Lectionary: 289
Since we have heard that some of our number who went out without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Acts of the Apostles records not only the deeds of some of the earliest missionaries of the Church, it also records some acta, that is the recorded decisions of their first formal assembly since Pentecost. Or, the first we know of. The disciples must have gathered often for prayer and mutual support, and they often discussed how they should carry the Gospel to neighboring cities, and who should do it. Clearly, the risen Lord had sent them "to the ends of the earth."
But when a problem arose in Antioch, some misunderstandings about the Gospel, the most distinguished members of the Church decided to send an official letter with authorized delegates to clear up the matter. The Spirit directed them to do so and they were not going to leave it up to "the spirit" that troubled the distressed Christians in Antioch.
A lot of people today think they should not have done so. Who were they to say what Christians should think? Wasn't there clear guidance in the Bible?
Well, no. The Church had not yet written much of the New Testament, and would not agree upon its final form for another three hundred years. In fact, the Council of Trent (1545-1563), responding to the Reformation, formally, once-and-for-all canonized the the "Catholic Bible."
But shouldn't the Spirit of Jesus be trusted to lead them in the right teaching? There's a good argument for multiculturalism in the Church, a spirit which welcomes every language and culture to bring their history and customs to the family of the Church.
But bad teachings can be dangerous. I think everyone would agree there are bad religious ideas, but few would agree their ideas are bad and should be corrected.
I recently finished reading Elaine Pagels' latest book, Why Religion?. It's an autobiographical account of the grief she suffered at the death of a child and her husband, and the consolation she found through her research of ancient religions. Dr. Pagel's became famous for her book, The Gnostic Gospels, published in 1979. In that book she claimed that the early church fathers had intentionally suppressed the feminist teachings of Jesus, teaching which the less patriarchal Gnostics supported.
When I read her first book, I had many reservations about her reading of these texts. They were apparently written in Greek but she had translated into English the Coptic versions, and sprinkled her selections with many ellipses.
Catholic scholars, by and large, agree that these ancient texts were not important at the time (the second through fourth centuries) and are still not important today.
But Gnosticism persists as a heretical gadfly to the Church, as Dr Pagels shows by her paean to the Gospel of Thomas. While I would not deny her the comfort she found through research and prayer, the idea that Saint Paul and other Christians whispered a secret gospel to their closest friends, a secret which is hinted at but not revealed in the New Testament, is nonsense.
Part of the problem with gnosticism: it's not a religion; it's a spiritual theory. And Dr. Pagels fails to answer her own question, "Why religion?" as she promotes a long discredited account of Jesus. She follows the path of her agnostic father, refusing to join a church while finding solace among select, elite friends. She rejects the society, traditions, and doctrines of every Christian church and formulates her own Sheilaism, a poetry which might comfort the sorrowful.
Fortunately, the Magisterium of the Church has never forgotten the dangers of Gnosticism and periodically reminds the rest of us of those dangers. In his encyclical, Gaudete et Exultate, published even as Dr Pagels was writing, Pope Francis wrote:
But when a problem arose in Antioch, some misunderstandings about the Gospel, the most distinguished members of the Church decided to send an official letter with authorized delegates to clear up the matter. The Spirit directed them to do so and they were not going to leave it up to "the spirit" that troubled the distressed Christians in Antioch.
A lot of people today think they should not have done so. Who were they to say what Christians should think? Wasn't there clear guidance in the Bible?
Well, no. The Church had not yet written much of the New Testament, and would not agree upon its final form for another three hundred years. In fact, the Council of Trent (1545-1563), responding to the Reformation, formally, once-and-for-all canonized the the "Catholic Bible."
But shouldn't the Spirit of Jesus be trusted to lead them in the right teaching? There's a good argument for multiculturalism in the Church, a spirit which welcomes every language and culture to bring their history and customs to the family of the Church.
But bad teachings can be dangerous. I think everyone would agree there are bad religious ideas, but few would agree their ideas are bad and should be corrected.
I recently finished reading Elaine Pagels' latest book, Why Religion?. It's an autobiographical account of the grief she suffered at the death of a child and her husband, and the consolation she found through her research of ancient religions. Dr. Pagel's became famous for her book, The Gnostic Gospels, published in 1979. In that book she claimed that the early church fathers had intentionally suppressed the feminist teachings of Jesus, teaching which the less patriarchal Gnostics supported.
When I read her first book, I had many reservations about her reading of these texts. They were apparently written in Greek but she had translated into English the Coptic versions, and sprinkled her selections with many ellipses.
Catholic scholars, by and large, agree that these ancient texts were not important at the time (the second through fourth centuries) and are still not important today.
But Gnosticism persists as a heretical gadfly to the Church, as Dr Pagels shows by her paean to the Gospel of Thomas. While I would not deny her the comfort she found through research and prayer, the idea that Saint Paul and other Christians whispered a secret gospel to their closest friends, a secret which is hinted at but not revealed in the New Testament, is nonsense.
Part of the problem with gnosticism: it's not a religion; it's a spiritual theory. And Dr. Pagels fails to answer her own question, "Why religion?" as she promotes a long discredited account of Jesus. She follows the path of her agnostic father, refusing to join a church while finding solace among select, elite friends. She rejects the society, traditions, and doctrines of every Christian church and formulates her own Sheilaism, a poetry which might comfort the sorrowful.
Fortunately, the Magisterium of the Church has never forgotten the dangers of Gnosticism and periodically reminds the rest of us of those dangers. In his encyclical, Gaudete et Exultate, published even as Dr Pagels was writing, Pope Francis wrote:
Gnosticism presumes “a purely subjective faith whose only interest is a certain experience or a set of ideas and bits of information which are meant to console and enlighten, but which ultimately keep one imprisoned in his or her own thoughts and feelings”. (Paragraph 36)
If Christianity was ever a cult, it rapidly evolved into a religion. The difference? Religions don't get to choose who belongs and who don't. When I join a church I have to accept all its members, including those I don't like, those who don't like me and those I would not want to meet in a dark alley. As a member of the Church, I may accept the condolences of my friends and of strangers, even those who mean well when they say it badly. Nor do I get to choose the doctrines I agree with, and reject those I don't agree with. As a Catholic I must study all the doctrines and try to understand why they're important.
If there are some teachings that I suspect should be forgotten in the dusty archives of old ideas -- and there are some -- I can remain in the Church and let the Spirit of God sort it out -- in God's time. It is, after all, God's church.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I love to write. This blog helps me to meditate on the Word of God, and I hope to make some contribution to our contemplations of God's Mighty Works.
Ordinarily, I write these reflections two or three weeks in advance of their publication. I do not intend to comment on current events.
I understand many people prefer gender-neutral references to "God." I don't disagree with them but find that language impersonal, unappealing and tasteless. When I refer to "God" I think of the One whom Jesus called "Abba" and "Father", and I would not attempt to improve on Jesus' language.
You're welcome to add a thought or raise a question.