Saturday 22 February 2020

LGBTMSs: Institutions (including churches) are not like persons - and even less like gods

One reason that nearly all the Christian churches are falling (or already fallen) to the (evil) secular, Left anti-Christian agenda; is that these churches usually believed (often as a matter of faith, a dogma) that their churches were (essentially) supernatural, eternal divine persons that could not be corrupted.

They believed that although individual humans who worked in the church institutions could be corrupted - the essence of the church was a supernaturally validated and defended entity that was invulnerable to corruption.

By contrast, the mainstream socio-political Left believed that institutions are human creations inhabited by humans (this including churches and also all corporations, industries, professions, sciences, societies, unions, charities, newspapers and media, schools and colleges, hospitals... all institutions of all kinds).

And as such, all institutions could (in principle) be corrupted: could be subverted, destroyed, inverted... could be 'hollowed-out and worn as a skin-suit'; could be co-opted and redirected to serve to the (anti-Christian) Left agenda; no matter what they had originally been, no matter what their original purpose.

Even when that institution had been doing some other thing for hundreds of years - like some churches and colleges and professions like Law and Medicine - the Left believed that by replacement of personnel and by new managererialism they could all be made servants of the Left agenda.

They were correct!

So we see all institutions of all kinds - including Christian churches - increasingly-completely sharing the primary Leftist goals such as equality, feminism, antiracism and diversity, the climate emergency agenda, and active promotion of the sexual revolution (coercively, aggressively, with no opposition nor opt-outs allowed).

Religious denominations were wrong, and are wrong, if they suppose that God operates to immunise certain belief-systems against Leftism.

There is zero positve evidence for that assumption and massive counter-evidence..; although any church is, of course, free to insist: "but that was them - it couldn't happen to us." - just so long as they aware that all the other churches said exactly the same thing at some point.

Yet Just Look At Them, Now!

What I am saying is that institutions are not like individual human beings, and even less like supernatural, eternal divine persons: on the contrary, an institution is (over the long term) nothing more than the people running it and the system that they follow.

Replace the people and change the system (by changing the rules, or changing the way people interpret the rules) and you get a different institution. Often a completely different institution; sharing nothing but the name and lineal continuity with what was before.

An institution may begin as a Christian church, or a college, or a science, or a news agency, or a charity to provide food to the poor... but by the time the people and the rules have been replaced; it will end-up as just another Leftist, Generic, Bureaucratic, Totalitarian, Managerial System - doing what all the other LGBTMSs are doing - including the pursuit of plans and policies motivated by strategic anti-Christian animus.


Anonymous said...


Have you written on, and/or would you be willing to share any of your thoughts on, the issues of proper worship, liturgy, ritual, and things of that sort?

As I read deeper into both Catholic and Orthodox teachings, I see that there has been a fairly constant categorization within the ancient traditions over the centuries of the Christian religion into three major areas: (1) creed (belief / metaphysics); (2) behavior (ethics); and (3) worship / liturgy / sacraments (orthopraxy). In your own writings, you have clarified that within the category of belief falls the question of _assumptions_, i.e. that one's assumptions will determine or greatly influence, belief, and that both assumptions and belief will, or should, result in or imply certain ethics.

The question of "right worship" is (to my knowledge) not an area you have addressed much. Is it something you consider to be of importance? Perhaps your writings on the current necessity of _individual_, not institutional, practices being the only real way forward in the current day and age is its own answer. But I am curious to know if you have any views on these matters.

Institutions are corrupted and have all of the problems that you have accurately diagnosed. Yet, even at the level of aesthetics and solemnity, many of the traditions and practices of, say, the Orthodox church or traditional Catholic church convey and embody a seriousness and a view of worship that is elevated and glorious in a way that less organized practices cannot really attain.

Are worship and ritual non-essentials, i.e. one's salvation is not (necessarily) tied to them(?), and therefore these "externals" do not really matter? Should one just (as an individual) attend the services and partake of the rituals that seem best to that individual but maintain a distance from the institution? That approach is possible but results in one being essentially a spectator, not a partaker, which is not fully satisfactory. (For instance, I would never take the Eucharist within a Catholic or Orthodox church simply as an "aesthetic" matter or even as a matter of sincere belief unless I had also taken the necessary steps to receive it (baptism within that church tradition, confirmation, confession, etc.) and I would only do _that_ if I sincerely believed in the doctrines of that church.) Anyway, I am only mentioning myself by way of example and illustration.

If you have thoughts on the question of right worship and ritual that you are willing to share, I'd be interested to know them.

Bruce Charlton said...

@SN - I have written so much on these topics that I can't easily condence it - since I moved from a church centred Christianity a decade ago - it's spread thinly through this blog.

My own strong preference is for a strong formality, spoken Anglican liturgy, the Book of Common Prayer and the Authorised version of the Bible. But I recognise that such symbolism is effefective for many or most people - and ultimately I do regard it as symbolism.

My bottom line was expressed in a recent post title: Never left bereft - which means that our basic situation in mortal life is that the means of salvation and theosis are Always avialable to Everybody - *because* this world is created and sustained by God who is our loving Father. God ensures this is the case, because it is the purpose of our mortal life and nothing is more important.

In this era of human history, as human consciousness has changed (in the West) I think we are meant to recognise this, each for ourselves - by bitter experience if necessary. The churches are corrupting, from the top down, led by leaders who operate a fifth columnists and saboteurs. It is our job each to recognise the fact and take personal responsibility for our own salvation and theosis - which we are all capable of doing.

Anonymous said...

Many thanks for your response. I will search around the blog for the post you mentioned as well as your other posts on the matter. (Apologies for assuming you had not addressed the topic!)

My preference is also towards the more formal and elevated services, and that is why I have been looking into Catholic and Orthodox teachings, although I currently cannot partake of any such services or sacraments. For the reasons you cite and write about frequently, I (and many others) may be destined to remain in the entrance hall that C.S. Lewis describes in his introduction to Mere Christianity...

Bruce Charlton said...

@SN - Well, you are not stuck in the entrance hall unless you truly believe this to be the case - an unaffiliated Christian can go as far or further into Christianity.

You might consider buying the Book of Common Prayer/ King James Bible, and using them to construct your own twice-daily liturgy at home.

They were designed for such use - the morning and evening prayer was intended to be suitable for the father to conduct services with his family, every day when church attendance was not possible - and in such service all the psalms will be read every month (I think, you'd need to check the exact numbers), the New Testament every Year, the Old (mostly - not all of Leviticus, for example) every three years... something like that - which is why the English used to be able effortlessly to be able to quote the Bible almost entirely, and (as a side effect) the first rate poetic language of the BCP and AV were the basis of the greatness of English Literature.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the recommendations. The KJV is the main version I refer to (largely as a result of reading your blog.) I realize that have a Book of Common Prayer I bought several months, maybe even a year ago, that has been collecting dust way up high on my most out of reach shelf. I will pull it down from the shelf and look into doing what you suggest.

By the way: A quick search of the blog revealed to me that you have indeed written extensively on matters of liturgy, ritual, etc. It was my own bias which led me to think you had not: I was not interested in those posts, skipped over them, and -- presto -- they did not exist! My failure to see them reflected my own lack of interest in them at the time...