Widows

Continuing our series from I Timothy, we will now discuss a shorter, possibly less offensive, and possibly more offensive topic.

The passage is too long to be worth reproducing here, but in I Timothy 5:3-16, Paul gives the following instructions regarding caring for widows:

1. The church should care for widows.
2. The church should only care for "true widows," that are in desperate need (5) and don't have children or grandchildren—that is, someone in their family to provide for them. Providing for other, less needy widows encourages their laziness (13) and is a burden on the church (16).
   
3. It benefits these children and grandchildren to provide for the widow, as they "learn to show godliness to their own household," which is "pleasing in the sight of God" (4).
   
4. Relatives who do not provide for the needy in their own families have "denied the faith and [are] worse than an unbeliever" (8).

How can we apply this today? Since widows are no longer as disadvantaged and families no longer as tightly-knit as they were in New Testament times, it seems to me the closest parallel is the generally needy, such as those who would be on welfare, and particularly those also in the family of God. So, let's rewrite those points above:

1. The church should care for the needy, particularly fellow believers.
2. The church should only care for the "truly needy," that are in desperate need (5) and don't have someone to provide for them. Providing for other, less needy people encourages their laziness (13) and is a burden on the church (16).
   
3. It benefits well-off to provide for the needy , as they "learn to show godliness to their" fellow man, which is "pleasing in the sight of God" (4).
   
4. Those who do not provide for the truly needy (in the family of God) have "denied the faith and [are] worse than an unbeliever" (8).

Ouch. The church doesn't do nearly a good enough job of caring for the needy around us. In fact, if the church did its job and provided for those who are truly needed, government welfare wouldn't have to exist! Not only would that be better for us as the church, but it would be better for the needy since 1) those who are truly needy would receive more personal care instead of a bureaucratic handout, and 2) those who are not truly needy would not continue to receive and handout but would learn to care for themselves.

So, next time we right-wing Christians are tempted to complain about welfare and how much it costs us in taxes and doesn't help the recipients, let's give a bit more to our church or favorite charities to fix the problem instead of just blowing hot air around.

The Roman Catholic Church

I was reading I Timothy 4 the other morning and, after having read a couple articles the day before on the celibacy of Roman Catholic priests, the first paragraph caught my eye:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith [...] through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

I've read this paragraph decades of times and have surprisingly never considered the implication to the Catholic Church. I wondered, does this mean that the Church as an organization has departed from the faith? That they are liars? I surely don't believe that every self-declared Roman Catholic is an unregenerate liar, indeed a certain Catholic friend of mine has been a dear brother in Christ to me.

So what does this mean? Throughout my college life I think I never fully decided my stance on the Roman Catholic Church. With my Catholic friends I found the common ground and praised them for it; with my Protestant friends I would raise my criticisms of it... without ever coming to a conclusion. I should end the duplicity and decide my stance on the issue—in pursuit of the glory of God and not my own pride.

So, here goes.

After considering I Timothy 4:1-5, my issue with the Church is its emphasis on human tradition over Divine revelation. In short, my criticism is of ex cathedra, the belief that the Pope can speak on the same level of authority as Scripture, which, in practice, ends up being on a higher level of authority than Scripture.

My first example comes from the Timothy passage, which I will now reproduce in its entirety:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. (I Tim. 4:1-5)

This passage has pretty harsh words for those who forbid marriage. Surely the Catholic church has some good arguments for the celibacy of the clergy, including Matthew 19's recommendation of it, but to enforce it is violating the explicit command in God's word—for the sake of human argument!

My other example of black-and-white contradiction with the Bible comes from Matthew 23:9, "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." Here Jesus obviously does not condemn applying the title to your biological father, or even a spiritual father as in John's relationship with the recipients of his first epistle. What He condemns instead is the tradition of applying elevated titles to men in the Jewish culture of His day, a tradition that has since recurred in the Catholic church in calling every priest, "Father."

No, I don't think that Catholic priests are damned for practicing their celibacy, nor for their title of "Father," but these two examples are just a selection from the unfortunately diverse practice of ignoring Scriptural commands for the sake of Church tradition. I can only see this withdrawal from God's Word as a withdrawal from God's authority, the very nature of Pride.

What is my stance on the Roman Catholic Church, then? Due to this value of man's word over God's and the effects it has throughout the Church's religion, I regrettably believe that the saints in the Church are saved in spite of it, not through it. Don't stop reading here. Before I alienate all of my Catholic friends, I can say the same about the majority of Protestant churches. We live in a fallen world, and divorce from God's principles lies in many churches.

I obviously am not content with this situation, so I ask my Catholic friends to please prayerfully consider this, viewing God's Word as the highest authority. We cannot accept the teachings of man over the teachings of God, and any reasonable soul will admit the disastrous consequences of this seen in pre-Reformation times. If you, as I hope, become convinced that the Catholic Church has not given God's revelation the respect it is due, please bring this up to your friends, and even your priests. Or, if you find an obvious flaw in my opinion, please bring this up to me. My goal here is for Christians to live in greater fellowship and, through this unity, to be more powerful in spreading the Kingdom of God in this present age.

Amen.

Edit: While dwelling on this in bed last night and hoping I wouldn't lose any friends, I realized that I didn't explain my "judgment" very well. I think I seemed to judge the Church too harshly for the points I made. So, let me clarify. I am absolutely not trying to judge any individual people here: everyone will have to stand before God individually—Catholic, Protestant, or whatever. And I'm not even trying to judge any body of Catholics, a single church: I'm sure some good Catholic churches exist, led by good priests. What I am trying to say is that the official doctrines and practices of the Church serve to draw people away from the essence of our faith, and not towards it. They "have indeed an appearance of wisdom [...] but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh" (Colossians 2:23).