Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scardinoz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Postings by O. S. Luke well illustrates the ‘big tent’ that Methodism provides for its constiuency. He is a ‘high church’ Methodist who focuses on liturgy and sacramentalism. My Catholic and Baptist grandparents became evangelical Methodists when they came to the USA from Quebec (few church choices in small town) and certainly were not into liturgy or sacramentalism. The pastor, in my childhood church did not wear a robe, for example. That church, incidentally, was largely former Catholics, many of them my relatives who also had come from Quebec, in part because French-speaking Protestants faced considerable prejudice there. (That is no longer true. Now traditional Catholics likely confront more prejudice in Quebec than its small Protestant minority because of an amazing backlash prevailing against Catholicism.)
Code:
 Now, a good example of 'big tent' Christianity is the World Council of Churches. It includes Calvinists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Wesleyans, even some Pentecostalists, many of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, and a variety of other traditions. The fact that they have different views when it comes to theology or liturgy doesn't keep them from respecting the other traditions and working together. Now, are all those groups relativists, as Roman Catholic seems to maintain?

  In any case, Christ would have us live in mutual respect and Christian love. I leave the whole judging process up to God. Probably all of us are in for a big surprise or two. My sense is that all of us are speaking more out of ignorance than understanding. But God is gracious and merciful, and we can thank Him for that! 

  God bless the whole world - no exceptions!
 
If I may interject for Roman_Catholic, finding that paper trail is actually easier than falling off of a chair. Numerous quotes abound from the earliest Christians and other Church Fathers regarding their beliefs in the real presence. It really isn’t difficult to find that sort of material gathered together in either book form or online somewhere.

ChadS
Chad,

I’m typing this in the kindest most respectful keyboard voice that I’m capable of. I have read the citations in the CCC to the fathers. Any fool can do this. I have taken this way beyond that simple step and actually studied the fathers in detail. This was no simple task. None of the Ante-Nicine Fathers have any record of anything close to what the doctrine looks like today. That leaves a gap of over 300 years, actually more but I’m allowing you the benefit of the doubt, a favor I do not expect to see returned. Even J.N.D. Kelly basically admits there is a gap. If you can fill that gap Chad, your a better historian than me as I’ve been looking for the answer for quite a few years. I have read stacks of source material.

Again, if it were that importaint, that central to the faith, it would be all over the early Church Fathers.

I’m going to allow you the last word on this as I know when I’m on a fools mission.

Take care,
Jon
 
Chad,

I’m typing this in the kindest most respectful keyboard voice that I’m capable of. I have read the citations in the CCC to the fathers. Any fool can do this. I have taken this way beyond that simple step and actually studied the fathers in detail. This was no simple task. None of the Ante-Nicine Fathers have any record of anything close to what the doctrine looks like today. That leaves a gap of over 300 years, actually more but I’m allowing you the benefit of the doubt, a favor I do not expect to see returned. Even J.N.D. Kelly basically admits there is a gap. If you can fill that gap Chad, your a better historian than me as I’ve been looking for the answer for quite a few years. I have read stacks of source material.

Again, if it were that importaint, that central to the faith, it would be all over the early Church Fathers.

I’m going to allow you the last word on this as I know when I’m on a fools mission.

Take care,
Jon
Why does the doctrine have to look exactly the way it does today? If you are searching for the same precise theological language used in the Catechism and at the Council of Trent, then of course you won’t find. However the Church has always understood that doctrines, rooted in Sacred Tradition can and do evolve as issues are struggled with and language is clarified and becomes sharper and more focussed.

You claim that the doctrine doesn’t first emerge until the 1st Council of Nicea. Does that mean there are no roots for this understanding prior to then, they made it out of whole cloth?

You mentioned J.N.D. Kelly as stating there is a 300 year gap in the history of the Eucharist.

In his "Early Christian Doctrines he writes:
Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood.
He also discusses St. Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus, writing that:
Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity.
Let’s not forget that Ignatius was writing ca. 110 AD, that’s within about 10 years of the death of St. John and many Christians taught by the Apostles or the Apostles students would still be around to set Ignatius straight if he was doing something wrong.

I’m sorry if my initial post offended you, which was not my intention, but when I think of the Church Fathers and their teachings on the Eucharist the things written by people like Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, the Didache, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian all come to mind. These writers certainly active and writing in the first three centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection.

ChadS
 
Postings by O. S. Luke well illustrates the ‘big tent’ that Methodism provides for its constiuency. He is a ‘high church’ Methodist who focuses on liturgy and sacramentalism.
I am hardly a “high church” Methodist. The congregation I serve is primarily involved in mission and evangelism, building/remodeling home structures for the needy, and ministering and educating the unchurched children (and hopefully their parents) in our community. Liturgy and sacraments are essential tools to the faith, but not ends to themselves. Liturgy is, literally, the work of the people -in and out of worship - and the sacraments are the essential means of grace for the Christian community.

That’s not high church. That’s essential church: making disciples of Jesus Christ.
 
I am hardly a “high church” Methodist. The congregation I serve is primarily involved in mission and evangelism, building/remodeling home structures for the needy, and ministering and educating the unchurched children (and hopefully their parents) in our community. Liturgy and sacraments are essential tools to the faith, but not ends to themselves. Liturgy is, literally, the work of the people -in and out of worship - and the sacraments are the essential means of grace for the Christian community.

That’s not high church. That’s essential church: making disciples of Jesus Christ.
It is really no use O.S. Luke. You have to be a “high church” Methodist because if you’re not and you believe that Christ is truly present through the elements of the bread and wine (like your church teaches) then that throws the posters premise all out of whack. “It is not the normal everyday Methodist church goers who believe this it is those high church, Order of St. Luke fundamentalists who believe that.” or something along those lines 😃

You Methodist fundamentalists are always causing trouble.

God bless
 
I didn’t intend to demean you or your church, OSLuke. You doubtless are a dedicated Christian pastor and I salute that.
Code:
However, from your postings you obviously have a different perspective on theology, liturgy and the sacraments than most Methodists I know. True, I have met a couple other OSL members along the way, though they seem to be very rare in these parts. 

 My point in citing you is that the two of us represent quite different persceptions of what is critical to Christianity. We both are Methodists. I may take issue with your position but I have no problem having a broad-based church, with room for everyone from fundamentalists (I've met many of those, some in my family), evangelicals (I actually am one of these in one sense), liberals and hyper-liberals (Spong-style). Methodism rarely (if ever) has had heresy trials, which many other denominations have gone through. Our traditional focus on Christian experience has been one key factor in promoting a reluctance to judge one another when it comes to the fine points of theology. 

  I take issue with what I understand to be the goals of OSL within Methodism, but there are a variety of special interest groups pushing for this or that, and I value that as freedom of expression among us. It does not frighten or disturb me, even when I may disagree. For example, in this area a strong church lobby favors the ordination of practicing gays and lesbians. I do not. But that lobby includes some close friends who make a strong case for their view even as I take issue with them. I treasure this type of freedom. 

  God bless you and the whole world - no exceptions.
 
Hello again Jon,

I at least expected to see some attempts at quoting some Church Fathers to try and support the notion that the belief came much earlier. I really didn’t expect it to be conceded that Zwingli was the first so easily.

God bless
One (though not the major) reasons Luther could not give up or concede to Zwingli the real presence is because there is virtually no support from the ECF’s for symbolic rememberance.

Jon
 
One (though not the major) reasons Luther could not give up or concede to Zwingli the real presence is because there is virtually no support from the ECF’s for symbolic rememberance.

Jon
And I concure with Luther. I just didn’t think lack of ECF support would stop some from trying to use them to support their belief. I mean there are those (in the ‘real absence’ camp) who take issue with the term (just the term) transubstantiation not being used until 1215 (:confused:) to describe a belief that had been around since the Apostles. Just the emergance of the term Transubstantiation alone still predates the belief of the ‘real absence’ itself by over three centuries.

God bless
 
May God continue to bless the Order of Saint Luke.
And, for the life of me, I cannot believe that Roy could possibly object to ANY of the objectives within the life of rule and service.

The Rule of Life and Service
The Rule of Life and Service of The Order of Saint Luke is a primary means of spiritual formation by which all members covenant to live. Each member vows to abide by this Rule and to indicate their commitment by study, service, gifts and practice.

We affirm the apostolic hope:

With the apostles and the Church through the ages, we affirm Jesus Christ, Sacrament of the presence of God, as the source of our hope. We take our name from St. Luke the Evangelist, and seek to be incorporated into the paschal mystery he proclaims. We pray that we may be formed by the Incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension, gift of the Holy Spirit, and coming again of Jesus Christ. We are sent forth to proclaim and to live the hope that good news brings.

We live for the Church of Jesus Christ:

We believe that the Church is the Body of Christ and we are called to worship, learning, community, and service as members of that Body. We affirm our fidelity to oneness in Christ in the Church truly catholic, truly apostolic, truly evangelical, and truly reformed which supersedes all division by denomination, and which we believe God will gather from a broken Christendom. Our mission includes calling the Church to liturgical and sacramental renewal, and seeking to bring the healing grace of Christ to all Creation.

We seek the sacramental life:

We are called to become aware of God’s presence through eucharistic living. We seek to live out our baptism into Christ’s death and resurrection. We receive with gratitude all that God has given us and offer it up to God. We receive it again from God, transformed to use for the sake of the world. We join the Church though the ages and around the world in recognizing that all time is in God’s hands. As we faithfully pray the Daily Office, and live so as to embody our prayers, we endeavor to live the sacramental life. By so doing, we seek to be formed as a means of grace for all those we meet and serve in Christ’s name.

We promote the corporate worship of the Church:

We believe that the corporate worship of the Church is liturgy — the work of the people on behalf of all creation — which is our response to the revelation of God’s grace. Through our collective memory and our shared hope, the Holy Spirit acts in Word and Sacrament making present to us the saving acts of God and transforming us so that we can be God’s people. Through our worship, we seek the glorification of God and the sanctification of the Church. This worship is offered in the name of the community which claims it as the manifestation of its own identity and mission.

We seek to encourage the Church to worship with vitality and integrity, appropriating the rites and services of the Church, historically and ecumenically grounded, which enable us to worship together in the name of Jesus Christ. We honor the worship traditions of the past and seek to be open to new ways of expressing the heritage of faith they embody in ways that speak to us and for us in the present. We witness to the saving and transforming work of God which renews us in Christ’s Body, the Church, through the continual offering up of our lives to God.

We magnify the sacraments:

We believe that the sacraments are Christ’s gift to the Church. Individually and corporately we are called to lift up these mysteries in the life of the Church as means of grace through which we are formed as Christian disciples.

Through the baptismal covenant, we are incorporated into the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God calls us to live out the redemptive, liberating, justice-seeking ministry of Jesus. We seek to deepen our understanding of the Church, of the significance of the baptismal covenant, and the Eucharist for Christian discipleship and service.

We believe that the Eucharist re-presents the life-gift of Jesus Christ in which the living spirit of Christ is truly present to us, preserving and reforming Christ’s Body, the Church. Frequent celebration of the Eucharist forms us in the sacramental life empowering us to become Christ’s healing presence in the world.

We accept the call to service:

By virtue of our baptism, God calls each us to ministries which are a proclamation of Christ, seeking wholeness for Creation.Through sacramental, prophetic, and pastoral ministries we turn in openness and love to the world. We identify with the whole community of humankind, especially those who live on the margins, and invite people to touch our lives as we touch their. Thus may all know the perfect joy of being reconciled with God. In community with our brothers and sisters, we seek to discern ways in which we are called to serve God in The Order, the Church, and the world.

I know this gets away from the purpose of the original post, but Roy’s distain for OSL drives me nuts!
 
Nowhere in the Rule of Life and Service does it even say you must wear robes, use incense, make the sign of the cross, etc. Even the habit of the order is optional. Looks like OSL would certainly fall into Roy’s “big tent” brand of theology. Why such opposition and concern for the direction OSL is leading the church?
 
Brother Wade
Code:
This is not a place to have a dialogue between two Methodists on the Order of St. Luke. Let me try to justify it because it does involve communion.

 I'm sure I'm influenced by my heritage. My paternal family was Catholic in Quebec and moved to the USA a century ago because when they became Protestant (Baptist) they faced considerable discrimination and ostracism. My wife was Catholic as well but had become alienated before we actually met, mainly because of a couple traumatic experiences in parochial school, but also because she had developed strong reservations in such areas as doctrine and certain church rules and regulations (long story). 

 My main concern re OSL is that it seems to be pushing to make Methodism a confessional church instead of a free church. (I also have been involved in Presbyterian and Congregational churches in different communities where I have lived, so appreciate the free church tradition.) I do not find spiritual nourishment in canned, prayerbook religion where worship is largely borrowed from the past, with pompous and pious and - yes - prissy liturgies. The 'platform' of OSL, as you sent it on, strikes me as trying to do just that. Such religion is deadly, even though now and then a particular priest or minister is charismatic enouigh to bring it to life. Most of the time I find clergy rely on inherited ritual, often as a crutch, instead of using their God-given creative talents, gifts of the Holy Spirit. If I wanted that, I would become an Episcopalian where about anything goes as long as you use the Book of Common Prayer. Or, maybe an ELCA Lutheran. 

 I also feel that the sort of emphasis that OSL places on sacramentalism makes Methodism extremely vulnerable to superstition, and also tends to elevate the clergy. Baptism and communion are important, of course, but they have nothing to do with our salvation, and they easily become a substitute for living our faith. I remember one UMC minister who had been gung-ho on issues of peace and poverty in seminary, who later became so absorbed in the details of liturgy that he all but forgot these other concerns. He also began to think of his role as some sort of chosen mediator between God and man/woman. Doing worship in a 'proper liturgical fashion' became his top priority, What a waste of effort. For example, I don't believe God cares a hoot whether we stand, sit, kneel, or whatever when the gospel is read, but to him that was a crucial issue. And OSL appears to want Methodists to believe in some sort of 'real presence' in the communion elements. There is, of course, the 'real presence' of Christ at every service or worship, actually all times and in all places, but the idea that Christ somehow is more present in a piece or bread or a cup of grapejuice has clearly not been part of our Methodist tradition. An effort has been made to move in that direction, even evident a bit in the ambiguous words of the communion service found in the latest UM hymnal,    

  One of my interests is visiting other churches of various affiliations, and the ones that seem to be meeting the needs of people today are certainly not the liturgical ones but those that have more spontaneity and less ritual. Sadly, many of them are fundamentalist, but I strongly believe that there can be deep spirituality, inspiration, and excitement in mainline churches that avoid the deadening effects of stifling liturgy. Certainly Catholicism has lost its energy in this area, with its attendance at roughly 25%. Methodism can thrive if it provides dynamic worship in the modern idiom without resorting to archaic rituals that interest only a small handful. I have some hesitations about Bob Schuller, but his "Hour of Power" demonstrates how mainline Protestantism can offer the message of faith to millions who want a reasonable and inspiring faith preseented in an exciting manner.

  But probably God cares less about such incidentals as I do. What I want is a relevant church, and to millions the church has become irrelevant, a relic of the past. We need to change that, and it doesn't help when we work to make it a relic of the past. 

  So much more to say, but have gone on too long already. Sorry. God bless you and people of every congregation, creed, color, and country.
 
Brother Wade
My main concern re OSL is that it seems to be pushing to make Methodism a confessional church instead of a free church. (I also have been involved in Presbyterian and Congregational churches in different communities where I have lived, so appreciate the free church tradition.) I do not find spiritual nourishment in canned, prayerbook religion where worship is largely borrowed from the past, with pompous and pious and - yes - prissy liturgies. The ‘platform’ of OSL, as you sent it on, strikes me as trying to do just that. Such religion is deadly, even though now and then a particular priest or minister is charismatic enouigh to bring it to life. Most of the time I find clergy rely on inherited ritual, often as a crutch, instead of using their God-given creative talents, gifts of the Holy Spirit. If I wanted that, I would become an Episcopalian where about anything goes as long as you use the Book of Common Prayer. Or, maybe an ELCA Lutheran.
Code:
 I also feel that the sort of emphasis that OSL places on sacramentalism makes Methodism extremely vulnerable to superstition, and also tends to elevate the clergy. Baptism and communion are important, of course, but they have nothing to do with our salvation, and they easily become a substitute for living our faith. I remember one UMC minister who had been gung-ho on issues of peace and poverty in seminary, who later became so absorbed in the details of liturgy that he all but forgot these other concerns. He also began to think of his role as some sort of chosen mediator between God and man/woman. Doing worship in a 'proper liturgical fashion' became his top priority, What a waste of effort. For example, I don't believe God cares a hoot whether we stand, sit, kneel, or whatever when the gospel is read, but to him that was a crucial issue. And OSL appears to want Methodists to believe in some sort of 'real presence' in the communion elements. There is, of course, the 'real presence' of Christ at every service or worship, actually all times and in all places, but the idea that Christ somehow is more present in a piece or bread or a cup of grapejuice has clearly not been part of our Methodist tradition. An effort has been made to move in that direction, even evident a bit in the ambiguous words of the communion service found in the latest UM hymnal,    

  One of my interests is visiting other churches of various affiliations, and the ones that seem to be meeting the needs of people today are certainly not the liturgical ones but those that have more spontaneity and less ritual. Sadly, many of them are fundamentalist, but I strongly believe that there can be deep spirituality, inspiration, and excitement in mainline churches that avoid the deadening effects of stifling liturgy. Certainly Catholicism has lost its energy in this area, with its attendance at roughly 25%. Methodism can thrive if it provides dynamic worship in the modern idiom without resorting to archaic rituals that interest only a small handful. I have some hesitations about Bob Schuller, but his "Hour of Power" demonstrates how mainline Protestantism can offer the message of faith to millions who want a reasonable and inspiring faith preseented in an exciting manner.

  But probably God cares less about such incidentals as I do. What I want is a relevant church, and to millions the church has become irrelevant, a relic of the past. We need to change that, and it doesn't help when we work to make it a relic of the past.
Roy I appreciate much of what you said and in many instances what you said is indeed true. One issue I see is looking at these things as an either/or proposition. You compare and contrast the liturgical churches as being stuffy, unconcerned with the poor and spiritually dead while those congregations with open, more free-flowing and unscripted services as being more alive and vibrant. My point is that it isn’t liturgy or non-liturgy that makes people stuffy or dead or alive and vibrant. It’s the attitude of those attending that make it so and what they bring to their own services.

I have to question you also on why sacramentalism promotes superstition. That seems to me to be an old stand-by attack on why certain things aren’t practiced or done certain ways. A charge like that doesn’t seriously stand up under scrutiny.

ONly 25% of Catholics may attend mass on any Sunday and that is a major problem, but in my experiences the UM churches are hardly filled to the brim either. The mainline Protestant denominations suffer from the same vocations shortages, funding problems and church attendance just like the Catholic church does. My cousin is a UM minister and her first assignment was in 2 city churches, followed by an assignment at 3 rural churches. Every one of those churches was on the verge of closing and being consolidated. The church I grew up in has seen it’s congregation slowly decline over the last 20 years. Typical Sunday’s growing up there would be over a 100-140 people at the Sunday morning service, now a full house consists of maybe 50 if they are lucky. Christmas and Easter used to be standing room only with extra chairs brought in, now no such problem. The issues you identified are not only CAtholic problems but they affect churchs across the denominational spectrum.

ChadS
 
I don’t know what any of your supporting statements had to do with confessional vs. free… Unless you simply mean that using beautiful liturgies (or prissy) means that you’re a confessional church. What’s your position on praying the Lord’s Prayer? Any thoughts about that ancient prayer being “deadly” to the church?

It might surprise you to know that although I prefer a high church environment to help center me in worship, I realize that not ALL people are geared toward beautiful (or prissy) liturgies and prayers. In fact, I am leading along with another church leader a more contemporary alternative type of worship service that uses almost no formal structure. We allow the service to “unfold” as it goes.

As far as Christ’s presence in the elements… You’re right that there has been a movement to assert the recognition of Christ’s presence in Communion. Those crazy Wesley brothers writing about it so eloquently in their hymns and such! I hope the Methodist church can survive their overwhelming influence!

I don’t know how you could have been more wrong about OSL.
 
ChadS and Brother Wade
Code:
I've said my piece, and should drop the subject. Just a couple things. As I stated, I know that some liturgical churches can be exciting and also can take considerable interest in social problems. Certain Catholic churches have excelled in reaching out to the poor, the immigrants, and others on the margins. 

 Now, as for Methodist churches having attendance problems, I'm painfully aware of that (though I think Protestants have a lesser problem with vocations, at least in this area, thanks largely to ordination of women). I believe one reason for the attendance decline is because Methodism has drifted more and more toward 'proper' liturgical, practices (thanks in part to worship professors in seminaries). Meanwhile, evangelical churches around the corner often are booming. We began to squeeze out the Holy Spirit as our concern for altar colors, ancient traditions, and sacramentalism has increased. Sadly, many clergy also began to think of ministry as a profession and/or career more than as a calling.

 The Lord's Prayer was given us by Christ and it is appropriate to include in worship. My concern is that too many pastors have come to rely on pre-prepared prayers (even pre-prepared sermons sometimes), lectionary readings, etc. I used the word 'prissy' because my wife used the word to describe Catholic worship as she knew it - everything had to be done in a precise and formal way every Sunday etc.  Maybe "prim and proper' would have been a better choice of words. Granted, some people like such precise ritual, but I've candidly expressed my view. She used to opine that it likely appealed more to women than men. I recall visiting Latin America and being told by one guide that the church there is seen as mainly for women and children. It would be interesting to study (or read a study on) this subject. 

  Okay, I drop this subject, hopeful that I've annoyed a reader or two enough to lead them to give the topic more reflection. Meanwhile, God bless all churches, creeds, colors, countrymen, and countries.
 
Code:
 If one reads the 25 articles of faith of Methodism (and John Wesley), borrowed from Anglican's 39 articles, you will find a sharp condemnation of transubstantiation  as "repugnant to the plain words of Scripture...and hath given occasion to many superstitions"
That doesn’t further your case. Many Thirty Nine Articles Anglicans believe in the Real Presence. The Romish doctrine of transubstantiation as condemned in those articles is far from the extent of believe in the Real Presence.
 
That doesn’t further your case. Many Thirty Nine Articles Anglicans believe in the Real Presence. The Romish doctrine of transubstantiation as condemned in those articles is far from the extent of believe in the Real Presence.
From an Anglican, Methodist, and Lutheran perspective, “condemning” transubstantiation has nothing to do with belief in the Real Presence at the Eucharist. The Orthodox do not embrace transubstantiation either, but still have a strong belief in the Real Presence.

It’s the Body and Blood of Jesus. Period. No explanation needed… or possible. It’s a mystery. In fact, it is THE Mystery of Faith!
 
Is it true or not true that Catholics are required to accept the theology/disciplines of the magisteriuum and pontiff in all matters of faith and morals?
Yes, we are required to give religious assent to the teachings of Christ. As are you. You are not free to impose your own ideologies and intellectual musings upon yourself but must submit to Christ’s.

What you are free to do, however, is to seek understanding of the theology that’s been given to you.

Freedom is limiting your choices to the one right/true choice.
As I have stated several times, I am a ‘big tent’ Protestant who believes in and even advocates independent and creative thinking, whether or not it reflects tradition and/or the official position of my church.
Is there any place you draw the line? Is* any *Christian creative thinking advocated? What about Christian White Supremacists?

If you are generous in your “big tent” mentality and also include non-Christians…what about Satanists? Are their views allowed to be promoted in your tent?
 
I think most people would understand what a ‘big tent’ Christianity is like. Consider the World Council,of Churches: Anglicans, Calvinists, Lutherans, Wesleyans, Eastern Orthodox bodies, even some Pentecostalists. and much more. That’s a ‘big tent’ - a variety of traditions, both doctrinally and litugically, yet working together in mutual respect.
Code:
The Catholic Church does not belong. I wish it did.

God bless all the churches that seek to serve Christ, and may they find a greater spirit of unity. I'm sure God has no favorites but looks at the hearts of believers rather than at dogmas or rituals.
 
I think most people would understand what a ‘big tent’ Christianity is like. Consider the World Council,of Churches: Anglicans, Calvinists, Lutherans, Wesleyans, Eastern Orthodox bodies, even some Pentecostalists. and much more. That’s a ‘big tent’ - a variety of traditions, both doctrinally and litugically, yet working together in mutual respect.
Code:
The Catholic Church does not belong. I wish it did.

God bless all the churches that seek to serve Christ, and may they find a greater spirit of unity. I'm sure God has no favorites but looks at the hearts of believers rather than at dogmas or rituals.
What criteria must one meet to be in this big tent? I’ve never heard of this system of defining Christianity and have no idea why a Christian white supremacist would not be allowed, esp if you advocate “creative thinking” in this realm. Why would they not be allowed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top