Is Religion Exempt from Change?

Google Image

A few years ago, a friend bought me a six pack of a drink called, “Not Your Father’s Root Beer.” The brand had that name, presumably, because this root beer was spiked with alcohol and your father wouldn’t have dreamed of doctoring his root beer with alcohol.

But, of course, many fathers would have added alcohol to their root beer had they thought of it. Another presumption of the product name is that people would prefer an alcohol-spiked version to “good, old-fashioned root beer,” like the one with the brand name, “Dad’s.” I have no aversion to moderate alcohol use or to root beer but I prefer to keep them separate.

It’s a clever name and marketing ploy, however. That’s because when it comes to consumer products and much more, Americans are generally averse to what’s considered old-fashioned or out of style. Except when they’re not.

The Status of Homosexuals

And religion seems to be in the area where many are not. The United Methodist Church is experiencing a very painful time because of a major schism: over 6,000 American United Methodist congregations have left the church since 2019 over the status of homosexuals in the church.

A large portion of the members of the Catholic Church, to which I belong, oppose any opening to homosexuals and have publicly and loudly criticized the pope for attempting to do so.

To me, the pope is doing exactly what Jesus would want, even though there is no mention in the Gospels about Jesus’ view of homosexuality. It’s not a matter of judging whether homosexuality is sinful, because we simply don’t know enough about it to judge why some are gay and others not.

No, it’s a matter of respecting and loving others, no matter their situation, because that is Jesus’ principal message.

But there’s a bigger issue here, and that is the issue of change, specifically whether religion should change with the times. In my opinion, every religion should continually be trying to figure out what is at the essence of its teaching – in the case of Christianity, what is essential to Jesus’ teaching.

Google Image
That should be protected, practiced and nourished. If we don’t, we wouldn’t actually be following Jesus but continually trying to make Christianity amenable to the “modernity” that each generation professes.

But apart from the essentials, everything else should be subject to change - not for the sake of change but to make it understandable to each generation. The obvious problem is making that distinction, but it’s something the church should always be engaged in. In the case of Catholicism, it was the reason for the church-changing Second Vatican Council of the early 1960s and for the recent Synod on Synodality held at the Vatican.

Opponents of change in the Catholic Church, in my view, don’t want to go back to the church’s roots but only back to about the Council of Trent in the 16th century, which had the greatest impact on the era many of us grew up with. In other words, they want a church that is comfortable, not one that challenges them as Jesus did his followers.

Regarding homosexuality, we shouldn’t have a double standard. We don’t single out heterosexuals who commit adultery, applying special rules to them. Why should we for homosexuals? I’m not saying the church should change its view of homosexuality. I’m saying it should discuss it with the view of deciding whether its teaching is an essential teaching of Jesus.

Disconnected from Roots

“When you go backward,” said Pope Francis in a conversation with Portuguese Jesuits in August, “you form something closed, disconnected from the roots of the church and you lose the sap of revelation…and then you take on criteria for change other than those our faith gives for growth and change.”

A classic example of how church doctrine has changed is the matter of usury, the practice of lending money at interest. For Christians and Jews, it was historically a serious sin. Apart from predatory lending practices, the church does not consider it so today.

Change is inevitable, and we will always have to struggle with deciding when to change and when not to.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Gospel of The Little Prince

Image
  Attention all those concerned only with “matters of great consequence:” Is it possible that you’ve become someone you didn’t want to be, having strayed far from the innocence and simplicity of childhood? That’s the main question asked in The Little Prince, which Netflix, the streaming video service, has added to its repertoire of movies and TV shows. Though not a big fan of animated flicks, I was a big fan of the book, The Little Prince, back in the 1970s when it became extremely popular in the U.S. It was first published in French and English in New York in 1943 as a novella by French aristocrat, writer, poet, and pioneering aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupery , who disappeared while piloting a Free French Army plane the following year over the Mediterranean Sea. Nearly Two Million Copies “The novella is the fourth most-translated book in the world and was voted the best book of the 20th century in France,” says Wikipedia. “Translated into more than 250 language...
Read more

‘Spiritual but Not Religious,’ Revisited

Image
Google Image I’ve expressed several times in these blogs my skepticism about declarations by some of our contemporaries that they are “spiritual but not religious.” Much of the skepticism results from the false dichotomy this entails, as if the spiritual and religious are mutually exclusive. Spirituality, after all, is the whole point of being religious. With the exception of some forms of Buddhism, all the major religions aim to bring people closer to God, who is “spiritual.” St. Paul, among the earliest leaders of Christianity, wrote that he is imparting a teaching “not taught by human wisdom but taught by the spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.” But Daniel Horan, Franciscan priest, theologian and author, wrote in a recent edition of the National Catholic Reporter: “What if our starting point in thinking about what it means to be a person in communion with God, oneself and the world was not reduced to external expressions of institutional belo...
Read more

Clinging to Archie Bunker's God

Image
Google Image Archie Bunker, the character masterfully played by the late Carroll O’Conner in the 1970s TV comedy “All in the Family,” had his own take on the traditional Christian doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. “God don’t make no mistakes,” declared Archie. “That’s how he got to be God.” For those too young to remember Archie, who in 2005 was listed as number 1 on Bravo's 100 Greatest TV Characters, Wikipedia says Bunker was characterized by his bigotry towards “… blacks, Hispanics, "Commies," gays, hippies, Jews, Asians, Catholics, "women's libbers," and Polish-Americans….” Bunker was presented as a Christian, however, and “… often misquotes the Bible. He takes pride in being religious, although he rarely attends church services ….” An Anonymous Contributor Sister Mary Matilda, my eighth grade teacher, would accuse me of being uncharitable but I imagine that an anonymous contributor to a recent newspaper column is an “Archie Bunke...
Read more