Leonardo Boff, a Brazilian Catholic theologian and advocate for the poor, blogs in Portugeuse, Spanish and English, and I wanted to share a great post from a few weeks ago: Encouragement for those disappointed with the church.
Boff is referring to the Catholic church specifically, but his point is salient for us Protestants as well. Also, the English translation is a little rocky, so some parts are my own translation from the post in Spanish.
Boff describes a double emigration that is happening in the Catholic church. Some break all ties and leave due to disappointment with issues like the priest abuse scandal. Others remain, but aren't engaged in the church as their spiritual home. While I don't completely agree with Boff's point that the Church was "never" the object of Jesus' preaching, he makes a very valid point that if the Church fails institutionally, this does not render Jesus' message invalid. I do think the Church is important as a community, and, even with all its warts and failures, it can more effectively live out the gospel as opposed to individual rogue Christians.
Boff wants to focus more on the idea of the Kingdom of God, especially "in contraposition to the Kingdom of Caesar." The movement of early Christianity was dubbed "the way of Christ." Boff writes:
It generally lives on the margins and, at times, at a critical distance from the official institution. But it is born and nourished by the permanent fascination with the figure, and the liberating and spiritual message of Jesus of Nazareth. Initially deemed the "heresy of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24,5) or simply, a "heresy" (Acts 28,22) in the sense of a "very small group", Christianity was gaining autonomy until its followers, according to The Acts of The Apostles (11,36), were called, "Christians".
The very thing that made this little Jesus-movement grow, however, was also its curse, because the bigger it got, the further it moved away from Jesus' original message. Enshrined in a big, wealthy, powerful institution, how could it live on the margins and maintain a critical distance?
Boff argues that "the movement of Jesus" is stronger than the institutional Church. It's not "bounded by institutions, nor is it a prisoner of doctrines and dogmas." Boff even includes agnostics and atheists in this movement, which is
a Kingdom of love and liberty, by his ethic of unconditional love, especially for the poor and the oppressed, and by the way he assumed the human drama, amidst humiliation, torture and his execution on the cross. Jesus offered an image of God so intimate and life-friendly that it is difficult to disregard, even by those who do not believe in God. Many people say, 'if there is a God, it has to be like the God of Jesus.'"
Again, I wouldn't go so far as to disregard the Church, but I love the idea that it is still possible to follow Jesus in spite of the institutional Church's failures. It's a good reminder, especially with my disappointment lately about the uncritical acceptance of wealth in many American churches. The wealth/poverty gap was one of the reasons I was previously unwilling to go to church, because I didn't want to be complicit in such economic injustice.
But even if the Church strays from Jesus' original call to favor the poor and oppressed, that doesn't mean I shouldn't keep trying to follow Jesus. Besides, if the Jesus movement had remained the little, humble, seemingly heretical movement it started out as, how would the word have traveled from the Middle East to North America? I'm a beneficiary of the influence and growth of the Church, but surely there's a way for us to remain mindful of those on the margins, even in the midst of the Church's wealth and power.
Any thoughts? Does this seem like a holier-than-thou, I'm-better-than-the church attitude? Does it seem individualistic?
Comments