"Hate the sin, not the sinner" or so it goes. Instead I say, "don't hate."
The path towards hating a person begins with hating something about a person. Thus if you hate the sins they commit, its simply a slippery slope towards hating that person too despite efforts not to. If you disagree, try asking a homosexual about Christians. Usually they'll say these "hate the sin not the sinner" Christians actually show them more hate than any other group.
Indeed, it amazes me how often many of my fellow Christians will dispute love as necessary for salvation (Eph 2:8 vs. 1Cor 13:2), yet ironically act as if abandoning hate somehow undermines essential Christianity. Many of them will argue you can't have one (love) without the other (hate). But this axiomatic dualism is a hallmark of Bogomils, Taoists, and Manicheans - not true historic Christianity.
For example, speaking on the related topic of good versus evil, famed Christian scholar Jarislav Pelikan makes a relevant comment on the authentic, historic Christian mindset:
At the root of the conflict between dualism and orthodox monotheism was the question of the relation betwen evil and the God of love. Tertullian had observed that heretics and philosophers were all concerned with the question, "Whence comes evil?" If, as orthodoxy maintained, there was one God of love who was the Creator, "whence comes diseases and death and other evils like those?" A basic element of the orthodox response to such questions was a reassertion of the patristic and classical definition of evil as the privation of good rather than a positive force in its own right. It was an aberration from one's appointed goal, a lack of knowledge about the good cause of all things. In response to the dualists (Bogomils, Manicheans) it was necessary to assert that darkness was not a reality but only the absence of light, just as poverty was the absence of riches and blindness the absence of vision. Carried to its logical conclusion, this definition obliged the orthodox to acknowledge that even the demons were good inasmuch as they were created by God, but that the loss of their appointed purpose had made them evil (fallen angels). The decisive line drawn by Christian ontology was not that between natural and supernatural, nor ultimately between good and evil, but that between the Creator and his creatures, whether they be good or evil.
The Christian Tradition, vol 2, p 220-221
In short, just as it is properly Christian to believe good can exist without evil - it is likewise proper to believe that love can exist without hate.
Now yes, it is true that Scripture teaches "hate what is evil" (Romans 12:9). But consider how Scripture elsewhere uses the idea of hate:
Romans 9:
10 When Rebecca had conceived children,
11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad...
12 Rebecca was told, "The elder will serve the younger."
13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
Applying some discernment, it seems biblically the word "hate," "subdue," or "prevent" can sometimes be approximate synonyms. And assuredly if we seek to "prevent what is evil," Romans 12:9 is fulfilled. Furthermore, along a similar line of investigation, it is true that Jesus himself did show aggresive anger in the face of sin (Matthew 21:12). Yet anger is not the same as hate. Nevertheless, even towards our own aggression Jesus still told the rest of us "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone" (John 8:7).
Anyway, regardless of what my Christian brethren think of my teaching, I am personally convinced that no one is turned away from heaven for deficiency in hate. But on the other hand - "if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing" (1Cor 13:2).
In person I'm quite a talker. But where writing and theology are concerned, I am obsessed with empiricism. That is, I like truths to be presented with as little words as possible. To convey this fascination to others, I have often sought a motto statement that captures my strong feelings about brevity. Unfortunately, the most common expression "brevity is the soul of wit" (Hamlet, William Shakespeare) does not capture my feelings. Recently though, I found a quotation I've liked better:
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. - Antoine de Saint Exupery
I found that quote in Miro Samek's excellent work on state machines. But even that does not capture my feelings on the matter. If anyone reading this would like to suggest their favorite proverb of brevity, send me an e-mail (available on the main page). Otherwise, having given up on finding my perfect axiom on brevity, I decided to make my own. And so it is: Truth shines brightest in brevity. "It is enough" (Luke 22:38).
Without predestination, no one can be saved; without free will, there is nothing to be saved.
In short, its best not to make this ancient debate stricly an either/or formula. I suggest instead allowing this thesis and antithesis to resolve into the dialectic of antinomy. After all, struggling to know "which came first" in the "free will" versus "predestination" war is moot since to God, in eternity, there is no such thing as "before or after."
Whether answering an atheist, or encouraging the faithful, I have a suggestion why God does not reveal Himself. This is going to be "heady," so pay attention:
Postulation: As the culmination of creation, we (people) were created in the image of God - to be the image of God. Put differently, we were pre-destined to be the ultimate in glory - second only to God Himself.
I do not yet need to prove the statement above - it is after all a postulation. So we proceed...
This postulation has many implications, but only the ramification of human "will" should concern us now. In specific, true "glory" cannot exist without free will. Thus God created us with free will - which results in two corollaries. First free will, in accordance with true glory, must affect matters of highest order and consequence. Effectually this means free will can include but must transcend temporal matters - ergo our free will must affect something in an eternal dimension (indeed that IS something truly glorious!). Then the second corollary is this: the evidence affecting our eternal choice(s) must not patronize, since that would nullify glory; thus all such data, by design, functions by the rules of antinomy. In effect this means that free will must not be mocked. The choices we should be making unto glory must, by design, not be (logically) obvious! This is why God cannot show Himself - a conspicuous appearance would make mockery of "choice."
Accordingly it is not possible to *prove* the existence of God, since if such proof existed then our choices would be patronized. And if patronized, then free will would cease to be glorious - which would nullify our purpose for existing (as stated in the first postulation). Conversely, in logical duality, it is not possible to *disprove* the existence of God. And so our analysis of the matter, in accordance with antinomy, will lead us where epistimologically we *want* to go. Free will thus becomes truly free and therefore glorious! Yet even presuming that God aids our will, as being necessary in wake of "the fall," it is only in proportion to restore balance and preserve free will.
So if we want to believe God does not exist, the data will seem "logically" to support that conclusion - whereas if we believe God does exist, the data will likewise "logically" support that conclusion. Yet here I use the word "logical" in a loose way, since this antinomy's salient purpose is precisely to subordinate "logic" to a higher mode of awareness - the plain of numenous intuition. Indeed the postulation of predestined glory requires us to transcend mere logic. And yes I am saying that even extraordinary "logic" or "intelligence," unto itself, is not transcendantly glorious and thus does not satisfy the postulation of glorious destiny. The reason being that logic, governed by its own methods of deduction and induction, is otherwise an automaton - a Pavloc's dog if you will. In a Christian context this means that you won't be "saved" simply because you are smart.
And so by design, to provide free will to all humankind, theological antinomy functions systemically. In other words all people, no matter how provincial or how ingenius, can find grounds to believe or disbelieve God. Thus the genius of Wolfram's NKS, Braitenberg's architecture, or Hawking's theories - none of these can provide definitive answers about the origens of life or our concept of purpose. Indeed, such ideas can be used asseveratively by those on either side of theological debate.
So if the original postulation be true, then by intelligent design and purpose it can neither be proven nor disproven. Indeed, it functions precisely and only because it cannot be proven or disproven! Otherwise, taken as is, the practical consequences emerge. If we reject the postulation because we confine our thoughts to temporal logic, then our path to eternal glory presumably ends at death just as our temporal logic did. Conversely, embracing an eternal destiny does arguably lift us above temporal ontology - which conceivably prepares us for that eternity. But of course accepting this proposition is precisely where the theological battle is fought - in each of our minds and decisions.
So while pondering these things, consider watching the film "The Man Without a Face." The movie, as I recall, seemed to capture non-theologically the concepts covered here. In this movie a troubled boy had to make a choice - one that his mysterious teacher would not allow to be mocked!
To justify most of its doctrines, and its claim to be "Catholic," the Roman Catholic Church has often appealed to the "unanimous consent of the fathers." This attitude is understandable, given the fathers' role as the sine qua non of "The Catholic Church." However, history shows this "formulaic" Roman claim to have been over used - particularly in regards to the ante-Nicene fathers. In truth, the ante-Nicene fathers were rarely unanimous on anything. Even so, an appeal to the "catholic" identity and antiquity of these earliest fathers can still be made, based on those few beliefs they did hold unanimously:
baptismal regeneration
the Lord's Supper, called the "Eucharist", serving as a perfect "sacrifice" (a la Malachi 1:11)
apostolic succession
free will (first questioned by Augustine - though not actualy denied by him)
Mary's perpetual virginity (first denied by Helvidius, after the ante-Nicene period)
the bishop of Rome is Peter's successor, and thus has episcopal primacy of honor
Such unanimity has elicited grudging admissions even from opponents of those doctrines. For example, William Webster writes "The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers...From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit" (Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History [1995], page 95-96).
In short, true "Catholicism" has at least this core standard of doctrines. Thus a Christian community making meaningful claim on the "Catholic" name and heritage, would expectedly "be of one mind" (Phi 1:27, 1Cor 1:10) in these doctrines. Besides, though the word "catholic" simply means "universal," it is clear the early Catholics understood their name as institutional rather than generic. For example, the following is an excerpt of St. Cyril from Lecture 18 where he explains one implication of "Catholic," in the article "One, Holy, Catholic Church."
26. But since the word Church is applied to different things and since one might properly and truly say that there is a Church of evil doers, I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest, for this cause the Faith has been securely delivered to thee now in the Article, "And in one Holy Catholic Church;" that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ...
Here are some Scriptural observations I have made that have shaped my view of doctrinal authority and ecclesiastic submission:
For the typical Christian, Paul made it clear where doctrinal authority is found:
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;If ever there were a place where the bible should have been named as the highest or final authority for the average saint to prevail against "winds of doctrine", it is in the above passage. But instead all we see mentioned is the leadership of the Church rather than the bible.
It is the Church, not the bible, that is called "the pillar and foundation of Truth" (1st Tim 3:15). I've seen many of my fellow Christians water this down until it was virtually meaningless. I don't subscribe to such commentaries.
The only example of a "saint" trying to initiate a reform or revolution in authority, as Protestantism had done, is the man Korah. More specifically, Korah, an elder of Israel, assembled the people "together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, 'You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?'" (Numbers 16:3). For his insubordinate reformation, God condemned Korah and his followers to death. I'm not saying Protestantism is damnable - but nevertheless the Korah incident doesn't help make the indulgences of Sola Scriptura appealing to me.
Anyway this last item (3) compliments a pattern in Scripture I noticed, which produces another argument:
(A) In Scripture, only spiritual oligarchs (i.e. prophets, theocratic kings, apostles) initiate reformation of the church.Furthemore, wherever the bible explicitly records the commission of a spiritual leader - it always involves miracles or succession:
From the above biblical pattern, I conclude a divinely authorized minister or pastor must demonstrate miracles or at least ministerial succession.
A final observation. In the Old Testament, the name "man of God" occurs more than sixty times and consistently refers to spiritual oligarchs (viz. prophets, theocratic kings). For example:
In the New Testament, the term "man of God" or "men of God" occurs only three times. When used in 2Peter 1:21 (KJV/NKJ), it again refers to prophets. Then for apostle Timothy (1st Thess 1:1,2:4-6), it is used again: "as for you, man of God, aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness" (1st Tim 6:11). Thus the overall biblical pattern is clear - "man of God" is an exclusive name designating spiritual oligarchs, not the average faithful. This fact has great significance for this final passage:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. I charge you [apostle Timothy] in the presence of God...preach the word, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching...discharge all the duties of your ministry (2nd Timothy 3:16-4:5).
Certainly had Paul intended to reference all Christians in 2nd Timothy 3:17, then saying instead "...that the saints may be complete..." would have properly made the point by harmonizing with the sixty plus uses of the common word "saint" or "saints" in the New Testament. Yet Paul chose the rare and exclusive term instead. And indeed the contextual underlined words above show the name being connected to the work of an authoritative minister.
From observations such as those listed above, I have concluded that I belong in a church of apostolic succession (viz. The Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox of some stripe). For more information on doctrinal authority, see my article that expands the man of God topic.
Evangelical Michael Svigel makes a fascinating case that the rapture occurs in Revelation 12. Central to his argument is the grammatical and conceptual parallel to Isaiah 66:6-7. In essence, though Svigel acknowledges the images of "woman" and "male child" as references to Mary and Jesus, he argues that these two images also represent Israel and the Church respectively. Indeed, he observes the male child is "caught up to God and to his throne," without any reference to the sine qua non of Jesus: the death and resurrection message of the Gospel. In other words, in this case the "caught up to God" is principally a reference to the Church. And the description of the male child as one who "rules all nations with a rod of iron" does not detract from Svigel's argument, but rather may boost it, because it simply echoes Revelation 1:5 which says:
Revelation 2:
26 He who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, I will give him power over the nations,
27 and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received power from my Father;
However, as a surprise to my reader, personally I don't embrace the rapture doctrine since I think it is a misunderstanding of 1Thessalonaisn 4:15-18. Where Svigel takes "caught up to God" as a reference to the rapture, instead I see it soteriologically. But I appreciate Svigel's work all the same, particularly since it fits well with my view of the Church and its persecution by the Dragon, Beast, and Harlot - respectively representing the Herodian Dynasty, Rome, and Jerusalem of 70AD. Indeed, Revelation chapter 12 continues with the Dragon-Beast here on earth attacking the woman (covenantal Israel - Rev 14:1ff) and attacking presumably the male child ("her offspring, those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus" Rev 12:17, John 4:22). Furthermore, the notion that the Church on earth is to "rule all nations with an iron rod" reflects Daniel's prophecy, which is carefully examined at the end of my biblical ecclesiology article.
Just as the flood destroyed corruption while the wood of Noah's ark bore salvation (Genesis 6:5ff); so too baptism destroys sin while the wood of the cross brings salvation (Colossians 1:20). This "type and antitype" was taught by Peter:
1st Peter 3:
20 God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
And accordingly, the fathers of the Church gave elaboration:
Well actually, both Catholics and Protestants agree that the spirit is not given in baptism to an adult who has no faith. And Catholics also acknowledge the spirit is given sometimes without baptism (Acts 10:21ff). Thus in this sense, both Catholics and Protestants profess "believer's baptism." Yet many Protestants (usually Evangelical or Baptist) profess baptism as merely symbolic, rejecting baptismal regeneration, since "many" are baptised who have no subsequent change in lifestyle or evident conversion towards holiness.
I object to that argument, and here's why. Just as Evangelicals may have doubts about baptismal regeneration because of adults whose subsequent lifestyle remains unchanged or who later fall away, so too can catholic minded Christians have doubts about the track record of Evangelical "decisions for Christ" and the "believers baptism" that follows. I have seen this myself, and have become wary of the whole "altar call" and believers baptism routine that so many Evangelicals seem to see as superior to the catholic one. I read somewhere an Orthodox Christian who well captured my sentiment:
I don't know how much experience you have with Baptists (of the SBC kind). Some people "get saved" and then are baptized in their youth. Later, they go to some teen thing put on by some evangelist and get "really saved"(tm)--and get baptized again, but for the first time they say. Then they fall away during college. Sometime later after college and in young adulthood, they get "really saved" (tm) again--and get baptized for the third time, but for the first time they say.
So it cuts both ways it seems. An Evangelical could say "this man's true spirit baptism awaits the faith that he lacked at his prior altar call," but a Catholic could likewise say "this man's baptismal grace waits until his faith finally takes root." Either way the real problem lies in poor selection / candidacy exercises or poor teaching about faith and conversion. Other than that, Scripture has sufficient material to answer the question about baptismal regeneration.
Most Protestants, based on biblical inquery, believe that salvation is given to infants who die. Indeed, the proposition has impressive endorsements, such as Evangelical forefather B.B. Warfield or Calvinist Charles Spurgeon . Some say that these infants are given a form of saving faith that we do not recognize. Others say such infants are saved without having faith. Either way, I think this circumstance makes moot the criticisms of infant baptismal regeneration.
In other words: one cannot affirm salvation for infants who die while simultaneously denying baptismal regeneration to infants (for lack of faith, etc). Yes its true baptism belongs to faith - but so too did circumcision belong to faith (Romans 4:11), and yet circumcision was administered to infants also. Thus the issue of infant "faith" is also moot.
In short, the question is not whether baptism is applicable to infants (there is no solid reason to deny it), instead the question is if baptism is regenerative...a topic beyond the point being made here. Still, even if a baptized infant grew up behaving as a heathen, this alone does not disprove infant baptismal regeneration - since it can be argued that such hypothetical "heathen" behavior was the result of "backsliding" (Jeremiah 3:22, 8:5, Proverbs 14:14) rather than unregeneracy.
There is a peculiar, disturbing personality type I've often encountered in bible or religious discussion. Having no other name to call it, I coined the word "solagoguery" to capture the behavior. Solagoguery is manifested as a dysfunctional, relentless over-obsession with "Christ alone" (or other "alones"). However, this is not a designation or pejorative against Protestants or even those who hold to the "Five Solas." Instead, a solagogue is someone who idolizes minimalist doctrine in the belief that nothing is pure but "Christ alone." Scripture describes it this way:
Titus 1:
15 To the pure all things are pure, but to the
corrupt and unbelieving
nothing is pure ;
their very minds and consciences are corrupted.
16 They profess to know God (e.g. "Christ alone"), but they deny him by their
deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.
Since to solagogues "nothing is pure" (except "Christ alone"), they have a misguided obsession to strip off "layers of the religious onion" in a compulsive fashion, hunting frantically for the "pure" center - expecting to "know God" as Christ alone. Christians who fail to meet the standards set by a solagogue are incessently condemned or accused of legalism, false doctrines, or having "religion instead of Christ." Yet the standards set by solagogues are, hypocritically, super-legalistic or "religious" interpretations of Scripture.
I suspect solagogues may partly comprehend Christ's forgiveness, but have little or no knowledge of His love. Indeed, the solagogue objects reactively, believes almost nothing (except "Christ alone"), promotes partisan doubts, and idolizes "zero tolerance" (usually manifested as abuses of "tough love" concepts). This is in stark contrast to Scripture's picture for a healthy Christian: "Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things" (1Cor 13:7).
Unfortunately, though having provided a guide to recognize this "religious pathology," I do not know if a Christian can interactively aid a solagogue, or if "this kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer" (Mark 9:29). The simplest advice I could offer is to show solagogues nothing but love, pray for them, and excuse yourself from conversation with them rather than feeding their need for argument.
Incidentally, while solagogues are likely found among Protestants, there is I think a parallel (but not opposite) type that is found in apostolic faiths such as Catholicism. These types are "Traditionalists" having, for example, sedevacantist leanings. And as for this latter personality, Jaroslav Pelikan offers an excellent epigram: "Tradition is the living faith of the dead; Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living." Such "dead faith" I think is true for solagogues as well.
I'm fascinated by the varying Protestant principles asserted for "correct" biblical interpretation. To capture examples of such, whether good or bad, I have reserved space here to randomly collect Protestant hermeneutic standards. Here is my first collected example:
Correct interpretation must be grammatical, historical, and cultural. However, it is also important to grasp the emotional context of God's word. This calls for reflection on the emotions of the passage.
"Feeling the Text", Window on the Word, July 2004 (a bi-monthly publication of Word of Truth: PO BOX 10514 Kansas City, MO 64188)
I agree with the above standard, but I feel like fundamentalists get the "emotion" of Scripture wrong some 80% of the time. Maybe its just me.
I was perusing postings on an Evangelical web-forum, and I came across an anti-Catholic rant about wealth. I thought it interesting that the "face-value" sense of Scripture's words had led this Evangelical to draw completely erroneous conclusions. Fortunately, one of the Evangelical moderators corrected him.
Nevertheless, all too often I have found the same mistakes being made by even the moderators themselves (or other bible "elites" and even entire "churches"). Indeed, it is scary to me just how many doctrines and prejudices seem to be based on the words of Scripture, rather than its meaning or intent. So to me, this only further underscores the importance of an additional (interpretive) authority beyond "Scripture Alone." After all, as soon as a church or individual seeks to study Scripture ... it ceases to be "alone" anyway. Indeed, each appeal to Scripture actually becomes an appeal to human interpretation. Given this, then the big question is...whose interpretation is binding (and when)?
Yes, I have my own answer to that question. In part, that is how I conclude whose interpretations of Scripture are true or false. But more importantly, particularly for those who disagree with my doctrines or my view of authority, this whole dynamic underscores the folly of bible argumentation. Yes I personally love studying God's Word and have benefitted from it exceedingly, but in my experience the bible seldom changes or enlightens anyone's mind. Instead I usually find people using it as a tool of casuistry or sectarianism (like that anti-Catholic poster had done). No, the Word of God does not need anyone's help, but those reading it usually do need help (Hebrews 5:12). But as I said before, the question is: whose help should be consulted?
A post from a religious forum stated:
Jesus and the apostles never refered to abortion or birth control. In fact, a bigger issue throught the OT and NT was idolotry.
And I responded: As you know, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for not having spiritual understanding:
Matthew 23:
23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
...the selfish killing of children is a much weightier matter than trying to please a statue (idolatry). But to recognize this requires avoiding the pattern of knowing Scripture but not knowing Gods ways:
Heb 3:
7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, "Today, when you hear his voice,
8 do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness,
9 where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years.
10 Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, `They always go astray in their hearts; they have not known my ways.'
Like those Israelites, the pharisees knew the written law of Scripture, but without spiritual understanding they were clueless of what Christ spoke of here:
Matthew 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat.
2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath."
3 He said to them, "Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him:
4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?
5 Or have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless?
6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.
7 And if you had known what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless.
8 For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath."
...given the teachings of the law carnally understood, it never occured to the Pharisees why exactly David was not guilty regarding the showbread. Likewise the Pharisees didn't know where "in the law" to read about the priests "profaning the sabbath and are guiltless" (because they read with carnal eyes, not spiritual eyes). In short, the pharisees read with legalism rather than understanding. Thus they could not recognize a weightier matter when they encountered it.
Personally I believe that Scripture read with understanding reveals abortion, a matter of justice and mercy, to be as bad or worse than idolatry - even though idolatry is mentioned far more times in Scripture.
I spotted a question on a forum asking about the Catholic rules of fasting on fridays throughout the year, and why they don't seem to be enforced. My response included a commentary on a similar matter regarding the lax discipline of apostle Apollos in the Corinthian community. I wrote:
I invite you to read a tiny article showing the 1983 Code of Canon Law as
regards the topic of fasting:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/fast_and_abstinence.htm
The important thing to notice in the article is the "control" given to the conference of bishops (there is a conference of bishops for each region / nation) to govern the particulars of the year-round friday fast. Such as, replacing the fast with some "other form of penance" that doesn't pertain to food.
However, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB - the American conference) is indeed lax in enforcing Catholic discipline because they are (a) more lax due to liberalism in their own ranks and (b) more reserved in their authority due to the liberalism of American Catholics themselves. Item (b) is terribly important, and reflects a similar situation that occurred in Scripture itself. Let me introduce you to Paul's encounter with item (b):
2 Corinthians 10:
5 We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,
6 being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.
...the problem in Corinth was that apostle Apollos, evidently through inaction, had bungled a case of immorality in his Corinthian community. For this reason many Corinthians were attacking him. Paul stepped in to defend Apollos and reminded the Corinthians that ministers do make mistakes ("building on the foundation with wood, hay, and straw" - 1 Cor 3:12) and that the Corinthians are to desist in judging Apollos and instead let God judge Apollos (1 Cor 4:1-6).
On the other hand, Paul also turned his finger at the Corinthians themselves (the 2 Cor 10:5-6 passage I cited earlier) and partially blamed the Corinthian's "incomplete obedience" to the apostleship/bishopric - to partly explain why Apollos did not act decisively to handle the case of immorality. In other words, what good are the orders of the ruling bishop if everybody is going to just laugh at his commands? Its a catch-22 (damned if you give orders, damned if you don't).
Today nothing has changed. We Catholics do indeed laugh and mock our bishops
when they attempt to discipline and command us - which means we are sinning. So
to lesson our sin, many bishops would rather not give orders (or give much
fewer orders). But perhaps someday they will be encouraged to discpline us more
thoroughly "when our obedience is complete" (2 Cor 10:6).