After meeting Richard Rohr in New Mexico last year, I’ve subscribed to “Richard’s Daily Meditations” and been rather enjoying them. I normally don’t do the usual ‘inspirational’ devotional stuff that comes out en-masse from Christian publishers, but it is nice to have something decent to think about in my inbox now and then. Most of his are excerpts from his books, and they are all straight and frank. This week he is speaking about poverty. Here’s a ‘thought’ from last week seemed especially pertinent to me. As a bit of an ecclesiastical traditionalist, I don’t like the thought of loosing traditions and denominations, but it seems a new way is needed. Have a read. What you think? Are the issues of the Reformation non-issues today? If so, what does that mean for us today?
A lot of the pretenses of institutional religion I don’t take seriously. Sometimes the Roman Church takes for granted that it speaks for God without acknowledging that what it says is often politically motivated and culturally conditioned (for example, questions of expedience being preeminent to questions of truth). That’s dangerous. I think we are entering a post-denominational period. I know my mother Church is Catholic. I am grateful for the great riches of my Catholic Church. But tradition is a runway, a takeoff point, a clear direction. Catholicism has not been a prison for me but a home “with many rooms” (John 14:2), which Jesus called his “Father’s house”. Because of Tradition, I feel a natural communion with many non-Catholics who share our same gospel values in life-style, practicing the two great commandments and asking similar questions of life. The historical European problems that divided us are a bore, frankly. Why do we have to continue to carry the baggage of denominational issues we divided over? If I cannot trust and work together with other Christians, what hope is there for any ecumenism with Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism? What hope is there for the world? Especially when we can see the historical accidents, the cultural blindness, the self-interest on both sides of every schism and reform. Why should we need to defend that? I have to much baggage to carry already. Often I feel like a juggler in this Church, trying to hold many truths together. I can’t make the great issues of the Reformation key in my life. Especially when I see that so many of the questions were asked entirely by comfortable, white male clerics (on both sides) and, usually, were questions of power and righteousness! If we had to divide, why couldn’t we divide over who was doing a better job of feeding widows and orphans?
from The Other Side, “Poverty and Surrender”by Richard Rohr
