To follow up on a point I was making on Facebook, we don't realize the scandal as Christians we've created by all our denominations. The principled way to be in one is only this: "My other choices are so wrong on doctrinal point X that we have to separate." In today's evangelical world, to suggest that someone might be wrong enough to be in danger of Hell is, to say the least, uncool. Even when it's absolutely true. Door-to-door Arians, liberal Protestants, etc. looking in your direction. We say completely stupid things like, "Well, as long as so-and-so believes the gospel" WITHOUT EVER SAYING WHAT IT IS, and apparently not caring that we all are telling a slightly different story on that point. It simply doesn't bother us that we receive the Body and Blood of our Lord (variously understood) but that we don't share it in common, largely. We share common rites (baptism, Eucharist) but we understand them differently. We even deny them to each other based on that disagreement. And if you don't think sinners use those various opinions as an excuse to keep on sinning, well, I have a beach house in Arizona I can sell you. Stop me if you've heard this one: "You're more sinful than you'd ever dare believe, but you can be more loved and accepted in Christ than you'd dare to dream by faith; this is the gospel." Problem is, that affirmation, however true it may be, is personal and soteriological; it is no more the gospel in its entirety than the fact that Saul (called Paul) is from Tarsus. Not to mention the fact that it's a distinctly American Protestant way of stating things. You or I have no way of questioning, clarifying, or explaining it without sounding gravely suspicious. Welcome to Mindless Evangelicalism 2010! Feel free to look around, but it won't take long.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
Comments