Way back in 1996, during a God-awful course in contemporary United Methodism (depressing subject if anyone knows the plight of mainline U.S. Protestantism! :-) I read a book by Black Liberation Theologian, James Cone. The book, entitled My Soul Looks Back, was Cone's personal memoirs concerning how he left the normal course of theological study and embarked upon a course of reflection for African American empowerment.
When I first read it, I must admit that I too was seeking an alternative to the quasi-Christianity that I had been increasingly experiencing in the new denomination of which I was a member, a seminarian and eventual clergyman serving within. I well remember the feelings of angst I would receive during this particular course, less owing to anything authentically Wesleyan, but more to a type of growing "gnostic" tendency whereby historical research increasingly replaced actual lived discipleship.
Eventually, through good Evangelical United Methodists such as Benji Kelly and humorous voices of dissent-against-boring-professors (e.g. Peter McGuire), I gained a bit of a following. Tear down the establishment! Elect Stanley Hauerwas (Ethics Professor/mentor) as "Pope of United Methodism" or something. Out with the old white guys and in with the "New Bucks!"
Well, now some thirteen years later and since returned to the Roman Catholic Faithful, I now realize how correct I was in my premature evaluations!
Stan Hauerwas was right! Methodism had long since "died on the vine!" Jesus Christ Himself once said, "I am the vine, you are the branches and apart from me you can do nothing." Well, given United Methodism's increasing theological and practical liberalism, anything that was historically orthodox or (God forbid!) charismatic/Pentecostal had long-since been ruled verboten by the Liberals who ran the show!
Well, although I myself am a liberal economically (as was Jesus Christ Himself! ;-) the types of morality associated with the Democratic Party (e.g. everything from endorsing homosexual unions to murdering babies through abortion) had largely infiltrated United Methodism that there was no choice but to pack my bags and return home to the Catholic Church of my boyhood.
Now the road has not been easy. I have lost a "blossoming career" as a United Methodist clergy (M.Div., Th.M., Ph.D. ABD*). I even ended up losing my wife and children in the transition back into Catholicism--less the fault of anything Catholic, and more the pernicious effects of feminism on U.S. Higher Education. But, and an important but, when walks according to Jesus Christ, when one takes up one's cross and follows Christ daily, then one will be blessed! I have been absolutely blessed to teach full-time (On-Line and at St. Petersburg College) since 2005. Now I am seeking to finally finish that "full Ph.D." that had eluded my grasp! Jesus Christ is faithful.
May the LORD Christ guard your own steps!
<>< R. King
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Money, sex, pleasure, and why the West was won by Catholicism!
We live in a "sex-crazed" age!
Whether it's cross-dressers seeking to defy their normal biological gender specificity or whether it is the homosexual agenda seeking to normalize their union by calling it "marriage," the 'politics-of-sex' is something that is recurrent in the West!
Take the ancient Greeks prior to becoming Christians for example.
In ancient Greece, homosexuality (male-male or female-female) was practiced, as was "man-boy" love.
Looking back on those times, one can see how whenever a type of sexual relationship was deemed as "acceptable" by the governing structures, then those very governing structures would somehow become immune from any external moral critique.
Now, in 2009, state-after-state (e.g. California and Florida) are seeking to ban same-sex marriage.
Granted the Christian moral grounding of such a grass-roots movement to preserve monogamous, heterosexual marriage has been on the decline ever since the 1960's "sexual revolution," but nonetheless, the latent natural law reasoning of even liberal states such as California is claiming that homosexuality is simply not a normal practice.
But, and an important point to note, whereas the homosexual movement (e.g. "gay rights") is contrary to both the natural law and the theological view of Christianity, the move towards even viewing sexuality as primarily rooted in "pleasure" is in itself an underlying cause of why homosexuality would ever even begin to claim maritial union for itself! To separate sex from procreation, something that can be supported ironically enough from the philosophical history of sex posed by Michel Foucault, is itself to move in the direction of creating a new view of what "romantic love" even is!
Romantic love is to be contained within the covenant of marriage, yes, marriage between husband and wife, and with the intended goal of family-creation. When this end-goal is removed from the sexual act, then yes, sex becomes only something that "feels good" and the homosexual movement would, of course, see nothing wrong with also claiming their types of behavior as a type of "romance."
In conclusion, although I applaud Protestant attempts to maintain the sanctity of marriage, it is truly only the teaching of the Catholic Church which inextricably links marriage to family-creation that makes any moral sense (systematically!) concerning issues of sex.
Whether it's cross-dressers seeking to defy their normal biological gender specificity or whether it is the homosexual agenda seeking to normalize their union by calling it "marriage," the 'politics-of-sex' is something that is recurrent in the West!
Take the ancient Greeks prior to becoming Christians for example.
In ancient Greece, homosexuality (male-male or female-female) was practiced, as was "man-boy" love.
Looking back on those times, one can see how whenever a type of sexual relationship was deemed as "acceptable" by the governing structures, then those very governing structures would somehow become immune from any external moral critique.
Now, in 2009, state-after-state (e.g. California and Florida) are seeking to ban same-sex marriage.
Granted the Christian moral grounding of such a grass-roots movement to preserve monogamous, heterosexual marriage has been on the decline ever since the 1960's "sexual revolution," but nonetheless, the latent natural law reasoning of even liberal states such as California is claiming that homosexuality is simply not a normal practice.
But, and an important point to note, whereas the homosexual movement (e.g. "gay rights") is contrary to both the natural law and the theological view of Christianity, the move towards even viewing sexuality as primarily rooted in "pleasure" is in itself an underlying cause of why homosexuality would ever even begin to claim maritial union for itself! To separate sex from procreation, something that can be supported ironically enough from the philosophical history of sex posed by Michel Foucault, is itself to move in the direction of creating a new view of what "romantic love" even is!
Romantic love is to be contained within the covenant of marriage, yes, marriage between husband and wife, and with the intended goal of family-creation. When this end-goal is removed from the sexual act, then yes, sex becomes only something that "feels good" and the homosexual movement would, of course, see nothing wrong with also claiming their types of behavior as a type of "romance."
In conclusion, although I applaud Protestant attempts to maintain the sanctity of marriage, it is truly only the teaching of the Catholic Church which inextricably links marriage to family-creation that makes any moral sense (systematically!) concerning issues of sex.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)