The "papal Honeymoon" Is Over

[Benedictus]

How do you propose we convert sinners without addressing the realities of sin?

 

God does the changing, not rules and not people by their own hand. People can't convert unless they first have a relationship with God first. The church puts the cart before the horse sometimes (or certain people do) expecting people to accept their sin and then find God/ build a relationship with him. This doesn't work in unchurched and dechurched cultural populations, or people with postChristian mindsets. It just sounds like guilt, rigidity and fundamentalism to such ears. New patterns and ways are necessary.

[An Historian]

God does the changing, not rules and not people by their own hand. People can't convert unless they first have a relationship with God first. The church puts the cart before the horse sometimes (or certain people do) expecting people to accept their sin and then find God/ build a relationship with him. This doesn't work in unchurched and dechurched cultural populations, or people with postChristian mindsets. It just sounds like guilt, rigidity and fundamentalism to such ears. New patterns and ways are necessary.

 

I am well aware that conversion can only be accomplished by God's grace.  I think it's blatantly obvious as to what I meant when I asked how we are to convert people.

 

The example of the early Christians has already been pointed out but I will reiterate those same examples.  The early Christians did not convert society and persons by ignoring sin and its realities.  Rather than lowering themselves they lifted society up.  When Saint Peter gave the first sermon in the history of the Church, he proclaimed the divinity of Christ, he announced the good news of salvation, [b]and told people that had to do penance for their sins.[b]  Why all of this talk of news ways and patterns?  The Christian Gospel has been the same for two thousand years.  Christ has died for you, He has risen in glory and conquered death, and invites you to participate in His life of grace, [b]to do so you must repent of your sins and do penance.[/b]

 

With all due respect I don't think for a moment that we should entertain this foolish reeamination of our evangelisation in light of modern society's state.  Modern society is in its current state because it has lost all concept of sin and its realities and our need of repentance and penance.  Ignoring and glossing over these realities to somehow ingratiate ourselves to society will accomplish nothing but the continual decline of the Catholic faith in western society.

 

Look to Saint Francis of Assisi as a model for evangelisation.  Contrary to those pretty little 1950s holy cards, thise scarred, sickly, emacniated figure that roamed Europe in sacklothe, preaching eternal fire, repentance and penance, that we may live, wouldn't be getting all warm and cosy with sinners.  He would move amongst them, live amongst them, offer them love, care and support.  All the while leading them to a full and total repentance of their sins.

[An Historian]

"But if the punishment due for our sins is put off till the next world, then it will be God's avenging justice, which puts everything to fire and sword, which will inflict the punishment, a dreadful, indescribable punishment: "Who understands the power of your anger?" Judgement without mercy, without relief, without merit, without limit and without end. Yes, without end. That serious sin you committed in a few brief moments, that deliberate evil thought which now escapes your memory, that word carried away by the wind, that brief action against the law of God - they shall all be punished for eternity, in the company of the devils in hell, so long as God is God. And this avenging God will have no pity on your torments, on your cries and tears, violent enough to cleave the rocks. To suffer forever, without merit, without mercy, and without end."

 

"They will be like thunder-clouds flying through the air at the slightest breath of the Holy Spirit. Attached to nothing, surprised at nothing, troubled at nothing, they will shower down the rain of God's word and of eternal life. They will thunder against sin, they will storm against the world, they will strike down the devil and his followers and for life and for death, they will pierce through and through with the two-edged sword of God's word all those against whom they are sent by Almighty God."

[Ash Wednesday]

I'm just in awe filled amusement of the usage of the term "bung-hole".

[Benedictus]

 

I am well aware that conversion can only be accomplished by God's grace.  I think it's blatantly obvious as to what I meant when I asked how we are to convert people.

 

The example of the early Christians has already been pointed out but I will reiterate those same examples.  The early Christians did not convert society and persons by ignoring sin and its realities.  Rather than lowering themselves they lifted society up.  When Saint Peter gave the first sermon in the history of the Church, he proclaimed the divinity of Christ, he announced the good news of salvation, and told people that had to do penance for their sins.[b]  Why all of this talk of news ways and patterns?  The Christian Gospel has been the same for two thousand years.  Christ has died for you, He has risen in glory and conquered death, and invites you to participate in His life of grace, [b]to do so you must repent of your sins and do penance.

 

With all due respect I don't think for a moment that we should entertain this foolish reeamination of our evangelisation in light of modern society's state.  Modern society is in its current state because it has lost all concept of sin and its realities and our need of repentance and penance.  Ignoring and glossing over these realities to somehow ingratiate ourselves to society will accomplish nothing but the continual decline of the Catholic faith in western society.

 

Look to Saint Francis of Assisi as a model for evangelisation.  Contrary to those pretty little 1950s holy cards, thise scarred, sickly, emacniated figure that roamed Europe in sacklothe, preaching eternal fire, repentance and penance, that we may live, wouldn't be getting all warm and cosy with sinners.  He would move amongst them, live amongst them, offer them love, care and support.  All the while leading them to a full and total repentance of their sins.

I said the church puts the cart before the horse a lot of the time. I didn't say the church should leave the cart behind! I think you're reading more into what I actually said.

These are different times culturally than the times of Jesus and Francis. They were times when people were pagans, or had other faiths, and would have already had some sort of understanding of religious devotion, community and faith. There was something to work with. That isn't necessarily the case anymore. Speaking of sin to people who don't even see themselves in this way is a futile way of doing things. It only picks up a minority of the broken and eager to listen (or those with a faith background, or a minority of seekers).
If an impact wants to be made, and the solutions to flow out again, then core Gospel needs to come first. Why does God care and love them? What did he do? How does he show himself in their lives? How can he improve their lives and be with them? This comes and then a concept of sin and regret for sins against him.
Part of the problem is that the churches, by and large. haven't accepted the tide has overtook them in many places and they need to rethink how they engage people (and why they lost them). Some churches do get it and they are growing because of it, not due to simple migration or birth rates. But the Catholic church is behind the time (and is losing out), and needs to adjust in terms of outreach targets and church models. Less grand standing to the fringes and more action on the parish level.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Benedictus

[Lilllabettt]

I said the church puts the cart before the horse a lot of the time. I didn't say the church should leave the cart behind! I think you're reading more into what I actually said.

These are different times culturally than the times of Jesus and Francis. They were times when people were pagans, or had other faiths, and would have already had some sort of understanding of religious devotion, community and faith. There was something to work with. That isn't necessarily the case anymore. Speaking of sin to people who don't even see themselves in this way is a futile way of doing things. It only picks up a minority of the broken and eager to listen (or those with a faith background, or a minority of seekers).
If an impact wants to be made, and the solutions to flow out again, then core Gospel needs to come first. Why does God care and love them? What did he do? How does he show himself in their lives? How can he improve their lives and be with them? This comes and then a concept of sin and regret for sins against him.
Part of the problem is that the churches, by and large. haven't accepted the tide has overtook them in many places and they need to rethink how they engage people (and why they lost them). Some churches do get it and they are growing because of it, not due to simple migration or birth rates. But the Catholic church is behind the time (and is losing out), and needs to adjust in terms of outreach targets and church models. Less grand standing to the fringes and more action on the parish level.

The Charismatic, evangelical and LDS churches that are growing are not doing so by "finding new ways" to present difficult teachings. 

They are fundamentalist. They preach fire and brimstone, my friend. They are the ones who actually go on and on about the gays.

What makes the different is they offer the kind of cohesive community that comes with hard identity religion.

Maybe we should follow their example? 

[penguin31]

The Charismatic, evangelical and LDS churches that are growing are not doing so by "finding new ways" to present difficult teachings. 

They are fundamentalist. They preach fire and brimstone, my friend. They are the ones who actually go on and on about the gays.

What makes the different is they offer the kind of cohesive community that comes with hard identity religion.

Maybe we should follow their example? 

Strong community among parishoners plus doctrine and dogma that is generally consistent and coherent is almost always going to be a winning recipe for a strong faith and historically is what separates the faiths and denominations that endure against the ones who either gradually fade or disappear quickly.  

[An Historian]

I said the church puts the cart before the horse a lot of the time. I didn't say the church should leave the cart behind! I think you're reading more into what I actually said.

These are different times culturally than the times of Jesus and Francis. They were times when people were pagans, or had other faiths, and would have already had some sort of understanding of religious devotion, community and faith. There was something to work with. That isn't necessarily the case anymore. Speaking of sin to people who don't even see themselves in this way is a futile way of doing things. It only picks up a minority of the broken and eager to listen (or those with a faith background, or a minority of seekers).
If an impact wants to be made, and the solutions to flow out again, then core Gospel needs to come first. Why does God care and love them? What did he do? How does he show himself in their lives? How can he improve their lives and be with them? This comes and then a concept of sin and regret for sins against him.
Part of the problem is that the churches, by and large. haven't accepted the tide has overtook them in many places and they need to rethink how they engage people (and why they lost them). Some churches do get it and they are growing because of it, not due to simple migration or birth rates. But the Catholic church is behind the time (and is losing out), and needs to adjust in terms of outreach targets and church models. Less grand standing to the fringes and more action on the parish level.

 

Okay, if I'm not correctly understanding you, then let's try a little role play.

 

Let's pretend I'm a homosexual man, who's been in a sexual relationship with another man for the past 3 years, I don't go to Mass or frequent the Sacraments, though I was baptized by a priest because my mother was Catholic until she died when I was 12, and my father was never around.  Convert me.

[Benedictus]

The Charismatic, evangelical and LDS churches that are growing are not doing so by "finding new ways" to present difficult teachings. 

They are fundamentalist. They preach fire and brimstone, my friend. They are the ones who actually go on and on about the gays.

What makes the different is they offer the kind of cohesive community that comes with hard identity religion.

Maybe we should follow their example? 

 

I'm talking about ground strategy, not changes to doctrine. Many of the churches you refer to are solid in their doctrine, but are very nuanced about how they present it and bring people in.

Most Catholic churches, by contrast, in my experience have lots of anonymous people meeting in a building for mass. Only a small proportion meet in smaller groups or socialise deeply. There isn't the faith formation on any serious level for adults, no faith sharing, no testimony, no... well, a lack of lots of things. There isn't the interest or will by dioceses to move on these things. In many parishes there isn't even tea and coffee after mass to talk together! The faith can become abstract and distant. If you leave people to their own devices long enough then they start creating something that makes sense to them. The current problems many perceive with the laity are, to a large part, caused by the church in my opinion.

Churches that are growing have, and are, innovating on the ground level to build up disciples through new models of ministry: cell groups, faith sharing, testimony sharing, and adequate support for members of the congregations. Above all those that are growing want to 'know' people, be with them and encorage them. They pray with them, visit them, invite them for coffee or dinner etc. They don't simply just point out peoples failures and seek to enforce rules on them.

Actually not all evangelical and charismatic churches are growing. It's not the doctrine that cuts it necessarily, it's all the other things. Lets not forget that many evangelical churches are taking Catholics in Brazil and elsewhere. It's not necessarily doctrine that's the issue, it's how it's lived and presented as relevant.
The Southern Baptist Convention, solid on doctrine, is in decline. This is also the case with Conservative Lutheran churches and many conservative Congregational and Baptist churches. They have the same problems as many liberal churches, they don't connect their message in a good way and or don't innovate. They carry on patterns and models of church that stop working. It's a mistake to think that doctrine is what holds the people by itself.

The LDS church, if you believe they are growing by conversions and have a good retention rate (I don't), are impacted by a higher than average birth rate. The status of their growth has been disputed for many years. I wouldn't say they were fundamentalist in the typical sense either. There's many things I like about the LDS, but obviously they hold to many things mainstream Christianity doesn't. I would say there general view on Hell isn't as harsh or fixed, esp compared to fundamentalist Bible Christians. They appeal because they have a solid community spirit and see everyone as family. But they have problems, similar to the Catholic church, and that's worth noting.

So far I don't see much shift towards patterns and ways of being that encourage growth in most Catholic circles.




 

[Benedictus]

Okay, if I'm not correctly understanding you, then let's try a little role play.

 

Let's pretend I'm a homosexual man, who's been in a sexual relationship with another man for the past 3 years, I don't go to Mass or frequent the Sacraments, though I was baptized by a priest because my mother was Catholic until she died when I was 12, and my father was never around.  Convert me.

All matters of evangelisation are contextual. It all depends on you. It depends on how much tme we have and lots of stuff.  It's important to know how I'd come to know you in the first place, whether I'm the person best (or only person) to introduce a conversation on matters of faith, and how I come to know these matters about your background and sex life (am I assuming, is it first hand information, second hand, gossip?).

There might be other matters, issues, experiences, and needs that are more pressing than those you've provided. But the core questions will always be the same, regardless. That is how can I tell, show or be with you in a way that leads you to greater holiness? How can you lead me towards the same path? So how do we do it together?

The process of conversion is, in large part, done by example. It's not a single isolated event or action. It's relational at the core. So what you do and say at each stage depends how well the person would know you. The priority is to build a mutually good relationship up, be it already a friendship, acquaintance, or whatever.

There has to be a space where each person can trust the other to accept them as a person of worth and dignity, able to make their own choices with freedom. The relationship shouldn't be based on one person conforming to the other persons beliefs and expectations (a power imbalance). So it's no good pretending to be a friend if remaining a friend is not the long term intention, regardless of the outcome on matters of faith. I shouldn't see you as 'my project', but as a person. :photo:

My approach is usually to be a friend and companion who 1) Listens and is present, 2) Observes, 3)Supports, 4) Builds up and encourages, 5)Shares, 6)Informs, 7)Leads by example, 8) Isn't quick to judge, offer opinions or advice unless asked (or permission is sought).

So, back to the example, you would come to see what I value, believe and do in the midst of all that. I may invite you to get involved in a parish social justice outreach group, like SVP. I may invite you to a meetup with other Catholic friends :beer: , or an event or regional Catholic festival.

I would ask you if you wanted to come to mass with me, or meet me afterwards in the church so we can go with some others for dinner or drinks :cheers: .
I would probably give you leaflets, books, or advice on retreats. I may talk to you, and offer to show you, the various ways I pray or read the bible. I may buy you Catholic gifts or cards. I may ask you more about your relationship with God, what you are struggling with and why. I would talk about church doctrine, ideas and theology. I would invite you to bible study. I would ask you about your personal relationship, how it is and what you both struggle with. I'd want you to have a well rounded and educated udnerstanding of the teachings, debates and issues at stake. I'd tell you about RCIA, the sacraments, Jesus (and his love overcoming sin), the purpose and meaning of mass etc. I'd advise you on a priest to talk with if you're having pastoral problems. I'd try and open the process up and not do it alone.

Above all, I'd be praying for you to grow closer to God, see his grace, and his love in your life and the church. :cool:  I'd be doing this because I thought it was good, not because you're Gay and in a relationship. I'd do the same thing for anyone I knew. It could be a single straight guy who 'dates' lots of girls and has zero interest in anything Catholic.  I know a few peeps like that as well :detective:

Does it work? Yes, sometimes. But, as with anything, there's no sure bet. But while there's still breath there's hope :dancer1: But every Catholic is doing this stuff, right? :think:



 

[veritasluxmea]

-edited for space-

Does it work? Yes, sometimes. But, as with anything, there's no sure bet. But while there's still breath there's hope :dancer1: But every Catholic is doing this stuff, right? :think:
 

But what if you were in a discussion with someone who was behaving more hostilely towards the Catholic Church, saying things like, "I don't want to have anything to do with that Church. They disagree with gays," or if it wasn't a friend of yours, just a casual neighbor or stranger? We can't have good relationships/friendships with everyone in our lives, so we can't expect to evangelize solely through relationships. Sometimes a situation does call for simple apologetics. 

 

I hope every Catholic is doing this stuff, but I doubt it. If they are, it's not working well enough. 

[Benedictus]

But what if you were in a discussion with someone who was behaving more hostilely towards the Catholic Church, saying things like, "I don't want to have anything to do with that Church. They disagree with gays," or if it wasn't a friend of yours, just a casual neighbor or stranger? We can't have good relationships/friendships with everyone in our lives, so we can't expect to evangelize solely through relationships. Sometimes a situation does call for simple apologetics. 

 

That sounds like my mother :hehe2:  Seriously though, it depends what was said to them to get that reaction. I'd say to simply see what need they are expressing and what caused it. Basically just let them vent their views without offering a defense. It maybe they believe the church is unjust, unfair or whatever. I'd acknowledge why I think they come to that conclusion. That will make them appreciate you, that you're strong enough to take on their view.  Be ready to explore the Catholic view (they may have misconceptions) but also tell them what your view is and what the view is in different Christian traditions, and why. Give it time and then ask them if they want to have a chat over coffee,  no pressure. If the topic comes up again you are prepared for a fair exchange, no debates though  :)

I doubt neighbours would say that to me, partly as I wouldn't jump on them with a Catholic invite/question and also because they'd not want to be rude. But, i know what you mean, and I know people who are on the mellow end of that view. They've progressed from outright hostility to admitting, as they've come to know me, that there is some good in Catholicism and that not all Catholics are bad. We can be open to friendships and relationships, of various sorts, with all people. I'd say Christians are called to this way of thinking. Whether the other person is willing is another matter. But there are ways to navigate around people who are hostile to faith issues at first, such as getting to know them or chat to them on something else you have in common/mutual need.

True, there's only so much a person can do from there own side and progress takes time. I think people sometimes expect instant change, it doesn't really happen. We may not even see the result of the seeds we plant. But little and often is a good rule. Different things work for different people. Our job is to be a light or way pointer for people -  to keep that door of welcome open so people can find their way into God. I know this works because friends I've known have become Christians, not always Catholics, but they have a relationship with Jesus now. It's easier now for some to see a more rounded idea of what Catholicism is about than before. They may even become Catholics at some point, God knows, but I just pray for their wellbeing and growth.
 

 

I hope every Catholic is doing this stuff, but I doubt it. If they are, it's not working well enough. 

Well some are, but many Catholics aren't moving out of their comfort zones. It's harder to build up then it is to pull apart. I think Christians have been meeting up with non Christians for coffee, cake, parties and dinner for centuries. Jesus did so in the Gospels as well. He sat with tax collectors and Prostitutes. They weren't reformed or exprostitiutes. They would leave him and go and see clients. He also included other excluded people, eunochs etc. I doubt he was scorning people at each meeting, why would they go if he did? He wanted to listen, edge them forward, teach, understand, be a companion.

[An Historian]

All matters of evangelisation are contextual. It all depends on you. It depends on how much tme we have and lots of stuff.  It's important to know how I'd come to know you in the first place, whether I'm the person best (or only person) to introduce a conversation on matters of faith, and how I come to know these matters about your background and sex life (am I assuming, is it first hand information, second hand, gossip?).

There might be other matters, issues, experiences, and needs that are more pressing than those you've provided. But the core questions will always be the same, regardless. That is how can I tell, show or be with you in a way that leads you to greater holiness? How can you lead me towards the same path? So how do we do it together?

The process of conversion is, in large part, done by example. It's not a single isolated event or action. It's relational at the core. So what you do and say at each stage depends how well the person would know you. The priority is to build a mutually good relationship up, be it already a friendship, acquaintance, or whatever.

There has to be a space where each person can trust the other to accept them as a person of worth and dignity, able to make their own choices with freedom. The relationship shouldn't be based on one person conforming to the other persons beliefs and expectations (a power imbalance). So it's no good pretending to be a friend if remaining a friend is not the long term intention, regardless of the outcome on matters of faith. I shouldn't see you as 'my project', but as a person. :photo:

My approach is usually to be a friend and companion who 1) Listens and is present, 2) Observes, 3)Supports, 4) Builds up and encourages, 5)Shares, 6)Informs, 7)Leads by example, 8) Isn't quick to judge, offer opinions or advice unless asked (or permission is sought).

So, back to the example, you would come to see what I value, believe and do in the midst of all that. I may invite you to get involved in a parish social justice outreach group, like SVP. I may invite you to a meetup with other Catholic friends :beer: , or an event or regional Catholic festival.

I would ask you if you wanted to come to mass with me, or meet me afterwards in the church so we can go with some others for dinner or drinks :cheers: .
I would probably give you leaflets, books, or advice on retreats. I may talk to you, and offer to show you, the various ways I pray or read the bible. I may buy you Catholic gifts or cards. I may ask you more about your relationship with God, what you are struggling with and why. I would talk about church doctrine, ideas and theology. I would invite you to bible study. I would ask you about your personal relationship, how it is and what you both struggle with. I'd want you to have a well rounded and educated udnerstanding of the teachings, debates and issues at stake. I'd tell you about RCIA, the sacraments, Jesus (and his love overcoming sin), the purpose and meaning of mass etc. I'd advise you on a priest to talk with if you're having pastoral problems. I'd try and open the process up and not do it alone.

Above all, I'd be praying for you to grow closer to God, see his grace, and his love in your life and the church. :cool:  I'd be doing this because I thought it was good, not because you're Gay and in a relationship. I'd do the same thing for anyone I knew. It could be a single straight guy who 'dates' lots of girls and has zero interest in anything Catholic.  I know a few peeps like that as well :detective:

Does it work? Yes, sometimes. But, as with anything, there's no sure bet. But while there's still breath there's hope :dancer1: But every Catholic is doing this stuff, right? :think:



 

 

Okay, great so far.

 

But you never once mentioned the fact that I, in this scenario, am engaged in an intrinsically disordered relationship and engaging in sinful activities with a member of the same sex.

 

So let's say it all goes as you planned.  Now I ask you.  "What about the fact that I love being gay and I'm in a committed relationship to my boyfriend, we're getting married next month, and we're adopting a lovely little baby?"

 

[Benedictus]

Okay, great so far.

 

But you never once mentioned the fact that I, in this scenario, am engaged in an intrinsically disordered relationship and engaging in sinful activities with a member of the same sex.

 

 

You missed the bit where I said:  ..'I would ask you about your personal relationship, how it is and what you both struggle with. I'd want you to have a well rounded and educated understanding of the teachings, debates and issues at stake' and 'I'd advise you on a priest to talk with if you're having pastoral problems' and also 'I would talk about church doctrine, ideas and theology'.

My priority in this situation, as in any situation, is that a person first develop a sense of God, faith, prayer, service to others and the mass. There's little point placing other aspects as the major priority when the person doesn't even seem to be a practising Catholic. It just makes no sense and is counterproductive.

Does this mean contentious issues are ignored?  No, obviously not, but the person has to be in a position where they can actually process, respond and make an informed decision for themselves.  In my view it's better to be more nuanced and incremental at the early stages, especially when trust and knowledge is being built up. As the Bible says, God desires mercy and not sacrifice.
 

 

So let's say it all goes as you planned. 

 

All as planned? I'm not sure what this means. I'd call it being alongside someone on their journey. You could call it a strategy, as everyone has aims. But I can't control the outcome, so it's not really a plan in that sense.  Have you become a practicing Catholic or an active member of another church (or none)? Have you developed a faith and knowledge you are happy with? Have I got an idea about any of your developments or situation regarding faith, morals and practice?

 

 

  Now I ask you.  "What about the fact that I love being gay and I'm in a committed relationship to my boyfriend, we're getting married next month, and we're adopting a lovely little baby?"

 

 

 

Well then that's a choice you've made. I'd listen. I'd make more tea. I'd carry on the same process as I outlined in the first place, based on the context of the situation. The specifics will vary. Two different people can make the same choices, but they may come to make them with totally different levels of knowledge, thought and experience.

It could be the case, at this point (you've not put a time span?), that you've ditched the Catholic church and become a Buddhist. Maybe you've developed a deep faith and become an Anglican, enjoying the Catholic reformed doctrine and theology. Maybe you've already got a pride parade outfit! Maybe you've decided to become a more engaged Catholic, but you dissent on those teachings on homosexuality. Maybe, regardless of your current view, you'll be thinking and doing differently in 20 years time? Maybe you won't. God knows :flex2:

 

 

Edited November 3, 2014 by Benedictus

[EmilyAnn]

Did hitting someone over the head with a Bible ever convert someone's soul? I sincerely doubt it. 

 

Speaking purely for myself, "HOMOSEXUAL ACTS ARE A SIN BY THE WAY" never helped me address my sexuality within the context of my faith. My faith in and love for the Lord did. Maybe if we started with that more often we'd reach more people.

 

The distinct lack of compassion that is so often seen, illustrated by some responses in this thread, disappoints me. I understand why some people don't feel they have a place in the Church.