Indeed Christ WAS harshly fierce with such people (e.g., the Pharisees). But that was His prerogative: after all, He is the Son of God and final Judge.
But we Christians are not. In fact, the Holy Scriptures warn us, "Judge not, lest ye shall also be judged." Which I take to mean: "You yourself will be judged by the very same standard of judgment that you apply to others." If one is not totally humbled by this Biblical assertion, one doesn't truly understand it yet. For to truly understand it, is to become very circumspect in what one says about others.
May I say the propensity to flame warfare is not exclusive to Catholics? I've seen Reformed believers of different confessions going "hammer-and-tong" at Catholics and each other around here, too. Over at the Crevo threads, the atheists seem especially good at perpetrating such pointless mayhem; and they usually get a pretty good rise out of their creationist opponents, who then return in kind.
But it's all the same thing: All heat and no Light. It's like battling Rhinos going at it — which might make sense to Rhinos, but I fail to see what edification it has for human beings. Nobody's mind is changed a whit about anything at the end of the day. Such egoistic displays serve no purpose otherwise than "entertainment value" for cynics, skeptics, and atheists. In short, we should not approve that of which Satan approves (e.g., strife among the brethren), and restrain our behavior accordingly.
My strong and prayerful desire is to see Christians focusing on what all Christians hold in common — not dwelling on controversies about doctrinal details. IOW, focus on what unites us, not on what divides us. The latter only serves the interests of Satan (not to mention the OThuga-style State).
Quix, you ended up giving a critique of the Roman Catholic Church itself. If I might observe, "outside criticism" can't really convey much about how the "insiders" regard their faith and spiritual life precisely because they're "outside" the community and thus remote from the way in which the community thinks about and experiences its confession of faith. It is a hoary old tale (alive in the Framers' age) that the Roman Catholic Church worships, beside the Blessed Trinity Father–Son–Holy Spirit, also Mary and the Saints and the Pope and the Vatican and whatnot. (Some Protestants are completely convinced that the Roman Church worships the devil, too.)
Yet Roman Catholics draw a distinction between worship — which is owed to God alone — and veneration of holy persons such as Mary and the Saints. Mary is deeply venerated — as befitting the Mother of God. She is regarded as the Mother of the Church, by virtue of the fact that she was the Mother of Christ's Body. She is prayed to, not as God, but as an intercessor with God on behalf of men's souls.
If this sort of thing is not according to one's own understanding, then one has two choices: (1) Let it pass in Christian peace and goodwill. Ultimately, what a man truly believes in his heart is a matter between him and God alone, a sacred relation that I don't want to barge into with my own little inconsequential opinions about what a man must believe in order to be "right with God" ("in my judgment"). (2) Commence an argument that one's own theological perspectives are somehow "better," and risk touching off controversy and strife among brethren.
The latter choice is not necessarily an exercise in evangelicalism; to me, it so often looks more like engaging in disputation for its own sake, to demonstrate that one's own view is superior.
Yet in a certain way, to speak of something being "superior" to something else requires an "apples-to-apples" situation of comparison. Yet this is not what we have, strictly speaking, between the Roman and the Reformed Churches. The essential core of the Faith is the same in both traditions, but there are very distinctive differences between the two, so in some lesser respects we have more of an "apples-to-oranges" situation. Here are what I think are two key differences between the two major Christian faith traditions, FWIW:
The Roman Church does not "disparage the body" in order to elevate the soul. Neither is sense perception disparaged; indeed the Roman Church does all in its power to engage the "whole man," body, soul, sense perception, and his physical life as lived. The Reformed Church evidently is unaware of what the Roman Church's use of imagery (frescoes, paintings, stained glass, statuary, sacred music, et al.) is designed/intended to do: To lead the soul through the window of sense perception of beautiful objects to the contemplation of eternal divine beauty and majesty. Thus the Church does not regard them as "idols" — as ends in themselves elevated to worship; but as doors for the soul to pass through in its meditative ascent to God. Yet many Protestants stubbornly cling to the idea that all such are "idols," and leave their own alters and meeting places bare.We Christians have different points of view and different paths to walk, but all lead to the One True God in Christ. Christians may disagree about the particulars. Still all compose the Body of Christ. So it seems to me the best thing to do is to respect and honor our differences, and unite ourselves to the core Christian Creed so sublimely stated in the Lord's Prayer.Different strokes for different folks, I say.
Another striking difference, it seems to me, is that the Reformed Churches have somewhat imbibed from the springs of the Enlightenment in the emphasis they place on reason and on personal autonomy. The sanctification of the body so important in Roman Catholicism isn't an issue for Reformed Christianity. Where the authority of the institutional Roman Church is centralized and hierarchical, the authority of the Reformed Churches is decentralized and democratic.
Thus all things considered, it is highly unlikely to me that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution could have been composed by a body of Roman Catholics. But this is not to wholesale disparage the Roman Church as somehow "inferior" to the Reformed. It is only to note that, given the historical setting, these documents were penned by men of Reformed Church confession. And the main religious stamp on American character, culture, and society has been Reformed Church ever since. The personal autonomy and democracy of the Church has been translated into a (so far) stable and prosperous secular state that is strongly resonant to democratic principles.
A true evangelist (it seems to me) focuses on the core of the faith common to all Christians: Salvation in, by, and through Christ only, the Two Great Commandments of the Christian Dispensation, and something along the lines of the Nicaean Creed regarding the disposition of the Blessed Trinity. You don't start out with doctrinal disputes, such as predestination vs. free will, faith vs. works, divine election vs. free grace, etc., etc.
What the true evangelist affirms is the salvific Love of God, His free sacrifice of Himself that enables us to live life "more abundantly" in the here and now and in the hereafter; His eternal Truth and Justice; the Judgment to come. God help me, but I believe those are the most important things that we need so desperately to hear nowadays, Christians and non-Christians alike. For Satan is in the world, and his time is growing short....
I'm so sorry if my "humble opinion" offended you or embarrassed you. I hope you will not form a wrong impression. It wasn't offered in that spirit, nor does it appear you took it that way. But I'm apologizing in any case. For my utter simple-mindedness!
I'm becoming more "simple-minded" as time goes on. I'll give you an example, one that bears on the judgments we make.
If the Holy Spirit were to come to me bearing a message from God, "I want you to go jump off a cliff," I would have some doubt about the message, not to mention the messenger. For the character of God is such that He does not tempt us, does not lie to us, and does not contradict Himself. Since He is the Lord of Life, and thus regards suicide as utter abomination, He would not ask me to jump off a cliff.
Then again, if the Holy Spirit were to come to me bearing a message from God, "I want you to harden your heart against John Jones, for I consider him to be utterly lost already so don't waste your time on him," again I would have some doubt about the message, not to mention the messenger. For God commands us to love one another as we love ourselves. So to harden our heart against someone would show that we are dwelling outside God's second Great Commandment and thus also living outside the law of the first Great Commandment: To love God with our whole heart and soul and mind and stength. Ergo, God would not ask us ever to "harden our hearts" against anyone, for in essence that would mean we would be hardening our hearts against God Himself.
The only reason I mention these examples is I know that many people have experiences of inspiration directly from the Holy Spirit. I also know that the Devil is the father of lies, and so may "impersonate" the Holy Spirit so to tempt us through our own vanity and weakness. If the message is contrary to what the Holy Scriptures declare as righteous Truth, the messenger may be an imposter, and the message a lie.
Seems pretty simple-minded to me: Verify your experiences against the standard of Biblical Truth. And pray to God: "Lead me not into temptation, but deliver me from evil."
Well I suppose I've been nattering away here like your Aunt Nellie! Time to put a sock in it.
Thank you ever so much for your inspiring and prayerful essay/post, dear brother in Christ!
CERTAINLY NO offense taken at all.
I just wanted to do 2 things in response.
1. I wanted to be sure I benefitted as much as God would have me benefit from your wisdom and rebuke, exhortation.
2. I wanted to respond as authentically as I could in as much humility as I could about my sense of where God has me on such a razor blade thin line about such things in my life. I don't know that I succeeded in the latter (any more than I may have succeeded in 1. above), but I tried, hard.
Your points in the post above are well taken and have largely already been my . . . at least a strong integral part of my . . . guidelines, substrate, beliefs and even practices--whether it shows, or not.
My precise path is not your precise path nor anyone else's. And we are fully responsible . . . as fully as we are responsible for anything--for our own precise following of our own precise path, before God by His Grace and Spirit.
It would be far, far, FAR simpler to say that Betty Boop's perspective on all the above is Holy Spirit's precise and comprehensive perspective for Quix--end of story; end of discussion; go thou and do likewise etc. etc. etc.
However, as true as I can be--before God--that's NOT congruent with my experience of God in my life and HIS mandates for me.
CERTAINLY THE ISSUE OF JUDGMENT is a super critical one. And, it's probably one that all of us do well to keep in the constantly prayerful, constantly active file 24/7.
And, I'm keenly aware that my thrownness in the world . . . including particularly how I experience and perceive God's constructions for me on all those realities . . . gives plenty of opportunity for lots of folks to question how much I judge others vs am carnal, critical judgment FREE.
Is it carnal critical judgment to label OThugs "OThuga?" I think not. I think it's an accurate label well earned by his values and behavior. It's more, to me, an observation. It's akin to observing the sun at 12:00 noon and saying--Oh, it's noon and the sun is at it's peak.
In a sense that's a judgment. In a sense, it's merely an observation of "objective" fact--whatever that is.
You may have noticed that I have, for what a year plus--2 years plus--I don't recall . . . I have for an extended time been extremely circumspect in my fiesty comments towards RC's as well as toward reasonable Calvinist postings.
Nevertheless, on relatively rare occasions, when it has seemed warranted, I've also slapped a given post, wording, attitude up-side the head as being outrageous.
Is that a judgment of a personhood? I don't think so. I haven't felt it that way and haven't mentally construed it that way--at least not very often, if at all.
Usually, it's not rocket science to observe when something is worded in an outrageous way.
The observation that Christ had a right as God's Son to fiercely assault pride, arrogance, hypocrisy etc. on the part of the religious rulers 2000 years ago . . . is . . . to me . . . a very convenient and . . . unfitting out.
There is no Biblical exemption clause to that effect.
We are called to follow Him as He leads.
Certainly some leadings of Holy Spirit require, plausibly, more scrutiny than others. Instructions to be charitable, kind, compassionate, generous, patient, long suffering etc. would quite plausibly require less monitoring, scrutiny, prayerful screening than a fierce public rebuke.
On the other hand . . . IF one is practicing hearing God remotely as often and well as Scriptures instruct us all to do--MY SHEEP HEAR MY !!!VOICE!!!!, then it is quite plausible . . . that a given Spirit-led Believer might well hear any variety of instructions from Holy Spirit as accurately, one as the other. I'm not saying I'm, per se, THERE, yet . . . just that such a habitual success in hearing God more or less accurately would plausibly not entail more wax in one's spiritual ears for one category than for the other.
We are EVER MORE RAPIDLY AND EVER MORE COMPLETELY
EVEN NOW
AMIDST A VIGOROUS HARD FOUGHT !!!!WAR!!!!!
And the Spiritual warfare has ALWAYS BEEN the most critical of any warfare. And it is the most foundational of all warfare.
THERE IS CERTAINLY A PLACE for Jesus meek and mild.
YET, THAT IS NOT THE WHOLE JESUS--NOT OF SCRIPTURE; NOT OF REALITY; NOT OF LIFE; CERTAINLY NOT OF OUR ERA.
Most of the Evangelicals, including the one in my mirror, are loathe to sign-on wholeheartedly to the warfare mentality and realities. I can, yet have a hard time killing chickens, rabbits, deer . . . for needed food.
Yet, I know from lots of experience . . . that in many situations, Holy Spirit rises up within me MOST FIERCELY. And I begin looking around eagerly for the jawbone of an ass with which to slay some Philistines.
That's almost a shocking experience, even to me--kind of one of those experiences wherein one feels like one is standing outside one's body observing one's self do something very strange and foreign to one's normal self.
Therefore what?
Good question. LOL.
imho, ALL of us, probably Betty Boop and Alamo-Girl, included . . . will be called upon by God in coming months and near years . . . to be much more forceful, declarative, stern, even . . . to some . . . harsh . . . against forces of evil in the world, in and/or about brothers and sisters near and dear . . . and to the Body of Christ in one proportion or another.
Do I expect any of you to get it more perfectly than I do. Of course not. God alone is perfect.
I do expect us all to prayerfully walk our walk as well as we can, by God's Grace manage to to do that.
Sweetness and light OF GOD are wonderful.
Yet, as John and Paula Sanford assert in TRANSFORMATION OF THE INNER MAN . . .
Love without Truth is useless sentimentality.
Truth without Love is brutality.
We are called to walk in and dispense both.
And more often than some of us prefer, a piercingly pointed and sharp scalpel is the most loving thing possible; the most loving thing to fit the situation; the most loving thing to offer--regardless of whether it's perceived that way, or not.