Sometimes I wonder if we live in a country full of protesters. Every time I turn around it seems like someone is protesting something and maybe it's getting a bit out of hand. Some make protests for the environment. Some protest against gay people. Some others protest against the war in Iraq. When the Dalai Lama came to Seattle a few weeks ago, people decided to protest against him. Some people even protest Starbucks. I think that entire religious movements in this country could be understood in the context of protest.
This is not to say that I am opposed to everything that could be perceived as a "protest." A lot of godly work is done to help the poor and those who are marginalized in our society. St. James writes that pure and faultless religion is taking care of orphans and widows in their distress. One of my favorite descriptions of Christianity is by G.K. Chesterton, who described it as "a rebellion against rebellion."
In my own life, I have wondered how pure my motives often are when it comes to activities that could be considered a protest. I wonder if even my "selfless acts" are nothing more than a deceptive way to exert my own ego. It makes me feel good to help someone else in need. Furthermore, I have wondered if in reality I am truly protesting against who/what I think I am? Perhaps when I hand out sandwiches to the homeless in reality I am protesting against what I perceive to be the absence of God?
On a slightly lighter note, I ran across two videos, one from the writers of the Daily Show and the other from the Daily Show itself, that illustrate in part what I'm saying. The first is a sort of parody of protests and the second is an example of one of the most ridiculous protests I have ever seen.
8 comments:
you're not referring to "protestants" are you? wait, i need to go do some push-ups and yell hippie...
that daily show video was hilarious.
I think protest can be a good thing, but when a nation of hollow people try to use it as some formula for bringing back a sense of significance and purpose, it reveals our bankrupt moral character. Its funny how our parents generation fought against the "confines" of morals and our generation "reacting" to that.
Ha! I would never be so bold as to make such a generalizing statement. However, I do think certain denominations within Protestantism would fit the 'protest' bill like a glove though. Just to clarify, I'm not completely opposed to the concept of protest, but I need to be very, very careful about how I got about it.
Having spent time in the desert, I thought you would get a kick out of the video.
Protest in all its forms can be seen as a macro application of relational dynamics. A lot of the protest that bothers you, I think, is a "fight or flight" response. For instance, I disagree with this trend, philosophy, policy, whatever, and I protest by either fighting against it or walking away from it and avoiding it. Both are wrong.
I think it's tied to relational dynamics too. For instance, I disagree with my wife. My sinful tendency is to either fight her or walk away from her. Both are wrong. I think Christ calls us to engage through love. One of the mysteries of God's love is learning what that balance is, that love is, being neither a doormat nor a dictator.
So I can disagree with much of the sickness I see in the world and the church for that matter. In fact, the nature of God's goodness and holiness demands that I do so.
But I don't fight it with the world's method. Examples w/respect to the world: 1) lobbying for faith-based legislation or 2) waving "God hates fags" signs, Examples w/respect to the church 1) backbiting the elders,gossiping, politicking within the church.
On the other hand, neither do I walk away. Examples with respect to the world: 1) forming a commune seperated from the world, or 2) more relevant, forming an insular sub-culture within the world that has its own CCM music, radio stations, preferred business connections, etc. And examples w/respect to the church 1) leaving my church every time I disagree with something, etc.
There are exceptions when breaking covenant relationship is the right answer, by walking away from the church (eg. Martin Luther, in my opinion)or fighting the world(eg. Dietrich Bonhoffer). But it takes wisdom greater than mine ormost people's to discern these cases.
In the vast majority though, covenant and relationship, and loving by engaging and wrestling with, are how Christ calls us to respond to the evil in our world and the flaws in His bride.
I don't trust myself to be able to discern my true motives; I have allowed pride to run rampant and its roots run thick. Responding in love and humility brings healing not only to the relationships you speak of, but to myself as well.
I can hardly fault Luther any more than I can the Roman Catholics of his day. On the other hand, Luther cannot be seperated from the resulting movement that he in part established (and in my opinion he would be less than pleased with what he saw today). Still, I can't help but wonder as a member of the Orthodox Church, how the world might be different if he had become Orthodox. The corruption present in Rome was not present in the Eastern Church. Oh well, I suppose that's a post for a different day.
I'm not nearly as versed on the history of the Eastern Orthodox church as you are so I willingly grant your implied affirmation that they, as a church, have been faithful to the gospel continously.
For Luther's sake, and here I agree that this modern version of evangelicalism hardly resembles the early lutherans, I'll only point out that the world was much more disconnected than it is today. There were no Eastern Orthodox churches near Germany or western europe at that time, as far as I know. How likely or possible would it have been for him to embrace something he could have had little experience or example of?
But all of it seems pointless to argue because in the end, I think fidelity to the gospel comes down to the heart not the weight of history or tradition. One of the mistakes of today's protestant church has been to completely reject history or tradition. I'm not saying you give too much weight to these as embodied in the Orthodox church. What I'm saying is that, who are Abraham's children? Who has the most original, authentic, historic claim to the God of the Bible? Is it Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Pharisees/Sadducees, the jews as a whole? Not to equate your church with those people, but isn't authenticity something of the heart? Abraham's children are those of authentic faith in the eternal God regardless of ethnicity or affiliation.
Sure, I'm not saying Luther's potential move to Eastern Orthodoxy was likely . . . I guess I was just thinking out loud. It sounds like you may have found the implication of my thought to be offensive. I really didn't intend this post to start a debate about ecclesiology but maybe I'm naive.
I don't believe it is an either/or for Tradition/the heart as they relate to authenticity. Ultimately, only God will decide who are Abraham's children. However, I believe that it is a mistake to look at Tradition as being opposed to matters of the heart. That's a false dichotomy as far as I'm concerned. Maybe that isn't what you are saying outright, but it could be interpreted as an implication. If I'm putting words in your mouth, please correct me.
Living Tradition, in my understanding, is not opposed to matters of the heart; rather, they enhance them. The Eucharist, regular confession and participating in the life of the Church is not archaic and out-dated Tradition. It is life-giving. Sure, Tradition can potentially get in the way of the heart, but so can a lot of things. In my experience, just the opposite has occurred.
You stated that it is a danger to disregard history, but in the same paragraph you stated that it really just comes down to personal faith regardless of "ethnicity or affiliation." If this is the case, why would it be a mistake to disregard history? It would seem to me then, that history can be interpreted in any way, shape or form depending on the individual. The individual is autonomous to decide what Tradition means "to them," if it means anything at all. Disregarding history could be a perfectly valid way to "interpret" it.
honestly, I just enjoy arguing/discussing with you :)
no offense taken, and hopefully none given. I think I'm on shaky grounds, esp. since I just rattled off that 2nd reply w/out thinking greatly about it.
I'll wait for the next opportunity to pounce with a scathing critique!
Luther would be proud. :)
Post a Comment