Thoughts on “Gear” (3)

Posted byChaplainmikePosted inEvangelical Anxieties

No pictures this time. Just a few thoughts to close out the topic.

Evangelicals have no serious arguments to make against the use of “gear.” We’re up to our ears in our own versions of the stuff. We can point out the differences in what we believe is going on, but we’re no innocents. God using matter and the senses works just fine for evangelicals, so get that smirk off your face.

Have you seen how Bibles are marketed in evangelicalism? The covers? The “Favorite preacher” editions? The things we say will happen if you buy the right one?

Have you seen people buying relics from Spurgeon? (Not bones, but publications, pictures, letters.) Have you seen the picture I posted from the Lifeway at Southern Seminary selling Calvin bobbleheads and busts of Spurgeon? If they were actually selling “hair from Spurgeon” how do you think that product would move?

Do you have any idea how many evangelicals buy things like WWJD bracelets, Prayer of Jabez trinkets, infinite numbers of t-shirts, pictures of angels, pictures of Jesus, various versions of the cross, manger scenes, all kinds of Biblical art and statuary?

But seriously, when I was a young Christian, I was given Hook’s famous painting of the laughing Jesus. My wall in my classroom has a full print of Rembrandt’s Return of the Prodigal Son.

Someone bought all those “Footprints gear.” And the picture of Jesus carrying the man with the hammer and the nails in his hands? Who bought that?

In my family, old Bibles and relics of Godly ancestors are treasured. My uncle was a revered pastor. I have a Bible, sermon notebooks and a ring he always wore. I have family Bibles from both parents.

Ok, we don’t bow down to these things. Oh wait, what were they doing at the last Promise Keepers meeting I was at? Going down on the floor and bowing in front of a cross.

OK, we don’t interact with images of….Oh wait. Who has all those Passion plays? And who went to see Passion of the Christ 12 times, right there with their Roman Catholic friends.

Ok, we don’t use these things….Oh wait, who came up with prayer clothes and the whole bit about things and people being “anointed?” Who first said “put your hands on the radio/television?”

Well, we don’t go as far…..Oh wait, who has FAN PAGES for their favorite preachers? Who goes across the country just to hear Brother so and so in person? Who can write an ad for a person claiming that God’s Spirit hangs around them like cologne?

We don’t have anything going with the dead…..Oh wait, what are we singing about in all those Gospel songs? Who prints “Daddy’s First Christmas in Heaven” letters in the local paper? Who buys all those books from people claiming to have seen heaven/hell in some near-death experience? And do you have time for some church cemetery stories?

We don’t have pilgrimages….Are we really going to have this conversation? Do you have any water from the Jordan in your desk? Know anyone in Israel now buying stuff?

Can we talk about Judgment House sometime? Can we talk about what goes on at Christian concerts?

Humans are religious. In their religious practices, they endow objects, associations, places, persons and certain sense experiences with meaning. They use these objects, etc. to focus upon God’s presence in the world. All that Catholics/Orthodox do is come out and tell you they believe God mediates his presence through matter. We believe the exact same thing, and can outdo our brothers and sisters in the gear department most days. (I haven’t seen Catholic amusement parks and their bookstores are not quite as numerous as Family Bookstores, Lifeway, etc.)

I’m a new covenant Christian. NONE of this stuff is necessary. It can get out of hand, both in practice and in the money spent on them. But I believe that the New Covenant isn’t the enemy of bread, wine, water, art or a hundred other ways the Spirit uses matter and sense experiences to commune with us.

If you want to point at a string of beads and a cross, see Marian worship and pagan roots, that’s fine. Don’t look too closely into the origins of your Christmas tree or the date for Easter, but that’s fine. I don’t want to pray to Mary or worship her either. I’ve heard and read 30 hours of arguments for the place of Mary in the RCC, I’m not as ignorant as I once was, but the whole supposed post-Gospels career of Mary misses me completely.

But I understand what’s going on with icons, beads, statues and medals. It’s very much what’s going on with your ESV Study Bible, your picture of Calvin, your feelings about your favorite Praise and Worship music and your church’s insistence on an “Altar Call.”

It’s OK with me. Let’s just be honest about it all. The differences matter and we should air them. But evangelicals need to get on the bus to rehab with everyone else.

76 thoughts on “Thoughts on “Gear” (3)”

  1. Pingback: Onward, Forward, Toward...

  2. I’m sure there is a blog or photo gallery of some kind already out there with this stuff. anyone have a link? If not I’m totally going to make one.

    Like

  3. I have one of those Spurgeon busts in my study. When I bend its head back, and push the button inside its neck, a bookshelf slides back to reveal the Batpoles. — Kerry

    HOLY SOMETHINGOROTHER, BATMAN!

    That’s one of the best lines I’ve seen on this thread!

    Like

  4. Very interesting post and quite accurate. I grew up in a very protestant setting (missionary kid). I remember the glow-in-the-dark cross, the sort of cheesy print of Jesus watching over a sailor at the helm on rough seas, and much other gear. Still have crosses, a sketch of Jesus laughing, Sillhouettes of dancers outlined by Hebrew texts from the OT. Didn’t and don’t worship any of it; oddly and by God’s grace, even the cheezy stuff reminded us and redirected our attention to things eternal and to God’s grace.

    I’ve taken some heat over the label gnostic, but many evangelicals do resemble gnostics in their rejection of the place of matter in redemption. They apparently want a matterless heaven and a matterless Kingdom

    I hear you. We left a church once because the pastor started preaching that believers’ physical bodies are not only not saved, but are THE source of all one’s sins and woes; whereas the soul/spirit/mind is somhow redeemed and immune and perfected. There was much confusion about Paul’s use of the term “flesh” and “body”. The pastor was not seminary-trained and really had no knowledge of gnosticism or the fact that he was headed that way, and refused to be reasoned with.

    As C.S. Lewis wrote: God likes matter; He created it.

    Like

  5. I have a green ceramic cross hanging above the fireplace, instantly visible from anyone who comes in the front door. It’s placed there to protect me and my household, and has done so many times.*

    *Because my Mother in Law gave it to us, and if she doesn’t see it, we’ll be in mortal danger.

    Like

  6. iMonk, thanks for the clarification. I am jumpy. I think the full scriptural phrase is “dead in Christ” which, ergo (by Christ’s resurrection), means “alive in Christ.” People who are dead in Christ are still alive. I thought all of Christian theology could still agree on that one (I don’t count JW into Christian theology).

    To concur with GratefulForGraces, show me the Scripture which refers to Jesus as “God.” Not just from God or the Son of God, but just “God.” It does exist, but it is rather obscure. Arians has a field day dismissing it as relevant. I’m just sayin’….

    To all those on the Gregorian calendar, including the Finnish, have a blessed Holy Week.

    Like

  7. Oh, of course. However, the point I was trying to make (perhaps clumsily) is that there is no specific verse saying, “The one God exists in three Persons and one substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which we call the Holy Trinity.”

    Many doctrines developed as time went on, including that of the Trinity and that of praying to/for the dead. And where is it in Scripture that God has to say something more than once for it to be true?

    Anyway, when you publish that book, I’ll add it to my gear! 🙂

    Like

  8. Not a verse with Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all referenced as God?

    Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

    I’ve got several of those. Don’t you?

    Like

  9. John,

    Not all of us use gear overtly. I doubt if most of my co-workers know what I wear 24/7, because they are under my clothes. I never wear a cross to work because I know how flawed I am. I don’t want my screw-ups to reflect back on Christ.

    And as far as the humongous amount of stuff that I have at home, people rarely see it. I’d be more willing to have guests over, but it’s just not done much here. (Or at least in the groups I run around with. I got some very negative reactions, just mentioning doing some RCIA classes not at the parish.)

    Like

  10. [quote]GratefulforGraces:

    I’ll soon be publishing my list of doctrines we all must believe based on single verses in Maccabees. :-)[/quote]

    Sweet! Or how about a doctrine like the Trinity that doesn’t have a verse? 🙂

    Peace back atchya,

    GfG

    Like

  11. Here’s the thing – there’s really no reason to bring the Mormon deal into this. If you weren’t getting into similarities, then why bring it up? It tends to mentally lump Catholics together with Mormons, even if unintended. I’m not trying to fight either – just pointing out that saying the name in connection with another name, is good enough to tie two things together in the mind of a reader.

    As for whether things are explicitly commanded or exemplified in Scripture, or rather, whether they need to be or not, is certainly something we disagree on – typically, Catholics and Evanglicals, that is. I’m definitely in your court when it comes to Catholics just needing to stop trying to give an apologia for every little thing we believe or do by citing Scripture verses. That gets a little tangled up. No need for it. Especially when it comes to something like the veneration of the Saints, or asking for their intercession, or praying a rosary in any way whatsoever – none of which are at any kind of dogmatic level such as something like the Trinity or, well, or a lot of things. Do I “have to” pray to any Saint as a Catholic? No. Do I “have to” even pray to Mary? No. Least of all, do I “have to” pray the rosary, or use any “gear” at all? No.

    I’m surprised you grabbed that “pray to Jesus through Mary” line up and used it, Michael. I need to get some new links or something. A lot more, I would guess, is being read into a statement like that than is there. But, do I “have to” use a phrase like that and do that (whatever that means)?? No. Do you “have to” have altar calls, which you mention up there, as an Evangelical Protestant? Is that something explicitly taught or exemplified in Scripture? Probably not. Are they all bad? I don’t think so – depends on what’s going on there – depends on a lot of things, but no, not all bad.

    Shhew, that’s enough of that. That was one of my “can’t hel ma-seff” moments. Hopefully it’s clarifying and not muddying. It’s too late for me to be sittin’ here peckin’ these keys anyway. Peace to you, Michael, and to all a good night. 🙂

    Like

  12. Sarah:

    I was talking about using illustrations to justify practices not explicitly taught in scripture.

    The central tenets of Mormonism aren’t taught in scripture, but any Mormon can explain them to you with perfect clarity based on common illustrations. The RCC has the interaction of scripture and tradition, so I don’t feel it’s wrong on my part to point out to Catholic friends when their illustrations simply rely on “common sense” illustrations. Praying to Jesus through Mary would be a prime example.

    I wasn’t in any way getting into similarities between Mormons and anyone. Only pointing out that Mormons could give many good illustrations for non-Biblical practices.

    peace

    ms

    p.s. Doesn’t scripture refer to the Christian dead as dead? I just taught a unit on eschatology and I recall a lot of references to the dead. They were with God, but they were referred to as dead.

    Like

  13. iMonk, I don’t understand your statement about Mormonism in what you said to AnnF. I’m not trying to pick a fight, I just don’t understand. Maybe I’m just jumpy because of what I’ve read recently about how Christian prayer beads/knots/whatevers are like Buddhist prayers, which then makes the Christian prayer beads no longer Christian, but Buddhist (somehow). But you seem to equate any practice not specifically commanded in Scripture to be akin to the “central tenets of Mormonism.” I guess I’m not sure if you’re talking about the ontology or function. Is the problem doing things not found in Scripture? Or does it have to do with our relationship with “dead” people? When I first read what you said, it seemed that you were saying that asking for the prayerful help of someone you believe to be in perfect communion to God is akin to getting baptized for the salvation of the soul of a person who is dead.

    How and why the practice of asking for the prayers and help of “dead” Christians began in Church history still needs a really good study. All we know is that it began really early, and was apparently noncontroversial. In my opinion, the hang ups Evangelicals have today concerning this issue really doesn’t center around the issue of prayer, but the issue of Evangelicals really weak theology concerning eschatology and the afterlife. AnnF’s friend who called Mary “dead” is only a symptom of a systematic theological problem in Evangelical theology. I’m not actually sure I can put my finger on the root cause of this problem, perhaps it has to do with the individualism soteriology, perhaps it has to do with the de-emphasis on the bodily resurrection (going back to the Gnosticism theme), perhaps the problems are all due to “The Late Great Planet Earth.” But, until escahtologies align, this discussion about prayers to saints will just run in circles.

    Like

  14. GratefulforGraces:

    I’ll soon be publishing my list of doctrines we all must believe based on single verses in Maccabees. 🙂

    Peace

    ms

    Like

  15. I am as guilty as anyone of indulging in Christian consumerism. I never bought the Testamints or paid a cent for the trinkets and other Jesus junk, but maybe that’s because I’m a guy, and we Christian guys buy lots of books and serious monthly periodicals like CCM and Charisma 😉

    Like

  16. Hmm, prayer to the saints exampled in Scripture? I think we can find it in 2 Maccabees.

    Oh. Right.

    Anyway, another great topic, iMonk. This bead-rattler appreciates you more than you know – thanks for facilitating this dialogue.

    Like

  17. Jesus left no instructions to his disciples indicating whether or not Gentile converts to Christianity were required to become subject to Jewish Law about circumsicion either. The early Church had to work that out under the influence of the Holy Spirit, of whom Jesus said, “he will show you all things”.

    Not everything can be discerned by the letter of scripture. Much of it must be discerned by it’s spirit.

    Like

  18. It does make perfect sense.

    If evangelicals object, they won’t object on that level.

    They will object that any number of things that make “perfect sense” aren’t commanded or exampled in scripture. Prayer to the saints would be one of those.

    BTW, what makes “perfect sense” is that third leg of the stool. Which, in my view, needs scripture most of all.

    peace

    ms

    Like

  19. We all ask people we know to pray for us. Asking the saints (the kind who dwell directly in the Divine Presence) to pray for us makes perfect sense to me.

    Like

  20. Patrick:

    I’ve written the ultimate “The Reformation Isn’t What You Think It Is” Post back in the day.

    But I’ll still say it was necessary, though tragically so. If Rome insists that its own evolution can always be explained as “what Christians have always believed” there will always be a reformation impulse. With tears, but necessarily. We lost much when we lost each other (EO, RC and Protestant) but integrity can’t be offered up as the price of unity.

    I sound like a Baptist now, don’t I? 🙂

    Like

  21. Christopher:

    A bad evangelical is still an evangelical for purposes of discussing evangelicals.

    This seems to be a perennial problem. It’s like being in a class on families, and someone keeps saying that an abusive family isn’t a real family.

    ms

    Like

  22. There’s a great book called “Are you Rapture Ready?”, by a Jewish journalist, who explores various aspects of evangelical culture. One of them is a trade fair where Christian-themed “gifts” are marketed. “Gifts” are defined as everything sold by Christian shops that is not a book, CD, or video, but in the trade this merchandise is universally known as “Jesus Junk.” (Diogenes! We found some!)

    Like

  23. austin, the Reformation was about as necessary as the Counter-Reformation, the Inquisitions, or most anything else in Christian history since the beginning: they weren’t necessary, they just happened. They happened because theological men are by and large still as evil and shortsighted and driven by powerlust, politics and suspicion as ever.

    Did fundamental ‘good’ come out of them? I can’t see how, if by ‘good’ we mean emulating Christ, instead of venerating our favorite formulators.

    For proof, just look at how Protestant and Catholic groups alike treated the Jews during the time. Erasmus hated Jews. Luther, too. The Dominicans hated Jews. Everybody hated Jews, actually.

    If the Reformation brought about a change in worship practices, it sure didn’t seem to intend to bring about a change of heart or a new sentiment towards humanity.

    We have to get it out of our collective consciousness that the Reformation was this black-and-white changeover to a new epoch of devotion. Mythologizing ‘How Corrupt the Roman Catholics Were’ against the supposedly snow-white piety of the Reformers has got to stop – no, theology notwithstanding, these were a lot of angry people whipped into a religious and political frenzy and ready to throw stones at each other, and perfectly content to ignore the systematic oppression of people they BOTH didn’t care about while they got on with their power struggle.

    Sound familiar?

    Lets put this pernicious rewrite of history to bed.

    Like

  25. Just to be clear, I’m not defining “evangelical” as Reformed– there are many solid, Bible-believing evangelicals who are not Reformed (Norm Geisler, Ravi Zacharias, etc.).

    Like

  26. Michael,

    I’m also using the definition of “evangelical” by the book. However, do Osteen and the other prosperity preachers truly talk about Biblical conversion, evangelism, and missions in their “sermons”? If so, I haven’t heard it. The near-total lack of such emphases from their preaching and teaching would seem to exclude them from the “by the book,” historic definition of evangelical.

    Like

  27. AnnF:

    There are many good evangelical books on Mary that Catholics would find 90% useful. We all aren’t minimalists. But we do have that sola scriptura (not soli) thing.

    peace

    ms

    Like

  28. Christopher Lake:

    You’re deciding that you will define the word in the “true only” sense.

    By that method, there are almost no evangelicals left.

    I’m doing it by the book: Bible, Jesus as Savior, Conversion, evangelism, moral consequences, missions.

    They may be bad evangelicals, but they are all evangelicals.

    If you appoint yourself the custodian of these terms, then no one can talk about them other than you. This happened a lot with the “Coming evangelical Collapse” thing. People kept writing me about the “true” church. Which was, of course, theirs and very few others.

    An open discussion has to use a common definition. I can’t allow special definitions unless I want to take responsibility.

    Osteen portrays himself as an evangelical. That church is there because his daddy was an evangelical. Now he’s a motivational speaker, but he’s a motivational speaker within evangelicalism. I don’t buy his stuff, but I have to deal with him where he is on the map,

    ms

    Like

  29. Michael,

    Does the historic meaning of “evangelical” play any part in how you use the word? When you write about troubling aspects of contemporary evangelicalism, and you mention prosperity preachers, I can’t help but think that this is *not* historic evangelical Christianity.

    Carl F.H. Henry was an evangelical. Joel Osteen is not an evangelical. From what I can tell, the only way that the word can be stretched to include Osteen is to make it a matter of pure self-definition, divorced from any historical meaning.

    Like

  30. I think ‘gear’ makes up for our spiritual lives especially for those in the evangelical church. The more gear you display the more spiritual you seem to be. This is the mantra that I always feel from those who have this trinkets. I find it funny because many times the character gets exposed quickly. Then I hear the ‘I am not perfect’ excuse. I have told christians that it isn’t about being perfect but about being mature.

    ‘gear’ isn’t it just too funny to see all of the gear out there? More often than not I think the non christian crowd laughs at it. They only know what it means from the attitude at actions that they see the person wearing them has. Now that is a testimony isn’t it?

    Like

  31. Austin, I think a lot of Catholics, including bishops, would agree that the Reformation was necessary. There were abuses, there were poorly formed priests and bishops, and misuse of authority. On-going conversion is generally seen as a requiremnt of individuals and the church.

    Like

  32. Yes. I know very well that I need to back up with scripture anything I say when talking to my Evangelical friends. I spent a couple of years in weekly lunchtime bible study with them at my old job.

    There just isn’t any to back up this point, and I know there’s no use in saying any more about it. I hate derailed threads, so sorry if I did that.

    However, I did want to say that I left out that this friend’s response to me was, “But she’s dead.” That’s when I learned that there’s no use in trying to explain it.

    Like

  33. AnnF:

    Thanks for coming over and I am glad you are enjoying the thread.

    Let me give you a bit of insight into evangelicals.

    When we talk to Catholics about Mary, we get illustrations like the one you gave above. (Martha is the best at these! I love you Martha.)

    These illustrations don’t work for us at all. We need to see a verse in the Bible telling us to pray to Mary or showing us someone who does. Short of that, many of us are just going to be waving at all of you on the “praying to _____________ (anyone but God) bus.”

    We usually understand the illustration very well, but we’re puzzled as to why this kind of reasoning- which could be applied to the central tenets of Mormonism, for example- is so appealing to our Catholic friends, and the absence of direct commands or examples in scripture doesn’t seem to be particularly important.

    That, of course, opens the whole scripture and tradition box, which we all know very well.

    But just a response as an evangelical to the use of “She’s Jesus’ Mom!” arguments.

    peace and thanks again,

    ms

    Like

  34. IMonk: Thank you so much for such a great thread. You can thank Amy Welborn for directing some of us here.

    As an RC, I have some gear, but not nearly as much as I would like. My first is the rosary my mother gave me about 39 years ago on the occasion of my first communion. She was a convert who married my Catholic father back in 1946. She was raised more or less baptist, but she said the first time she went to mass with my dad was the first time she felt like she went to church. She didn’t go to mass much in later years, but she raised seven kids in the church, and one of them turned out to be a missionary priest.

    I don’t use my rosary as often as I should. Most of my prayer is not as focused as I would like–though it is constant. I don’t use it to worship Mary. I use it to focus my prayers, meditate on the life of Christ, and ask for her to pray with me.

    I once tried to explain Mary to an evangelical friend in this way: If you had a favorite pastor that everyone adored, and his mother was involved in his ministry, and she was also just the nicest Christian lady, wouldn’t you feel there was something special about her? If you needed extra prayers for some reason, wouldn’t she be one of the first people you would ask? Wouldn’t you miss her more than others when she was gone?

    I have other icons, may of which are copies of masters’ depictions of the Annunciation. Again, I like these for their beauty and to remind me to always strive to do God’s will–to do what He asks of us.

    In one of the earlier comments on this topic, Austin asked about our thoughts on the depiction of the Catholic church in films. The DaVinci code was a bunch of lies that contained kernels of facts that made it all look like the truth. Yes, such and such a church DOES exist in Rome. Yes, DaVinci did paint the Last Supper. The rest is utter fabrication. Horrible.

    In films where the Catholic Church is called in to fight true evil, like the Exorcist, I always chuckle and think, “Well, does this mean they had to bring in the big guns?” Is it like calling in the Army Rangers or the Marines or something? It feels that way sometimes.

    Mostly, I am dismayed in general how the Catholic church and Christians in general (Yes, we are Christians) can be depicted so horribly and it’s OK with everyone. Often, if you said the same things about muslims or jews, there would be an outcry. It’s OK to bash Christians.

    Again, great thread! Thanks so much.

    Like

  36. Some of us are just waiting for the re-instatement of the sedia gestatoria and the flabellae 😉

    Like

  37. What’s beautiful about some of our “stuff” is that 2 weeks out of every year we cover it all up! (see: veiling) 🙂

    Like

  38. Austin:

    The Reformation was necessary.

    And that’s as true for evangelicals as for Catholics.

    I was not making any claim that Rome has the reformation Gospel.

    I will claim that Rome has held on to many things- that you can hear in any mass- that an increasing number of evangelicals are throwing away.

    peace

    ms

    Like

  40. I worked in a Christian bookstore for 6 years. It was part of a conference center. And as Morgan mentioned in an above post, it’s all about the gear.

    For every book we sold, we’d sell 3 or 4 times ‘stuff’ other than books. And whenever a new edition of the Bible showed up, they’d stock maybe a case or two. I found it amazing the different Bibles for different needs. A long way from when I was a kid: a black leather KJV was all you needed.

    Like

  41. I have one of those Spurgeon busts in my study. When I bend its head back, and push the button inside its neck, a bookshelf slides back to reveal the Batpoles.

    Like

  42. Was the reformation neccessary? Or were Luther, Calvin, and the group just uninformed? Maybe not sensitive enough to seeing their Catholic neighbors accurately?

    Reading some of these posts makes one wonder.

    Like

  43. D. L. Kane wrote:

    Very clever post and I would have to agree with most. However (in just one very critical respect) you are mixing apples with oranges. I strongly doubt any are praying to Calvin as “co-redemtrix and mediator”, or view Spurgeon as the “depenser of all graces”.

    Interesting – kind of says to me non-Catholics and non-EO can have gear because they know how to keep gear in perspective (they won’t make that slip and start praying to ’em like idols or consider them magic)…. you need to spend a bit more time around Catholics and EO to really understand since you may have missed the point made over and over again on thios blog.

    Like

  45. … and the copy of the original Geneva Bible on the coffee table.. or the genuine rams horn from Israel that you can use to “blow” the blessings down…… and the rows upon rows of Banner of Truth reprints of the Puritans on the book shelf…

    Family heirlooms I can understand, but what kind of heirlooms do I really want to leave to my descendents?

    Peace…

    Like

  47. Bill Bryant: Slam dunk. Exactly.

    I’ve taken some heat over the label gnostic, but many evangelicals do resemble gnostics in their rejection of the place of matter in redemption. They apparently want a matterless heaven and a matterless Kingdom. Jesus will not cooperate with that.

    Like

  48. I’ve thought all the same things myself. But when you say it, it sounds brilliant! I really likes the thing about the water form the Jordan. Excellent post.

    Like

  49. The Incarnation of Christ forever settles whether the physical world can have anything to do with our salvation. It was the Gnostics, not the apostles, who rejected the importance of a physically embodied faith. I’m no fan of ceramic trinkets depicting Jesus playing football, or of salvation being available only to those who attend an approved ritual in an approved temple, but I’m not sure the apostles would think we’ve made a good move by reducing the Lord’s supper to a once-a-month tiny sip of Welch’s washing down a tiny nibble, or totally disconnecting baptism from conversion by deliberately postponing it after a new believer comes to faith.

    I find it fascinating that evangelicals on the one hand are almost Gnostic about baptism and the Lord’s supper while on the the other hand give almost sacramental significance to bibles, church buildings, pastor’s offices, pastors, etc.

    Like

  50. Holy fish stickers Batman !
    Has anyone been in a Christian “book” store lately ?
    Sheesh. Talk about gear. They are Gear Stores with a few popular books sprinkled in.

    Like

  51. DL:

    Perhaps not. Or perhaps, like those who insist that beads on string = Mary worship, you imply too much.

    I freely admit that some traditions use their gear in ways Protestants SAY and Confess that they don’t.

    But my experience with Protestants tells me otherwise. I didn’t even mention how they feel about the buildings they worship in.

    But we can disagree.

    peace

    ms

    Like

  52. Austin:

    Your last on the list comment seems inaccurate to me for two reasons:

    1) Mainline liberals ministers often deny the essentials of the Gospel. At what Catholic church would one hear the incarnation denied as I did one Christmas Eve at a PCUSA church? Where would one hear the atonement denied? RCC or Mainline liberal? Know any Spongs in the RCC?

    Read B16 on Jesus or the RC Catechism and tell me that’s not way up the list from the morass of mainline liberalism.

    2) Evangelicals make the Gospel clear? Uh…some do thank God. And many, many, many do not. Legalism and Moralism? Christless sermons? Joel Osteen and the Prosperity pimps. C’mon Austin.

    Do the best of the evangelicals articulate the Gospel clearer than the RCC? I think so, but that’s an ever smaller slice of the evangelical pie.

    Where would your lost friend hear EVERY WEEK three long scripture lessons, a confessional prayer, the Nicene Creed and the invitation to cast themselves on the mercy of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice?

    Maybe 5 churches out of a hundred within an hour of me.

    Or the RCC any week.

    They get some things wrong, but last place? Can’t agree less.

    peace

    ms

    Like

  53. Regarding Rick Cruse’s comments “if the bible says its ok or if it doesn’t forbid it’. I think that is a wierd interpetion of Christianity. May I suggest the read of CS Lewis’ ” Mere Christianity”.

    Also to Austin: the Gospel is read during RC Mass and Orthodox worship which is more than I can say for Evangelical worship. By the way I am none of the above.

    Like

  54. Desiring to “provoke the presence of God” and striving to be reconciled to God, through the use of gear, are two very different things.

    It certainly is – what nutty person around here is trying to get God to justify/save them because of their use of “gear”? hmm? Where are you guys at? Am I supposed to look in the mirror for that answer? Classic, classic misconstrual.

    I think the summary is this. Protestant, and baptist, representation of the gospel is much cleare(r) and concise than in Roman Catholic churches.

    Of course it is (knocks self in head) – durrrrr, what was I thinking? Last on the list, of course. Good Lord. That mess is tired. Seriously, even if you believe that, why is it necessary to say it here, in this setting? Is that what we’re talking about?

    Sorry, Michael, just every now and then, you know – POW! (shakes head).

    Like

  55. A few years ago, I became offended at my wife for putting a small porcelin angel in front of a picture of her family (her parents and siblings). She said, “The angel is watching over them.” I was so annoyed, and also embarrassed about what my Christian friends would think if they saw it.

    And when I prayed about it, all I know is that I had peace. God is watching over her family, including her and me as well. If she uses an angel statuette, placed in front of a family picture, to symbolize that, or to depict the reality of something unseen, who am I to argue that it’s wrong?

    What really helped was reading the later chapters of the book of Romans. After that I had the realization, “Just shut up. Who are you to judge her? Why can’t you just love her as she is?” And I also realized that I had my own “porcelin angels,” namely historical sermons and writings that I revere, and classical music (like Bach and Handel) that transports me into another world. We’re all human, and I think God is not angry if something material brings us closer to Himself.

    Like

  56. austin, you’re being too harsh. I’d name the Catholics before the Eastern Orthodox. 😉

    Like

  57. I think the summary is this. Protestant, and baptist, representation of the gospel is much clearer and concise than in Roman Catholic churches.

    We can all agree that we all have “gear” and such be it daddy’s favorite bible, or grandma’s pressed flowers from her casket spread, but the truth is that if a stranger came to me and said point me to the church where I can most clearly hear the gospel and I had to make a list the local Catholic church would be last on the list.

    Like

  59. imonk,

    This was the line that provoked my comment.

    “But I understand what’s going on with icons, beads, statues and medals. It’s very much what’s going on with your ESV Study Bible”.

    Desiring to “provoke the presence of God” and striving to be reconciled to God, through the use of gear, are two very different things.

    Perhaps you do not completely understand what is going on with icons, beads, statues and medals.

    DL

    Like

  60. Oyarsa:

    Quite true. The reformers attitudes toward Mary would hardly fit in with current Calvinism, etc. Proof the Reformers could be wrong 🙂

    ms

    Like

  61. D.L Kane:

    I completely agree. Where have I ever suggested people do a specific act of worship to Calvin?

    I’m talking about the use of matter to invoke the presence/power of God.

    peace

    ms

    Like

  62. Great post. I recently left a fundamental Bile Institute (emphasis on the mental), and saw the same level of veneration given to a hymn book.

    Like

  63. There are two b.r.o.a.d approaches to the Christian life….
    1. It’s wrong unless the Bible says it’s right.
    2. It’s right unless the Bible says it’s wrong.
    (All things are okay but not all are beneficial; all things are okay, but I will not be a slave to anything.)

    True, Calvin is not seen as “co-redemptrix,” but Calvin-ism comes pretty close (as does other -isms).

    Like

  64. D.L.Kane,

    read the man’s post again. He is not defending Catholic mariology. He’s just talking about “gear”. It’s obvious that the specific meanings gear is invested with are different for people from different backgrounds, and it’s o.k. to disagree and be critical of these meanings.

    As the man said, “I don’t want to pray to Mary or worship her either. … The differences matter and we should air them.”

    Like

  65. Catholic Christian here welcoming you all on board the rehab bus. It’s a bumpy trip so glad to have some company. Now, where is my St. Christopher’s metal?

    Like

  66. “Just a word of caution when attemting to make a very good point. There was a reason for the reformation.”

    Indeed there was. But the veneration of Mary (however troublesome) was certainly not that reason.

    Like

  69. No evangelism gear? I suppose I’ll go flip through my Jack Chick 1st editions all by myself. 😀

    Like

  70. Very clever post and I would have to agree with most. However (in just one very critical respect) you are mixing apples with oranges. I strongly doubt any are praying to Calvin as “co-redemtrix and mediator”, or view Spurgeon as the “depenser of all graces”.

    Just a word of caution when attemting to make a very good point. There was a reason for the reformation.

    Like

  72. Kat – If you want to do some minty-fresh stealth-evangelism, you can put some Testamints in an empty Altoids mini tin. You can freshen their breath, but at the same time bless their soul without them even knowing. Sneaky.

    Like

Leave a comment