I’m not disputing that the mainline has chosen bona fide liberal (in some cases nearly heretical) leaders. I’m just saying that institutions tend to take on a life of their own, and especially when you are talking about church institutions with local congregations preoccupied with local ministry and issues, it can be hard to establish oversight and keep tabs on what is actually going on at headquarters.Personally, I’m not willing to let Presiding Bishops Hanson, Anderson, and Chilstrom off the hook quite so easily, in terms of the leftward, secularist march of the ELCA in the footsteps of the TEC. That’s not to say that there aren’t truly confessional Lutherans remaining in the ELCA. There are, I know some. And pray for them and all our siblings in the ELCA.
Jon
No argument. Sadly, however, ISTM that the higher in ecclesial hierarchy one travels (in Lutheranism), the more dedicated leaders should be in their confession of the true faith, as revealed in scripture and reflected in the confessions.I’m not disputing that the mainline has chosen bona fide liberal (in some cases nearly heretical) leaders. I’m just saying that institutions tend to take on a life of their own, and especially when you are talking about church institutions with local congregations preoccupied with local ministry and issues, it can be hard to establish oversight and keep tabs on what is actually going on at headquarters.
Correct. But it went far deeper than that as the movement was (essentially) hijacked by Dispensationalism, which was gaining ground in popularity due to the Schofield Bible. “Theological modernism” widened beyond what conservative Protestants could all come together on and actually created more inward division.A lot of it has roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of the early 20th century (especially for Presbyterians). At that time, the mainline churches embraced theological modernism and the Fundamentalists left the mainline. So then you get Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism being theologically conservative, while the mainline becomes theologically liberal.
Are you saying that conservative Protestants were divided by things such as dispensationalism and thus could not be a united front against modernism? Yeah, I can understand that.Correct. But it went far deeper than that as the movement was (essentially) hijacked by Dispensationalism, which was gaining ground in popularity due to the Schofield Bible. “Theological modernism” widened beyond what conservative Protestants could all come together on and actually created more inward division.
A good book detailing that time period is “In Pursuit of Purity” put out by (oddly enough) Bob Jones University Press.
It would appear so. At least that is what I see as the historical result. Although traditional Reformed theology is making a comeback, It was not so in the early days of fundamentalism. Conservative Presbyterians went thier separate ways from the second largest group represented at that time: the Baptists. For decades theological conservatism was almost psonymous with dispensationalism. Reformed theology was looked at as being outdated, and in some cases, the cause of modernism.Are we still talking about the liberal mainline? I was under the impression that liberal churches like Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Presbyterians were not really big on dispensationalism.
Or are you saying that conservative Protestants were divided by things such as dispensationalism and thus could not be a united front against modernism?
Actually the United Church of Christ first ordained women in 1853.I believe it was in the 1970s that the first women pastors showed up in the United Church of Christ, and this denomination was also the first to ordain openly homosexual men to the pastorate and proudly announce it to the public media.
OTOH, these older mainline churches began extensive social gospel outreach.
Or people who stuck it out in the mainline Protestant churches back in the 1970s and 1980s are now finally realizing that their churches are lost in liberal and even heretical theology, and so these families are breaking ties and becoming Catholic, where the teachings are still conservative (theologically) and orthodox.
I personally do not think that a church can be theologically-liberal and still be called “Christian.” This group may do many good things in the community, and be a beacon of hope to the poor, the sick, the disenfranchised, etc.–but it’s not Christian!
While all that may be well and good, there are leaders and ministers in the mainline churches who have denied the deity of Christ or the doctrine of the Trinity or other important measures of Christian orthodoxy as expressed in the ecumenical creeds or the historic confessions of their own churches. And it is not that some individuals have held heterodox positions. It is that they have been tolerated by the mainline churches. In many cases, heretics have risen and been allowed to remain in places of high honor and much influence. I’m not claiming that everyone in the mainline church believes heresy. What I am saying is that there is a fundamental problem with liberal or modernist theology that leaves churches that embrace it incapable or unwilling to confront heresy when it hits them in the face.Actually the United Church of Christ first ordained women in 1853.
ucc.org/about-us/old-firsts.html
I agree about outreach. One of the best outreach programs I’ve seen in Christian circles is at an Episcopal church. It is a very small church. The bldg indoors and out is very modest, plain, not at all fancy, and due to structural damage to the sanctuary, for yrs they have worshiped every Sunday sitting on chairs in a church hall without a communion rail. And while I see some other churches running thrift type shops, this one, with the help of other congregations in the area, provides a food pantry, meals, and clothing free of charge. They live the Gospel of Jesus Christ as found in Matt 25 where Christ said to serve the hungry, those in need of clothing, the homeless. And the female priest always keeps clothing in her office because she explained to me the homeless know they can always come in whenever she is in.
It always amazes me when people on CAF call or judge others to be heretics. Yes they may be heretical to you but I don’t suspect those Christians referred to as heretics here believe in their faith that they are heretics. And indeed some Christians become Catholic and others leave the practice of the Catholic faith. In fact I know of a United Church of Christ pastor who was raised Catholic,an Episcopal priest who was formerly a Roman Catholic priest, and the Episcopal priest who keeps clothing in her office for the homeless was baptized in a Catholic church.
Christians you refer to can indeed be called Christians when they profess Christ. The Episcopal priest at the church with the outreach shared a beautiful story with me. She said a man had quit attending due to Bishop Robinson being gay. 8 yrs ago he approached her upon her arrival at the the church about this. She explained to the man she had no problem with it. He was offended and dismayed until she asked him this: Did he believe in 1 God and in Jesus? When he said yes, she told him well so does so she. And just because they may disagree on homosexuality, did not mean they could not be part of the same worshiping family. And the man has been in church there weekly ever since.
The United Church of Christ even has Christ in its name.
God’s blessings to you in your faith walk. Peace.
A very interesting observation about how these divisions came about. I’ve certainly seen the same thing in my area.OTOH, these older mainline churches began extensive social gospel outreach. Many of the churches were located in downtown (urban) areas, and so were in a prime position to start up food pantries, soup kitchens, thrift shops, free clinics, after-school care, low-cost pre-schools and day cares, etc. Many good people, especially wealthy people, were attracted to these churches because of their work among the poor, although for the most part, these theologically-liberal churches lost hundreds of members beginning in the 1970s.
Another interesting point. The liberal groups are more accepting of diverse theological opinions. And in that way they can be more of a united force.IMO, if the dispensationalists had not been given the high platform they were given at that time, Protestant denominations could have given a strong blow to the modernism. But without a united front, modernism grew stronger.
One of those “if only” moments in history.
Surely some people are heretics. So the question is what is the standard and how do we know it. Different people have different opinions on what constitutes orthodoxy. But not everyone is right because they simply can’t be. For anyone who has an opinion on orthodoxy those who differ are heretics. It shouldn’t be an insult unless you think they are right about what is orthodoxy.It always amazes me when people on CAF call or judge others to be heretics. Yes they may be heretical to you but I don’t suspect those Christians referred to as heretics here believe in their faith that they are heretics.
I think it is easier do define what heresy is when a particular tradition subscribes to certain creeds and confessions. Many mainline churches have long histories of knowing what they believe and why they believe it. It’s only been a relatively recent issue of people being able to flaunt creeds and confessions and just believe whatever they want. When mainline churches lost their will to enforce their theological convictions, that is when the mainline churches ceased to have doctrinal integrity.Surely some people are heretics. So the question is what is the standard and how do we know it. Different people have different opinions on what constitutes orthodoxy. But not everyone is right because they simply can’t be. For anyone who has an opinion on orthodoxy those who differ are heretics. It shouldn’t be an insult unless you think they are right about what is orthodoxy.
Of course not everyone is right on every detail, dotted “i” & crossed “t”. As far as I know maybe no one is right on everything. There is a huge difference in believing we know and truly knowing with certainty. If we knew with 100% certainty and faith could be proven, it would no longer be called faith and everyone would be the same faith. That’s just not reality though. Or if those of the Jewish faith, for instance, are right, then none of us Christians are right. Indeed I’ve been called a heretic but such judging does nothing for me other than to drive me further from the faith of those passing such judgment… In any case while I am far beyond being insulted by their opinions, I myself though shall continue not to call someone a heretic if they differ. As I’ll leave it between them and God and for God to know and judge and understand hearts and minds. God bless and peace. .But not everyone is right because they simply can’t be. For anyone who has an opinion on orthodoxy those who differ are heretics. It shouldn’t be an insult unless you think they are right about what is orthodoxy.
I’d say so when I see Christ’s words in Matt 25 where He says if they serve the hungry and those in need of clothing, they serve Him and are righteous and shall obtain eternal life.While all that may be well and good…
The problem is that even non-Christians can do that. People of other religions can do that. Atheists can do that. You cannot take one verse out of context. “No one comes to the Father but by me” said Jesus. To deny who Jesus is, or to tolerate people in your midst who do deny that but should know better, is a gross failing of Protestant churches.I’d say so when I see Christ’s words in Matt 25 where He says if they serve the hungry and those in need of clothing, they serve Him and are righteous and shall obtain eternal life.
Jesus also said, “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold”. And not to judge. So it’s not a problem for me. I’ll just leave it to Him to know and understand the hearts and minds of others who are not in line with someone’s else’s view of what is orthodox, or what is called a church, or even who could not be saved. His blessings and peace be with you. .The problem is that even non-Christians can do that. People of other religions can do that. Atheists can do that. You cannot take one verse out of context. “No one comes to the Father but by me” said Jesus. To deny who Jesus is, or to tolerate people in your midst who do deny that but should know better, is a gross failing of Protestant churches.
If we want to throw out everything we don’t like about being Christian, then I suppose we can do that but its nothing that can be called a church. If all we do is to offer social services and we conflate the “Reign of God” with achieving the UN Millennium Development Goals then we don’t need to be religious for that.
Jesus also talked about wolves in sheep’s clothing and weeds that grow among wheat. In the end, they will grow together, and Jesus will sort it all out. It’s unfortunate, however, that the weeds seem to be choking out the life of every church that has embraced the “Jesus is my community organizer” model of “ministry” and “evangelism.” It is unfortunate that many of them are in positions of authority in many Protestant churches that they are able to tell people that sin is not sin and that God has blessed what he has in fact condemned.Jesus also said, “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold”. And not to judge. So it’s not a problem for me. I’ll just leave it to Him to know and understand the hearts and minds of others who are not in line with someone’s else’s view of what is orthodox, or what is called a church, or even who could not be saved. His blessings and peace be with you. .
My church has no bias but it is my impression that the bible points more towards the middle ground.It is my impression that certain Protestant denominations have become over time associated with conservative political ideology (Southern Baptist, for example, although Bill Moyers has denied that, Presbyterianism, and Pentecostal), whereas other denominations have conformed to liberal political ideology, such as Methodism, Quakerism (if viewed as Protestant), and Episcopalian, although the latter has been and is currently divided. (I’m not sure where Lutheranism fits.) How did this link originate: from the religion and its leader, or elsewhere?
We could debate this until His Kingdom come. But being nice to everyone and welcoming doesn’t seem so bad when one considers Jesus spoke of the Golden Rule and told us loving our neighbor was quite a big thing and how in Jn 6:37 He welcomed all who came to Him. I suspect we shall have to await in faith til He comes again and sorts it all out for us. Who’s right. Who’s wrong. What truly matters and is most important. I myself actually won’t be too surprised if we both are so blessed to obtain the eternal life we seek with Him, and I pray we are, if we see others in heaven who might not have agreed with us on this earth about every dotted “i” and crossed “t”. In the meantime God blessings to you in your faith walk and peace be with you always.Mainline Protestants are not willing to enforce orthodoxy (whether orthodoxy in the sense of some ecumenical consensus or more narrowly the orthodoxy of their own theological traditions) or any standard of Christian behavior beyond “be nice to everyone” and “welcome” and “affirm” everyone.
But Jesus didn’t come to be nice to everyone. He came to love them, which is not always the same thing as being nice to them and letting them do whatever they want and letting them think whatever they want. Loving them is telling them the truth. And while we may not agree on every dotted I, we should all be able to agree that the Gospel is more than feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and affirming the dominant culture of the time period that we happen to live in.We could debate this until His Kingdom come. But being nice to everyone and welcoming doesn’t seem so bad when one considers Jesus spoke of the Golden Rule and told us loving our neighbor was quite a big thing and how in Jn 6:37 He welcomed all who came to Him. I suspect we shall have to await in faith til He comes again and sorts it all out for us. Who’s right. Who’s wrong. What truly matters and is most important. I myself actually won’t be too surprised if we both are so blessed to obtain the eternal life we seek with Him, and I pray we are, if we see others in heaven who might not have agreed with us on this earth about every dotted “i” and crossed “t”. In the meantime God blessings to you in your faith walk and peace be with you always.
Amen. Because Jesus came to conquer sin.But Jesus didn’t come to be nice to everyone. He came to love them, which is not always the same thing as being nice to them and letting them do whatever they want and letting them think whatever they want. Loving them is telling them the truth. And while we may not agree on every dotted I, we should all be able to agree that the Gospel is more than feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and affirming the dominant culture of the time period that we happen to live in.
And Jesus did welcome everyone. His ministry was directed towards the “sinners” as opposed to the religious people of his day. But if you actually look at Jesus’ ministry, he did not affirm the sin of the people he ministered to. When he saved the prostitute from being stoned, it wasn’t so that she could go on being a prostitute unmolested. It was because the people who were condemning her were no better or righteous than she was. He was the only one qualified to condemn her but he didn’t. He did not condemn her, but he told her to “go and sin no more.” The people Jesus encountered did not stay the way they were. They were forever transformed by his love and his teaching.
People somehow think that welcoming sinners somehow means that we cannot condemn sin. That to call sin what it is–sin–is somehow contrary to love. No, the opposite is true. By confronting sin and those who commit it (whatever it may be), we give opportunity for people to discover the one who can cleanse them of all unrighteousness, the one who will not condemn them but lift them up from the dust and say “I do not condemn you. Go and sin no more.”
By ignoring this work of Christ, we are failing to present the Gospel in its fullness and its power. We are failing to feed people that eternal nourishment. Much of the church world has become like that spoken of by Paul in 2 Timothy 3:5, “having a form of godliness but denying its power.”
Blessings to you as well.