Celebrity Churches are the Next Big Thing
This is very consistent with what I found in the book about women in the pulpit. Women who gained fame and recognition have been able to make a good living and be preachers with lecture series, conferences and actual churches. The role of fame works in both directions. People, usually men, become famous by preaching and growing mega churches. Now, people famous for other reasons form their own churches.
That show business people start churches only confirms what has been obvious is way back when. It is that participating in religious services and rituals is a form of entertainment.
Political forces within religion have been successful for a long time in keeping Sunday, especially Sunday morning, boring. For much of my most retailing was closed on Sunday. The only escape from boredom was going to church. All of this has changed, but the idea of church as entertainment remains.
Introduction of new music, guitars, Christian rock and such has grown so the entertainment aspect of church can compete with entertainment elsewhere. I was at a Pentecostal church in Fargo some years ago when a visiting preacher held forth. He was an elderly and rather pompous man. Suddenly, he stopped preaching and said, "I was told the musicians would be in place. I want the musicians." So, some young people made their way to guitars and drums and began the background music to his prayer and final emotional wrap up.
It was miles away from my own experience in the faith but closer to today's entertainment venue-type church.
“The word “church” is a translation of the Greek word ekklesia, which is defined as “an assembly” or “called-out ones.” "The root meaning of church is not that of a building, but of people.” A body of believers. Politicians hold "church" with their rallies. A multimedia extravaganza, attendees wearing symbols of their party (faith), ushers, responsorials, songs of adulation, a rousing sermon, heavy doses of party doctrine and dogma, an occasional speaking in tongues at the pulpit, and of course collections. In some cases political rallies are steeped in religious undertones. A communion of church and state. More and more in the present political climate it's vice versa - religious services filled with political overtones.
ReplyDeleteArdy B--Good observations about a church being "of people" instead of a gathering or a building. I was just reading a couple of articles related to that this morning. One was about the conflict within the Catholic church between the paternalist branch and the fraternal branch. Pope Benedict was of the former and Francis about a fraternal church that goes where its people want it to do. Then I read about a mostly online Protestant church called Life.church. It does meet near about 30 campuses but is biggest on line. It preaches that it a church is its people. I gather "its people" are big into Christian rock and need to buy the church's music videos.
DeleteI'll have to look into fraternal vs paternal branches of RCC. I wonder how the Francis branch where its people have more to say about the direction of the church affects "infallibility" and the requisite "full assent of faith" compared to the paternal branch. Conflict can be healthy if the magisterium allows. Infallibility doesn't seem to jibe with the idea of doctrinal evolution in a fluid culture. Just a thought or more a guess.
DeleteThen there is the position of " consensus". There is a movement afoot to promote Mary as the co-redemptrix.. EWTN is already speaking as if it's a done deal. Another dogma in the making.
Deletelittle helper 11:24 AM: In the Catholic tradition I read that Mary is the exemplar of the “full assent of faith” and if I may, a worthy example of the Eternal Feminine ideal with the “power to redeem and serve as moral guardian.”. She should be a shoo-in for Co-Redemptrix.
DeleteMary as co-redemptrix is a doctrine of the Catholic Church, not a dogma. Jesus Christ is the Redeemer, the one and only. The confusion lies in interpretation of "co-". It is not like co-chairmen, i.e. 2 people who share equally in the chairmanship of some organization, board or other body. In the co-redemptrix, the meaning of "co-" is 'with'. So, Mary is the woman with the Redeemer when she is referred to as co-redemptrix. She gave Jesus His body and it is His body that saved us.
DeleteAs doctrine, it is not necessary for a Catholic to believe. It is one of many titles Mary has been given. She is not divine. Her life and her death did not redeem one soul. However, she led a sinless life.
https://forums.catholic.com/t/mary-as-co-redemptrix/1152/2
However there are four dogmas on Mary, (perpetual virginity-divine motherhood, immaculate conception-assumption,) "And her role in human salvation" (Mediatrix?)--and lastly, with "co-redemtrix in the wings, as clearly stated on EWTN. "Based on strong support by Tradition". On a few sites, mediatrix and co-redemtrix are co-mingled. ( Not my words.) Evidently "doctrine" is a suggestion, (take it or leave it), and "dogma" is a demand.
DeleteToo bad Jesus' vicarious atonement wasn't sufficient in that he needs the help of Mary to share the grace.
DeleteAnd yes, consensus is helping to complete the circle from doctrine to dogma. The last of which were declared in the 1950's. Unleash the wordsmiths.
DeleteArdy B--What I read went into a lot of that. The article is "The Two Catholicisms" also called "The Catholic Church at the Crossroads" on Real Clear Religion by Jan-Warner Muller. It was published in The Nation. Here is one way to reach it:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thenation.com/article/catholic-church-pope-francis-ross-douthat-james-chappel/
A good read for me describing the current state of affairs and its historical roots. Bookmarked it for future reference. Thanks.
Delete