All Carrots, No Sticks?
June 20, 2013 8:54 PM Subscribe
I've been a self-studied, involved Christian for most of my adolescence and early adulthood - first as a Catholic, now as an Episcopalian. Here's the thing: I'm pretty sure I don't believe in sin. So, what am I, exactly?
Quick background: my parents aren't particularly religious, but with some connections culturally to Catholicism, I was baptized a Catholic at age 9 and confirmed soon thereafter. Liturgy and the sacraments have always been a meaningful part of the church experience to me (six of them, at least), but even as I went to college, I was pretty sure I didn't believe much in Hell. Went to a conservative Catholic institution, where I and a small band of others sort of headed up the progressive dissidence. Still, I was at the time heavily influenced by theological self-study, particularly monastic spirituality and Catholic pacifism.
Out of college and in progressive Catholic parishes, I found myself really troubled by the residual Catholic guilt, even in those settings. There, of course, the guilt was about a certain kind of social consciousness, but it felt like guilt all the same. So I left, wandered about for a bit, spent some time being a half-hearted Quaker, and ended up in the Episcopal Church for its social progressivism and preservation of the sacramentality I loved; I've now been there a year and a half. My church is great, everybody in it is supportive and wonderful.
But ... confession, even communal confession, is still nagging at me. I look back on my mistakes in life, and it's hard to see them logically as anything other than that, mistakes. Many of them were motivated by this angst I shared with ya'll a while back. So I have a hard time, on a gut level, atoning for things from one side of my mouth while I learn to accept those same mistakes as part of the learning process of life through the other. They don't seem to square together.
Another, perhaps related note .. I'm having trouble with prayer. Particularly, petitionary prayer. It's hard for me to hold both that God wants what's best for us and sees to that (one way or another), and that I should be coming to God with this laundry list in an effort to get what I or anybody else wants anyway. I don't have trouble crafting for myself notions of free will that would support the idea that people do bad things, and that causes suffering to exist. Once I've made my peace with the necessity of that will, though, and the inevitability of what results ... it doesn't seem sensical to pray for it to change.
So, I don't know what to do from here. Part of me recognizes that labels are arbitrary, and labeling myself isn't worth all that much. Still, I feel somewhat dishonest continuing to be a part of a church where I really assent to ... 70%? of the creed ... even if that 70% comes far closer than anything else. So, what should I read, what should I call myself, what should I do next?
Quick background: my parents aren't particularly religious, but with some connections culturally to Catholicism, I was baptized a Catholic at age 9 and confirmed soon thereafter. Liturgy and the sacraments have always been a meaningful part of the church experience to me (six of them, at least), but even as I went to college, I was pretty sure I didn't believe much in Hell. Went to a conservative Catholic institution, where I and a small band of others sort of headed up the progressive dissidence. Still, I was at the time heavily influenced by theological self-study, particularly monastic spirituality and Catholic pacifism.
Out of college and in progressive Catholic parishes, I found myself really troubled by the residual Catholic guilt, even in those settings. There, of course, the guilt was about a certain kind of social consciousness, but it felt like guilt all the same. So I left, wandered about for a bit, spent some time being a half-hearted Quaker, and ended up in the Episcopal Church for its social progressivism and preservation of the sacramentality I loved; I've now been there a year and a half. My church is great, everybody in it is supportive and wonderful.
But ... confession, even communal confession, is still nagging at me. I look back on my mistakes in life, and it's hard to see them logically as anything other than that, mistakes. Many of them were motivated by this angst I shared with ya'll a while back. So I have a hard time, on a gut level, atoning for things from one side of my mouth while I learn to accept those same mistakes as part of the learning process of life through the other. They don't seem to square together.
Another, perhaps related note .. I'm having trouble with prayer. Particularly, petitionary prayer. It's hard for me to hold both that God wants what's best for us and sees to that (one way or another), and that I should be coming to God with this laundry list in an effort to get what I or anybody else wants anyway. I don't have trouble crafting for myself notions of free will that would support the idea that people do bad things, and that causes suffering to exist. Once I've made my peace with the necessity of that will, though, and the inevitability of what results ... it doesn't seem sensical to pray for it to change.
So, I don't know what to do from here. Part of me recognizes that labels are arbitrary, and labeling myself isn't worth all that much. Still, I feel somewhat dishonest continuing to be a part of a church where I really assent to ... 70%? of the creed ... even if that 70% comes far closer than anything else. So, what should I read, what should I call myself, what should I do next?
You sound Episcopalian enough to me.
Note: I grew up Episcopalian. It took the realization that I straight up seriously do not believe in a deity for me to stop considering myself Episcopalian. And, hey, I'd probably go to an Advent Lessons And Carols service, if I had a good enough excuse to. Seriously, in practice if not in dogma, it's a surprisingly big tent.
posted by Sara C. at 9:02 PM on June 20, 2013 [5 favorites]
Note: I grew up Episcopalian. It took the realization that I straight up seriously do not believe in a deity for me to stop considering myself Episcopalian. And, hey, I'd probably go to an Advent Lessons And Carols service, if I had a good enough excuse to. Seriously, in practice if not in dogma, it's a surprisingly big tent.
posted by Sara C. at 9:02 PM on June 20, 2013 [5 favorites]
I am not of the Christian faith, but I just wanted to comment on the difference between guilt and regret. Guilt is "I'm such a bad person, please forgive me" and isn't terribly productive all things considered since it is all about the self (yourself). Regret is when you see clearly the impact your actions on other people, and sincerely wishing you hadn't behaved so thoughtlessly / ignorantly and wanting to make reparations with that person. So maybe you will be able to increase your belief from 70% to 80 or 90% if you approach confession from a mind of regret and a wish for atonement. Not because you're such a bad Sinny McSinner, but because out of compassion and empathy you wish you had behaved differently. From this point of view I imagine the sincere act of confession can be very spiritual and purifying.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 9:02 PM on June 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by St. Peepsburg at 9:02 PM on June 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: what are your thoughts regarding Jesus Christ?
I think I'm pretty orthodox in that regard - I believe in both the full humanity and divinity of Christ, the notion of an immaculate conception and virgin birth, the Eucharist and crucifixion and the resurrection. If anything, I'd be tempted to posit that the sacrificial nature of the crucifixion was the event which got rid of sin, at least as we understand it. I'm also a pretty traditional trinitarian.
posted by Apropos of Something at 9:03 PM on June 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think I'm pretty orthodox in that regard - I believe in both the full humanity and divinity of Christ, the notion of an immaculate conception and virgin birth, the Eucharist and crucifixion and the resurrection. If anything, I'd be tempted to posit that the sacrificial nature of the crucifixion was the event which got rid of sin, at least as we understand it. I'm also a pretty traditional trinitarian.
posted by Apropos of Something at 9:03 PM on June 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
If you believe in the Immaculate Conception, you're Roman Catholic. I believe it is a theological concept unique to that faith.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:06 PM on June 20, 2013
posted by mr_roboto at 9:06 PM on June 20, 2013
Response by poster: It occurs to me just now that a rejection of sin, necessarily entailing a rejection of original sin, means a rejection of immaculate conception, or at least the particular relevance of Mary's immaculate conception. So ... pretend I didn't say that. Carry on.
posted by Apropos of Something at 9:08 PM on June 20, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Apropos of Something at 9:08 PM on June 20, 2013 [3 favorites]
It sounds like you're on the way to being a unitarian universalist, tbh. Once you get rid of sin and eternal damnation and all of that, the whole point of the incarnation and crucifixion and the divinity of jesus kind of goes away. No original sin, no need for Jesus to sacrifice himself on the cross and so on.
posted by empath at 9:10 PM on June 20, 2013
posted by empath at 9:10 PM on June 20, 2013
Sounds like you might be looking for the label universalist.
posted by phoenixy at 9:16 PM on June 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by phoenixy at 9:16 PM on June 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
Speaking as a non-Christian: Have you considered just identifying yourself as believing in universal salvation? It may not be the most orthodox (lower-case o) belief in the world, but it's not without its pedigree, and it's far from alien to the Christian experience.
I'd also suggest you re-examine your need to "be" some specific thing. You're a Christian; you hold certain beliefs tied to that faith, some of which are very common and others of which are less so. Among the latter is a belief in universal salvation thanks to the mercy of God and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. There's no particular metaphysical reason you need a narrow precise label that sums all that up in one word.
For that matter, if there's any label in the world that means enormously different things to different people who claim it with equal fervor, it's Christian.
posted by Tomorrowful at 9:19 PM on June 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'd also suggest you re-examine your need to "be" some specific thing. You're a Christian; you hold certain beliefs tied to that faith, some of which are very common and others of which are less so. Among the latter is a belief in universal salvation thanks to the mercy of God and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. There's no particular metaphysical reason you need a narrow precise label that sums all that up in one word.
For that matter, if there's any label in the world that means enormously different things to different people who claim it with equal fervor, it's Christian.
posted by Tomorrowful at 9:19 PM on June 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
I am not Christian; I am an agnostic who was educated by Jesuits. In my experience, they are OK with the notion that a lot of these things are more metaphorical than literal. Like St. Peepsburg suggests, confession can simply be an expression of asking forgiveness. Even if certain actions are just a 'mistake', it may still be something that you regret. By all means, seek forgiveness from the actual, real world people to whom you may have caused harm, whenever appropriate; but I would imagine that the ritual of confession is like an affirmation of that; a way to reflect on your actions, and a commitment to learn from them.
Similarly, I don't know that any of my teachers would take seriously the notion that prayer is an action where you ask God for any kind of laundry list (even though prayers are often phrased that way). Honestly, all prayer seems (to me) to boil down to "may I/he/she/they have the strength to do what is needed." And whether God actually grants anything or not, who knows, and it probably does not matter.
And if those Jesuit priests could call themselves Catholic with a clear conscience, I think you can too.
posted by fikri at 9:31 PM on June 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Similarly, I don't know that any of my teachers would take seriously the notion that prayer is an action where you ask God for any kind of laundry list (even though prayers are often phrased that way). Honestly, all prayer seems (to me) to boil down to "may I/he/she/they have the strength to do what is needed." And whether God actually grants anything or not, who knows, and it probably does not matter.
And if those Jesuit priests could call themselves Catholic with a clear conscience, I think you can too.
posted by fikri at 9:31 PM on June 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
particularly monastic spirituality and Catholic pacifism
i am drawn to these as well, and while i'm not Catholic i read a lot of books by them.
If anything, I'd be tempted to posit that the sacrificial nature of the crucifixion was the event which got rid of sin, at least as we understand it.
can you say more about what you mean in that jesus "got rid of sin"? that isn't really how i understand it, but i'd be curious to know more of what you mean by that. i don't know much about the Orthodox Church but i have heard they have a different way of understanding sin and original sin. that might be worth looking into if you haven't already. also, my old pastor who started out a wesleyan would talk about "brokenness" a lot. it also seems to be a bit of a different way of understanding sin in that they don't try to ram the guilt down your throat all the time but instead see sin as more of a soul sickness.
So I have a hard time, on a gut level, atoning for things from one side of my mouth while I learn to accept those same mistakes as part of the learning process of life through the other. They don't seem to square together.
i think the bible is big on paradox. i know some people struggle with that, but i don't see a way around it. i think that when we fall too far on either end of the spectrum we miss the boat. again, the Orthodox seem big on paradox since they are coming from an Eastern perspective.
do you hear from God much? i think it is always good to just ask God to clearly lead you to the church community he wants you to be a part of. asking him about theological questions is an especially good idea. i don't know that too many people do that.
posted by wildflower at 9:35 PM on June 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
i am drawn to these as well, and while i'm not Catholic i read a lot of books by them.
If anything, I'd be tempted to posit that the sacrificial nature of the crucifixion was the event which got rid of sin, at least as we understand it.
can you say more about what you mean in that jesus "got rid of sin"? that isn't really how i understand it, but i'd be curious to know more of what you mean by that. i don't know much about the Orthodox Church but i have heard they have a different way of understanding sin and original sin. that might be worth looking into if you haven't already. also, my old pastor who started out a wesleyan would talk about "brokenness" a lot. it also seems to be a bit of a different way of understanding sin in that they don't try to ram the guilt down your throat all the time but instead see sin as more of a soul sickness.
So I have a hard time, on a gut level, atoning for things from one side of my mouth while I learn to accept those same mistakes as part of the learning process of life through the other. They don't seem to square together.
i think the bible is big on paradox. i know some people struggle with that, but i don't see a way around it. i think that when we fall too far on either end of the spectrum we miss the boat. again, the Orthodox seem big on paradox since they are coming from an Eastern perspective.
do you hear from God much? i think it is always good to just ask God to clearly lead you to the church community he wants you to be a part of. asking him about theological questions is an especially good idea. i don't know that too many people do that.
posted by wildflower at 9:35 PM on June 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: can you say more about what you mean in that jesus "got rid of sin"?
It looks, in general terms, like substitutionary atonement. I don't know that I have enough specifics in mind to specify which of those I believe in, nor do I necessarily care to.
posted by Apropos of Something at 9:39 PM on June 20, 2013
It looks, in general terms, like substitutionary atonement. I don't know that I have enough specifics in mind to specify which of those I believe in, nor do I necessarily care to.
posted by Apropos of Something at 9:39 PM on June 20, 2013
I'm pretty sure I don't believe in sin. So, what am I, exactly?
I am cradle Catholic, recently converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and now teach catechism.
If you don't believe in sin, then you are not a Christian because you are not acknowledging a key component of the doctrine. Jesus spoke of sin often, so if you do not believe in sin, you have to believe that He was speaking about nonsense. Repentance of one's sin is the entire point. So, perhaps you do not really mean you don't believe in sin since you mention other key points of doctrine such as the divinity of Christ.
In this regard, it is helpful to think of sin in its proper meaning. In the west, sin is thought of as "breaking God's law". However, in the New Testament (and the Septuagint), the word that is translated as "sin" is ἁμαρτία, which is to "miss the mark". Specifically, to miss the mark that God has set for you. Just like one can miss a free throw in basketball inadvertently or on purpose, we can sin unintentionally or intentionally. In either case, the sin harms the relationship is God, and that is how sin has been traditionally viewed - acts that harm our relationship with God. The emphasis is one of healing the relationship rather than appeasing a pissed off God. That is the purpose of confession, by the way, so you can have a pastoral discussion with your priest about the sins you are struggling with and how to fight them.
It was remarked, "i don't know much about the Orthodox Church but i have heard they have a different way of understanding sin and original sin." Yes, we do not have "original sin" as described in the west. We call it ancestral sin. The difference in ancestral sin is that we do not believe that we inherited Adam's guilt. Rather, we inherited a fallen nature that is prone to sin. The image of God is still in us, but it has been beaten up a bit. Because of this, we have no need for an immaculate conception of Mary. In fact, we think that to say she had an "immaculate conception" diminishes her glory.
Because of this, we do not have the teaching that "Jesus got rid of sin". Sin is still here and we have to struggle with it, fall down, and get back up again. We teach regarding the passion, as noted in the linked Wikipedia article, Christus Victor. In other words, that Jesus died to defeat death. This is the song we sing from Pascha (Easter) to Pentecost (this Sunday, actually) - "Christ has risen from the grave, trampling death by death and bring life to those in the tombs"
I'm having trouble with prayer. Particularly, petitionary prayer. It's hard for me to hold both that God wants what's best for us and sees to that (one way or another), and that I should be coming to God with this laundry list in an effort to get what I or anybody else wants anyway.
I think that this is exactly the right attitude. As Fr. Alexander Schmemann often said, for many people, prayer is telling God what He already knows and then what He should do about it. Well, you seem to understand that most people are getting that wrong. Of course, you can always make petitionary prayers, but it should always be made with the caveat "but, Your will be done". You know, you could pray, "please, let me get that job that I just interviewed for". Well, maybe God knows that it would not be best for you to have that job. He knows better than us, obviously. So, it is always, "but, Your will be done". This is how Jesus prayed in the garden before his passion.
This applies even if you were to pray something like, "I am not kind to people because I am angry, so please take away my anger". It sounds like a good thing to pray, right? Well, maybe God gave you that anger as a cross and He wants you to struggle with it and make it into a triumph.
You asked about what to read. I love to recommend the Sayings of the Desert Fathers. They are short - you read a few paragraphs and then you can digest it over several days.
I am happy to continue over MeMail if you like. If you would rather not, I would conclude by saying that you should not worry so much about what to call yourself. Most importantly, I would urge you not to find a church that wants you for who you are. Find a church that wants you for who you are going to be.
posted by Tanizaki at 9:56 PM on June 20, 2013 [15 favorites]
I am cradle Catholic, recently converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and now teach catechism.
If you don't believe in sin, then you are not a Christian because you are not acknowledging a key component of the doctrine. Jesus spoke of sin often, so if you do not believe in sin, you have to believe that He was speaking about nonsense. Repentance of one's sin is the entire point. So, perhaps you do not really mean you don't believe in sin since you mention other key points of doctrine such as the divinity of Christ.
In this regard, it is helpful to think of sin in its proper meaning. In the west, sin is thought of as "breaking God's law". However, in the New Testament (and the Septuagint), the word that is translated as "sin" is ἁμαρτία, which is to "miss the mark". Specifically, to miss the mark that God has set for you. Just like one can miss a free throw in basketball inadvertently or on purpose, we can sin unintentionally or intentionally. In either case, the sin harms the relationship is God, and that is how sin has been traditionally viewed - acts that harm our relationship with God. The emphasis is one of healing the relationship rather than appeasing a pissed off God. That is the purpose of confession, by the way, so you can have a pastoral discussion with your priest about the sins you are struggling with and how to fight them.
It was remarked, "i don't know much about the Orthodox Church but i have heard they have a different way of understanding sin and original sin." Yes, we do not have "original sin" as described in the west. We call it ancestral sin. The difference in ancestral sin is that we do not believe that we inherited Adam's guilt. Rather, we inherited a fallen nature that is prone to sin. The image of God is still in us, but it has been beaten up a bit. Because of this, we have no need for an immaculate conception of Mary. In fact, we think that to say she had an "immaculate conception" diminishes her glory.
Because of this, we do not have the teaching that "Jesus got rid of sin". Sin is still here and we have to struggle with it, fall down, and get back up again. We teach regarding the passion, as noted in the linked Wikipedia article, Christus Victor. In other words, that Jesus died to defeat death. This is the song we sing from Pascha (Easter) to Pentecost (this Sunday, actually) - "Christ has risen from the grave, trampling death by death and bring life to those in the tombs"
I'm having trouble with prayer. Particularly, petitionary prayer. It's hard for me to hold both that God wants what's best for us and sees to that (one way or another), and that I should be coming to God with this laundry list in an effort to get what I or anybody else wants anyway.
I think that this is exactly the right attitude. As Fr. Alexander Schmemann often said, for many people, prayer is telling God what He already knows and then what He should do about it. Well, you seem to understand that most people are getting that wrong. Of course, you can always make petitionary prayers, but it should always be made with the caveat "but, Your will be done". You know, you could pray, "please, let me get that job that I just interviewed for". Well, maybe God knows that it would not be best for you to have that job. He knows better than us, obviously. So, it is always, "but, Your will be done". This is how Jesus prayed in the garden before his passion.
This applies even if you were to pray something like, "I am not kind to people because I am angry, so please take away my anger". It sounds like a good thing to pray, right? Well, maybe God gave you that anger as a cross and He wants you to struggle with it and make it into a triumph.
You asked about what to read. I love to recommend the Sayings of the Desert Fathers. They are short - you read a few paragraphs and then you can digest it over several days.
I am happy to continue over MeMail if you like. If you would rather not, I would conclude by saying that you should not worry so much about what to call yourself. Most importantly, I would urge you not to find a church that wants you for who you are. Find a church that wants you for who you are going to be.
posted by Tanizaki at 9:56 PM on June 20, 2013 [15 favorites]
I'd also like to suggest that you explore Eastern Orthodox thought regarding sin, salvation, forgiveness, and theosis:
Roman Catholic and Orthodox Differences on Original Sin (blog post by an Orthodox priest)
Salvation [Love Wins -- An Orthodox View] [SLYT]
Forgiveness Vespers
Theosis
Disclaimer: I am not Orthodox but do teach the history of Christianity at a community college. Within that history, there exist multiple understandings of sin and salvation.
posted by apartment dweller at 10:14 PM on June 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Roman Catholic and Orthodox Differences on Original Sin (blog post by an Orthodox priest)
Salvation [Love Wins -- An Orthodox View] [SLYT]
Forgiveness Vespers
Theosis
Disclaimer: I am not Orthodox but do teach the history of Christianity at a community college. Within that history, there exist multiple understandings of sin and salvation.
posted by apartment dweller at 10:14 PM on June 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
wildflower: can you say more about what you mean in that jesus "got rid of sin"?
It looks, in general terms, like substitutionary atonement.
ok. maybe it is just the phrase you used that is throwing me, but jesus didn't get rid of sin. he did get rid of our sinful nature and the penalty of sin when we accept Him, but alas we still have the flesh so we still wrestle with sin. we now have the freedom to follow God or follow our flesh but know that good old fashioned sinning is always an option. if it weren't then christians would never sin, and i think we all know that isn't happening in our world. our sins are forgiven as followers of jesus but that doesn't guarantee we won't sin again. we are works in process and that is what sanctification is all about.
with prayer there is some expression about coming to God to try to change His mind, but we find that prayer is really where we are changed instead. i think that is more it. i don't think God imposes His will on us so yes there are things we have to petition him for for ourselves and others.
it seems like you are struggling a bit with seeing these things in all or nothing terms e.g. once we are christians sin doesn't exist anymore and with prayer thinking we don't need to pray because God has already decided everything. i don't think that's it though. i think it is more about the dance with God, the relationship. God isn't really interested in just giving us a laundry list of dos and don'ts. he wants to dance. he wants relationship with us, to hang out with us and love us.
posted by wildflower at 10:34 PM on June 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
It looks, in general terms, like substitutionary atonement.
ok. maybe it is just the phrase you used that is throwing me, but jesus didn't get rid of sin. he did get rid of our sinful nature and the penalty of sin when we accept Him, but alas we still have the flesh so we still wrestle with sin. we now have the freedom to follow God or follow our flesh but know that good old fashioned sinning is always an option. if it weren't then christians would never sin, and i think we all know that isn't happening in our world. our sins are forgiven as followers of jesus but that doesn't guarantee we won't sin again. we are works in process and that is what sanctification is all about.
with prayer there is some expression about coming to God to try to change His mind, but we find that prayer is really where we are changed instead. i think that is more it. i don't think God imposes His will on us so yes there are things we have to petition him for for ourselves and others.
it seems like you are struggling a bit with seeing these things in all or nothing terms e.g. once we are christians sin doesn't exist anymore and with prayer thinking we don't need to pray because God has already decided everything. i don't think that's it though. i think it is more about the dance with God, the relationship. God isn't really interested in just giving us a laundry list of dos and don'ts. he wants to dance. he wants relationship with us, to hang out with us and love us.
posted by wildflower at 10:34 PM on June 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
there is a strong tradition of radical anglican universalism (i'm anglican and i'm a univerisalist) that might be helpful. John Porradge from the 17th century might be the earliest but was a little strange--Coppin an Whitstanley were closer to orthodox. , but the 19th century is maybe more accessibale. I would reccomend Allin's Universalism asserted from 1905, Farrar's Eternal Hope from 1878 and Mercy and Judgment from 1881, as good solid places to begin. Also,a bunch of (I think theologically poor) readers of Tillich in the second half of the 20th century, including but not limited to Honest to God, from 1963.
I think the Anglican/Epsicospial tradition allows for a wide, wide variety of beleifs.
posted by PinkMoose at 11:03 PM on June 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
I think the Anglican/Epsicospial tradition allows for a wide, wide variety of beleifs.
posted by PinkMoose at 11:03 PM on June 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
Also, Tanizaki is quite wrong. You can be a univeralist and be Christian, without much of a problem (Credentials: MTS; Anglican, and half an MA in RS)
posted by PinkMoose at 11:05 PM on June 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by PinkMoose at 11:05 PM on June 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
Ok, I wish I had time to write a thorough response, but theologically speaking, this is a big, big topic. A couple thoughts:
If you believe in the Immaculate Conception, you're Roman Catholic. I believe it is a theological concept unique to that faith.
Completely, factually false. Immaculate conception is a core tenet of every traditional line of theology I'm aware of, certainly every one that takes the gospels literally. (Disclaimer: I do not take the gospels literally, but many many non-Catholics do.)
You can be a univeralist and be Christian, without much of a problem.
That's going to depend on your definition of the label, and is probably not a debate worth getting into on this page.
Sin: The conflict you're experiencing, in my opinion, is from your culturally Catholic conceptualization of sin. (Also applies to the Lutheran/Calvinist branch of protestantism... a story for another day). But, as Tanizaki explained, many theological traditions don't share that same conceptualization; to many, sin is more amorphously defined as that which separates us from God. In my (progressive, mixed religion, decidedly blasphemous) understanding, sin is - at root - lack of completion, or lack of perfection; and the purpose of redemption is to reconnect us with God and make us "perfect" or complete in a spiritual sense. When I think "I am a sinner" I think less in terms of, like, sex drugs and rock'n'roll, and more of pettiness, selfishness, pride, and so on. I think in terms of purity of motive, and of mindfullness.
If you are so inclined, it may actually be interesting for you to look up some of the historical major literature on this subject. Even just googling "church history original sin" or "nature of sin" comes up with some interesting starting points.
posted by celtalitha at 11:29 PM on June 20, 2013
If you believe in the Immaculate Conception, you're Roman Catholic. I believe it is a theological concept unique to that faith.
Completely, factually false. Immaculate conception is a core tenet of every traditional line of theology I'm aware of, certainly every one that takes the gospels literally. (Disclaimer: I do not take the gospels literally, but many many non-Catholics do.)
You can be a univeralist and be Christian, without much of a problem.
That's going to depend on your definition of the label, and is probably not a debate worth getting into on this page.
Sin: The conflict you're experiencing, in my opinion, is from your culturally Catholic conceptualization of sin. (Also applies to the Lutheran/Calvinist branch of protestantism... a story for another day). But, as Tanizaki explained, many theological traditions don't share that same conceptualization; to many, sin is more amorphously defined as that which separates us from God. In my (progressive, mixed religion, decidedly blasphemous) understanding, sin is - at root - lack of completion, or lack of perfection; and the purpose of redemption is to reconnect us with God and make us "perfect" or complete in a spiritual sense. When I think "I am a sinner" I think less in terms of, like, sex drugs and rock'n'roll, and more of pettiness, selfishness, pride, and so on. I think in terms of purity of motive, and of mindfullness.
If you are so inclined, it may actually be interesting for you to look up some of the historical major literature on this subject. Even just googling "church history original sin" or "nature of sin" comes up with some interesting starting points.
posted by celtalitha at 11:29 PM on June 20, 2013
If we are going to answer the question, that universalism w/i an Anglican tradition is an option that needs to be pursured. The idea that it is not w/i the tradition is just factually false
posted by PinkMoose at 11:46 PM on June 20, 2013
posted by PinkMoose at 11:46 PM on June 20, 2013
I have news for you. What you think of as your failure to believe in certain Christian doctrines is actually nothing of the sort. What you believe, and what you articulate so eloquently in your question, is actually traditional Catholic orthodoxy.
Take sin first of all. You say that your sins don't really feel like sins, they feel more like mistakes. You're right. The sins that you're talking about are what Catholics call 'venial sins', and as Herbert McCabe says somewhere, venial sins resemble real sins in the way that Monopoly money resembles real money; they are analogous to the real thing, but they don't add up to anything, any more than Monopoly money can be used to buy things in a shop. At most, venial sins stop you from growing in the love of God. As you rightly put it, they are mistakes.
And take prayer. You say that you're having trouble with petitionary prayer because you can't see the point of coming to God with a laundry list of requests. You're right. Bringing our requests to God is not a completely pointless activity -- it's helpful for us to express what we want -- but it's not as if we're telling God anything he doesn't already know. But what you have to remember is that we're not doing the praying; it's God who prays in us. Making peace with the world, and seeing it as the revelation of God's will: that is prayer, that is the action of God's grace working in us.
So stop beating yourself up for being 'dishonest' (and don't listen to the people here who tell you that you're really a universalist; you're not). You're doing fine. You have a firmly grounded faith, you're part of a supportive Christian community, and what you think of as your doubts and difficulties are actually the signs of new spiritual growth.
posted by verstegan at 1:27 AM on June 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
Take sin first of all. You say that your sins don't really feel like sins, they feel more like mistakes. You're right. The sins that you're talking about are what Catholics call 'venial sins', and as Herbert McCabe says somewhere, venial sins resemble real sins in the way that Monopoly money resembles real money; they are analogous to the real thing, but they don't add up to anything, any more than Monopoly money can be used to buy things in a shop. At most, venial sins stop you from growing in the love of God. As you rightly put it, they are mistakes.
And take prayer. You say that you're having trouble with petitionary prayer because you can't see the point of coming to God with a laundry list of requests. You're right. Bringing our requests to God is not a completely pointless activity -- it's helpful for us to express what we want -- but it's not as if we're telling God anything he doesn't already know. But what you have to remember is that we're not doing the praying; it's God who prays in us. Making peace with the world, and seeing it as the revelation of God's will: that is prayer, that is the action of God's grace working in us.
So stop beating yourself up for being 'dishonest' (and don't listen to the people here who tell you that you're really a universalist; you're not). You're doing fine. You have a firmly grounded faith, you're part of a supportive Christian community, and what you think of as your doubts and difficulties are actually the signs of new spiritual growth.
posted by verstegan at 1:27 AM on June 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
As far as theology goes, I don't have very much to add in the way of facts. However, as a young Christian who has had periods of existential angst myself, I'd perhaps advise you to slow down a little here. You seem to be in a hurry to put a name to the particular beliefs you have, but you may not always believe exactly this way. For me, this means that over the past few years my understanding of particular theological issues that my piecemeal non-denominational Sunday School education glossed over has changed a lot. I don't think I understand the gospel the same way that everyone else in my church does, although I keep learning. You don't have to have everything sitting pretty to be a Christian, nor do you have to have all the answers, or to know exactly what labels you should wear based on your current beliefs (which, by the way, is a naturalistic fallacy that calls back to what Tanizaki said - don't look for the faith community that simply accepts who you are, but one that loves you regardless and will lovingly encourage and grow with you into who you were made to be.)
It is not uncommon to find laundry list prayer disingenuous, because it is. It's growth to recognise this, and to feel like something has to change. And that's good. You don't get everything right the first pass, and that's fine; we're instructed to 'work out our salvation with fear and trembling'. In short, congratulations, the learning is just beginning if you are willing to take it on.
I have a long list of resources that have been illuminating reads this far, but hesitate to add to my answer because it's pretty long as it is. MeMail for more.
posted by undue influence at 3:56 AM on June 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
It is not uncommon to find laundry list prayer disingenuous, because it is. It's growth to recognise this, and to feel like something has to change. And that's good. You don't get everything right the first pass, and that's fine; we're instructed to 'work out our salvation with fear and trembling'. In short, congratulations, the learning is just beginning if you are willing to take it on.
I have a long list of resources that have been illuminating reads this far, but hesitate to add to my answer because it's pretty long as it is. MeMail for more.
posted by undue influence at 3:56 AM on June 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Still, I feel somewhat dishonest continuing to be a part of a church where I really assent to ... 70%? of the creed
I grew up in the Episcopal church, and you're describing half my congregation. I knew vestry members who where shaky on the unique divinity of Christ; tons of congregants who didn't believe in sin, and some identified with multiple religions. The Episcopal church is a big place so I know not every parish is as open with spiritual/doctrinal variety as mine was, but if you love your church community, I certainly never would have considered it dishonest or misleading for someone like you to become part of the community.
Have you talked to a priest at your church about these questions? The Episcopal priests I know aren't looking to bring members into strict alignment with a particular doctrine, but would be happy to help you find resources to keep exploring your beliefs.
posted by heyforfour at 4:08 AM on June 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
I grew up in the Episcopal church, and you're describing half my congregation. I knew vestry members who where shaky on the unique divinity of Christ; tons of congregants who didn't believe in sin, and some identified with multiple religions. The Episcopal church is a big place so I know not every parish is as open with spiritual/doctrinal variety as mine was, but if you love your church community, I certainly never would have considered it dishonest or misleading for someone like you to become part of the community.
Have you talked to a priest at your church about these questions? The Episcopal priests I know aren't looking to bring members into strict alignment with a particular doctrine, but would be happy to help you find resources to keep exploring your beliefs.
posted by heyforfour at 4:08 AM on June 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Sorry, trigger-happy posting finger - I meant to add that speaking with a priest in your present community might provide useful resources, but also assuage your concerns about joining a community when you're not necessarily in agreement on all points.
posted by heyforfour at 4:10 AM on June 21, 2013
posted by heyforfour at 4:10 AM on June 21, 2013
Immaculate conception is a core tenet of every traditional line of theology I'm aware of, certainly every one that takes the gospels literally.
Immaculate Conception is the doctrine that Mary was free from original sin from the moment of her conception in the womb of her mother, traditionally held by Catholics to be St. Anne. Not the conception of Jesus in the womb of the Virgin Mary — admittedly, a lot of pop culture references make this mistake.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:52 AM on June 21, 2013 [6 favorites]
Immaculate Conception is the doctrine that Mary was free from original sin from the moment of her conception in the womb of her mother, traditionally held by Catholics to be St. Anne. Not the conception of Jesus in the womb of the Virgin Mary — admittedly, a lot of pop culture references make this mistake.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:52 AM on June 21, 2013 [6 favorites]
Also, Tanizaki is quite wrong. You can be a univeralist and be Christian, without much of a problem
Please forgive my reply, but I think this does help to answer the OP's question of self-labeling.
"Christian", like any other word, has a definition. Some criteria meet this definition and some do not. C.S. Lewis wrote that the word had every virtue except utility. The reason is that people get very defensive about saying who is or is not a Christian.
I never said that a universalist could not be a Christian. If you are referring to my statement that no cannot deny sin and still be a Christian, universalists do not deny that sin exists. It is just that there will ultimately be universal reconciliation. There is no reconciliation without sin. It is just that Christ conquered sin so that it cannot have permanent effect.
If "universalist" is being used as shorthand for UU, the "unitarian" part is important because unitarian rejects the Holy Trinity. Since OP professes a belief in the Holy Trinity, she does not describe unitarian beliefs. That being, since UU members share no creed or dogma, I am sure there are trinitarian Christians on the membership rolls of UU congregations just as there are atheists.
Immaculate conception is a core tenet of every traditional line of theology I'm aware of, certainly every one that takes the gospels literally
I think I covered this in my last reply, but the IC refers to the conception of Mary, not Jesus Christ. It is unique to the Roman Church and did not become a dogma until 1854.
posted by Tanizaki at 4:58 AM on June 21, 2013
Please forgive my reply, but I think this does help to answer the OP's question of self-labeling.
"Christian", like any other word, has a definition. Some criteria meet this definition and some do not. C.S. Lewis wrote that the word had every virtue except utility. The reason is that people get very defensive about saying who is or is not a Christian.
I never said that a universalist could not be a Christian. If you are referring to my statement that no cannot deny sin and still be a Christian, universalists do not deny that sin exists. It is just that there will ultimately be universal reconciliation. There is no reconciliation without sin. It is just that Christ conquered sin so that it cannot have permanent effect.
If "universalist" is being used as shorthand for UU, the "unitarian" part is important because unitarian rejects the Holy Trinity. Since OP professes a belief in the Holy Trinity, she does not describe unitarian beliefs. That being, since UU members share no creed or dogma, I am sure there are trinitarian Christians on the membership rolls of UU congregations just as there are atheists.
Immaculate conception is a core tenet of every traditional line of theology I'm aware of, certainly every one that takes the gospels literally
I think I covered this in my last reply, but the IC refers to the conception of Mary, not Jesus Christ. It is unique to the Roman Church and did not become a dogma until 1854.
posted by Tanizaki at 4:58 AM on June 21, 2013
My father, a devoutly Episcopalian priest did not believe in hell. He was also a fully committed universalist. Sin to him was rather subjective and the rituals that the Church goes through were helpful for some people and not for others.
So, as Sara C. said above, you sound pretty firmly Episcopalian to me and also as Sara C. said if it weren't for that whole beleif in some sort of divinity or deity, I'd probably still be going to church there.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 6:04 AM on June 21, 2013
So, as Sara C. said above, you sound pretty firmly Episcopalian to me and also as Sara C. said if it weren't for that whole beleif in some sort of divinity or deity, I'd probably still be going to church there.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 6:04 AM on June 21, 2013
mr_roboto: If you believe in the Immaculate Conception, you're Roman Catholic. I believe it is a theological concept unique to that faith.I believe the self-defined limits of that religion are a bit more demanding. Certainly the entire Apostle's Creed is dogma.
But then I once dated a woman who believed that God the Father had an equal female deity/companion, and still called herself "Catholic". Not recognizably so to any RC clergy I've ever read or talked to...
posted by IAmBroom at 7:08 AM on June 21, 2013
This raises an interesting question in my mind: Did Jesus ever directly mention sin?
I really need a e-copy of the Jeffersonian bible that excludes all the non-Jesus parts.
posted by IAmBroom at 7:13 AM on June 21, 2013
I really need a e-copy of the Jeffersonian bible that excludes all the non-Jesus parts.
posted by IAmBroom at 7:13 AM on June 21, 2013
Would it help if you thought of it this way? Sin is going our own way whereas we are all called to go God's way. The very first sin of all was actually when Satan (then Lucifer) said "I Will" in rebellion against God. That's really what sin is, rebellion against God. And all of us are guilty of that.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:35 AM on June 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:35 AM on June 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Did Jesus ever directly mention sin?
John 8:7 (KJV) - So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 7:40 AM on June 21, 2013
John 8:7 (KJV) - So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 7:40 AM on June 21, 2013
I have to get ready for work, but I just want you to know that in my church, "sin" means "to err", or "to miss the mark", and there are scholarly reasons for that interpretation. The purpose of confession of sin is more like when you review a paper and edit all the errors in red. You need to acknowledge the errors, in order to remedy them- but you don't need to feel guilty about them.
I'll write some more later but that was the most pertinent point I wanted to make.
posted by windykites at 8:42 AM on June 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'll write some more later but that was the most pertinent point I wanted to make.
posted by windykites at 8:42 AM on June 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
Ok- so to me, prayer is more about maintaining a relationship with God. Sure, God knows what's best for you, but you still want stuff, and it's important to openly and honestly communicate with God about that- not neccessarily for God's sake, but for yours. As well, if you draw attention to one particular outcome that's equally as good for you as another, then you're making choices and relating to God in a way that you couldn't otherwise. If you know your kid wants a bike and a skateboard, and the kid says "hey you know, I really, really want a skateboard for Christmas, then the kid has excercised their free will and declared one desire more relevant than the other, and that's important. It's also good practise of being honest in your daily life. If you can be honest with God, who already knows your secrets and loves you, it's easier being honest with humans. Plus, even though God knows your thoughts, often you don't- that is, thought can be so nebulous and contradictory and unformed that the best way to understand it is by solidifying it in the external world- by praying out loud. The same goes for confession of sin. It's easier to ignore something nagging at the back of your brain than to ignore something solidly exposed as what you want, or have done. These things are for your benefit, not God's.
As for having different beliefs- when you are an adult, you develop, refine and change your perspectives on a variety of topics based on the information you've taken in. I imagine most adults who profess the same belefs actually, if they dug down, have very few assumptions and models in common. That's not dishonesty, any more than it's dishonest to say that the sky is blue when, really, the sky is only blue sometimes. If you like your church and love God and love your neighbour, everything else is just gravy. At a certain point, your faith is between you and God, and no one else can truly understand that because it's unique to you.
posted by windykites at 1:09 PM on June 21, 2013
As for having different beliefs- when you are an adult, you develop, refine and change your perspectives on a variety of topics based on the information you've taken in. I imagine most adults who profess the same belefs actually, if they dug down, have very few assumptions and models in common. That's not dishonesty, any more than it's dishonest to say that the sky is blue when, really, the sky is only blue sometimes. If you like your church and love God and love your neighbour, everything else is just gravy. At a certain point, your faith is between you and God, and no one else can truly understand that because it's unique to you.
posted by windykites at 1:09 PM on June 21, 2013
For what it's worth, many of the Founding Fathers were (relative to religious representation today) unique in their beliefs, and held to what might be considered more Deist, Unitarian, or idiosyncratic views on religion. Yet, many if not all of them still attended church, and seemed to have certain predilections in this regard. Some would attend Episcopal services, others Presbyterian ones, and so on, despite acknowledging that there was a conflict between their own beliefs and the "official" line of the church they attended.
As you say, worrying about what to label yourself perhaps isn't too important. Just calling yourself a Christian seems perfectly fine if you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. As for you worry about dishonesty, I don't think that should be a worry. I like to think the Founding Fathers were very honest persons, and their religious preferences and activities no exception.
posted by SollosQ at 1:36 PM on June 21, 2013
As you say, worrying about what to label yourself perhaps isn't too important. Just calling yourself a Christian seems perfectly fine if you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. As for you worry about dishonesty, I don't think that should be a worry. I like to think the Founding Fathers were very honest persons, and their religious preferences and activities no exception.
posted by SollosQ at 1:36 PM on June 21, 2013
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by mr_roboto at 8:59 PM on June 20, 2013 [2 favorites]