being a mouthpiece for the truth once in a while " I believe that that is exactly what lily and des are saying. lts just that the "truth' is not only spoken by Christians. To go back to the subject of music it's interesting that one of our greatest hymn writers Ralph Vaughn Williams was an atheist who didn't believe in God at all, yet he wrote some of the best hymns ever. "For All the Saints", Ye Watchers and ye Holy Ones,"I Sing the Almighty Power of God",

" The Call" were all written by Vaughn Williams.

 

Peter Tschaikowski was a homosexual who gave the world some of the greatest music ever. I have a friend who feels that Tschaikowski was at times a better composer than Beethoven. Its amusing to watch flag waving conservatives jumping up and down on the the 4th of July when his 1812 overture is played. Here's music written by a Russian homosexual using the the French national anthem and its become an American tradition to play it on the 4th of July.

 

Thinking about these two men brings to mind a quote form the late Sidney

Harris, who used to write for the Sun Times here in Chicago. " Maybe its not if

you believe in God but, that God believes in you" He wrote that in reference to Bertrand Russell but I think it can apply to Vaughn Williams and Tschaikowski .

 

 

MOW

[flowperson]

RIGHT ON MOW!!!!!

[curlytop]

Feeling the need to defend Catholic church music here -- in reponse to the first post on this thread. Maybe you have to dig for a while to find these places, but there are Catholic churches where people sing and where the music is good!

 

I often attend a Catholic church that has a black gospel choir -- the folks there are very familiar with "Amazing Grace" and "Blessed Assurance."

 

I go to an annual Catholic Religious Education Congress in Los Angeles, where a variety of liturgies are offered -- Celtic, African, Contemplative, etc., -- and the music is absolutely stellar! The Vietnamese contemplative mass brought tears of gratitude to my eyes.

 

Of course church is not a concert hall, and the purpose of worship is not simply to attain emotive spiritual experiences through music. But music is a part of community worship and, as the saying goes, singing is like praying twice!

 

I've also heard it said that singing is like getting a massage from the inside!

 

Peace,

curlytop

[BrotherRog]

I haven't read much of this thread, but, on a related note (pun intended), does anyone here know why the caged Catholic sings? : )

[mystictrek]

Now I tend to believe that there are more hypocrites "inside" religious institutions than there are "outside" such places. This is because, as you pointed out Fred, such institutions are, of necessity, intimately tied to political agendas. The serious thinkers "outside' such institutions are only trying to find or devise a new, better thing to fulfill our spiritual needs and that's a good thing. Religion may not progress without risk taking by people who gather (electronically even) in places like this which tolerate such discussions. Even though we're occasionally violating all sorts of orthodox, doctrinal, dogmatic, and political taboos, that's ok. I don't feel guilty. As I mentioned elsewhere here, one doesn't need to go to church to be a good Christian. I believe that Jesus, and God would  approve if they could voice an opinion, or maybe they will someday.     

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As a pastor for 3 decades I think I have seen some of the best and some of the worst of the people who make up the church. I have come to believe that the church does a better job at accepting people with no strings attached than any other organization. We're not perfect but we're pretty good. Clearly some congregations do better than others but all in all I see so much love and compassion. My own denomination, Presbyterian (USA), has a lot to feel good about when it comes to mission and outreach.

 

A lot of that concern and compassion is reflected in our hymns, both old and new. There, I related this post to the topic!

[North]

A couple of thoughts on the music issue. I am a gen xer, progressive & I enjoy the modern praise and worship music. I also enjoy the older hymns as well. Listen to K-Love. As has been mentioned I notice that among many mainline or liberal (pardon the expression) churches their is a preference for traditional music. I noticed this over and over again and it even played out on a NPR piece about two Presbyterian churches next to one another. One consevative and growing and the other liberal and smaller. Conservative played modern music and the liberal traditonal older hymns.

 

My father who is 62 and listens to rock music, is agnostic, and he prefers older hymns when he attends church.

 

Partially I think the answer is that many of the liberal churches are populated by older people. Not a full explanation because I have seen older Christians in conservative churches enjoying and clapping to praise music. Is it that we progressives (liberals) are uptight emotionally?? I don't know but I have wondered about the connection.

 

On the Catholic issue, I too have noticed they do not sing. It has become an observer sport with the play going on up front and occasional choreographed movements from the pews. Sad really. A rich tradition but people are becoming disengaged. Around here, 1/2 or more of the congregants arrive late to service (up to the gospel reading) and leave after communion. It smacks of getting ones ticket punched. I asked Marcus Grodi (Catholic convert and former pastor) about this once and he expressed that it was indeed unfortunate. I have a lot of respect for Catholic tradition and listen to EWTN when I can (Mitch Pacwa, Fr. Groeschel, etc).

 

North