Posted on 06/20/2006 4:20:54 PM PDT by Gamecock
We have figured out your problem. You're the only one here who believes in God." That statement, addressed to a young seminarian, introduces Dave Shiflett's new book, Exodus: Why Americans are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity. The book is an important contribution, and Shiflett offers compelling evidence that liberal Christianity is fast imploding upon itself.
Shiflett, an established reporter and author, has written for The Washington Post, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The Wall Street Journal, and Investors' Business Daily, among other major media. He is also author of Christianity on Trial and is a member of the White House Writers Group.
Shiflett's instincts as a reporter led him to see a big story behind the membership decline in liberal denominations. At the same time, Shiflett detected the bigger picture—the decline of liberal churches as compared to growth among the conservatives. Like any good reporter, he knew he was onto a big story.
"Americans are vacating progressive pews and flocking to churches that offer more traditional versions of Christianity," Shiflett asserts. This author is not subtle, and he gets right to the point: "Most people go to church to get something they cannot get elsewhere. This consuming public—people who already believe, or who are attempting to believe, who want their children to believe—go to church to learn about the mysterious Truth on which the Christian religion is built. They want the Good News, not the minister's political views or intellectual coaching. The latter creates sprawling vacancies in the pews. Indeed, those empty pews can be considered the earthly reward for abandoning heaven, traditionally understood."
Taken alone, the statistics tell much of the story. Shiflett takes his reader through some of the most salient statistical trends and wonders aloud why liberal churches and denominations seem steadfastly determined to follow a path that will lead to their own destruction. Shiflett also has a unique eye for comparative statistics, indicating, for example, that "there may now be twice as many lesbians in the United States as Episcopalians."
Citing a study published in 2000 by the Glenmary Research Center, Shiflett reports that the Presbyterian Church USA declined by 11.6 percent over the previous decade, while the United Methodist Church lost "only" 6.7 percent and the Episcopal Church lost 5.3 percent. The United Church of Christ was abandoned by 14.8 percent of its members, while the American Baptist Churches USA were reduced by 5.7 percent.
On the other side of the theological divide, most conservative denominations are growing. The conservative Presbyterian Church in America [PCA] grew 42.4 percent in the same decade that the more liberal Presbyterian denomination lost 11.6 percent of its members. Other conservative denominations experiencing significant growth included the Christian Missionary Alliance (21.8 percent), the Evangelical Free Church (57.2 percent), the Assemblies of God (18.5 percent), and the Southern Baptist Convention (five percent).
As quoted in Exodus, Glenmary director Ken Sanchagrin told the New York Times that he was "astounded to see that by and large the growing churches are those that we ordinarily call conservative. And when I looked at those that were declining, most were moderate or liberal churches. And the more liberal the denomination, by most people's definition, the more they were losing."
Any informed observer of American religious life would know that these trends are not new—not by a long shot. The more liberal Protestant denominations have been losing members by the thousands since the 1960s, with the Episcopal Church USA having lost fully one half of its members over the period.
In a sense, the travail of the Episcopal Church USA is the leading focus of Shiflett's book. Indeed, Shiflett states his intention to begin "with the train wreck known as the Episcopal Church USA." As he tells it, "One Tuesday in latter-day Christendom, the sun rose in the east, the sky became a pleasant blue, and the Episcopal Church USA elected a gay man as bishop for a small New Hampshire diocese." How could this happen? The ordination of a non-celibate homosexual man as a bishop of the Episcopal Church flew directly in the face of the clear teachings of Scripture and the official doctrinal positions of the church. No matter—the Episcopal Church USA was determined to normalize homosexuality, even as they have normalized divorce and remarriage. As Shiflett explains, "It is commonly understood that the election of the Reverend Gene Robinson, an openly gay priest, to be bishop of the diocese of New Hampshire was undertaken in clear opposition to traditional church teaching and Scripture. What is often left unsaid is that this is hardly the first time tradition has been trounced. The Reverend Gene Robinson's sexual life was an issue and was accommodated, just as the Episcopal Church earlier found a way to embrace bishops who believe that Jesus is no more divine, at least in a supernatural sense, than Bette Midler."
What makes Shiflett's book unique is the personal narratives he has collected and analyzed. Exodus is not a book of mere statistics and research. To the contrary, Shiflett crossed America, interviewing both conservatives and liberals in order to understand what is happening within American Christianity. Shiflett's interviews reveal fascinating insights into the underlying realities and the personal dimensions of theological conflict. Exodus is written in a very direct style, with Shiflett providing readers anecdotes and analysis of his personal interaction with those he interviewed.
One of Shiflett's interviewees was the Reverend Bruce Gray, Rector of St. John's Episcopal Church in Richmond, Virginia. In an interesting comment, Shiflett recalls that this was the very church where Patrick Henry gave his famous speech in 1775—the speech in which Henry cried: "Give me liberty, or give me death!" As Shiflett notes, "The Episcopal Church, by freeing itself from many of its traditional beliefs, sometimes appears to be well on its way to achieving both." Revered Gray supports the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, and he told Shiflett that the biblical condemnations of homosexuality had been considered by thoughtful people who had decided that the texts do not mean what they appear to mean. He cited his own bishop, who had issued an episcopal letter arguing, "Many people believe any homosexual activity is purely prohibited by Scripture . . . . But other Christians who take Scripture seriously believe that the Biblical writers were not addressing the realities of people with a permanent homosexual orientation living in faithful, monogamous relationships, and that the relevant scriptural support for those relationships is similar to the expectations of faithfulness Scripture places on marriage." That is patent nonsense, of course, but this is what passes for theological argument among those pushing the homosexual agenda.
n order to understand why so many Episcopalians are leaving, Shiflett visited Hugo Blankenship, Jr., son of the Reverend Hugo Blankenship, who had served as the church's Bishop of Cuba. Blankenship is a traditionalist, who explained that his father must be "spinning in his grave" in light of developments in his beloved Episcopal Church. As Shiflett sees it, the church that Bishop Hugo Blankenship had served and loved is gone. In its place is a church that preaches a message Shiflett summarizes as this: "God is love, God's love is inclusive, God acts in justice to see that everyone is included, we therefore ought to be co-actors and co-creators with God to make the world over in the way he wishes."
Shiflett also surveys the growing list of "celebrity heretics" whose accepted presence in liberal denominations serves as proof positive of the fact that these groups will tolerate virtually anything in terms of belief. Shiflett discusses the infamous (and now retired) Episcopal Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, John Shelby Spong. "When placed in a wider context, Spong is simply another character from what might be called America's religious freak show." Yet, the most important insight to draw from Spong's heresies is the fact that he has been accepted without censure by his church. As Shiflett explains, Spong's views, "while harshly criticized in some quarters as being far beyond the pale, are present not only throughout the mainline but throughout Protestantism, even in churches that are assumed to maintain traditional theological rigor."
In Shiflett's turn of a phrase, these liberal theologians believe in a "Wee deity," a vapid and ineffectual god who is not much of a threat and is largely up for individual interpretation.
On the other side of the divide, Shiflett spent time with conservative Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, Southern Baptists, and the larger evangelical community. In considering Southern Baptists, Shiflett largely drew upon interviews he conducted with me and with Richard Land, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Shiflett understands recent Southern Baptist history, and he takes his readers through the denomination's "conservative resurgence" that defied the conventional wisdom that denominations can never be pulled back in a more conservative direction.
More importantly, Shiflett understands that doctrinal beliefs are the crucial variable determining whether churches and denominations grow or decline. He deals with the statistical data honestly, even as he points to the larger context and the underlying factors at work.
Shiflett's opening story about the seminarian who was confronted by his peers underlines the importance of theological seminaries as agents for either the perpetuation or the destruction of the faith.
In this case, seminarian Andy Ferguson, who had questioned the anti-supernaturalistic claims of his seminary professors, was confronted by a fellow seminary student who said, "We've been talking about you. We know you're having a rough time, and we've finally figured out what your problem is . . . . You're the only one here who believes in God." Andy Ferguson decided that his fellow student was right. "They believed in things like the redemptive power of the universe, but I was the last one there who wanted to defend the biblical God—the God who makes claims on us, who said we should do some things and not do others, and who put each one of us here for a purpose."
In the end, Andy Ferguson left the liberal seminary, converted to Catholicism, and went into the business world. He told Dave Shiflett that liberal Protestantism is doomed. "Mainline Protestantism will reach a certain point where it will appeal only to Wiccans, vegetarians, sandal-wearers, and people who play the recorder. No one will feel at home there if they believe in God."
Exodus is a book that is simultaneously brave and honest. Refreshingly, he eschews mere sociological analysis and points to the more foundational issue—truth. No doubt, this book will be appreciated in some quarters and hated in others, but it is not likely to be ignored.
You are painting a picture of American South where Catholic Churches as scarce as polar bears, but Zionist Conspiracy Cells are common as fried catfish. That's fascinating.
The Eastern Orthodox are a strange lot. They criticize "rationalism" and "the Pope's atheist astronomers" but they're as evolutionist and higher critical as anyone. Certainly I've never heard of Orthodox defending the Bible from the higher critics.
Moses did not write the Torah. G-d wrote it and dictated it to Moses letter for letter, and Moses wrote it down. There was no redaction from earlier sources. And even more importantly, the story of the sin in Eden (upon which chr*stianity bases its claim of being the "fulfillment" of Judaism) has only existed as part of the G-d dictated Torah. It was not redacted or adapted from any ancient sources but "HaShem dictated and Moses wrote it down." The "new testament" makes so much of that episode yet the episode is part of the Torah, not the new testament. Chr*stians who impose a chr*stian meaning on it have no right to criticize Protestants for imposing a "Protestant" meaning on Paul's theology. What I'm saying is that the solution to the sin in the Garden is not some later "revelation" but the Torah, which is the document that tells us what happened in the first place and which is the only sacred document literally dictated by HaShem.
I don't understand why the Catholic Church is so soft on evolution when "heretical sects" shun it. It's almost as if the magisterium performs a primarily liberalizing and de-literalizing function. And by the way, "inerrant but not literally true" is one of those things that allows you to take both sides of the argument and have things both ways. What use is an "inerrant" Bible that isn't literally true?
The cross is indeed the "crux" of the matter. Why should anyone assume a priori that Judaism's only purpose was to pave the way for chr*stianity? The Bible begins with Genesis, not Matthew, and the prophecies fit only if you are determined to believe so from the outset. Down here folks accept J*sus on the authority of the Bible while liturgical chr*stians seem to accept the Bible on the authority of J*sus (in spite of the fact that the Holy Torah was G-d-dictated and did not need the approval of a man who lived a thousand years after it was given). What I'm saying is that since the Torah came first and was already acknowledged as Divine Revelation it is the Torah that sits in judgement on the claims of chr*stianity, not vice versa.
One of my points is that Fundamentalist Protestants would be better off as Noachides than as chr*stians. The only things that hold them are 1)the fact that their Bible has a new testament in it and 2)their Lutheran view of human nature, which Catholics ironically attack (talk them out of it and what purpose does J*sus serve anymore?). If I'm not so messed up by the sin of Adam that only the passive reception of salvation by means of the vicarious damnation of a divine scapegoat can keep me out of Hell, then why all the hypocritical tub-thumping about "grace" vs. "the law?" Sheesh. If Catholics ever talk Fundamentalist Protestants out of their Lutheran view of fallen human nature, see if they stop at Catholicism when they start looking for what G-d wants them to do.
But you never merit salvation. Christ gives salvation. Obeying the Church (i.e. the new Law) is subsidiary to faith. A Catholic who never misses a feast day, etc. -- all the works of law -- is still saved, if at all, because of the work of Christ in him.
What use is an "inerrant" Bible that isn't literally true?
It is inerrant as it leads us to Christ, and that is the purpose of the scripture.
ce the Torah came first and was already acknowledged as Divine Revelation it is the Torah that sits in judgement on the claims of chr*stianity, not vice versa.
No. That puts God, -- Christ, -- subject to judgement of His own and earlier revelation. God revels himself progressively, first to Adam, then to Noah, then to the Jews and finally to all men. You cannot subject God to the judgement of His earlier revelation than you can tell me what my mind is today based on what I posted 7 years ago on FR, especially if I am here now to tell you myself.
In Catholicism/Orthodoxy, "salvation" is "appropriated." This being the case, the difference between the "new law" and the "old law" is merely quantitative, not qualitative. If you merit salvation, you're "working your way in" and have no business criticizing Judaism at all.
But you never merit salvation. Christ gives salvation. Obeying the Church (i.e. the new Law) is subsidiary to faith. A Catholic who never misses a feast day, etc. -- all the works of law -- is still saved, if at all, because of the work of Christ in him.
You're engaging in word games. You can say that J*sus "opens the door" and you have to "respond," but that's no different from HaShem "opening the door" and mankind "responding" by keeping the Noachide or Mosaic covenent. All you're doing is replacing HaShem with J*sus and one law (the Biblical one) with another (a post-Biblical one).
What use is an "inerrant" Bible that isn't literally true?
It is inerrant as it leads us to Christ, and that is the purpose of the scripture.
So it's no more "inerrant" than anything else that might move a person to accept chr*stianity--like pious art or The Chronicles of Narnia? Were they also created under "inspiration?"
[Sin]ce the Torah came first and was already acknowledged as Divine Revelation it is the Torah that sits in judgement on the claims of chr*stianity, not vice versa.
No. That puts God, -- Christ, -- subject to judgement of His own and earlier revelation. God revels himself progressively, first to Adam, then to Noah, then to the Jews and finally to all men. You cannot subject God to the judgement of His earlier revelation than you can tell me what my mind is today based on what I posted 7 years ago on FR, especially if I am here now to tell you myself.
G-d changes His mind quite often, then? How do you know you won't change it again, other than the chr*stian arrogance that chr*stianity is "self-evidently true" (like evolutionism)?
You've actually made a very damning admission. You have admitted that chr*stianity is based on "progressive revelation," an early form of "process theology" in which G-d and His Message is constantly changing and evolving, with the latest "revelation" always trumping earlier and "inferior" revelations. The trouble with this is, as the Sages say, "`al 'achat kammah vekhammah" (roughly, "if that were so, there would be no end to the matter"). Just as chr*stianity fulfilled Judaism, islam would fulfill chr*stianity (or perhaps Protestantism would fulfill Catholicism), sikhism would fulfill islam, bahai would fulfill sikhism, etc.
The fact is that unlike all other religions, Judaism teaches the opposite of "progressive revelation." It is the first rather than the "final" revelation that is the definitive Revelation. The Nevi'im (Prophets) were not written via Divine dictation but via prophetic visions (one step lower), whereas the Ketuvim ("Hagiographa") were written under Ruach HaQodesh (the Holy Spirit), one step further down still. In fact, outside the Torah and the Book of Esther, the writings of the TaNa"Kh apply as Scripture only until they are fulfilled at which time they will have served their purpose. Only the Torah is eternal. After all, there is no end of squabbling about where G-d's revelations ended, but the identity of where it began is much more objective and certain! (The you can always add another number, but you have to begin with "one".)
I take it you consider it unreasonable that G-d not radically contradict Himself. I'd like to know on what chr*stianity is based if not the prophecies of the Torah and Hebrew Bible. No, don't answer that--you'll insist that the "truth of chr*stianity" is so "beautiful" or something that it is "self-evidently true. Bible Belt Fundamentalism knows of chr*stianity only from the Bible, and not because it "created our civilization" or "is the faith of our fathers" or is "poetry" or some such (and compared to the Fundamentalism's understanding of J*sus' vicarious damnation, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are quite clumsy).
I actually wish you success in getting Fundamentalist Protestants to believe you. Then they'll desert chr*stianity for G-d's True Covenent with mankind--one that He has kept faithfully without contradiction.
I note that while you have been insisting to me that Catholicism teaches salvation by grace alone without works that your FReeper home page references the "necessity of works" (as in "necessary for salvation?"). Therefore you contradict yourself. However, so do the "antinomian" Protestants who reduce the "new law" to the "sinner's prayer." Your contradiction is merely more specatularly obvious. As I keep saying, only Calvinists and universalists can criticize Judaism and remain consistent.
[next post:] your FReeper home page references the "necessity of works" (as in "necessary for salvation?"). Therefore you contradict yourself.
Works of love -- which includes obedience to church law among other things, -- are necessary because without them faith is dead. But faith is what ultimately saves. Since I usually debate Reformed Protestants and not Jews, I underscore their errors rather than yours. It happens to be the distinction that the Reformed blur in their polemic with the Catholics, and they insist that the Catholics believe in salvation by works alone. We don't.
Gasoline is necessary if you want to drive to Potland. But it is a car that puts you there.
You have admitted that chr*stianity is based on "progressive revelation," an early form of "process theology" in which G-d and His Message is constantly changing and evolving, with the latest "revelation" always trumping earlier and "inferior" revelations [...] Just as chr*stianity fulfilled Judaism, islam [for example] would fulfill chr*stianity
Progressive revelation does not mean contradictory revelation, nor does it mean endless revelation. In fact, the revelation of Christ contains the statement of its finality, and it builds up on the Torah rather than annuls it. Note that the Christians do not say that the Jews were foolish to obey the entirety of Mosaic law. They merely note that when God speaks to a Jew as a Jew, He is not necessarily speaking to a Greek. At the same time Christianity believes that the revelation to the Jews -- the Old Testament, -- is true revelation, not contradicted by Christ, despite what the Rabbis might think.
That is only because everyone who cooks up a new religion wants to claim that "it stops here."
Judaism's understanding that one begins at the summit and descends downward from there is the only guarantee of absolute objective certainty.
Works of love -- which includes obedience to church law among other things, -- are necessary because without them faith is dead. But faith is what ultimately saves.
A meaningless distinction. "Faith" is just an excuse for Catholics and Orthodox to replace HaShem with J*sus and the Torah/Noachide laws with the "new law." Period.
Gasoline is necessary if you want to drive to Potland. But it is a car that puts you there.
Oh brother! Paul really opened a can of worms with his attack on the Torah, didn't he?
Hashem revealed himself to Abraham but did not reveal the whole of the law until he gave the Torah to Israel at Sinai.
And over time the Sages have learned more and more about the Torah, both Oral and Written, as they have studied and shared what they have learned with the rest of Israel.
Likewise Hashem has acted progressively - choosing a transient tabernacle as a dwelling and then declaring the Temple Mount as his habitation among His people.
(2) Too much focus has been put on terms of debate defined by Protestants. The faith of which the Christian Scriptures speak, pistis, does not simply mean the mental act of assenting to propositions. This leads to sterile debates about "works" or "works of the law" vs. "faith" - ZC points out the obvious: an act of mental assent to the proposition that Jesus is Lord is a "work" every bit as much as baptism is a "work."
Faith is the grace (gift) from God of being placed in a relationship with Him by Him. Faith is a relationship. When you say to your wife "I have faith in you" you are not simply saying that you assent to the assertion that she exists and that she bears a relationship toward you that requires certain mutual obligations. It is much more than that.
Charles Spurgeon wrote a good bit about the trends of churches in the Sword and Trowel, which articles have been reduced to a volume entitled, "The Downgrade Controversy."
His postulate was that in trying to make Calvinism palatable, the pastors of his time were watering down the Gospel. His position was that the 5 points must all be taught and espoused. The churches under leadership that did not do so would eventually become Arminian, then preach a social gospel, then become universalist and finally, fail.
Since Protestant "belief" (not to mention reading the "sinner's prayer" in a tract and signing it) and mailing it in are "works," not only Luther's argument, but Paul's also, simply collapses. Since G-d insists on "works" (according to everyone but Calvinists and universalists), there is simply no safer, surer, and more objective "system" other than the Torah/Noachide laws and any further "development" is unnecessary.
(As an aside, ww, I must point out that Protestant faith is traditionally "fiduciary" and not at all "an assent to propositions." I was terribly confused shortly after my own conversion when reading an article in a rightwing Catholic publication that pointed this out, seeing as I had never been taught this before. "Intellectual faith" is still a square circle to me.)
As to "progressive revelation" in the Torah, both chr*stianity and Judaism--indeed, all religions--agree that the original religion given to Adam developed into "full bloom" at a later date. The point at issue is whether it was Sinai or Calvary that was "the fulcrum of history," verifying everything that came before and that comes after (as RaMBa"M states in his Thirteen Principals of Faith). I insist that it is Sinai that serves this purpose. For one thing, there is no remnant of a pre-Sinai religion to even dispute Sinai's claim--it is the one certain, sure, and universally acknowledged revelation. For another, the Torah has from the very beginning--from the time it was dictated to Moses, and before that, before it was written in Heaven by G-d Himself in letters of black fire on a scroll of white fire--contained the story of the Garden of Eden and Adam's sin. The Torah is the source of our knowledge of this incident. The Torah has never existed apart from the first three chapters of Genesis and the first three chapters of Genesis have never existed apart from the rest of the Torah. They are an organic whole. The "new testament," for all the symmetry of its interpretation of the incident, is an alien document that appropriated the story to create a new religion. And finally, G-d Himself in the Torah actually invoked Sinai--before it happened--as a guarantee. When Moses asked "How will I prove to the Israelites that You spoke to me when they question me about it?" G-d told him "tell them that they will serve Me on this mountain." So G-d Himself regards Sinai as the fulcrum of history.
One may speculate endlessly, but the fact of the matter is that Sinai and the Mosaic/Noachide laws emanating from it are the most certain, most objective, and safest position possible in the world and everything else (and there is no end to the claimants) is mere wind and cobwebs.
Outside of South Louisiana, far South Texas, seaport towns like Savannah and Mobile, and some parts of the Texas Hill Country, there are few Southern Catholics whose families have lived in the South for more than two generations. If you listen to the conversations in a parking lot outside a Catholic church in most Southern cities, you are far more likely to hear the accents of Chicago or Pittsburgh than native Southern speech. That will not be the case in the parking lot of a Southern Baptist or AG church, even in heavily Yankeefied areas like the northern suburbs of Atlanta or Dallas.
This simply goes to show that the Catholic Church is not the "universal" church which it claims to be. Some people simply can never fit in.
You forgot to mention the issues of Biblical inerrancy and evolutionism, which have long been the prime concern of Fundamentalist Protestants (Israel is another, but that's a lost cause as far as the Catholic Church is concerned; that's the one doctrine it will never change). These issues are simply not on the radar screen of the liturgical churches.
Your pointing out that the more liberal Lutheran and Episcopalian churches being the very ones that retain certain Catholic medievalisms highlights an interesting point. Mircea Eliade (y'sh"v) posited that in religion ritual precedes and transcends myth. This implies that the more highly ritualized religions do not regard the facticity of their texts as a matter of concern, since these texts are secondary to and evolved to explain the already existing rituals, and the rituals retain their validity after the myth has been discarded. Thus the Catholic, Orthodox, or Episcopal priest who invokes "the sacrifice of Abel" is not in the least bit committing himself to a belief that Abel ever existed or offered a sacrifice. He is taking part in a pantomime, and Abel (like every other figure and event in the sacred text) is merely a Jungian archetype. I know of no other reason than Eliade's philosophy to explain the phenomenon of why the older and more ritualized the religions are the very ones that are most liberal and modern in their thinking, or why the churches most committed to a literal understanding of the "myths" are all of recent origin and are universally derided for "rationalism" by their more sophisticated and more ritualized "co-religionists."
Personally, to me invoking a person or event that never existed/happened, especially in a prayer to G-d, is simply ridiculous (and Halakhically a great sin), but my background makes my appreciation of a myth-transcending ritual impossible.
Buit it does not follow that God would not reveal Himself progressively and say the same thing.
Judaism's understanding that one begins at the summit and descends downward from there is the only guarantee of absolute objective certainty.
True. If the purpose of the exercise were to find a worldview that gives us certainty beyond faith, then the shorter the purported revelation is the better. Why, in this logical reductionism do you stop at Noah? Atheists stop at zero revelation and have infinite certainty; something you ought to consider.
A meaningless distinction. "Faith" is just an excuse for Catholics and Orthodox to replace HaShem with J*sus and the Torah/Noachide laws with the "new law."
My goal is to represent Catholic Christianity accurately. The disctinctions between faith, works of love, works of law, and works for reward, are meaningful for Christians because they are in different relations to justification. As one looking from the outside, you may not be interested in them, and that is fine, -- but then you should not sprinkle your comments with references to Calvinism. I would agree that on the level of discussion we are having -- whose revelation is most complete and accurate -- the distinctions that Catholics make when talking to Calvinists are inimportant.
Let us understand the nature of the claim accurately. It is universal for two interrelated reasons:
- any valid baptism (using water, in the name of the Trinity, intended to make the baptisee Christian) is a baptism into the Catholic Church (see my 49);
- anyone can join or return after a lapse, following certain protocol of initiation and receive sacraments.
- there is a single head, the vicar of Christ in Rome.
The claim does not mean erasure of boundaries between truth and error, it does not mean uniformity of liturgy, and it does not mean complete uniformity of belief inside the permissible perimeter.
But the first paragraph is somewhat askew...~~"Perhaps I was simply too young to appreciate the absurdist humor of “Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In,” the popular television comedy (1968–1973). I never quite understood why the laugh track kicked in whenever Sammy Davis, Jr. shuffled across the screen to the sing-song catchphrase “Here comes the judge.”~~
Sammy Davis, Jr.???
That was Flip Wilson. 8~)
I recieve the White Horse Inn CDs monthly. I find Michael Horton and company very sharp, entertaining and to the point.
No, it really was Sammy Davis Jr.
I get captivated by heroic people, and I'm absolutely blown away by the caliber of Christian that Dietrich Bonhoeffer was. When someone asks the question, 'who would you want to meet' very few people spring to mind and the ones that do are from very disparate camps.
For instance, if given the chance, I'd like to meet Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and that young Lady from Columbine High School who took a bullet to the base of her skull, at 17 years of age, rather than renounce her Lord and Saviour. She's hardly thought of much less spoken of. It's really a shame.
Sorry for the digression, what I really wanted you guys to read is this essay by the wonderful Mr. Bonhoeffer. It was originally intended to address the season of Advent, but I think that it is relevant to the discussion of those fleeing liberal churches or perhaps even just one church for another.
When St. Paul ministered to his flock he believed the Parousia was immanent. As that became less and less a decided matter, a restlessness, perhaps even a masked unbelief began to make its presence known, and at the moment, we are as far away from the time of Paul as we can get, so the changes that the Faith has undergone may have in some ways been influenced by this angst, and the human tendency to want what it wants now. However, the Souls touched by Christ will know when they can no longer subsist on meagre and saltless rations. Christ commanded that His Sheep be fed, not that they feed themselves.
The Coming of Jesus into Our Midst
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Reprinted from Watch for the LightBehold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. Revelation 3:20
When early Christianity spoke of the return of the Lord Jesus, they thought of a great day of judgment. Even though this thought may appear to us to be so unlike Christmas, it is original Christianity and to be taken extremely seriously. When we hear Jesus knocking, our conscience first of all pricks us: Are we rightly prepared? Is our heart capable of becoming God's dwelling place? Thus Advent becomes a time of self-examination. "Put the desires of your heart in order, O human beings!" (Valentin Thilo), as the old song sings. "Our whole life is an Advent, a time of waiting for the ultimate, for the time when there will be a new heaven and a new earth, when all people will be brothers and sisters." It is very remarkable that we face the thought that God is coming so calmly, whereas previously peoples trembled at the day of God, whereas the world fell into trembling when Jesus Christ walked over the earth. That is why we find it so strange when we see the marks of God in the world so often together with the marks of human suffering, with the marks of the cross on Golgotha.
We have become so accustomed to the idea of divine love and of God's coming at Christmas that we no longer feel the shiver of fear that God's coming should arouse in us. We are indifferent to the message, taking only the pleasant and agreeable out of it and forgetting the serious aspect, that the God of the world draws near to the people of our little earth and lays claim to us. The coming of God is truly not only glad tidings, but first of all frightening news for everyone who has a conscience. Only when we have felt the terror of the matter, can we recognize the incomparable kindness. God comes into the very midst of evil and of death, and judges the evil in us and in the world. And by judging us, God cleanses and sanctifies us, comes to us with grace and love. God makes us happy as only children can be happy.
God wants to always be with us, wherever we may be - in our sin, in our suffering and death. We are no longer alone; God is with us. We are no longer homeless; a bit of the eternal home itself has moved unto us. Therefore we adults can rejoice deeply within our hearts under the Christmas tree, perhaps much more than the children are able. We know that God's goodness will once again draw near. We think of all of God's goodness that came our way last year and sense something of this marvelous home. Jesus comes in judgment and grace: "Behold I stand at the door! Open wide the gates!" (Ps. 24:7)
One day, at the last judgment, he will separate the sheep and the goats and will say to those on his right: "Come, you blessed I was hungry and you fed me." (Matt. 25:34). To the astonished question of when and where, he answered: "What you did to the least of these, you have done to me." (Matt. 25:40).
With that we are faced with the shocking reality: Jesus stands at the door and knocks, in complete reality. He asks you for help in the form of a beggar, in the form of a ruined human being in torn clothing. He confronts you in every person that you meet. Christ walks on the earth as your neighbor as long as there are people. He walks on the earth as the one through whom God calls you, speaks to you and makes his demands. That is the greatest seriousness and the greatest blessedness of the Advent message. Christ stands at the door. He lives in the form of the person in our midst. Will you keep the door locked or open it to him? Christ is still knocking. It is not yet Christmas. But it is also not the great final Advent, the final coming of Christ. Through all the Advents of our life that we celebrate goes the longing for the final Advent, where it says: "Behold, I make all things new" (Rev. 21:5). Advent is a time of waiting. Our whole life, however, is Advent - that is, a time of waiting for the ultimate, for the time when there will be a new heaven and a new earth, when all people are brothers and sisters and one rejoices in the words of the angels: "On earth peace to those on whom God's favor rests." Learn to wait, because he has promised to come. "I stand at the door." We however call to him: "Yes, come soon, Lord Jesus!" Amen.
The White Horse Inn is named after the Tavern where the "Reformation came to the English speaking world." Those who gathered there include the Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer and the reformer Robert Barnes.
The bookstore at Monergism has books and music that ooz grace and inspires an appropriate pietistic response.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.