Jump to content
IGNORED

Evangelical Free Church - Fundy or Fundy-Lite?


HerNameIsBuffy

Recommended Posts

On 1/15/2018 at 8:26 PM, louisa05 said:

The priest could not under canon law--at any time in church history--refuse her communion just for being divorced.

I just consulted my resident (lapsed) Catholic - who disagrees.  

He says that a priest can refuse communion to anyone to whom he has refused to grant absolution.  And priests have leeway regarding refusal to grant absolution.  So if @HerNameIsBuffy's mother got an asshole for a priest he *could* have considered her at fault for the divorce, and thus refused her absolution and the sacrament of penance.

My rather brave and very devout Catholic MIL was refused absolution for a long time after she confessed her crime of being a bridesmaid for her eloping friend who married in a non-Catholic church.  She had to "understand her sin" and do a lot of suitable penance prior to being granted absolution.  This was in the 1940s.

She was also denied communion in the 1980s after pointedly and dramatically walking out of Sacred Heart church when Father X publicly shamed another parishioner for having an abortion.  In that case, she decided to attend another Catholic church for a couple of years (where the priest was fine with giving her communion) until Father X moved on to another parish.  My lily-livered FIL was really pissed at her for stirring Father X's pot.

I really don't know whether this would happen today, and Mr. P emphatically says it takes an asshole priest to refuse communion under any of these circumstances.  However, it has happened in Church history that a priest will refuse communion for unresolved "sin. " 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A priest cannot, under canon law, refuse a sacrament to anyone who is properly disposed to receive it. Refusing absolution is a refusal to give the sacrament of penance. To be properly disposed to receive penance, a person must come to confession at the appropriate time, acknowledge their sins and agree to perform the required penance (and being banned from receiving the eucharist is not a penance that would be allowed in any circumstance). There are only a few matters that a parish priest is not to absolve (certain serious sins must be absolved by a bishop) and those restrictions have been loosened in recent years as well. 

So, no, the priest could not refuse her communion based on that. You also added a layer to the story that was not in it in order to argue. At no point did HerNameIsBuffy indicate that her mother had made a confession in regard to her divorce and been refused absolution as a justification for the refusal of communion. 

Whether or not a person has to "confess" a divorce is not even clear, actually. An abandoned spouse would not be at any fault. And the church recognizes that divorce is the best option in cases of abuse as well. So the whole idea of a divorced person having to be absolved of the divorce is murky. It would depend on the circumstances and what their own personal fault in the matter was. 

A divorced person who is remarried without an annulment is an entirely different matter. But there is also the fact that I have yet to hear of anyone seeking an annulment and not getting one. The expense was at one time an impediment but that has been removed by order of the Vatican. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, livinginthelight said:

I think you're being too harsh. Having dabbled in this type of church myself, and having many current friends who attend EV Free and other churches, I absolutely disagree that it's about "points" for conversion. (Jehovah's Witnesses are an entirely different story..). They also believe they are obeying the Great Commission, which is where Jesus said to go and make disciples of all nations. (Matthew 28: 16 - 20)

If you love someone, wouldn't you want to share something really awesome that you have? And wouldn't you want your friends to be with you in heaven? Yes, these people try to convert but it is out of love and good intentions. I don't believe they fake friendships and consider people "targets." They get excited when someone is interested in their church because they see an opportunity to help that person gain something very precious to them.

No one is giving out literal points. But when "Judy brought six new people to church last month" gets a round of applause and Judy becomes "so godly" because of it; Judy just got some extra points in church, no mistake about it. And she is infinitely better in that world now than Betty who brought zero new people to church for all of last year. "What are you doing for the Lord, Betty?", people have to ask. 

Links about "Friendship Evangelism". First two are critical, but will define the method for you:

http://www.missioalliance.org/problem-friendship-evangelism/

http://www.evangelismhelp.com/friendshiprelationship-evangelism/

This one has it last on the page, if you read that section, you will see that the writer recommends that you not only evangelize people you already have relationships with, but seek out new relationships for the purpose of evangelization: 

http://www.sharinggodsgrace.org/2010/09/16/friendship-evangelism/

The only thing I find more abhorrent in fundagelical world is stealth evangelism:

https://www.au.org/church-state/featured/‘stealth-evangelism’-groups-to-watch-out-for

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

A priest cannot, under canon law, refuse a sacrament to anyone who is properly disposed to receive it.

And the "properly disposed" decision was left up to the individual priest 99% of the time.  It takes courage to go up against a parish priest.  Most parishioners are not Canon Law experts.

My issue is with your statement that never "at any time in church history" could a person be refused communion for being divorced.  Not so.  Really, not so.

Look, many people have been fucked over by individual (possibly rogue) priests.  I gave a couple of examples.  Like it or not.  This stuff, or stuff like it, happened.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

And the "properly disposed" decision was left up to the individual priest 99% of the time.  It takes courage to go up against a parish priest.  Most parishioners are not Canon Law experts.

My issue is with your statement that never "at any time in church history" could a person be refused communion for being divorced.  Not so.  Really, not so.

Look, many people have been fucked over by individual (possibly rogue) priests.  I gave a couple of examples.  Like it or not.  This stuff, or stuff like it, happened.

 

 

 

 

Yes, they have. But that doesn't mean that said rogue priest was following canon law. 

I went to Catholic school, student taught in a Catholic school and then taught for ten years in a Catholic school. I have known a lot of priests. They are human. Some of them are dipshits (and I can name names for that plus I have friends who seem to think all priests are beyond holy and are essentially infallible which makes my eyes roll out of my head ). But that doesn't mean that everything that one dipshit priest does is the actual position of the Catholic church. I didn't argue that the priest was not an idiot. Never said that. Just said that 1--her mother was not excommunicated. At no time has divorce been grounds for excommunication (Henry VIII left of his own accord) and 2--the priest couldn't deny communion merely for divorce under canon law. I never said he did not do so. I never said he was an upstanding priest. I never said there are not idiot priests. I am actually the one who called him a rogue priest in the first place. 

There are rules under canon law that determine what "properly disposed" means in the case of each sacrament, so no, "properly disposed" is not left up to the individual priest. Yes, most people aren't going to go over the priest's head to a bishop or canon lawyer (although you'd be surprised how many do about every damn little thing--hang around some priests for awhile and you'll hear about it) to sort these things out. But that fact also does not change canon law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, louisa05 said:

 


And I think you are being naive. I’ve seen the printed materials for “friendship evangelism” training.

We can agree to disagree. I've sat through evangelism trainings myself. Yes, you are given suggested talking points. I didn't - and still don't - find this incompatible with a true desire to share my faith with others, out of love and care for people who are seen as "lost". It seems to me that most people in the room attended these trainings out of altruistic motives rather than some desire to earn "points."

Though I no longer think in terms of "lost" and "saved", I am able to see the good motives behind a practice that can come across as rather calculating. There are some truly good people in these churches. I can say this even while vehemently disagreeing with aspects of their theology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of intentions of invitations (wanting someone to have all the good things they do vs scoring church points), I'm SO uncomfortable with the attitudes I was surrounded by during my time as an evangelical. I cringe at how I fell for some of that, and at the same time I was at the receiving end of the negative side of that at one point. To start, I'm sure there was more to this than evangelical dynamics, but the way they played into it hurt me quite a bit. What happened was I spent most of a summer in high school away from home for an educational program and during that time I hardly heard from my mother. The few times I did though, she barely told me or asked me much but she was SO excited to tell me about how a friend of hers was attending our church now. It was bizarre. The clear excitement she had over that while seemingly uninterested in more than minimal communication with me was hurtful and left a really bad taste in my mouth. I would have become about as uncomfortable with the zealous invitations and excitement over new attendees either way over time, but that really sped it up and solidified my distaste for the whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2018 at 8:45 AM, louisa05 said:

 


Because you asked them to take you to their church which to them means you are hungering for “what they have” and they are going to convert you.

All fundamentalists and evangelicals want to convert. It gets you lots of points in your congregation. While some hardcore groups like to pass out tracts and accost people in the streets, more mainstream evangelicals like to be more subtle. They have a name for their strategy: “friendship evangelism”. It amounts to getting into a neighbor or co-worker’s life and using that relationship to slowly bring them into the church. A lot of the churches actually teach classes on it. They taught it in “Bible” class to our kids as part of the curriculum in their junior year at Christian school. All the skills you need to fake a friendship and get the target to your church.

Plus Catholics are the biggest prize. Once one is converted, they can be drug out for moving testimony of not only the conversion but also of how they never knew about Jesus in the evil Catholic Church and how they were trapped by liturgy and legalism.

 

Thanks for the reply! Sorry, I haven't logged on in a few days.

They had been trying to get me to go for the first two years we moved into the neighborhood. I've said, "no thanks, I go to a Catholic church" at least a dozen times. Eventually, they stopped asking and my friendship with the wife continued and actually grew from there. We're pretty close now.  When I asked, I told her that I have zero intention of converting. I just want to check it out along with several other friends' churches in the area. Of course, no one can blame her for hoping that I'd convert, but I'm at least being upfront with her.  They can hope all they want that I'd join their church, but it's not going to happen. If she asked to go with me to my church, there would be a small hope she would continue to go, but it wouldn't be a big deal if she didn't. I would just be happy she saw it wasn't as evil as some people make it out to be.  

ETA: I've been pretty aware they'd be thrilled to convert me which is why I told her exactly why I want to go--interest in history of Christianity and the differences in theology.  If the friendship is fake and there's a falling out over me not returning, then I'd be glad I found that out instead of continuing a false friendship. I honestly don't think this would happen. If we continue being friends, then I can continue believing that she is a genuinely nice person who has always lent a helping hand when I was in need. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2018 at 9:32 PM, louisa05 said:


And I think you are being naive. I’ve seen the printed materials for “friendship evangelism” training.

 

Which may very well exist (and I don’t doubt that it does). But there is an inherent problem in assigning something like that to an entire group of people among whom there is zero cohesion. 

My parents were saved out of the Catholic Church when I was a kid. We spent my childhood through young adult years in a variety of different evengical, reform, and combination there of denominations. I then went through RCIA and was confirmed Catholic a an adult. 

While I did experience some things that make me uncomfortable (to put it mildly) such as my parents trying to convert my Catholic grandfather on his deathbed, it was done out of love because he was someone thy cared and they genuinely believed he was going to Hell. It wasn’t because someone was keeping track somewhere. 

From personal experience, never, not in Sunday school, not in youth group, not in my Evangelical summer camp, did anyone suggest to me that I should just go out and make friends for he express purpose of leading them to Christ and gaining some sort of favor. No one was counting or keeping track. There was no about to be  had. Evangelism was always something talked about for he reasons that @livinginthelight stated. 

I don’t doubt that this sort of attitude does exist somewhere, but it’s not everywhere. If it was I would have encountered it at some point in twenty years and more than 6 different Evangelical Churches (sorry, it’s early, I haven’t had coffee, and I don’t feel like trying to count all of the random churches my parents dragged me to). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, subsaharanafrica said:

Which may very well exist (and I don’t doubt that it does). But there is an inherent problem in assigning something like that to an entire group of people among whom there is zero cohesion. 

My parents were saved out of the Catholic Church when I was a kid. We spent my childhood through young adult years in a variety of different evengical, reform, and combination there of denominations. I then went through RCIA and was confirmed Catholic a an adult. 

While I did experience some things that make me uncomfortable (to put it mildly) such as my parents trying to convert my Catholic grandfather on his deathbed, it was done out of love because he was someone thy cared and they genuinely believed he was going to Hell. It wasn’t because someone was keeping track somewhere. 

From personal experience, never, not in Sunday school, not in youth group, not in my Evangelical summer camp, did anyone suggest to me that I should just go out and make friends for he express purpose of leading them to Christ and gaining some sort of favor. No one was counting or keeping track. There was no about to be  had. Evangelism was always something talked about for he reasons that @livinginthelight stated. 

I don’t doubt that this sort of attitude does exist somewhere, but it’s not everywhere. If it was I would have encountered it at some point in twenty years and more than 6 different Evangelical Churches (sorry, it’s early, I haven’t had coffee, and I don’t feel like trying to count all of the random churches my parents dragged me to). 

And I encountered it among all the churches I was in or around. And have been the target of it since I left that world. 

Choose not to believe me. That doesn't mean it's not out there. The Catholic school I worked in chose not to believe me that a group they invited in for an anti-bullying presentation was a charismatic stealth evangelism operation. Then the people doing the assembly invited our kids to an evening event the same night which was followed the next day by about 30 parents calling the school to complain that at that event, they told the kids that the Catholic church is not Christian and tried to convert them. 

Then they believed me. Too late. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, louisa05 said:

Choose not to believe me. 

I’m not saying I don’t believe you. I don’t doubt that for some this is the case. I’m saying it’s not “ALL fundamentalists and Evangelicals” (emphasis added). 

Hell, a decent number of fundamentalists won’t associate with people they deem not to be Christian at all and a subsect of those won’t associate with other people they do deem to be Christians but who choose to associate with nonbelievers. For them making fake friends to convert them is kind of a nonstarter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.