|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should Christians be held to higher standards?
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
There is an article in The Guardian written by Bishop Tom Wright called They may be hypocritical about sex, but is no one else guilty?.
He argues: "If the church is hypocritical about sex, the media are hypocritical about hypocrisy".
Now I'm a huge NT Wright fan but something about this article smells off. I like what he says at the end about the nature of Christian claims but what of the idea that Christians should be held to higher standards than others?
My primate (Archbishop Phillip Aspinall), certainly thinks so.
NT Wright gives the impression he doesn't think so in this article.
What do you think?
Should Christians be held to higher standards? If so, why?
And what does it mean when we don't/cant? Have we not received the gifts of the Spirit? Have we conformed to the patterns of the world too much and not been successful in the renewing of our minds through the Grace of God?
Where does that leave us?
(Lotsa questions I know. You're welcome to answer any or all ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) )
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
I think it depends on what our message is.
We need to find a way to be clearer that the standards we uphold are standards to which we strive, and from which we fall short, but toward which we continue to strive by God's grace. Instead, Christians have too often given the impression that our standards are lines no one should cross, and if you do, well... Many people have felt condemned - or worse, been overtly condemned - because they don't live up to the Church's standards.
If our message were one of forgiveness, healing, grace, and acceptance, we might be less subject to accusations of hypocrisy. We're seen as trying to hold others to standards we don't keep ourselves. People rightly call Christians on that when they see it.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Should we be held to "higher" standard - in the sense of more stringent than others? No, we are still human, and Christianity is not about being better than others.
It is about being held to different standards. And according to those standards, we should be held up.
The problems in the Catholic church (especially), are that they famously and publically hold up celibacy as an important standard to be upheld, and yet so many of the priests are failing in this and using their position to abuse others, expressing their sexuality despite their own standards.
Actually, everyone should be held up against the standards they proclaim (or rather, the groups they claim affiliation with proclaim) as a minimum.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
What Schroedinger's Cat said.
The Catholic Church's teaching on sex and sexuality is deeply counter-cultural in the West (and in other places too). It is natural that when Catholics and particularly Catholic clergy fail to live up to that teaching others will be properly critical. I think we should be held to the standards we set ourselves. If that means we feel the heat when we don't then that's just tough.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
There are issues about the way we judge and how measured we are. I've been arguing this on a different thread.
I think we do better to write ourselves into the script rather than become too abstract in our proclamations. "I do believe this is the right standard (for these reasons) and personally I have great difficulty in living up to it (for these reasons, maybe because of this experience)."
Standards proclaimed within a faith community have implications of submission for members. Standards proclaimed to folks outside the community are an offering, best made on an open hand, recognising the challenge which comes with them. It's the meek who will inherit the earth; not so sure about those who are sure they know "what's what" better than others and so pronounce "from on high".
Actually, I think the "outside" standard is a better approach to folks inside the community as well. But that raises other issues.
[ 09. March 2013, 11:04: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gextvedde
Shipmate
# 11084
|
Posted
Posted by Evensong
quote:
Should Christians be held to higher standards? If so, why?
Yes if we insist on being the moral guardians of society and/or that Christians have the monopoly on ethics. Having said that I think that being human we have the propensity to fuck things up, as well as the ability to go the extra mile. As Christians we have (various) standards and the habit of not matching up to them. We should be held to the standards that we teach with the caveat that we should my well make a balls up of it along the way. Genuine humility goes a long way when it comes to morals and ethics.
--------------------
"We must learn to see that our temperament is a gift of God, a talent with which we must trade until he comes" Thomas Merton
Posts: 293 | From: The Twilight Zone, near the M25 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I quite like Wright's last sentence about the Church being made up of 'prodigal sons' who have come to realise their Father still loves them despite everything.
However, can personal failings can be equated to the horrendous institutional failings that have come to light in the catholic church ?
On the vexed subject of child abuse . Considering it is now widely accepted that abused minors can grow up to abuse others, then any Christian institution knowingly harbouring abusers can quite rightly expect to be vilified for not holding to a higher standard .
Not sure that bringing the savile scandal in as a counter-argument helps much either . Most of us have already made a calculated guess as to how came by the *vampire's bite* as a youngster.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
What Schroedinger's Cat said.
The Catholic Church's teaching on sex and sexuality is deeply counter-cultural in the West (and in other places too). It is natural that when Catholics and particularly Catholic clergy fail to live up to that teaching others will be properly critical. I think we should be held to the standards we set ourselves.
What a bizarre concept. The Hell's Angels should be judged by how much mahem they can cause? Absurd. They are judged by the standards that we hold for all humans, not by the standard that each human decides to hold for him/her self. There may be some additional constraints we place on ourselves, either for professional or personal moral reasons -- we may choose to be Nazarites, if you will. But the core set of expectations continues to be those that we hold everyone to.
While it is true that not everyone agrees to the same code, the net effect of that is that those who live outside the norms of society are still held to that same standard and are judged accordingly. Were it not so, it would truly be strange for people who disagree with the current norms to work to change them.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
We may all be sinners, but we are not all rapists. I don't believe that celibacy drives people to sexual abuse.
If people 'fell short of standards' by masturbating - that is one thing. But this 'we're all sinners' thing seems to be fielded in response to more extreme 'falling short of standards'.
I have no partner, it hasn't driven me to sexually harass my colleagues.
Similarly, we might accuse the pope emeritus of giving evidence of some level of personal vanity - in what he chose to do about the papal vestments when he was in office. But I would be much more likely to call him a hypocrite and unfit for office, if he had insisted on vestments he liked despite they having been produced by illegal child labour. He didn't do this, and thus I view his being a little too concerned with his appearance as a human being falling a little short of the standards he aspired to.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Wright's article was a nice, gentle polemic (if there is such a thing), but I'm not sure he even describes hypocrisy correctly. Hypocrisy isn't failing to live up to your ethical standards: it's pretending you do live up to them, while you denounce other people who don't. Hypocrisy isn't having a plank in your eye: it's trying to remove the speck in your brother's eye before you remove the plank from your own.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
When I first read the question, my immediate answer was: "Yes."
Then churchgeek wrote:
quote:
I think it depends on what our message is.
After reading his/her post, I realize I have more to think about.
One thing I do feel strongly about: Christians SHOULD be held to a higher standard when they are the sort who ...
(a) are prone to demonize or consign to hell those who disagree with them or fail to live up to their spoken standards. For some reason, this tendency seems to be most extreme when directed at those who disagree about matters relating to sex and reproduction.
(b) are constantly blathering on about their monopoly of truth and righteousness, often brandishing this or that Bible verse, or citing the teachings of "one true church" or other, as though that automatically made all doubt and disagreement irrelevant or (worse) evil. In this view, all sins are doubled: the sin itself, and the additional sin of "not listening to us" or "rejecting our teaching." I include many conservative evangelical leaders (especially in the U.S.) and Roman Catholic establishment figures in this group. (Fundamentalist Muslim leaders and devotees, too, though they are not included in the OP.)
c) are quick to rationalize (and downplay) bad actions among their own with glib references to the awful universality of human sinfulness and appeals to "pray for him/her/me." Recovering alcoholics are encouraged to examine their consciences, accept responsibility for their actions, make amends, and work hard, one day at a time, to become a different person. Not to whine about "I have a disease." It works.
[ 09. March 2013, 13:52: Message edited by: roybart ]
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
What Schroedinger's Cat said.
The Catholic Church's teaching on sex and sexuality is deeply counter-cultural in the West (and in other places too). It is natural that when Catholics and particularly Catholic clergy fail to live up to that teaching others will be properly critical. I think we should be held to the standards we set ourselves.
What a bizarre concept. The Hell's Angels should be judged by how much mayhem they can cause? Absurd.
I did add "as a minimum". The Hells Angels are also a part of the society, and so the standards that the society puts on them are also expected.
This does not mean that we should always obey the law, it does mean that we should be subject to the laws of the land. If we break those, we can expect sanction.
Hells Angels also have standards - loyalty to chapter, for example. It is fair to judge them by these standards.
the thing is, we are all members of multiple groups, and it is the minimum standards across all of them that we can be expected to live up to. At work, I am a member of "Professional Software Developers" which has a set of standards by which I should live up to. When not at home, in any relevant work, I should also live up to those standards. I do not expect others to live up the same standards when they are hacking together web sites.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
What Schroedinger's Cat said.
The Catholic Church's teaching on sex and sexuality is deeply counter-cultural in the West (and in other places too). It is natural that when Catholics and particularly Catholic clergy fail to live up to that teaching others will be properly critical. I think we should be held to the standards we set ourselves. If that means we feel the heat when we don't then that's just tough.
Interestingly, the Catholic Church - or any other Church for that matter - has not always been counter-cultural in certain of its standards, of course. That would appear to be a fairly recent development. It's only as recently as my mother's generation that sex before marriage was truly regarded by society as fornication; and homosexuality illegal. Church and society fairly shook hands on these things, at least legally and on the face of things.
Whereas now the Church which maintains the traditional stance is isolated from the new popular spirit which no longer condemns these things - or not in the same way. So not only does the Church no longer receive the approbation of society when it speaks against the new morality, but is held to have doubly condemned itself when caught in the act of the very behaviour the Church itself condemns, but which society views as harmless.
For me, it's a case of Christians being called to higher standards of moral behaviour, but on the understanding that we don't deceive ourselves when it comes to confessing the failure, repentance and reparation. These last three things should mark out the true Christian every bit as much as striving for perfection.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
As mentioned, society determines minimum standards. If one professes higher standards, one should indeed be held to them. If one is the guardian of any standard, one should be held all the more tightly to those standards.
That we are imperfect beings who, some, will fail is a reason not an excuse.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
We can't win.
If we see practices which we think are wrong, not only might we feel it appropriate to speak out, but also, society in general expects us to speak out.
And then, if we (or some of us) do that which most of us agree is wrong, then the sky falls in ...
So remaining silent is seen as wrong, while if we speak out, we are accused of hypocrisy ...
but there are a couple of bright spots.
If we speak out on matters where most people will agree with us, then there are some Brownie points to be gained. (At this point one is reminded that the Bible says more about financial than about sexual malpractice.)
And a happy thought - we probably enjoy more public esteem in this matter than the average politician ...
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
We can't win. <snip>
So remaining silent is seen as wrong, while if we speak out, we are accused of hypocrisy ...
sigh
Not how it works. It is not that people are not allowed to fail their standards.
It is how one attempts to fix this that makes a hypocrite or not, understandable or not.
It is not the act of speaking out. It is that in doing so, one paints a target on oneself. The best defense is to have the fewest missiles fired be able to lock on to said target. i.e., don't fuck up and pretend you haven't. Or repeatedly do so and pretend asking forgiveness each time is acceptable.
My original comment on this thread was in no way limited to Christians.
BTW, one of the reasons Christians have the hypocrite label applied is not failure of a rule, but failure of principle. The Phelps clan being a prime example. That all Christians often get tarred with the same brush is unfortunate.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I don't know what "held to" means, who is doing the "holding to" with what effects if the Christian doesn't measure up?
But if we advocate a way life, a set if principles, you know - love your neighbor, be good to your enemies, repent and turn away from your sin, hang out with the social rejects as equally valuable as the socially desireable, don't get hung up on accumulating possessions, take care of those with no family to watch out for them such as widows - if we study these things weekly for decades and strive at least some of the time to live in accordance with them, shouldn't our lives show some difference from the lives of people who don't strive to follow these principles?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think one of the core beliefs of Christianity is that people fail. This does not mean that we should therefore not hold people to standards. It means that the standards are even more important, BUT we all struggle to maintain these standards.
One of the issues with the Catholic Church problems, is that they espouse a claim that celibacy is a virtue; that clergy are celibate; and that this celibacy is something reasonable and achievable. The evidence is that this enforced celibacy simply hides the sexual outlets of Catholic clergy, and the failure of many clergy to practice celibacy is hushed up.
The thing is, if you hold celibacy as a critical part of clerical discipline, and if you say that this includes not abusing people in your care, then failing to achieve this should be treated as a failure to uphold the expected standards, and should be removed from the clergy. Yes there is forgiveness, but is you have certain standards for particular positions, you have to enforce this.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
So not abusing children and not concealing, enabling and protecting those who do is a "Higher Standard"? I think it's an everyday standard that everyone is obliged to meet.
This is similar to the rhetorical device that when failures are pointed out, to pretend that it's a charge of being imperfect, and well, nobody is perfect.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
...One of the issues with the Catholic Church problems, is that they espouse a claim that celibacy is a virtue; that clergy are celibate; and that this celibacy is something reasonable and achievable. The evidence is that this enforced celibacy simply hides the sexual outlets of Catholic clergy, and the failure of many clergy to practice celibacy is hushed up.
......
Since we seem to be slithering into comment on the RCC, I can't help noticing that:
we seem to have a mixture of two issues here.
One is the rule that requires clergy to be celibate.
And the other is sexual abuse by clergy and the possibility of cover-ups.
These are related to an extent in that sexual energy may force an unhealthy outlet if no healthy outlet is available; but this is the case only to an extent. It's clear that abusive sexual activities sometimes can and do occur even when non-abusive outlets are available. Married clergy can go seriously off the rails, as the Anglican church knows well; and there have been cover-ups in the Anglican church too.
And on the other hand, there are RCC clergy (a majority, I assume) who have been and remain celibate and certainly have never sexually abused anyone. So for them, celibacy is achievable (maybe reasonable for some and not for others).
Not that I see any virtue in celibacy per se, though I doubt that the RCC would seek my advice on the matter.
[/tangent]
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
[W]e might accuse the pope emeritus of giving evidence of some level of personal vanity - in what he chose to do about the papal vestments when he was in office. [...] I view his being a little too concerned with his appearance as a human being falling a little short of the standards he aspired to.
Why assume this was personal vanity at all? It doesn't seem to fit with the character those who know him have described: he's pretty well known for his humility and lack of vanity.
What he chose to wear as the Pope - or as a priest at the altar - is just as likely to be about what he thinks of the dignity and importance of the office as it is about personal fashion sense or aggrandisement. Probably more so.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[QUOTE]....BTW, one of the reasons Christians have the hypocrite label applied is not failure of a rule, but failure of principle. The Phelps clan being a prime example. ...
It does depend on the definition of "hypocrite", a charge I would not level against the Phelps clan without some evidence that they actually practiced that which they attack. Plenty of other charges I might bring against them ...
quote:
.... That all Christians often get tarred with the same brush is unfortunate.
Well, at least we can agree on that.
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
Skimmed the article - seems to be a standard attempt to dilute criticism by broadening the focus to as many others as possible. As though there is a finite amount of wickedness. There isn't - my old mum would have skewered that arguement "Two wrongs don't make a (w)right"
(Sorry - it seemed to good to be passed up)
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
He didn't do this, and thus I view his being a little too concerned with his appearance as a human being falling a little short of the standards he aspired to.
That is ridiculous. If the pope, by restoring vestments proper to the office of the pope, is vain, then similarly every bishop is vain when he uses/wears the items appropriate to his office. Nothing Pope Benedict did with regard to papal vesture smacks of personal vanity.
[ 10. March 2013, 00:05: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[qb] [QUOTE]....BTW, one of the reasons Christians have the hypocrite label applied is not failure of a rule, but failure of principle. The Phelps clan being a prime example. ...
It does depend on the definition of "hypocrite", a charge I would not level against the Phelps clan without some evidence that they actually practiced that which they attack. Plenty of other charges I might bring against them ...
Hypocrite in that they espouse a religion which is supposedly based on love yet they preach hate. In that Jesus embraced sinners, they reject those they think sin.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
What Schroedinger's Cat said.
The Catholic Church's teaching on sex and sexuality is deeply counter-cultural in the West (and in other places too). It is natural that when Catholics and particularly Catholic clergy fail to live up to that teaching others will be properly critical. I think we should be held to the standards we set ourselves.
What a bizarre concept. The Hell's Angels should be judged by how much mahem they can cause? Absurd. They are judged by the standards that we hold for all humans, not by the standard that each human decides to hold for him/her self. There may be some additional constraints we place on ourselves, either for professional or personal moral reasons -- we may choose to be Nazarites, if you will. But the core set of expectations continues to be those that we hold everyone to.
While it is true that not everyone agrees to the same code, the net effect of that is that those who live outside the norms of society are still held to that same standard and are judged accordingly. Were it not so, it would truly be strange for people who disagree with the current norms to work to change them.
--Tom Clune
Tom, I'm sorry that I didn't make what I was saying clear enough. The "we" to whom I was referring was the a Catholic Church. What I meant was that if we - the Catholic Church - set ourselves standards that are so counter-cultural and we fail to meet them, we can hardly complain if we are judged harshly by that culture - not only according to that culture's standards but by those we have set ourselves.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
...Hypocrite in that they espouse a religion which is supposedly based on love yet they preach hate. In that Jesus embraced sinners, they reject those they think sin.
Well, by your definition of Christianity and mine, yes. But I hadn't heard that Phelps & Co preach Christian love by any definition which you or I might accept. So they could be true to their own standards.
AIUI the common definition of hypocrisy (which, I think, literally means "acting" in a theatre sense) is preaching one thing and doing another.
So, it depends on definitions. Which is where we came in.
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I've screwed up the OP.
My main question is:
With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards better than others?
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
He argues: "If the church is hypocritical about sex, the media are hypocritical about hypocrisy". Now I'm a huge NT Wright fan but something about this article smells off. I like what he says at the end about the nature of Christian claims but what of the idea that Christians should be held to higher standards than others? My primate (Archbishop Phillip Aspinall), certainly thinks so. NT Wright gives the impression he doesn't think so in this article. What do you think? Should Christians be held to higher standards? If so, why?
First, the article by +Wright is not about whether Christian should be held to higher standards, and neither is the quote Evensong has selected. That's just Evensong mistaking the educational 'mini-sermon' at the end for the main point. Second, concerning what the article is actually discussing - the media being the pot that calls the kettle Church black - the article is spot on. Money quote: "The media want to be the guardians of public morality, but some people still see the church that way. Very well, it must be pulled down from its perch to make way for its secular successor." Hear, hear. Third, the article uses a wrong definition of "hypocrisy", and so do most people here, but we have gone through that on another current thread at length. The Samuel Johnson quote from Wikipedia sums up that point.
Since however the discussion has focused on Evensong's question (rather than +Wright's main concern), I will play. No, Christians should not be held to higher moral standards. Rather, the moral standards to which everybody will be held - by God - are much higher than many people think. And Christians, unlike most and certainly unlike the post-Christians of the West, have sufficient insight into that and do on occasion still express that insight. Well, make that RCs rather than Christians; this is not really true anymore for everybody who is called Christian due to a valid baptism. It is true that certain additional moral obligations arise from not being ignorant or wrong-headed about God, like going to (RC) mass each Sunday. But this is hardly the focus of this little morality play. As usual, the only thing anybody ever thinks about is sex. Well, perhaps people can plead reduced culpability on accounts of being invincibly ignorant, but their acts as such will all be judged by the very same standard on Judgement Day. And I wish everybody, including myself, God's mercy on that one. We are going to need it.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
quote:
He didn't do this, and thus I view his being a little too concerned with his appearance as a human being falling a little short of the standards he aspired to.
That is ridiculous. If the pope, by restoring vestments proper to the office of the pope, is vain, then similarly every bishop is vain when he uses/wears the items appropriate to his office. Nothing Pope Benedict did with regard to papal vesture smacks of personal vanity.
Whether you agree with my view of his choice of vestments or not, you are rather missing the point of my original post. Which was there is a difference between falling short of high standards and criminal and or civilly actionable conduct.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
One is the rule that requires clergy to be celibate.
And the other is sexual abuse by clergy and the possibility of cover-ups.
These are related to an extent in that sexual energy may force an unhealthy outlet if no healthy outlet is available; but this is the case only to an extent.
This sort of statement really pisses me off - and has next to no evidence to back it up. Lots of people live without a sexual partner without engaging in sexual abuse. Abuse is not caused by celibacy. The vast majority of sexual abuse is carried out by people with other available sexual outlets. The percentage of celibate priests who are known to have engaged in abusive behaviour is, if anything, slightly lower than the percentage of the non-priest male population.
There are various arguments against a celibate priesthood - but this is a total red herring.
[ 10. March 2013, 10:57: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
What Adeodatus said.
Francis Spufford's recent book 'unapologetic' was very helpful for me in this area, in differentiating between religions of Orthopraxy - for example Judeism and Islam - where with effort, one may be righteous through the observation (_doing_) of a complex set of ethical codes; and Christianity which he differentiates as Othodox, since what matters (as well as those codes) is the spirit in which one obeys, or does not obey, them.
As Christians know, this means an apparently benign act can be malicious, and v-v; it also means that the bar is set insuperably high, and that outside certain 'holiness' movements (which as a Methodist I guess I might have more sympathy for than I do - Wesley was found about here) most people accept that almost total and continual failure will be our lot.
This changes church into (to paraphrase Spufford) a club-for-the-terminally-fucked - and places right emphasis on our moralising as describing the _target_. Our trajectory and rate of travel are something else altogether, and in my limited experience, themselves more the subject of God's grace and the indwelling of the spirit.
If we could get this message out, it would help a lot. I could be enthusiastic about that kind of evangelism, because for once I wholeheartedly believe in it.
This is not saying 'the church should do no better regarding child abusers' - viz trajectory. But it is, unfortunately, saying 'within the church there will always be child abusers'. Everything else must be a lie.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The percentage of celibate priests who are known to have engaged in abusive behaviour is, if anything, slightly lower than the percentage of the non-priest male population.
Were I a member of the RCC I wouldn't be especially encouraged by that statement . If this organisation wishes to restore it's credibility then, in my books, the percentage of celibate priests engaged in abuse needs to be zero.
[ 10. March 2013, 12:14: Message edited by: rolyn ]
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
I really don't think 'zero' is ever going to happen.
I have kids. I hope there are no abusers on their school staff. I'm very much in favour of the procedural measures used to protect them. But to insist there would never be an abusing teacher is to radically underestimate the ubiquity of sin, and to radically overestimate the power of right procedures.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, to think that zero can be achieved would suggest that a foolproof method of filtering out paedophiles and hebephiles is available. I doubt if this is correct, since many institutions find abusers in their midst.
What can be changed is covering up, and passing the trash, as it has been known in the US public school system. Of course, this kind of covering up can be rooted out, and presumably, is being in many kinds of institutions.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
One is the rule that requires clergy to be celibate.
And the other is sexual abuse by clergy and the possibility of cover-ups.
These are related to an extent in that sexual energy may force an unhealthy outlet if no healthy outlet is available; but this is the case only to an extent.
This sort of statement really pisses me off - and has next to no evidence to back it up. Lots of people live without a sexual partner without engaging in sexual abuse. Abuse is not caused by celibacy. The vast majority of sexual abuse is carried out by people with other available sexual outlets. The percentage of celibate priests who are known to have engaged in abusive behaviour is, if anything, slightly lower than the percentage of the non-priest male population.
There are various arguments against a celibate priesthood - but this is a total red herring.
Sorry DT, but I have to say you have pissed me off somewhat.
If you look at my original post you will find that it is a reply to a post by Schroedinger's Cat, in while said feline made the point you complain about.
And I went on to point out (in the bit you have omitted) that a majority of a celibate priesthood do not sexually abuse anyone. Which is the point you have also made.
It is probably a good idea, before you criticise the substance of a post, to read it.
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilyswinburne
Shipmate
# 12934
|
Posted
The reporting of the pedophilia (and other) scandals benefits the greater society at large.
The cover-up of the scandals hurts society.
Media +1
Church -1
It's not about hypocrisy.
Wright says:
"The media want to be the guardians of public morality, but some people still see the church that way. Very well, it must be pulled down from its perch to make way for its secular successor."
I would expect a better argument from someone as highly educated as he is.
Posts: 126 | From: California | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Hmmm...surely the equation is:
Prurient interest in the sexual lives of others on part of general public p{s}= +10^34 [factor may be squared where object has significant objection to the public discussion of their sex life]
Media corporation interest in selling product m{£} = +10^99
Column inches available = c
Prevalence of sex stories in newspapers = p{s}*m{£}/c (%) = ... some large number.
Sometimes the effects can be useful in exposing 'wrongdoing' - but the bottom line is, as always, expressed in units of {£}.
[ 10. March 2013, 15:35: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Second, concerning what the article is actually discussing - the media being the pot that calls the kettle Church black - the article is spot on. Money quote: "The media want to be the guardians of public morality, but some people still see the church that way. Very well, it must be pulled down from its perch to make way for its secular successor." Hear, hear. ...
Good Grief. I find myself agreeing with IngoB. And with Mark-in-Manchester and definitely not with Lilyswinburne. This may be a difference between cultures, but if we're putting Tom Wright in competition with the sanctimonious, self-righteous humbug of the media, I stand with Tom Wright. On this one, he's bang on.
Fear of libel debars me from naming any names, but who in their right mind sets their moral compass by the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Mirror, or for that matter the Guardian?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I really don't think 'zero' is ever going to happen.
Agreed . Meant to add a footnote that human transgression is always going to occur to one degree or another , even in a monastery full of enlightened Buddhists.
Aiming for zero would be more realistic . Glasnost in the RCC and working with the criminal courts is the way to achieve it.
There was a time when the general public might have been inclined to forgive the odd priest who had 'lost the plot' as it were . However now that such a scale of deceit and abuse has been uncovered ?
That kind of forgiveness is only going to come at a price to my mind .
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've screwed up the OP.
My main question is:
With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards better than others?
If the Spirit matters at all, then yes.
Which is why I'm not sure the churches in general are teaching Christianity or teaching awareness of and responsiveness to God.
It's not about being perfect, although Jesus tells us to. But the company we keep and the things we focus on gradually affect out personalities. I'm not seeing many lives that seem to have internalized keeping company with God and focusing on God's values.
Pursuit of material wealth, boasting instead of repenting ways of "getting ahead" that hurt others, envy instead of delight in someone else's good fortune, ignoring the poor except with a token dollar at Christmas ("because I need it all for my family"), etc, don't reflect interest in what God thinks!
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
There was a time when the general public might have been inclined to forgive the odd priest who had 'lost the plot' as it were .
I'd love to think that would have been a time when 'throwing the first stone' meant something visceral to the man in the street.
Now...not so much. Paedophiles, murderers, terrorists; along with in some circles homophobes, misogynists, fascists, Thatcherites - are Them with a capital T. That makes everything so much further from a good way forward.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've screwed up the OP.
My main question is:
With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards better than others?
Maybe your question should be:
With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards?
and not... "Christians are better than other people who aren't Christians"
[ 10. March 2013, 19:53: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
One is the rule that requires clergy to be celibate.
And the other is sexual abuse by clergy and the possibility of cover-ups.
These are related to an extent in that sexual energy may force an unhealthy outlet if no healthy outlet is available; but this is the case only to an extent.
This sort of statement really pisses me off - and has next to no evidence to back it up. Lots of people live without a sexual partner without engaging in sexual abuse. Abuse is not caused by celibacy. The vast majority of sexual abuse is carried out by people with other available sexual outlets. The percentage of celibate priests who are known to have engaged in abusive behaviour is, if anything, slightly lower than the percentage of the non-priest male population.
There are various arguments against a celibate priesthood - but this is a total red herring.
Sorry DT, but I have to say you have pissed me off somewhat.
If you look at my original post you will find that it is a reply to a post by Schroedinger's Cat, in while said feline made the point you complain about.
And I went on to point out (in the bit you have omitted) that a majority of a celibate priesthood do not sexually abuse anyone. Which is the point you have also made.
It is probably a good idea, before you criticise the substance of a post, to read it.
SC did not say it led to abuse, just that priests were not maintaining celibacy. But if we want to wrangle this further - then we'd probably need to take it to hell.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've screwed up the OP.
My main question is:
With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards better than others?
Maybe your question should be:
With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards?
and not... "Christians are better than other people who aren't Christians"
Yup. That works
So what do you think?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've screwed up the OP.
My main question is:
With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards better than others?
Maybe your question should be:
With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards?
and not... "Christians are better than other people who aren't Christians"
Yup. That works
So what do you think?
Not being a Christian or having the gift of the Spirit I don't know. I've certainly known Christians who live up to ethical standards and those who don't, but I've never asked their motivation. I've also known non-Christians who manage to live up to ethical standards without the gift of the spirit.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Not being a Christian or having the gift of the Spirit I don't know. I've certainly known Christians who live up to ethical standards and those who don't, but I've never asked their motivation. I've also known non-Christians who manage to live up to ethical standards without the gift of the spirit.
Depends on what you think the gift of the Spirit is or whether it's exclusive to Christians.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I was thinking along the lines of Paul's definition in Galatians.
quote:
Galatians 5.17-6.1
17For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21envy,* drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, 23gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things. 24And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another.
6My friends,* if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Doesn't any sign of better behaviour depend on how bad you were to start with?
I think John Newton observed late in life that he was not the man he ought to be, not the man the wanted to be, nor yet the man Christ wanted him to be, but he was better than he used to be. By the grace of God.
Finger-pointing is best when it starts and ends with each of us being more open to pointing our fingers at our own acknowledged shortcomings. Even that might lead to inappropriate guilt, but better if we lay it on ourselves than anyone else.
Does that stir up any contrarian instincts you may have, Evensong? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 11. March 2013, 10:49: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Doesn't any sign of better behaviour depend on how bad you were to start with?
I think John Newton observed late in life that he was not the man he ought to be, not the man the wanted to be, nor yet the man Christ wanted him to be, but he was better than he used to be. By the grace of God.
I think the last time I raised this question Lamb chopped mentioned the same idea: depends where we start.
This is fair enough in my view.
The only stirring of my contrary nature on that point is to ask:
Are Christians more fucked up than other people to begin with if we do not live up to our ethical standards?
If so, is this evidence to suggest that when Jesus says he came for those who were sick (those in need of a physician) and not the righteous he was referring to us Christians in this sense?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
