Ideology And Religion

[Stone holm]

So is Pope Francis right or wrong in his comment about ideology?

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/21/pope-francis-describes-ideological-christians-as-a-serious-illness-within-the-church/

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

Absolutely correct. While I have my disagreements with the RCC version of the Gospel. I am really starting to like this Pope.

Edited October 21, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[ksfisher]

I guess that depends on what Pope Francis means by the word ideology.  My dictionary app defines it as follows:

 

1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc, that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

 

That doesn't really sound like a bad thing.  So if in the church we have guiding principles such as are embodied in the 13 Articles of Faith, that would seem to be our ideology.  Should we not be firm in our belief in the Savior, the scriptures, and in our belief in modern revelation?  Love should guide all our actions, but that love in grounded in the pure doctrine of the gospel as taught by Christ and his prophets.

[thesometimesaint]

I guess that depends on what Pope Francis means by the word ideology.  My dictionary app defines it as follows:

 

1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc, that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

 

That doesn't really sound like a bad thing.  So if in the church we have guiding principles such as are embodied in the 13 Articles of Faith, that would seem to be our ideology.  Should we not be firm in our belief in the Savior, the scriptures, and in our belief in modern revelation?  Love should guide all our actions, but that love in grounded in the pure doctrine of the gospel as taught by Christ and his prophets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology

[jkwilliams]

I honestly don't know how you separate religion from ideology, particularly when you have a religion that informs your "walk," so to speak.

[Stone holm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology

Yeah I tend to think of ideology in political terms as well, do you believe he was referring to political ideology?

[Stone holm]

I honestly don't know how you separate religion from ideology, particularly when you have a religion that informs your "walk," so to speak.

Not sure I fully understand what he meant, but suspect he meant political ideology.

[ksfisher]

Not sure I fully understand what he meant, but suspect he meant political ideology.

 

Since Pope Francis is a religious leader I assumed he was using the word ideology in a religious sense.  The comments in the article seemed to support this.

[Stone holm]

Since Pope Francis is a religious leader I assumed he was using the word ideology in a religious sense.  The comments in the article seemed to support this.

Well I agree with JK that religion and politics are difficult to separate and if politics gets too embedded in religion, it has the impacts he is referring to.

[pmccombs1]

Yeah I tend to think of ideology in political terms as well, do you believe he was referring to political ideology?

 

No. Pope Francis is contrasting two kinds of religion: 

 

1) Formulaic, check-box religion that holds up a list of ideals that qualify a person as righteous. I think of it as rules-based religion that draws lines in the dirt and views people as "in" or "out," based on how well they measure up to the ideals or how well they respond to callings issued for them by others. This is the religion of goals and measurements and is very future-oriented. Very protestant!

2) Vocational religion where people behave a certain way because they hear and respond to their own callings. These people hardly take any thought for the morrow, but it is prayer that shapes their desires and attunes them to a certain calling. 

 

Catholicism is a vocational model.

[jkwilliams]

For a lot of people, ideology becomes more a rigid set of beliefs and behaviors that makes one part of the group. Perhaps he's saying that the relationship between ourselves and God gets lost in our need to belong.

Pete Townshend explains it better than I can.

[CV75]

So is Pope Francis right or wrong in his comment about ideology?

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/21/pope-francis-describes-ideological-christians-as-a-serious-illness-within-the-church/

I think he is correct insofar as one's political ideology becomes an extension of the principle that "every man fares in this life according to the management of the creature, prospers according to his genius, and conquers according to his strength," which is antithetical to the direction the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost take us in religion.

[mercyngrace]

Time for my favorite Neal A. Maxwell quote...

 

 

There is a real risk that members of the Church—particularly the young—may perceive the concept of the straight and narrow way too narrowly.

Variations of the concept of the straight and narrow path appear many times in the scriptures, but it is really a description of a clearly marked corridor to salvation and exaltation—a path of high adventure for the brave, not the intolerant; it is not an ecclesiastical “country club” situated on a narrow theological terrace.

The way is as wide as infinity in terms of its requirements of love and truth; it confines us only in marking those peril points along the path of life.

 

It may just be the tendency of the natural man in us that drives us to shrink God until he fits within the constraints of smalls human minds, creeds (political, cultural, social, or religious), or even 13 bullet points of belief. I think the Pope is right, as was Elder Maxwell, in that our narrow-mindedness is a real risk to both members of the church and the church itself. 

Edited May 25, 2014 by mercyngrace

[pmccombs1]

If you don't want to watch the full address, here is another link that makes it pretty clear that the pope isn't referring at all to politics or to political ideology, but to the ideologies of the "moralistic" religion of the Pharisees and the casuists:

 

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/10/17/pope_francis_at_mass_calls_for_greater_openness_/in2-738150

Edited October 21, 2013 by pmccombs1

[CV75]

No. Pope Francis is contrasting two kinds of religion: 

 

1) Formulaic, check-box religion that holds up a list of ideals that qualify a person as righteous. I think of it as rules-based religion that draws lines in the dirt and views people as "in" or "out," based on how well they measure up to the ideals or how well they respond to callings issued for them by others. This is the religion of goals and measurements and is very future-oriented. Very protestant!

2) Vocational religion where people behave a certain way because they hear and respond to their own callings. These people hardly take any thought for the morrow, but it is prayer that shapes their desires and attunes them to a certain calling. 

 

Catholicism is a vocational model.

I agree; this is a case in point where ideology is a broken-down faith resulting from human genius distilling out only the most superficial religious observations for a group's own purposes.

[jkwilliams]

If you don't want to watch the full address, here is another link that makes it pretty clear that the pope isn't referring at all to politics or to political ideology, but to the ideologies of the "moralistic" religion of the Pharisees and the casuists:

 

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/10/17/pope_francis_at_mass_calls_for_greater_openness_/in2-738150

Makes sense to me. It's quite easy to exalt rules over faith.

[Stone holm]

No. Pope Francis is contrasting two kinds of religion: 

 

1) Formulaic, check-box religion that holds up a list of ideals that qualify a person as righteous. I think of it as rules-based religion that draws lines in the dirt and views people as "in" or "out," based on how well they measure up to the ideals or how well they respond to callings issued for them by others. This is the religion of goals and measurements and is very future-oriented. Very protestant!

2) Vocational religion where people behave a certain way because they hear and respond to their own callings. These people hardly take any thought for the morrow, but it is prayer that shapes their desires and attunes them to a certain calling. 

 

Catholicism is a vocational model.

 

You mean like religious litmus tests?

[pmccombs1]

You mean like religious litmus tests?

 

I guess litmus tests are often a part of the formulaic, standardized religion that the pope is criticizing here. It seems to me that there is a popular belief among many of the religious that they are in possession of a standard that can be held up, and against which all things can be measured. Mind you, the pope isn't necessarily criticizing the results of ideology-discipleship, only the means.

 

Let's balance two people on the scales, both whose lives are presently above reproach according to some abstract standard (this is a rhetorical exercise): 

 

The first person lives according to a worldview based on epistemology. He has a standard about which he is certain; he knows that it is true and has spent his life primarily seeking and validating knowledge. He is very interested in religious witness and in proving things out, wanting to find the right one in a manner that he considers impartial. He also believes that the Good is to be found in perfecting the execution of the standard, because he has no doubt about the future consequences of such an accomplishment and knows them to be desirable. This person is moved by external authority and by plausibility structures. He does not require a voice in the wilderness, rather a watchman on a tower who guides him and who sets him in motion; one to give him assignments and to provide friends for him. He believes that his worthiness can be ascertained by answering questions or by checking off items on the "righteousness" list. He lives in a world that has both a secular and a religious component, and he seeks to reconcile one to the other.

 

The second person lives according to a worldview based on ontology. He is one who listens at the knee of a storyteller, and he is beckoned by that which he hears. So, he spends his life chasing after the stories that light him up. He seeks for that elusive nightingale--to find it, and to hear it... to be it. It doesn't matter, to this one, whether or not the story is real or imaginary; whatever it is, it is true because it speaks to him. And because it speaks to him, his life reflects it. He rarely thinks about whether or not he will be saved; he is too enraptured by the song of that nightingale to pay much heed to the future. This person is moved by an internal authority, and he is drawn to others who have found--and tell--the same story sung by his nightingale. He measures his own worthiness by telling the story of his life and listening to how it harmonizes with all of his favorite tales. For him, perfection is not achieved by following a list of rules. Instead, it is found in the rhythm of a life that rises and falls and is woven into the tapestry of the story. It is only with the high and the low together that the whole is made beautiful and coherent. This person participates in a magical world where there is no secular.

 

I believe that you can find people of each type in most all religions, but churches are more apt to foster one or the other type more particularly. In other words, some churches are formula churches, and others are vocation churches. 

 

I'm with Pope Francis on this one. I believe that, all things being equal, the church that emphasizes being above knowing will be closer to the people and will produce ones who weigh heavier on the scales. Any old machine can be taught how to follow a program, but it is telling to me that human beings were given souls. Why aspire to the mechanical? As I've asked elsewhere, what is the point of having a soul if one can be saved by a standard?

[Stone holm]

I guess litmus tests are often a part of the formulaic, standardized religion that the pope is criticizing here. It seems to me that there is a popular belief among many of the religious that they are in possession of a standard that can be held up, and against which all things can be measured. Mind you, the pope isn't necessarily criticizing the results of ideology-discipleship, only the means.

 

Let's balance two people on the scales, both whose lives are presently above reproach according to some abstract standard (this is a rhetorical exercise): 

 

The first person lives according to a worldview based on epistemology. He has a standard about which he is certain; he knows that it is true and has spent his life primarily seeking and validating knowledge. He is very interested in religious witness and in proving things out, wanting to find the right one in a manner that he considers impartial. He also believes that the Good is to be found in perfecting the execution of the standard, because he has no doubt about the future consequences of such an accomplishment and knows them to be desirable. This person is moved by external authority and by plausibility structures. He does not require a voice in the wilderness, rather a watchman on a tower who guides him and who sets him in motion; one to give him assignments and to provide friends for him. He believes that his worthiness can be ascertained by answering questions or by checking off items on the "righteousness" list. He lives in a world that has both a secular and a religious component, and he seeks to reconcile one to the other.

 

The second person lives according to a worldview based on ontology. He is one who listens at the knee of a storyteller, and he is beckoned by that which he hears. So, he spends his life chasing after the stories that light him up. He seeks for that elusive nightingale--to find it, and to hear it... to be it. It doesn't matter, to this one, whether or not the story is real or imaginary; whatever it is, it is true because it speaks to him. And because it speaks to him, his life reflects it. He rarely thinks about whether or not he will be saved; he is too enraptured by the song of that nightingale to pay much heed to the future. This person is moved by an internal authority, and he is drawn to others who have found--and tell--the same story sung by his nightingale. He measures his own worthiness by telling the story of his life and listening to how it harmonizes with all of his favorite tales. For him, perfection is not achieved by following a list of rules. Instead, it is found in the rhythm of a life that rises and falls and is woven into the tapestry of the story. It is only with the high and the low together that the whole is made beautiful and coherent. This person participates in a magical world where there is no secular.

 

I believe that you can find people of each type in most all religions, but churches are more apt to foster one or the other type more particularly. In other words, some churches are formula churches, and others are vocation churches. 

 

I'm with Pope Francis on this one. I believe that, all things being equal, the church that emphasizes being above knowing will be closer to the people and will produce ones who weigh heavier on the scales. Any old machine can be taught how to follow a program, but it is telling to me that human beings were given souls. Why aspire to the mechanical? As I've asked elsewhere, what is the point of having a soul if one can be saved by a standard?

 

So where does "obedience" fall into this analysis? (btw gave you a bump on this)  Obedience suggests a standard, and in fact we even publish standards to our youth.  Mormonism is a very standards driven religion, not a "to your self be true" -- type approach.  And as the corporate model increasingly dominates American society, we are fast becoming a standards driven society -- so what does that say about our society?

[pmccombs1]

So where does "obedience" fall into this analysis? (btw gave you a bump on this)  Obedience suggests a standard, and in fact we even publish standards to our youth.  Mormonism is a very standards driven religion, not a "to your self be true" -- type approach.  And as the corporate model increasingly dominates American society, we are fast becoming a standards driven society -- so what does that say about our society?

 

Let's take a commandment, such as "thou shalt not commit adultery." 

 

For the epistemic model, you have the rule and you have teleology to go along with it. You know the consequences and you subscribe to some theory of self-interest, by which you manage your life. "If I do this, then that follows." You enter into a battle of wills, trying to submit the natural man to the will of God in the presence of Knowledge. Hence obedience: Even though I am tempted to commit adultery, I know what the consequences are. It's not part of the program, so I won't do it.  I think of this as a juvenile mode, certainly useful and necessary for children of all kinds.

 

For the ontological model, you have the doctrine and you find it desirable. Instead of self-interest, you live by desire. There is no battle of wills because the will is already in line with the doctrine; you are part and parcel of the story. Hence obedience: I desire to love my spouse and be totally faithful because that is simply what I am. I just am. I think of this as a grown-up mode, which is also entirely necessary to salvation. Is the kingdom of God populated by automata? To prevent this natural development from happening by the perpetual imposition of rules and standards is a systemic evil.

 

I believe it is good to raise children in the framework of rules and consequences, and to also enact for them (however imperfectly) lives that are to be desired, so that when the time comes for them to put away childish things, they can stand and be judged for who they became rather than for what they knew and how well they executed on it.

 

Likewise, the Church is to stand as witness to the peaceable kingdom of God (however imperfectly) as a Good to be desired. Church is not a program that emits standards and rules to be followed, or that organizes and provides opportunities for service (which abound naturally in organic families and communities). No, that is a corporation, a club; perhaps a philanthropy! This is not to say, however, that the Church lacks doctrines, stories, or teachings; only that those things are adopted by the believers, brought into their homes and communities, and practiced because they are viewed as good. The Church gives a glimpse of the kingdom, tells us the stories, and invites all to come, listen.

 

Why does corporatism dominate America today? What does it say about our society? Consider this:

 

...Unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple... we will organize children... and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.

 

That excerpt is from the Rockefeller Board of education--a very corporate entity indeed--which held great power over the system that has since turned out nearly every adult mind in America. It is part of the program that has seen childhoods extended nigh unto dotage, and it is the reason why we only find the notion of vocation barely hanging on in the oldest traditions. 

 

I think people are catching on. We want to be beckoned and invited, not merely repeating a little more fervently that which has been done by those before us. We want to hear our own King Benjamin, and to be pricked in our own hearts. We want to be raised up, not just conformed.

[Stone holm]

Let's take a commandment, such as "thou shalt not commit adultery." 

 

For the epistemic model, you have the rule and you have teleology to go along with it. You know the consequences and you subscribe to some theory of self-interest, by which you manage your life. "If I do this, then that follows." You enter into a battle of wills, trying to submit the natural man to the will of God in the presence of Knowledge. Hence obedience: Even though I am tempted to commit adultery, I know what the consequences are. It's not part of the program, so I won't do it.  I think of this as a juvenile mode, certainly useful and necessary for children of all kinds.

 

For the ontological model, you have the doctrine and you find it desirable. Instead of self-interest, you live by desire. There is no battle of wills because the will is already in line with the doctrine; you are part and parcel of the story. Hence obedience: I desire to love my spouse and be totally faithful because that is simply what I am. I just am. I think of this as a grown-up mode, which is also entirely necessary to salvation. Is the kingdom of God populated by automata? To prevent this natural development from happening by the perpetual imposition of rules and standards is a systemic evil.

 

I believe it is good to raise children in the framework of rules and consequences, and to also enact for them (however imperfectly) lives that are to be desired, so that when the time comes for them to put away childish things, they can stand and be judged for who they became rather than for what they knew and how well they executed on it.

 

Likewise, the Church is to stand as witness to the peaceable kingdom of God (however imperfectly) as a Good to be desired. Church is not a program that emits standards and rules to be followed, or that organizes and provides opportunities for service (which abound naturally in organic families and communities). No, that is a corporation, a club; perhaps a philanthropy! This is not to say, however, that the Church lacks doctrines, stories, or teachings; only that those things are adopted by the believers, brought into their homes and communities, and practiced because they are viewed as good. The Church gives a glimpse of the kingdom, tells us the stories, and invites all to come, listen.

 

Why does corporatism dominate America today? What does it say about our society? Consider this:

 

...Unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple... we will organize children... and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.

 

That excerpt is from the Rockefeller Board of education--a very corporate entity indeed--which held great power over the system that has since turned out nearly every adult mind in America. It is part of the program that has seen childhoods extended nigh unto dotage, and it is the reason why we only find the notion of vocation barely hanging on in the oldest traditions. 

 

I think people are catching on. We want to be beckoned and invited, not merely repeating a little more fervently that which has been done by those before us. We want to hear our own King Benjamin, and to be pricked in our own hearts. We want to be raised up, not just conformed.

Adultery used to be illegal in some States, where does legislation fit into your automata argument?

[3DOP]

And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid.

 

 

The Holy Father says things that make me wonder if he loves everybody except Catholics like me.

[Stone holm]

The Holy Father says things that make me wonder if he loves everybody except Catholics like me.

Not much question but he is well on his way to being the most popular among non Catholics in my lifetime, I suspect that he is pretty popular amongst many Catholics as well, but doubt the Bishops and Cardinals and Vatican clerics are too enthused. Would love to be back on campus at Notre Dame to overhear the graduate students comments, my guess is they are eating this stuff up.

[3DOP]

The article doesn't include his opinions against vocal prayers but it is in the video. This would mean the Our Father, the Hail Mary, and many other short prayers that we might say through the day or even the Rosary. I am afraid that he is identifying people like me as this sickness in the Church. I am rigid when it comes to defined doctrine. How can I be otherwise? I practice mental prayer, not like I should, but I think I talk to our Lord sometimes in intimate conversation. I just don't see why rigidity about doctrine is being linked with lack of prayer. What saint can he name that wasn't rigid about Catholic doctrine? When we canonize someone, the process actually involves an examination to determine that they didn't stray into false doctrine. Would not such a process be an illustration of the ideological rigidity that afflicts the Church according to him? He seems to want to turn everything upside down.

 

All non-Catholics seem to love this pope. Why I ask? Is it because he is preaching what his predecessors taught? I think no. Non-Catholics don't want to hear what the popes have always taught. No pope has ever spoken like this and that could explain why he is popular with non-Catholics and with Catholics who want to be unshackled from Catholic dogma.

Edited October 21, 2013 by 3DOP

[BCSpace]

So is Pope Francis right or wrong in his comment about ideology?

 

http://www.rawstory....hin-the-church/

 

Yes, he is quite wrong and this is actually a sign to me that the Catholic church is about to take a turn for the worse.  The LDS Church teaches us, and we have been so reminded in recent Conferences, that there are moral absolutes and eternal principles, in other words, rigid doctrine.  The problem that exists within the Catholic and the LDS Church is that there are people who don't believe some of these principles and, not wanting to admit they are in opposition, fall to branding others as rigid, inflexible, closed minded, legalistic, etc. and try to both silence those who speak out in defense of them or agitate to change the doctrine; the OW group for example.

Edited October 22, 2013 by BCSpace