Who are the enemies of the Church?

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

PR, I’ve a feeling you missed the point of my post.

In essence you are saying that this is a topic that should not be discussed.

I find these discussions, as long as they are charitable and thoughtful, to be quite enlightening,

Not quite. I’m suggesting that the topic reveals less about who the enemies of the church are and more about the petty tribalism of the church’s members who, in constructing lists of enemies, participate in a worldly spirit of divisiveness and “us vs. them” thinking that is contrary to Christian charity, opposed as it is to the reconciling work of the cross.

In that sense, yes, it’s an enlightening topic and discussion…but in a sense contrary to what appears to be the intention of the original question. What is discovered is our own sinfulness and opposition to the mission of the church.

You speak of this conversation as being charitable. I wouldn’t argue against this conversation being conducted with courtesy and civility. But I would argue that any conversation which determines in-groups and out-groups is fundamentally opposed to charity. As Shakespeare writes, “There’s daggers in men’s smiles.” Courtesy and civility can mask, but cannot excuse, uncharitableness.

I can imagine a corollary being asserted by some…men…(enemies of the Church) who ask: why don’t you ever talk about who the enemies of the Church are?

While I’m struggling to understand the circumstances under which such a question from such inquisitors might be reasonably asked, I think a response might be: “Christian charity dissuades me from making lists of enemies but urges me to declare the gracious love of God for all people and God’s desire that the sinner may not die but live. If, however, I am pressed to provide you with a list, there would be one name and one name only on it: the list would begin and end with me, for I am chief of sinners. But thanks be to God who, when I was an enemy of grace and dead in my sins, loved me out of the pit of corruption and set me upon the rock of salvation, Jesus Christ, who is now cornerstone and Lord of my life.”

I think it’s important to entertain, discuss, digest, consider, reject or accept all sorts of questions posed about our Church, theology, ecclesiology, ideology…

no one ought to be silencing us here.

Asking questions is important, and you are, of course, free to discuss whatever you desire however you wish. I would hope, though, that if you desire an honest discussion, you would not wish to delude yourself about what it is that you’re really talking about. Only when thus free of delusion can you rightly discern whether or not a given topic is worthy of further discussion.

I don’t claim to be un-deluded–I’ve merely offered a perspective on the issue that may help you evaluate the topic and the (psychological, cultural and spiritual) forces at play in the discussion more clearly. If you are as open to entertaining perspectives as you claim to be, you will not reject my concern out of hand without first considering it in light of the cross and gospel of Jesus Christ, testing it by and in that light.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Strydersroom]

Grace & Peace!

PR, I’ve a feeling you missed the point of my post.

Not quite. I’m suggesting that the topic reveals less about who the enemies of the church are and more about the petty tribalism of the church’s members who, in constructing lists of enemies, participate in a worldly spirit of divisiveness and “us vs. them” thinking that is contrary to Christian charity, opposed as it is to the reconciling work of the cross.

In that sense, yes, it’s an enlightening topic and discussion…but in a sense contrary to what appears to be the intention of the original question. What is discovered is our own sinfulness and opposition to the mission of the church.

You speak of this conversation as being charitable. I wouldn’t argue against this conversation being conducted with courtesy and civility. But I would argue that any conversation which determines in-groups and out-groups is fundamentally opposed to charity. As Shakespeare writes, “There’s daggers in men’s smiles.” Courtesy and civility can mask, but cannot excuse, uncharitableness.

While I’m struggling to understand the circumstances under which such a question from such inquisitors might be reasonably asked, I think a response might be: “Christian charity dissuades me from making lists of enemies but urges me to declare the gracious love of God for all people and God’s desire that the sinner may not die but live. If, however, I am pressed to provide you with a list, there would be one name and one name only on it: the list would begin and end with me, for I am chief of sinners. But thanks be to God who, when I was an enemy of grace and dead in my sins, loved me out of the pit of corruption and set me upon the rock of salvation, Jesus Christ, who is now cornerstone and Lord of my life.”

Asking questions is important, and you are, of course, free to discuss whatever you desire however you wish. I would hope, though, that if you desire an honest discussion, you would not wish to delude yourself about what it is that you’re really talking about. Only when thus free of delusion can you rightly discern whether or not a given topic is worthy of further discussion.

I don’t claim to be un-deluded–I’ve merely offered a perspective on the issue that may help you evaluate the topic and the (psychological, cultural and spiritual) forces at play in the discussion more clearly. If you are as open to entertaining perspectives as you claim to be, you will not reject my concern out of hand without first considering it in light of the cross and gospel of Jesus Christ, testing it by and in that light.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

This is an absolutely beautiful and accurate response, and I agree!
thank you!

Sadly it seems that a lot of people think if you do not happen to agree on even ONE topic of the church you are immediately an “enemy” the big ones being abortion, gay marriage, and birth control.

 

[PRmerger]

Sadly it seems that a lot of people think if you do not happen to agree on even ONE topic of the church you are immediately an “enemy” the big ones being abortion, gay marriage, and birth control.

This ^^ sounds so histrionic and alarmist.

I don’t think that anyone has asserted that any individual who disagrees with even ONE topic of the Church makes him an immediate enemy.

Perhaps what comes close would be an industry, such as Planned Parenthood.

But that’s because an industry can’t have conformity to other Catholic teachings–it is, after all, an industry.

 

[PRmerger]

Not quite. I’m suggesting that the topic reveals less about who the enemies of the church are and more about the petty tribalism of the church’s members who, in constructing lists of enemies, participate in a worldly spirit of divisiveness and “us vs. them” thinking that is contrary to Christian charity, opposed as it is to the reconciling work of the cross.

And yet you seem to be reserving for yourself the right to create a “petty tribalism” here?

This is your assertion: “I’m not like you folks here on this thread. Me: I think divisiveness is bad. You all here on the CAFs thread: divisiveness is good!”

Do you not see the irony?

In that sense, yes, it’s an enlightening topic and discussion…but in a sense contrary to what appears to be the intention of the original question. What is discovered is our own sinfulness and opposition to the mission of the church.

I don’t think such discussions are in opposition to the mission of the Church whatseover.

And if so, then you, too, would be in opposition to the mission of the Church by your objections. Why not just join us in unity rather than be so…divisive?

You speak of this conversation as being charitable. I wouldn’t argue against this conversation being conducted with courtesy and civility. But I would argue that any conversation which determines in-groups and out-groups is fundamentally opposed to charity.

It certainly sounds like you’re asserting that you’re part of the in-group (“Christians shouldn’t promote tribalism! And those who do are part of the out-group!”)

As Shakespeare writes, “There’s daggers in men’s smiles.” Courtesy and civility can mask, but cannot excuse, uncharitableness.

On this ^^, we have…unity.

While I’m struggling to understand the circumstances under which such a question from such inquisitors might be reasonably asked,

I think a religious forum where such discussions are conducted in the hypothetical is the *perfect *circumstance under which such a question might be reasonable.

No one is advocating using this “list” and taking out all the “enemies of the Church”.

I think a response might be: "Christian charity dissuades me from making lists of enemies but urges me to declare the gracious love of God for all people and God’s desire that the sinner may not die but live.

Am I reading between the lines too much when I assert that it’s the creation of a “list” to which you disapprove?

What if it’s merely a discussion (as it has been), and there’s no “list” created?

Would that be less objectionable to you and you might be able to join us in unity here?

If, however, I am pressed to provide you with a list, there would be one name and one name only on it:

The list again.

the list would begin and end with me, for I am chief of sinners.

And yet again.

But thanks be to God who, when I was an enemy of grace and dead in my sins, loved me out of the pit of corruption and set me upon the rock of salvation, Jesus Christ, who is now cornerstone and Lord of my life.

God is good!

Asking questions is important, and you are, of course, free to discuss whatever you desire however you wish. I would hope, though, that if you desire an honest discussion, you would not wish to delude yourself about what it is that you’re really talking about. Only when thus free of delusion can you rightly discern whether or not a given topic is worthy of further discussion.

Here’s that “us vs them” mentality again. “We are free of delusion” “They are full of delusion”.

I don’t claim to be un-deluded-

Emmm…yes, you essentially have.

-I’ve merely offered a perspective on the issue that may help you evaluate the topic and the (psychological, cultural and spiritual) forces at play in the discussion more clearly. If you are as open to entertaining perspectives as you claim to be, you will not reject my concern out of hand without first considering it in light of the cross and gospel of Jesus Christ, testing it by and in that light.

I’ve considered it…and I disagree.

 

[PRmerger]

Grace & Peace!

PR, I’ve a feeling you missed the point of my post.

Not quite. I’m suggesting that the topic reveals less about who the enemies of the church are and more about the petty tribalism of the church’s members who, in constructing lists of enemies, participate in a worldly spirit of divisiveness and “us vs. them” thinking that is contrary to Christian charity, opposed as it is to the reconciling work of the cross.

In that sense, yes, it’s an enlightening topic and discussion…but in a sense contrary to what appears to be the intention of the original question. What is discovered is our own sinfulness and opposition to the mission of the church.

You speak of this conversation as being charitable. I wouldn’t argue against this conversation being conducted with courtesy and civility. But I would argue that any conversation which determines in-groups and out-groups is fundamentally opposed to charity. As Shakespeare writes, “There’s daggers in men’s smiles.” Courtesy and civility can mask, but cannot excuse, uncharitableness.

While I’m struggling to understand the circumstances under which such a question from such inquisitors might be reasonably asked, I think a response might be: “Christian charity dissuades me from making lists of enemies but urges me to declare the gracious love of God for all people and God’s desire that the sinner may not die but live. If, however, I am pressed to provide you with a list, there would be one name and one name only on it: the list would begin and end with me, for I am chief of sinners. But thanks be to God who, when I was an enemy of grace and dead in my sins, loved me out of the pit of corruption and set me upon the rock of salvation, Jesus Christ, who is now cornerstone and Lord of my life.”

Asking questions is important, and you are, of course, free to discuss whatever you desire however you wish. I would hope, though, that if you desire an honest discussion, you would not wish to delude yourself about what it is that you’re really talking about. Only when thus free of delusion can you rightly discern whether or not a given topic is worthy of further discussion.

I don’t claim to be un-deluded–I’ve merely offered a perspective on the issue that may help you evaluate the topic and the (psychological, cultural and spiritual) forces at play in the discussion more clearly. If you are as open to entertaining perspectives as you claim to be, you will not reject my concern out of hand without first considering it in light of the cross and gospel of Jesus Christ, testing it by and in that light.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Incidentally, Mark, I do hope that you engage all the responses I’ve offered to your position.

It is part of charitable, educated dialogue on a forum to thoughtfully consider what rebuttals have been presented to one’s posts.

 

[mikekle]

In our modern world, I dont think we even recognize who the enemies of the church are anymore, of course there are the obvious ones, planned parenthood, abortion clinics, etc, but what about the others, who may not necessarily appear to be an enemy, but are definitely not putting Gods law first.

Historically, secular authorities are the churches ‘enemy’, but at least in my city/ state, this does not appear to the case (on the surface), In fact Ive noticed the secular powers seem to have pretty good relationships with all the churches in the area, no matter what denomination, so that may be some kind of deception that we are not seeing, kind of like the enemy ‘disguising’ itself as a friend, but if it came down to it, they would put mans law (their law), as the priority.

One of the big things I noticed that got me thinking, was back when Pope Francis visited the US last year, I expected to see lots of protesting, lots of people speaking out against the CC and its beliefs, lots of people angry the Vicar of Christ has come to visit…but when he came, none of the above took place, in fact , it seemed by every media report I watched, everybody was loving every minute of his visit and were very happy about it…??? yet this is modern day America, where greed, lust, and all kinds of other sins are almost encouraged and promoted, we are getting further and further away from Gods truth?

This has to be the enemy disguising itself as a friend.(wolf in sheeps clothing)

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

And yet you seem to be reserving for yourself the right to create a “petty tribalism” here?

I have reserved to myself no such right. I have, instead, made an observation. If my observation is incorrect, demonstrate the fault in my vision.

This is your assertion: “I’m not like you folks here on this thread. Me: I think divisiveness is bad. You all here on the CAFs thread: divisiveness is good!”

That’s not my assertion. On the contrary, I know myself to be chief of sinners, most in need of God’s grace, a wretched and unprofitable servant of my Lord. I’m not better than you or anyone else, PR, nor did I assert as much–I took care not to, in fact, and you’ll find in my use of the first person plural that I didn’t remove my own life and behavior from the critique I was offering.

Do you not see the irony?

I don’t, actually. I see that you’ve misconstrued my observation as some sort of personal attack and are seeking to justify yourself. You needn’t. My observation and its accompanying critique are offered in a spirit of correction, not in a spirit of judgment.

Making such an observation and critique does not imply that I’m better or more righteous than you. It implies only that I’m seeing something that you do not. In sharing my observation and critique with you, it was only my hope that you would see some reflection of the good (the gospel, the cross of Christ) in it and may thereby profit by it. That’s all.

You may object: “What right have you to offer your observation? What right have you to critique?” That does, in fact, seem to be your objection, and you’ve concluded that I’ve arrogated to myself some right or authority not properly my own. Again, I protest that I’ve not arrogated any such right. Indeed, it’s not by any right either natural to me or appropriated by me that I share with you my perspective. I do so out of love and only by love’s authority (which is either everything or nothing, depending on your frame of mind). If you cannot perceive that I write you out of love, I imagine it’s because you believe that I want something from you, that because I offered a critique I’ve located myself over against you and that must mean not that I love you, but that I’m trying to impress on you how (self-)righteous I am. Naturally, you balk at this. I wouldn’t blame you.

But your perception here is not reality. Let it be my job henceforth to assure you that I do not locate myself over against you (what evidence have you that I’ve done so? Is it truly your opinion that when a person offers an alternative vision of something it means they’ve positioned themselves over against other people who maintain a different vision? I hope you realize that that need not be the case. It’s certainly not the case here), that I’m not interested in your impressions of my righteousness (let me assure you: I’m a sinner, and no good that comes from me is worth anything), and that I do, indeed, love you (because I do).

I don’t think such discussions are in opposition to the mission of the Church whatseover.

It’s clear you don’t. I would like to know the grounds on which you maintain that sort of thinking. More than that, I would like you to question the goodness of that sort of thinking, it’s relationship to the gospel and the cross of Jesus Christ, and it is for this reason that I’ve challenged it.

And if so, then you, too, would be in opposition to the mission of the Church by your objections.

I think you’ll note that I didn’t spare myself from my own critique–I wrote:

What is discovered is our own sinfulness and opposition to the mission of the church.

(Emphasis added.)

Why not just join us in unity rather than be so…divisive?

PR, I’m sure you’ve noticed in the world and in your own behavior (I’ve noticed it in the world and in my own behavior) that unity is often achieved at the expense of some other person or group of people: group identities (and individual identities) are formed through processes that, in one way or another, participate in scapegoating mechanisms (us/them mentalities are part of these mechanisms) that often erupt in violence because they are fundamentally rooted in processes of violence. The unity achieved is a false unity.

One can be opposed to these processes without being opposed to people. In fact (and even better), one can seek unity with others in ways in which the common identity is received (i.e., from the hands of the one who loves us into being and gives us his own life: Jesus Christ) rather than taken through opposition and divisiveness (which is the way of the Adversary who was a murderer from the beginning).

The unity I seek with you is in Jesus Christ. And the only thing from which I would seek to divide you is from patterns of divisiveness and violence, but not from people. I hope you would be able to say the same of me.

[CONTINUED…]

 

[Deo_Volente]

…COMPLETED]

It certainly sounds like you’re asserting that you’re part of the in-group (“Christians shouldn’t promote tribalism! And those who do are part of the out-group!”)

Again, PR: I’m not opposed to you, nor do I see myself as over against you. I will point out, though, that the mindset of over-againstness will see enemies and opposition where they do not actually exist. I encourage you to question this mindset.

For my part, I don’t want to participate in scapegoating. That’s all. That doesn’t mean I think of you as in an out-group and myself as in an in-group. It’s not a judgment on you. Nor does it mean that I’m any less of a sinner than I truly am, nor does it mean that I am free of participation in scapegoating mechanisms (whether consciously or unconsciously) however much I seek to avoid them. All it means is that I see a life well-lived as not participating in scapegoating and that my desire continues to be for such a life.

It is not the case that articulating this desire and offering an observation and critique based on it means that the one who so desires is locating him/herself over-against others. One doesn’t need to be against other people in order to offer alternative visions. It is not the case that an alternative is necessarily an opponent.

No one is advocating using this “list” and taking out all the “enemies of the Church”.

The problem lies in the spirit of making lists of enemies. Taking out the ones on the list (through rejection, through violence, whatever) is the full flower of this spirit.

Am I reading between the lines too much when I assert that it’s the creation of a “list” to which you disapprove?

What if it’s merely a discussion (as it has been), and there’s no “list” created?

Would that be less objectionable to you and you might be able to join us in unity here?

Again, the problem lies in the spirit of making lists of enemies. Whether or not a list is actually made is beside the point–the nature of the spirit that gives rise to this list-making desire is what is at issue here.

And, for the record, my approval or disapproval means nothing. The greater question is: does the spirit that leads one to list one’s enemies comport with the good, the true and the beautiful as revealed in the gospel and cross of Jesus Christ. Whether or not we approve or disapprove, agree or disagree, the true, the good and the beautiful remain unchanged.

God is good!

Indeed! God and only God is good.

Here’s that “us vs them” mentality again. “We are free of delusion” “They are full of delusion”.

I didn’t make those assertions, PR. I suggested that only when we know what we’re talking about is when we can actually discern the virtue of the conversation.

I am not free of delusion. I make (and have made) no such claims. But surely you would assert that calling good what is evil and calling evil what is good represents a delusion regarding the nature of good and evil. Making such an observation does not, however, entitle one to claim some ontological delusion-free status. Similarly, asserting what is true does not mean that we are Truth.

We all participate in the true and the untrue, the good and the ungood, the beautiful and the unbeautiful. That is what living in this vale of tears means. That doesn’t mean that we settle for the patterns of untruth, malice and ugliness that we find in our lives. No. It means we struggle for and towards the good, the true and the beautiful. Nor does it mean that those with a clearer vision (and note well: I do not claim to have such clarity) of the true, the good and the beautiful are over against us. No. It means only that we might do well to pay attention to what such people say if we, too, desire clearer vision.

Emmm…yes, you essentially have.

Again, PR, offering an alternative vision doesn’t mean that I’m opposed to you. Nor, in this case, does it mean that I have asserted that I believe myself to be undeluded. I trust that we are both living into the enlightenment that comes by faith in Jesus Christ. Since the Light of Christ is infinite, our relative progress in it can only ever be infinitesimal. Comparing progress in this way, therefore, is meaningless and not something I would wish to waste time doing.

I’ve considered it…and I disagree.

If you truly have considered it (and I’m not sure I believe you have), could you tell me where this alternative vision I’ve offered sits in opposition to the gospel and cross of Jesus Christ?

Given your responses above, my assumption (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that, having mistakenly perceived the alternative offered to participate in the same patterns of us-against-them that it would desire to critique, you have judged it unworthy of the gospel and of the cross. Surely this should also place in question your own desire to justify the spirit of making lists of enemies as, similarly, contrary to the gospel and the cross? Since you seem to believe they are built on the same basis, why reject the one and not the other?

If it is because the one has been offered by me and you take issue with me (knowing, as you do, that I’m a sinner, deluded, and of no account), consider the virtue of the vision and not the virtue of the one who has offered it (indeed, I make no claim to virtue–if there is any virtue in me, it is certainly not of me).

Reconsider.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

• the issues that spurred them are often no longer “hot” or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
• posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.
**
Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed. **