practical theology: why the church doesn't change

95 theses on the Cathedral Door.

Martin Luther didn’t have the benefit of the computer.

Having done the history and a bit of theology, here is the practicality:

Seminary training is not about “holiness” or “spirituality.”  People who go to seminary go because they feel something.  It is generally called a “call,” for lack of another way of putting it.

They do not learn “holiness” or “spirituality.”  There is no genuflecting class.  There are no tutorials on robing.

There are requirements:  a certain number of history classes (which do not have to include early church history), a certain number of theology classes (which do not have to include Pauline theology), a certain number of “practical” classes (sermons, pastoral counseling, ecumentics).

There are a lot of papers to write, a lot of exams to pass.  If you don’t pass your exams, you get kicked out.  It doesn’t matter how “holy” you think you are, or how “spiritual” your friends think you are.

One of the things you do learn (usually at the beginning of your first year) is that the quickest way to get people to leave you alone on the subway is to take out your bible and open it.  You don’t even have to read it.

Church history is history from the perspective of how the church saw itself as being oppressed, and what it did to differentiate itself from those it thought was oppressing it.  Politics with a whiff of religion.

Theology is politics with a little text thrown in.

When you study early Church history (as I did), you are told about “judaizers.”  You are told about the early Church theology of inheritance of text through the “free” woman, and you are told about inheritance of “promise” through “adoption.”  This information is provided as “history.”

If you study text (as I did), you are given things to translate.  They are generally things that the contemporary Church wants to give precedence:  You are not told that there is only one reference to “judaizers” in the New Testament.  You are not told that the theology of inheritance from the free woman and inheritance of the “promise” through adoption both come from the same source.  You are not told the source.

But it is there, in the text.  Available for anyone to find.  If you should choose to read Galatians or Romans,  you will find them there.  But if you read Galatians and/or Romans in translation, you will not be reading what is in the Greek text.  You will be reading what has been nicely translated from Jerome’s very tidy prettying up of the Greek text.  And that is not quite the same thing.  In one or two cases that I found, the translation of the text negated the Greek, where in the Greek there was no negation.  It was astonishing to see,

“Ministry” does not mean healing the congregation, nor does it mean encouraging the growth of the soul.  “Ministry” means administration:  overseeing the affairs of the community to ensure that everyone is on the same page.  As with politics, so with “religion.”  

Why does the Church not change its politics to meet contemporary society?  Because meeting contemporary society is not the function of the church.  The function of the Church is not to prove (or even investigate) the “historical Jesus.”  It is not to develop “spirituality.”  It is to preserve and protect the policies and doctrines that it arrived at many centuries ago.  Those policies were not determined because they were right, or fair, or even because they made any sense.  They were arrived at because the people whose opinions carried the day were the people who had powerful friends.

Does that sound cynical?  Go back and read your history.  Arius’ position on the divinity of Jesus was sensible (under the circumstances).  Athenasius’ position dod not.  Athenasius had something Arius did not have:   powerful friends.  Athenasius’ opinion carried the day,  Arius’ position was deemed “heretical.”  Abelard’s humanistic theology was rational and…humane.  Bernard of Clairvaux conformed to triumphalism.  Before debating Abelard, Bernard went around to all his buddies, whining that he thought he wouldn’t be able to defeat Abelard.  His very powerful buddies reassured him that he could.  In legal terms, that would be called “jury tampering.”  Abelard’s writing was deemed heretical, and he was required to burn his own book.

Ordination does not mean that holy people decided the ordination candidate was sufficiently holy to permit him/her to join them.  It means that people who passed certain exams, who understand that their function is the preservation and conservation of accepted doctrine have decided that the candidate who has also passed those exams may not be granted license to join them in preserving and conserving those same doctrines.  It does not confer authority or permission to change those doctrines.  Ordination is, essentially, a license that permits the holder to seek employment in a particular aspect of management of the Church.  That is true for both Catholics and Protestants (although, obviously, the Catholic Church has some additional prerequisites for this employment.  Holiness is not one of them.)

This is not something taught in seminary.  Those who learn it and comply with it, however, are the ones who “succeed.”  The ones who don’t, who think their job is to heal the sick, encourage souls to grow, are the ones who “fail,” who do not “succeed” in the church.

But what about St Francis?   The truth?  Francis came from a wealthy family.  The church has always been indulgent when dealing with someone whose family can make generous donations.