Adopted children of God
This is one time when I find a religious argument rather attractive – although in fact it’s not really a religious argument as such, in the sense that it doesn’t depend on any supernatural truth claims. The claims are in fact ethical and secular, but they are made more persuasive, emotive, convincing to believers because they are attributed to Jesus. And this version of Jesus is indeed vastly more attractive and moving than the usual one, and it’s certainly more attractive than the threatening demands of the established churches to be allowed to continue to exclude a despised group. As Simon Barrow points out. The churches seem to have lost the plot, if they think excluding despised groups was Jesus’s pet project.
Despite continuingly emollient words about service and conscience, the church message to the prime minister is still crystal clear: “allow us to discriminate against lesbian and gay people, or we pull the plug on ‘our’ adoption agencies”. This kind of threat is not quite what Jesus had in mind, I think, when he said, “suffer the little children to come to me”…These words were, tellingly, addressed to people who had acquired a habit from religious authorities of putting their own interests ahead of the most vulnerable. Children were usually last in the pecking order in Jesus’ society, which is why he singled them out as exemplars of God’s special concern for those at the bottom of the heap. That’s the gospel. The Catholic Church, like many historic religious bodies, is not at the bottom of the heap…Still seeing its future as a powerful stakeholder, the church naturally struggles with the deliberately marginal ethos of the early Christian movement, and instead is tempted towards policies which enshrine positional arrogance over pastoral care. It has lost its Christian bearings and opted instead for what John Kenneth Galbraith called the deception of “institutional truth”.
And it has not always and everywhere been conspicuous for its tender concern for the people who are at the bottom of the heap. Children in Irish industrial schools come to mind. So do women imprisoned by the church in ‘Magdalen’ laundries, also in Ireland. Victims of paedophile priest join the queue. Maybe the church should worry more about that than it does about its perceived right to go on excluding yet another despised group.
Ironically, one of the key terms the Epistle to the Ephesians uses to describe those who belong to the church is “adopted children of God”. The point is that people belong to the family of Christ not because they are good, worthy, rich, of the “right” family line, ethnicity, gender or theological persuasion. No, they are “in” solely because the God of Jesus loves without discrimination, and they are a sign of that love. This makes the church anti-exclusionary by nature, rightly understood.
I don’t know how true that is (how well it reflects some original nature of the church or of Chistianity), but I do find it rather moving. But I also immediately compare it with the cold, harsh, unloving treatment of children at Goldenbridge – which was not just an absent-minded habit, but a matter of policy – and I marvel at the gap between the ideal and the reality.
If only we had the luxury of even possibly believing this was an idle threat. They actually did pull the plug on adoption agencies in Boston for exactly the same reason last year.
Fine. But has been noted elsewhere they get large grants of money and tax free status because they do this kind of thing so that should stop immediately. That will provide a nice windfall for a decent state agency to be set up to do the same job.
In case any commenter didn’t read the whole piece, this is also important:
“The church’s agencies do not mind if adoptees are non-Catholics. You can be a remarried divorcee or a heterosexual couple in a cohabiting relationship, both conditions which defy Catholic teaching. Some lone parents who are gay have adopted, too, according to the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. You can be Muslim, atheist, Hindu or Jewish. Fine. The one thing you cannot be is a loving, homosexual couple in a stable family relationship.”
And to the extent that Catholic adoption agencies enjoy public funding (I don’t know what the figures are there), 100% agreement with Chris: take it away from them and help another agency that doesn’t think equality is offensive to an imaginary friend.
Being remarried doesn’t defy Catholic teaching you just have to get an annullment. And there is alot of debate on this position inside the church. many scholars within the church think the current stance is incorrect and wish to return to the original(divorce allowed) stance which was changed in the 15th century. Now shacking up is another story:-)
Chris,I should point out that state run childrens homes have almost as disgusting a track record as the catholic church.
>”I should point out that state run childrens homes have almost as disgusting a track record as the catholic church.”<
Richard, from an Irish perspective, I thoroughly agree with you.
Following is a snippet from the CICA, Phase III 2006
The Irish Department of Justice looked at the question of the running of Marlborough House in the interdepartmental committee in the 1960’s and when it was coming towards the end of its term in the 1970’s the Department was very critical of it.
The criticism in the Barry Committee (sic)in the 1960’s was the way the staff were recruited, they were recruited from the labour exchange. Q. And they were undesirables?
A. Well they weren’t regarded as suitably qualified
St Joseph’s Kilkenny, and Finglas Centre are other prime examples.
The same applies to day-care centers and even to schools here (in the US) and I would guess in other places too – it’s not high-status, it’s not very well-paid, and it’s hard, grueling work. It’s not all that surprising that it doesn’t invariably attract the most qualified people. Feminism also is part of the picture: women (happily) have a lot more choices, so clever educated women aren’t compelled to go into teaching by the lack of other possible jobs.
Hi Don: Thanks for those comments. Of course my, and Ekklesia’s, re-expressions of central Christian themes are selective. All communally developed and argued traditions (Christian, humanist, and so on) require interpretative practices and principles – which are precisely about determining good, reasoned, humane and practical justifications for choosing some readings over and against others. The key difference in all traditions of reasoning, it seems to me, is between those who see their readings as ‘unmediated truth’ (given by God, ‘rationalism’ or whatever) and those who wrestle with the messy but necessary business of ongoing interpretation and re-interpretation. I quickly summarised the main trajectory of the struggle within Christianity in the last para of my Guardian piece: I’ve spent over 30 years locating myself politically, spiritually and intellectually within that tension between those who seek openness and those who desire closedness. That doesn’t mean I’m right, necessarily, but it does give me the confidence to feel that the choices I’m articulating aren’t arbitrary, but well worked through. As part of that, I think the textual inheritances of Christianity are rather more interesting, subtle, ambiguous, ironic, open and fertile than you seem to. But I understand that the corruptions of religious fundamentalism have made them virtually inaccessible as sources of wisdom for many people – for reasons I often find myself in agreement with. I do think there’s a discernable and valuable set of radical traditions within Christianity, which derive from what I’d call the Jesus trajectory – and which subvert both top-down churchianity and knock-down metaphysics. You can’t simply read that as a series of simple moral prescriptions, of course. And I wouldn’t want to. It’s more about cultivating an ethos for living. Far more challenging. Best wishes, S.
Thanks for commenting, Simon.
“I do think there’s a discernable and valuable set of radical traditions within Christianity”
I think that’s true, and despite my frequent fury at Christianity these days, I do often find that set of traditions attractive.
(The chaplain at my brother’s boarding school was William Sloane Coffin, who became something of a hero to my brother, so in a way I cut my teeth on that tradition.)
Exactly what are the ‘radical’ traditions within Christianity?
and this is false to some degree:
‘ I think the textual inheritances of Christianity are rather more interesting, subtle, ambiguous, ironic, open and fertile than you seem to. But I understand that the corruptions of religious fundamentalism have made them virtually inaccessible as sources of wisdom for many people ‘
Calling fundamentalism a corruption may feel good but denominations that may eb considered non-fundie are just as backward on a variety of issue albeit different ones. The fundies take alot of hits because of evolution but their stance is often much better and more logical on many issues than is another branch say the RCC.
Traditions within christrianity?
Justification by works?
Justification by faith?
Justification by “election”?
Are all completely mutually incompatible.
Now a scientist or engineer “judges” by works – what do things actually do?
But, even there it is skewed, because, to a huge number of us, perfectly justifiable “works” – like allowing a raped woman to ahve an abortion, are strictly verboten by the church(es).
Then what?
Never mind whether your chosen “prophet” is someone else entirely, like the deluded old rapist fron Mecca.
And by way of a postscript, a few quotes from the ‘saints’, extolling the ‘radical tradition’:
—————————————-
St Ambrose (4th Century) on property:
‘Nature produced common property. Robbery made private property’.
‘It is not with your own wealth that you give alms to the poor, but with a fraction of their own which you give back; for you are usurping for yourself something meant for the common good of all. The earth is for everyone, not only for the rich’.
—————————————-
St. Gregory the Great (6th Century):
‘When we administer any necessities to the poor, we give them their own; we do not bestow our goods upon them. We do not fulfill the works of mercy; we discharge the debt of justice … What is given to us by a common God is only rightly used when those who have received it use it in common’.
—————————————-
Cyprian of Carthage (3rd Century) on war:
‘The world is going mad in mutual bloodshed. And murder, which is considered a crime when people commit it singly, is transformed into a virtue when they do it en masse’.
—————————————-
St. Gregory of Nyssa (4th Century) on the Lord’s Prayer:
‘So we say to God: Give us bread. Not delicacies or riches, nor magnificent purple robes, golden ornaments, and precious stones, or silver dishes. Nor do we ask Him for landed estates, or military commands, or political leadership. We pray neither for herds of horses and oxen or other cattle in great numbers, nor for a host of slaves. We do not say, give us a prominent position in assemblies or monuments and statues raised to us, nor silken robes and musicians at meals, nor any other thing by which the soul is estranged from the thought of God and higher things; no – but only bread!’
—————————————-
It seems to me the modern Church, especially in its right-wing, Capitalistic, militaristic form (the Religious Right and Bush spring to mind) could do well to reflect a bit more on some of the traditions within their faith.
Two points …
ONE(a): Mahmud imagined he was spoken to by the “angel Gabriel” who dictated what became the “recital” to him.
And he wasn’t deluded?
The nice men in white coats will be along soon ……
ONE(b): Ayesa/Aisha was no more than 12 when she became Mahmud’s “wife”.
That counts as delusion and rape, in my book.
If you can bring any proof to the contrary, please let us all share it.
TWO: Radical Saints ..
This is proably futile, as I’m sure that we can produce a list, at least as long, of “saints” who were egotistical, murdering or torturing bastards of the first water, many of whom are still venerated by both the RC and other churches.
Try these:
Cyril of Alexandria – invented “virgin birth” and had female librarian of Alexandria (Hypatia) murdered.
Bernard of Clairvaux – “before we go on crusade, lets’ have a pogrom of the local Jews.
Dominic – just ugh.
The madwoman of Calcutta, called Theresa.
Ignatius Loyola, for that matter.
It is my contention that these represent the main stream of christian opinion and doctrine, and works.
As shown in history, and at the present day.
OK?
I’m not here to argue in favour of Muhammad, I’m an atheist, not a Muslim. What I said was you are you using language ‘calculated to cause unnecessary offence’. You will undoubtedly persist with this, but you are seriously deluded if you think speaking like that in any way furthers the cause of rationalism.
Again, regarding the ‘radical tradition’, you are missing the point. This whole section of comments is a response to an article by Simon Barrow. I am *trying* to demonstrate what is meant by the ‘radical tradition’ and the ‘Jesus trajectory’. I get the impression you don’t actually read what people write on here, but just have a stock set of very limited opinions which you continue to recycle and spout at any given opportunity. You seemed unaware of the ‘radical tradition’ or radical strand dating back to nascent Christianity. I demonstrated what is meant by this, and you go off at a tangent about crusades and pogroms. I’m not denying those things occurred, and I’m not evangelising for Christianity, but they are not relevant to the specific topic being discussed.
Offence is indeed possible.
But only because of the pathetic pussyfooting around, “respecting” religion, that seems to have got a lot worse recently.
And the muslims are the worst … “Islam is a religion of peace, and we’ll behead anyone who says different!” isn’t too far out – even though it was meant as a sick joke.
Whereas it is religion that is a sick joke ….
And trying to get rationalism into the heads of some of these people may take shock tactics, unfortunately – because they won’t perform their religions quietly, as consenting adults in private, and will insist on bringing their imaginary friends to our attention, and demanding oh, yes, “repect” – which they are not going to get ……