Now cut that out! (Jack Benny)
I think this is partly a terminology problem. I think we should retire to committee and come up with an acceptable term for more or less Calvinist, "Bible-believing" Protestant type personnel. That should take only about 6 months.
I am currently reading a (tendentious but not all that bad) collection of conversion stories. Of course a collection of conversion stories is going to be all about what a great choice it was. But so far all the non Episcopal converts were troubled by the wide range of doctrine, discipline, and worship practices among the various denominations, though some started out thinking that a multitude of denominations was a good thing on the grounds that at least one agreed with one's homies so there wasn't strife all the time. (My personal experience is that if it's a small country church there's gonna be strife. Ain' no fight like a church fight.)
One guy argues that as the Constitution needs to have a Supreme Court, so the Bible needs to have some kind of magisterium. If I were arguing for the Prots I'd say,"Have you heard of the Warren court?"
I'm not arguing one way or another here, but offering this for comment.
In my Friday inchoate thoughts, I'd like to say that when I was in the bidnis, I was pretty much a stickler for worship exactly as our denomination prescribed it. This included a wealth of possible variations, so it wasn't at all confining. My alleged THINKING was that we had accepted our orders from this branch of the Church and had sworn oaths of obedience and had acknowledged implicitly at least that the muckety mucks had the right to lay out what was and what was not acceptable liturgical behavior. It just seemed to me to be a matter of simple moral thought.
On a more group dynamic level I also thought we owed "our" people NOT our own particular notions of how things should be but their church's notions. They hadn't signed up in the Church of Mad Dawg but in the Episcopal Church. What was it about the temptation to lay MY trip on them and why would I not be content with the sermon as a chance to inflict my views on them?
But from the beginning - from "you have been faithful in little, take dominion over much," it seems to me that obedience in the relatively insignificant matter of whether the final benediction goes before or after the final hymn should be easy. It doesn't cost anything, it doesn't make the service longer or shorter, by any objective standard it's a matter of complete indifference. The only thing that makes one way "better" than the other is my whim.
And if I cannot give up my whim on a matter of indifference, how can I think that I will obey God on a matter of importance? If I cannot obey when obedience is easy and costs me nothing, where will I find obedience when the matter is hard and may cost me my money, my ease, my safety, my family, even my life?
What was clear was that for many in clerical vestments, the maxim is, "My way or the highway," no matter how lofty the expression of it.
It may be that one day God will ask something great of me. ("Okay, Mad Dawg, lose ten pounds.""No Lord, not THAT!") I'd like to think that when that happens I at least have had some experience in not having things my way. (I mean other than what I've learned in 32 years of marriage AND raising he thugatera mou -- it's not for nothing that the Greek word for daughter looks like 'thug'.)
Okay, I'll take my medication now.
Sounds like a good idea. My contribution to defining a generic Bible-believing Protestant would include that as absolute minimums, such a person must hold to Sola Scriptura and at least 3 points of Calvinism. A Calvinist would have to hold to 4. (I happen to be a 5-pointer.)
If I were arguing for the Prots I'd say,"Have you heard of the Warren court?"
I was going to say that, but you're way ahead of me. :)
On a more group dynamic level I also thought we owed "our" people NOT our own particular notions of how things should be but their church's notions. They hadn't signed up in the Church of Mad Dawg but in the Episcopal Church. What was it about the temptation to lay MY trip on them and why would I not be content with the sermon as a chance to inflict my views on them?
Maybe "pastoral privilege" should be directly related to accountability. Our pastor knows that if he starts spouting nonsense he is out on his butt! :) So, that actually gives him some leeway, in my view, because he is otherwise free to say whatever he wants. In fact, over the last several months he has been taking a very Calvinist tack. He just skips the icky parts. He's been quoting Calvinist thinkers all over the place, without identifying them as such, and I'M just pleased as punch. :) If I was a committed Arminian I probably wouldn't be so happy, but I think this subtlety is actually going over most people's heads in my congregation. Unfortunately! :)