Do you think Protestants should not leave their denomination and rather change it from within?

[JonNC]

=JRKH;9407217]With all due love and respect Jon…I find this a bit difficult to incorporate seriously…I know you are sincere, but still…

First, you wish to say that others are heterodox - that is that they have accepted, “opinions or doctrines at variance with an official or orthodox position” (wiki), and yet Lutheranism itself is founded upon just such a foundation.

Hi James,
I’m not convnced that this is the fact of our foundation.

Second - you say that you don’t “agree to disagree” but where were the early councils among reformers to resolve these matters? Where are the councils anywhere in the last 500 years among reformers and various protestant sects designed to embrace and enforce the instruction and example of the NT “Church” authority to rule on doctrinal disagreement?

Lutherans accept the early councils. I would contend that it is what happened subsequent to them that the Lutheran reformers complained about. I think the better phrasing of your second question is, where are the Lutheran councils to prevent the swerving from our own doctrines by some who claim to be Lutheran - women’s ordination and the like.

Just so you do not think I am being hi-handed in this, I fully recognize the role of the “bull-headed” elements of the RC leadership (as well as various political aspects) in the initial protestant separation (I will not say break) from Rome.
But - I find it difficult to swallow that those who claim most fiercely to believe and follow the Bible failed, so quickly and so permanently, among themselves to submit to the obvious instructions and example of the NT in such matters…In fact - denying, in many protestant, communions that the clear instructions mean what they clearly DO mean.

Perhaps an example, my friend.

The historical result has been, not a “reform” of the Church by Luther and others, but a splintering of the attempt at reform -The rejection of Rome as authority did not result in the establishment of a new common, councilior “Church” authority, but rather a general rejection of authority and a willingness of groups to go their own way.
This is the 600 pd gorilla in the protestant house that no one seems to want to talk about.

Well, I can’t speak for other communions, but the Lutheran confessions speak to our issue with the authority of the Bishop of Rome. And I would say that this, even beyond and before the Reformation, is the 600 pd gorilla in the room. IOW, what exactly does Nicea canon 6 mean?

Jon you know me and that I mean no disrespect to you - I hold you in high regard and so I know you will not be offended by what I have written here.

And the regard is equally mutual.

I also know that Lutheranism, at least the Lutheranism that you hold to, recognizes the need for church authority and submission to that authority. Yet that belief - by your communion - cannot prevent you from "agreeing to disagree with other communions, because the underlying rejection of universal Church authority prevents your communion from doing anything else…

Of course, the question is what is the universal Church authority? But beyond that, our confessions clearly confess a desire to remian within that authority, and as a result, we contend that, “…in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.”
On this basis, and the reality of what the confessions teach, we have no choice but to not agree to disagree, when it comes to doctrine.

Peace

And also with you, my friend.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I look at the example of the ALCC and pray that the LC-MS will also walk this path if God so wills.

I wish there was an ALCC parish near by to explore.

Jon

 

[MasterAsia]

Lutheran would contend that our confessions are consistent with scripture, and within the one true catholic and apostolic faith.

That is a declaration of belief, surely you called yourself a Lutheran first. Your claim to be within the one true Catholic and Apostolic faith is merely as good as my objection.

What ever it is, you are still Protestant, and that is all that matters in this discussion.

If he wishes to remain - I’m Lutheran, so I am speaking from that POV - a Lutheran, he is bound to seek the council of his pastor, who is bound to teach Lutheran doctrine.

Not confront, but seek council.

I read the thread as to mean if the communion itself is swerving from its confessional beliefs.

This does not hold. The premise of the thread is - there is a matter of high-importance that causes an intent to leave a denomination, but asks whether there is value in staying.

The thread starter is an Anglican, he personally asks that question; but the Anglican communion has already answered it for him. What causes an intent to leave a belief? Surely it is not something about a problem of whether to choose between rubber or leather shoes. It is something so sacrosanct that it threatens to extinguish the value of staying.

You only present something that is accommodating for you. Reality will present contrary forces, expect that “he wishes to correct” not “if he wishes to remain”. The weight of the matter is likely “reformation” not “membership”.

Like bacteria. Again, polemics. To my knowledge, there are virtually no branches off of Lutheranism. Most of the branches of protestantism (the problem with this term is the [false] assumption that protestantism was/is a singular monolith.

I never said Protestantism was a singular monolith but it can be said that Protestantism is singular against the Church.

That being said, if there was a monolith, it is the Church established by Jesus Christ. Just ask yourself why Calvin, Zwingli and others, did not fully subscribe to the Father of Protestantism’s teachings when they were practically neighbors in the same era. They were one in the Reformation (courtesy of Luther), but disagreements “developed” later.

In this respect, it can be said that there is a problem with the false assumption that Protestantism did not start with one “reforming” belief.

While there are disagreements within Lutheranism, few are in terms of doctrine, other than perhaps who should serve as ordained clergy.

And here, the confessions and scriture, along with the historic Church, are on the side of the LCMS - men only. For us, however, the confessions, as a right reflection of scripture, make the determination.

There you said it yourself there are “disagreements, a few in terms of doctrine.” Doctrines!?

In the Philippines alone, I think there are three Lutheran groups (please correct me if I am wrong). So why are there many Lutheran offshoots now? Luther started only with one movement.

As for agree to disagree, not hardly.

So you have this “communion” and yet there are differences… Some of those differences are about doctrine… Don’t tell me that you keep grudges while eating together. LOL

The Calvinists are heterodox in their TULIP, and in their expression of the Lord’s Supper. The Baptists are wrong regarding Baptism.

Thank you for pointing out how wrong these other Protestants are.

Funny thing is Lutheranism is just one of the Protestant beliefs. Even if you are correct in pointing out there is this policy of communion among Lutherans. What is there to stop one “Luther” from organizing a Lutheran group outside of your communion? Sorry, none at all, plus there are tens of thousands of other Protestant denominations to choose from.

 

[benjohnson]

You guys are opposing the need to follow Jesus to what you take to be a merely sentimental attachment. For me, at least, it’s a whole lot more than that.

Yes! If my post about “leaving the good old people” was especially maudlin that it only conveyed of a sentimental attachment, then that was my fault.

I have a Lutheran duty to my family and my fellow Lutherans to help them (and myself) become right with God as they have helped me. I also have tremendous obligation to the Lutheran school that my son attends - the majority of the pupils are not christian, and it’s tremendous opportunity to being people closer to Christ.

If by staying in the Lutheran church, I know with certainty I can help one pupil come to Christ. I maintain that I would be “burying my talent” if I abandoned my duty.

 

[JonNC]

Hi JRKH. Your thinking here is not unusual – if anything, those of us who have “been around a few times”, as it were, will likely get feelings of deja vu.

Certainly, you and I consider Lutheranism to be hetrodox. But is it really surprising that Lutherans don’t consider themselves to be heterodox (and in fact consider us to be so)?

And yet, Peter, for this Lutheran, less and less so. For example, the topic of unfused v. imputed righteousness aside, I see more and more our differences on soteriology to be more a matter of semantics - define justification and sanctification - than a matter of “faith alone” and “faith and works”. I don’t hear anything in what good Catholics here as remotely approaching work righteousness.

Jon

 

[Stilldreamn]

Yes! If my post about “leaving the good old people” was especially maudlin that it only conveyed of a sentimental attachment, then that was my fault.

I have a Lutheran duty to my family and my fellow Lutherans to help them (and myself) become right with God as they have helped me. I also have tremendous obligation to the Lutheran school that my son attends - the majority of the pupils are not christian, and it’s tremendous opportunity to being people closer to Christ.

If by staying in the Lutheran church, I know with certainty I can help one pupil come to Christ. I maintain that I would be “burying my talent” if I abandoned my duty.

By staying, we have the opportunity to share Christ’s love even as we have experienced it here, and to possibly mitigate damage from old prejudices and fears. By leaving we may ignite those fears and inadvertently damage their faith. My Grandma would call that an attitude of “every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost” and I’m just not ready to do that.

It is His will that we be one, and it would do us well to prepare ourselves and those around us as we are able.

 

[benjohnson]

A wonderfully written post. And something that can confront all who seek after truth…

While reading this I couldn’t help flashing on Jesus words…" He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;" (Mt 10:37)…And I began substituting “cantor” and “organist” and “acolytes”.

You are right to point that out. It does give me pause.

I would only counter that my attachment is not just to the people, bot for the body of my church, and in that body I see a faith stronger than my own. I still have much to learn from these Christ loving people, and I hope in due time, I will have much to share. It is in that way that I think I can attempt to repay in some small measure the grace that God has given me.

You rightly ask, how would could tell them that their communion is not valid…And in truth, the only answer to that question is - you must be convinced of this truth yourself such that you believe that NOT telling them is doing the greater harm.
This is not to denounce the graces that they receive in their fellowship. Indeed we know that Jesus is present for He tells us, “* where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Mt 18:20)* Yet - if one is truly convinced - truly convicted - in their belief that the Catholic Church is the one true Church…one must act on that belief…

Now - how that works in relation to the theme of this thread would be - can/should one “stay” in their protestant denomination and promote closer ties with the Catholic Church? Or should they - indeed must they come out of that denomination into the Catholic Church…

As a practical matter, I think that my church could be redeemed easier than I could be redeemed as an individual. I do seek union with the Catholic church, not as equals, but I would also like us to be able to contribute things that make our church so effective.

I hope the above does not offend…Just the thoughts I had upon reading your very fine post.

Peace
James

James, your loving concern would never give me offense. In fact, it gives me joy.

Peace to you as well!

 

[benjohnson]

That is a declaration of belief, surely you called yourself a Lutheran first.

Luther would be appalled that there are churches labeled with his name. It’s a label of convenience in this messy world. We are attempting to be followers of Christ first.

 

[Contarini]

What is the basis of the sin, beyond your own judgment? Is Benedictine stability a positive command? I can understand it being difficult, or even heartbreaking in a sense–but sinful?

Not intrinsically evil, I think–there are circumstances under which it might be justified.

Venially sinful, perhaps. Tending to decrease rather than increase charity.

In other words, the heroic “break” for which proselytes call under the name of conversion strikes me at least, personally, as a call away from and not toward following Jesus, in spite of the prooftexts that can be brought on the other side.

I think that we have to be careful taking passages addressed to a culture where family was a powerful instrument of social control, and applying them too glibly to a culture where individual self-assertion is often held up as the ultimate good.

That being said, I think that in my 20s I did exactly come under the condemnation of those passages. I let my family’s pressure warp my own judgment that God was calling me into the Catholic Church, and I’ve paid for it spiritually. I needed to find a way to affirm my love for my family while also refusing to let them define what God could or could not say to me. I didn’t do a very good job of that.

So I’m not denying that we need to worry about loving family or other attachments more than Jesus. What I’m saying is that the tug to remain in relationship with either one’s family or the members of one’s current community is, I think, a virtuous one that moves us toward, not away from taking up our cross and following Jesus. One can do that without letting family or other attachments take the place of our ultimate loyalty to Jesus, which I think is what those “hard passages” in the Gospels are talking about.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I quite understand what you’re saying, the Orthodox are lacking in the communion-with-the-Pope department. But what do you say to Orthodox who claim that, at some point in history, the Pope ceased to be the first-ranking bishop?

Well, they’re working from the assumption that the Papacy is just a matter of ecclesiastical custom.

I’m pretty convinced by the claim of the Roman Communion that Jesus did establish a “Petrine ministry”–that the Church is fundamentally about communion, and that the Petrine succession is a charism given to the Church to preserve the personal nature of ecclesial communion (God help me, I’m speaking Vatican-speak–also I used communion three times in that long sentence).

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

=MasterAsia;9408023]That is a declaration of belief, surely you called yourself a Lutheran first. Your claim to be within the one true Catholic and Apostolic faith is merely as good as my objection.

and some Catholics here list themselves as “Roman Catholic” Does that mean they are Roman first? Of course not. Both names - Roman Catholic and Lutheran - have as origins slurs from opponents. When we confess the creeds, confess ourselves within the One Holy Apostolic Church.

What ever it is, you are still Protestant, and that is all that matters in this discussion.

whatever, if it makes it easier for you in dialogue.

This does not hold. The premise of the thread is - there is a matter of high-importance that causes an intent to leave a denomination, but asks whether there is value in staying.

The current and previous popes seem to encourage corporate recinciliation, so I guess there is a value in it.

The thread starter is an Anglican, he personally asks that question; but the Anglican communion has already answered it for him. What causes an intent to leave a belief? Surely it is not something about a problem of whether to choose between rubber or leather shoes. It is something so sacrosanct that it threatens to extinguish the value of staying.

agreed.

I never said Protestantism was a singular monolith but it can be said that Protestantism is singular against the Church.

You are welcome to that narrow view. That doesn’t seem to be what I’m hearing from your Church, however.

That being said, if there was a monolith, it is the Church established by Jesus Christ. Just ask yourself why Calvin, Zwingli and others, did not fully subscribe to the Father of Protestantism’s teachings when they were practically neighbors in the same era. They were one in the Reformation (courtesy of Luther), but disagreements “developed” later.

Uh, no. Calvin was later (25 years younger than Luther), the anabaptists’ rootsd are completely different, and Zwingli was never “with” Luther.

In this respect, it can be said that there is a problem with the false assumption that Protestantism did not start with one “reforming” belief.

There wasn’t one.

In the Philippines alone, I think there are three Lutheran groups (please correct me if I am wrong). So why are there many Lutheran offshoots now? Luther started only with one movement.

Lutheranism has never been hierarchical in the sense that Catholicism is.

So you have this “communion” and yet there are differences… Some of those differences are about doctrine… Don’t tell me that you keep grudges while eating together. LOL

Of course not. Brats and beer have a calming effect.

Funny thing is Lutheranism is just one of the Protestant beliefs. Even if you are correct in pointing out there is this policy of communion among Lutherans. What is there to stop one “Luther” from organizing a Lutheran group outside of your communion? Sorry, none at all, plus there are tens of thousands of other Protestant denominations to choose from.

Oh, you mean like the Old Catholics, or PNCC, or SSPX? Please, we are all faced with division, and its terrible effects on Christ’s Church.

Perhaps, if the thought had not occured to you, that efforts at unity at not advanced by name-calling (sola-persona), but by prayer and charitable dialogue. I look forward to the latter happening between us.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

For clarification I’m just agreeing that sentimental attachment would cause any decent person to take pause. Whether we should ignore that emotion or instinct depends on what our duty is. Our highest duty is of course to God but because of God’s nature we also have a duty to our fellow man which includes leading them to truth at all times and in all places. If it is a sin to leave our current protestant church out of duty to the institution then it was a sin for our ancestors to leave the Catholic church. Therefore I would have a hard time seeing we would have any duty to something born of sin.

I disagree. I have no duty whatever to Anglicanism or to the Episcopal Church. I have a duty to a concrete community of baptized Christians who gather for worship and try to practice Christian fellowship with each other. That community was not “born of sin,” though of course it is marred by sin like all communities.

I am a resident of the United States. We all agree, I imagine, that we have some duty to the lawful government. But my lawful government was born out of a rebellion against the lawful government, the Kingdom of Britain.

It seems to me that your analogy works against your argument. There is a community of persons *now *to whom you owe allegiance (again, I can speak more clearly about this on a local level), no matter how messy the history behind them.

We know that Christ told us that his mother and brethren were those who did God’s will. We also know that He told us that if the people will not listen we should shake the dust off of our feet and move on. It would seem to me the question then might be when to shake the dust off of our feet?

Well, the shaking dust off was about evangelism and not about leaving one’s community.

Of course, Jesus did talk about leaving one’s community and family. And as I said in my post just above this one, I think I failed in this regard in my 20s. However, I failed in part because I was, ironically, trying not to be like my family in certain ways (I’d rather not say more about that here, except that I come from a radical Holiness background that took those words about loving Jesus more than anything else really seriously, in ways that were sometimes cruel and arrogant).

I think I’ve failed again in the past six years. I kept saying I couldn’t become Catholic because I might lose my job and I had a duty to feed my family. Well, now I’ve lost my job anyway (budget cuts at my institution) and my wife and I are going to have to get along as adjuncts for a while, it seems.

So I know what it is like to draw back from the radical call to follow Jesus. Cutting ties with fellow believers, though, doesn’t seem to me to be an act of following Jesus at all.I need to find a different way, somehow.

Edwin

 

[adf417]

The only way I could convert to Catholicism, living where I live now, would be to go on participating in some way in the parish I currently belong to. To do otherwise would not just be perfectly difficult–I believe it would be sinful.

At the same time, you are right that I need to witness to the folks in my parish regarding the need for a fuller union with the Church, and the highly imperfect nature of our union with the Church at the moment. I’ve tried to do this, as much as is appropriate. But there’s a limit to what words can do. I taught a lengthy adult ed series about the concept of the “Catholic Church” throughout history, emphasizing how important early Christians saw unity and orthodoxy, and trying to shake up some of their assumptions about the history of Anglicanism. (As my wife says, though, I nuance everything to death, so I don’t think the message got through very well because of my efforts to be fair. My discussion of the English Reformation could have been done by a staunch Protestant–my intention was to show how decidedly Protestant early Anglicanism was, and my agenda was to unsettle the causal quasi-Anglo-Catholicism of many folks in the parish–but as a good church historian I was as fair and sympathetic to the Reformation as I could be, and in this I may have succeeded too well!) Folks in my parish know that I’m very “pro-Roman” in their terms, and they smile tolerantly at me.

Edwin

Sir Edwin,

I have always enjoyed your posts and have nothing but respect for you. You are special.:yeah_me:

This post is absolutely inspiring to all of us and drives directly to the OP in a way only the “good thief” can demonstrate. As a Catholic I can’t see how this sort of ministering could not be more important to the unity of Christ than anything I could possibly accomplish on this side of the fence. Your understanding and compassion goes way beyond the needs of yourself and I’m sure it will be recognized where it matters most.

I hope and pray we all can take this as an example of Christ’s love.

Peace and many blessings to you sir!!!

 

[benjohnson]

I wonder if a multitude of imperfect churches can bring more people to God than any singular but perfect church could? For example, one of my coworkers is Baptist, and I’m almost certain that for him and his disposition, the fire-in-the-belly church is not an alternate to the One True Church, but is an alternate to atheism/secularism. If his flawed Church didn’t exist, there’s a good chance he wouldn’t be Christian.

There is no easy answer in this question I’m afraid.

 

[AbideWithMe]

In other words, the heroic “break” for which proselytes call under the name of conversion strikes me at least, personally, as a call away from and not toward following Jesus, in spite of the prooftexts that can be brought on the other side.

I think that we have to be careful taking passages addressed to a culture where family was a powerful instrument of social control, and applying them too glibly to a culture where individual self-assertion is often held up as the ultimate good.

I agree with this.

There are times when Jesus needs to speak these seemingly harsh words to those who are succumbing to unhealthy familial attachments. But, those kinds of family relationships are less all-controlling these days, especially in the US, and for most of us the more mature, sacrificial, charitable thing to do is to make every effort to honor our current relationships.

I’m not condemning “conversions”. I’m just saying that I think those “division” sayings of Jesus are incorrectly used to sometimes encourage immature behavior that causes unnecessary painful repercussions to innocent parties.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Difficult, no doubt. But I imagine there are lots of sweet little old ladies in all the various faiths and religions. Does their kindness or sincerity mean that their theology is correct or irrelevant? Have we come back around to the tired idea that it doesn’t really matter what you believe as long as you’re nice about it? Consider what the first Christians must have gone through personally as they “broke” from their Jewish heritage!

“Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
Luke 12:51-53

The consequences of pursuing the Truth are part of our cross to bear. We shouldn’t be mean and nasty about it: we can be appreciative of everything we learned and loved from our previous communions while understanding that God has something perfect in mind, planned from the beginning, and better for all of us, including the nice little old ladies in our midst.

But, Always Curious, the first Jewish Christians made every effort to stay within the Jewish community until they were kicked out.

 

[AlwaysCurious]

Not intrinsically evil, I think–there are circumstances under which it might be justified.

Venially sinful, perhaps. Tending to decrease rather than increase charity.

In other words, the heroic “break” for which proselytes call under the name of conversion strikes me at least, personally, as a call away from and not toward following Jesus, in spite of the prooftexts that can be brought on the other side.

I think that we have to be careful taking passages addressed to a culture where family was a powerful instrument of social control, and applying them too glibly to a culture where individual self-assertion is often held up as the ultimate good.

That being said, I think that in my 20s I did exactly come under the condemnation of those passages. I let my family’s pressure warp my own judgment that God was calling me into the Catholic Church, and I’ve paid for it spiritually. I needed to find a way to affirm my love for my family while also refusing to let them define what God could or could not say to me. I didn’t do a very good job of that.

So I’m not denying that we need to worry about loving family or other attachments more than Jesus. What I’m saying is that the tug to remain in relationship with either one’s family or the members of one’s current community is, I think, a virtuous one that moves us toward, not away from taking up our cross and following Jesus. One can do that without letting family or other attachments take the place of our ultimate loyalty to Jesus, which I think is what those “hard passages” in the Gospels are talking about.

Edwin

Fair enough. Thank you for a candid response.

I think it’s easy for me, particularly as an idealistic bachelor, to see the heroic side of “drop everything and follow Christ, even if your family doesn’t get it and maybe never will.” I see my failure, personally, as not really being courageous enough to explain it to them in depth.

Then again, I left a community of UNbaptized believers (Quakers). Not sure how much of a difference that would make in your paradigm, but they do consider themselves evangelical Christians and do a much better job of living out Christian values than many baptized people. But frankly, I would be thrilled out of my mind if they would all just get baptized, even if they never came any closer to Catholicism than that.

But still, it seems to me that charity and truth have to go together…if I’m willing to compromise or ignore one then I won’t really be conveying the other.

I’ve seen a couple of posts where folks note the good they could do by remaining in their current communions; but it’s a double edged sword. The gifts you share with one group of people could just as well be shared with another…and the good we can envision doing in our current surroundings may pale in comparison with the even greater good that God could work through us if we moved on.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I wonder if a multitude of imperfect churches can bring more people to God than any singular but perfect church could? For example, one of my coworkers is Baptist, and I’m almost certain that for him and his disposition, the fire-in-the-belly church is not an alternate to the One True Church, but is an alternate to atheism/secularism. If his flawed Church didn’t exist, there’s a good chance he wouldn’t be Christian.

There is no easy answer in this question I’m afraid.

I wonder about this, too.

I’m uneasy when I see Catholics try to undermine Protestant churches in order to promote Catholicism, as opposed to simply promoting the beauty of Catholicism without ripping at Protestant churches. For some people, if they become confused and doubtful of their own Protestant church by these undermining efforts, I fear they will leave Christianity altogether instead of becoming Catholic as the apologists hope.

 

[AlwaysCurious]

I wonder about this, too.

I’m uneasy when I see Catholics try to undermine Protestant churches in order to promote Catholicism, as opposed to simply promoting the beauty of Catholicism without ripping at Protestant churches. For some people, if they become confused and doubtful of their own Protestant church by these undermining efforts, I fear they will leave Christianity altogether instead of becoming Catholic as the apologists hope.

Point taken.

Personally I thought of my own conversion like a romance (and continue to do so). I like trying to demonstrate the beauty of the Church’s witness to people when I have the chance. But it can be very easy to fall headlong into the sniping or the nagging, especially online :doh2:

 

[AbideWithMe]

Point taken.

Personally I thought of my own conversion like a romance (and continue to do so). I like trying to demonstrate the beauty of the Church’s witness to people when I have the chance. But it can be very easy to fall headlong into the sniping or the nagging, especially online :doh2:

Yeah, I know about the sniper temptation. It always feels fundamentally, intrinsically diabolical to me though to try to undermine someone else’s faith, even if I perceive their particular faith as flawed or even idiotic. I feel a strong internal check against sneaky or overt attempts to snipe at someone’s faith in even a subtle way…we never can know that if we tear down a person’s “flawed” faith, that they will allow us to replace that faith with what we think is more correct----they may in fact be left with no faith at all.