Who is Christian and who is not, is a question that has been around for centuries. The first major problem with who was and who was not a Christian started early on in the faith. We have many tid bits recorded by the Apostle Paul addressing the subject of true faith. Latter on in history Christian faith was sometimes defined by where you lived and what group was in charge of the state church.
Sometimes the control of the state overshadowed issues of faith for the individual. Other times individuals were successful in addressing and correcting issues within the frame work of the state church. Throughout this period of history there was a divide that most people recognized. The division was one of faith/action and state acceptance. A person could be accepted or rejected by "the church" based on conforming to the official doctrine.
If an individual "sinned" they could be kicked out of the church. In some cases this involved serious social consequences. A person who had been "read off" at mass might suddenly find his line of credit suspended at the bakers. A person charged with engaging in some form of official heresy might loss trading privileges or access to local markets.
When Henry VIII King of England decided to dump his wife and the church refused to let him, he decided to dump the church. This caused Englishmen of conscience more than a little anxiety as they had to chose a side, and they knew full and well following their faith might cause their downfall.
In the US today things aren't that tense. People can pick and choose a church with about as much thought as they select which fast food drive thru to visit afterwards. If you don't like Church A, Church B is right around the corner. People church hop all the time.
What do you do when a Church decides that things that scripture declares an "abomination" that will cause the unrepentant participants to go to hell are now "Christian" and "Holy"? Of course you can leave and hop over to another church with teaching more to your liking. What do you call the group you just left? Are they still "Christian"?
Christian denominations haven't always gotten along and accepted each other. There has always been a bit of distance. Some of that is preference based and some is theological based. While we haven't always agreed to worship together we have generally agreed who is and who is not a Christian. Thus Jehovah's Whiteness, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and despite the name, Christian Scientists have been regarded as "not Christian" while most of the rest, despite large differences in doctrine are.
Now that the Presbyterian Church has embraced the example of the Episcopalians they will slide further into irrelevance. The question becomes should we officially recognize that they are no longer following the Bible?
FWIW I blame Calvinism, Biblical relativism and Feminism, in that order, for the downfall of the Presbyterian Church. The truly sad thing is that this course of action is going to serve to harm the cause of Christ, despite the professed belief that "acceptance" and "tolerance" are somehow "Christian virtues".
NAPALT. Not All Presbyterians are like that.
ReplyDeleteTechnically you and I are presbyterians because we go to churches that are run by elderships.
It's only the PCUSA that did this. There are 13 other presbyterian denominations listed in Wikipedia and a whole plethora of others who have would have a presbyterian polity but not have it in the name.
I have noticed that a number of denominations are splitting down the middle into modern/liberal ear ticklers VS conservative followers of doctrine. Presbyterian isn't the only one doing this recently. I think the other one I noticed IIRC was Methodist.
ReplyDeleteYou are so right about feminism and the rot and corruption it infects a church with. The Mormons are having trouble with a couple of factions right now. It is like these factions think it is ok to ignore parts of the Bible to suit their own particular desires.
I understand your comment about hurting the cause of Christ. But I refuse to allow myself to believe that man or Satan can derail God's ultimate plan. Sure we can throw a bump in the road, but God probably gets a good chuckle when we think we can derail His goals. I just remember what He had to say to Job and his friends when they got too big for their britches. Quite the reality check.
ReplyDeleteYes, I admit it, I am an optimist Res. When it comes to God, I see the glass as 1/2 full, always.
One other thing regarding your comment about man hurting the cause of Christ. I am an optimist by nature and I don't believe that man can truly harm the cause of God/Christ. God probably has a chuckle when He hears man think that they can derail His goals for us.
ReplyDeleteI just remember what He had to say to Job and his friends towards the end of their pity party. Quite the reality check.
Roger,
ReplyDeleteI saw that not everyone in this church agrees with what they did. If you look at the vote numbers there were a good number of dissenters. It's too bad that it wasn't a much greater number. I suspect that there was some serious political activism going on behind the scenes to make the vote come out the way it did.
Susan,
I agree that the over all, grand scheme of things cause of Christ won't be hurt by this. It still saddens me to see it happen. I kid my friends from other denominations about points of doctrine. Overwhelmingly we agree on points of morality. Over the years, I've even decided that some of their churches have a better handle on some things than what I have traditionally believed. For example: The Roman Catholics are right about birth control and abortion. Now I would make some allowances that they would not (on BC, not abortion) but my thinking today is more inline with pre-Vatican II theology.
Theology may change but morality should not.
Sorry about the double comment. Yesterday I when I tried to post the first one, the computer went goofy and gave me an error message.
ReplyDeleteDid you see the news today about how the Pope has excommunicated the mafia?!?!?!? Now if only he would get the courage to excommunicate most of the members of Congress and do something about his wayward priests.
There is no down side to being against the mafia. This pope seems to be very political in his approach to his position. Since I'm not RCC my opinion of what he does doesn't count for much, but I'd be impressed if he'd advocate for a return to traditional Catholicism. At least then he'd be consistent with the teachings he professes.
ReplyDeleteChurches have become arms of the State. Pope Pius XII prophesized that the day the Church becomes like the world will be the end of the Church and I can hear the world clanging in the Church all about me.
ReplyDeleteThis was the last pope before Vatican II was started by his successor.
"Let the dead bury the dead" I don't attend.
I am not RCC either, but I too support a stand for morality. Especially if the Vatican decides to rein in the American wing of the Church.
ReplyDeleteThe political cafeteria Catholics have to be dealt with before this Pope will be accepted by mainstream people. Right now with all the ignoring of traditional doctrine and views, the RCC is nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites IMO.
Dr. Susan Berry has an article about something the liberal wing of the Presbyterian church just voted on that should make your heart just sick.
ReplyDeleteYou have to read it for yourself Res. It is on Breitbart's site and it will probably be the topic of much conversation at your church on Sunday. I truly hope your congregation is conservative, because I can't see you attending a church that approves of letting babies who survive botched abortions die. The article just broke my heart.
Nate was so right in his post. There is a storm coming and it is going to be ugly.