Saturday Ramblings, June 7, 2014

250 thoughts on “Saturday Ramblings, June 7, 2014”

1. Thanks, Numo! You can always check out my splash page, and I’ll be adding a link to my online portfolio to it it soon: http://about.me/mruizmusic

   LikeLike

2. Miguel – congrats on the cantorial studies being wrapped up! Too bad we’re halfway across the country from each other, as I’d love to see (well, hear) what you do with liturgy/music.

   LikeLike

3. Radagast – again, thanks, and m guilty of overgeneralizing, just like anyone else!

   Anyone who lives past a certain age is going to face increasing losses: parents, spouse, siblings and other close relatives, friends, colleagues – even adult children. And much-loved animals, who I honestly think have more worth in God’s eyes than many of us accord to them. But I don’t want to go off on animal rescue, cruelty, hoarding and all the rest. (Though I easily could, since I have a stake in the rescue side.)

   I can’t help wondering if Dr. Fundystan’s comment upthread, re. how he read the pope’s statement at first, doesn’t have a lot of truth in it.

   LikeLike

4. All traditions have differing levels of “flake,” I suppose. It seems that no matter where you draw the lines, somebody is going to try to push past them. ELCA holds to the creeds, yet some of their ministers might challenge a line or two therein. LCMS holds to the entire book of concord, but clearly many of our ministers either don’t understand it, don’t know it, or don’t like it. On the brighter side, keeping the battle at the level has prevented us from having too much debate over more foundational issues like the substance of the creeds. Unless you have a strict, top down episcopacy with an infallible pope, policing the doctrine of a synod has got to be one of the most impossible tasks there is.

   Don’t get me wrong, I think the ELCA is generally a good bunch. I just finished my colloquy to be a commissioned cantor in the LCMS, and if their placement process doesn’t help me out, you’d better believe I’ll be knocking on your door. And the Catholic church.

   LikeLike

5. numo,

   Generalizations don’t take into account all the nuances that cover the particular subject – agreed. I know I get into trouble in this area. And also, when one generalizes, there are folks out there, sometimes struggling, or suffering or maybe just sensitive to the subject and personalize the message, and maybe in this case there are just some folks really attached to their animals. Bottom line is that I understand the backlash, and maybe in this day and age the comments could have been framed more succinctly, but as I have found on many other issues, the deeper meaning of the words bring wisdom.

   I will be living this through others eyes over the coming years, I have a number of kids, my brother and my sister, both married, have none. I’ll let you know what I observe ; )

   LikeLike

6. Easy, not “ready.” Oh, autocorrect!

   LikeLike

7. Fwiw, a friend’s daughter lost her not-quite 3 month old grandson just a few days ago. I cannot even begin to imagine what that kind of loss feels like.

   I’m also seeing the effects of the “bitter loneliness ” of old age in a personal way – in my family, and in my own life.

   See, it might be ready for people to misunderstand or not get what was behind my comments, and even though some Catholic commenters here might not understand why non-Catholics would carefully consider the pope’s words on this and other topics, well… It matters a great deal to those who hear words like these, just as it does when he makes good comments about getting back to the basics of loving and caring for others.

   The entire world reads/hears these words, and often looks to what religious leaders say as a moral compass. To view this as “it wasn’t intended for you” is, at best, shortsighted.

   As for people who would be better off not having kids, I think anyone who has worked in an ER or in the child welfare system could temper the idealized view of family presented in that statement all too easily. Some might not wish to hear it, though.

   Maybe saying “Don’t close your heart to children” is a step in the right direction, though your mileage on that may vary.

   LikeLike

8. Radagast – thanks so much for this thoughtful comment.

   Two things: maybe the pope could have worded things a bit more felicitously than he did – and maybe I could have done the same. My reaction was partly to do with the fact that his statement hit me in ways that hurt, on multiple levels. I am *certain* he didn’t intend to come across in an insensitive manner, and equally sure that he’s heard from Catholics who are hurt and/or troubled by the way he put things. The bit about old age and bitter loneliness is especially painful for me, and, I have no doubt, others as well.

   LikeLike

9. So does the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, in theory, at least…

   LikeLike

10. Miguel, I’d be the last person to deny that there’s flakiness in the ELCA, and yet, I think that’s true of Catholicism and Anglicanism and the Lord alone knows who/where/what all else.

    I don’t know if you’ve ever looked at the ELCA website, but they got the creeds there (including the full text of the Athanasian Creed). It isn’t as if we’ve all jumped overboard, y’know. 😉

    Still, I’m sure you and I differ on one of the big flashpoints *but* I suspect we are in agreement on most of the rest. For myself, I believe what’s stated in both the Apostles and Nicene creeds, and (I guess) with the substance of the Athanasian, though. I find it makes for extremely difficult reading and I will freely admit that I find parts of it hard to understand.

    LikeLike

11. What do you think CELEBRITIES are?

    LikeLike

12. “IN THE GRIMDARK FUTURE, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE WAR!”
    — Warhammer 40K

    LikeLike

13. Numo, I know the seminex story pretty well. And you are dead right about the internal turmoil within the LCMS (as with every denomination) and the regional variations. I’ve seen very few LCMS churches actually tow the party line on closed communion. My own does not, and I can live with that. The LCMS is anything but consistent with its own doctrine. However, it’s doctrine has remained consistent. You have to give them this much: They’ve stuck with their guns on the Book of Concord, and the ELCA has chosen not to. I’ve read surveys that shows as little as a 10% drift on theological and political issues between the laity of the two synods. I’ve seen many ELCA churches that much more resemble what I would consider Lutheran orthodoxy than the average LCMS congregation. At the end of the day, all theology is local, but that doesn’t make official positions superfluous. They have certain amount of influence that varies based on polity structure and leadership. Just as the ELCA is part Lutheran and part generic progressive mainline, the LCMS is, at least culturally if not in their official positions, part Lutheran and part conservative Evangelical. Some days I wonder which is worse. 😛

    LikeLike

14. I have never seen a priest do this, though it seems I have read this from a number of non-Catholics on blog sites who attend Catholic Masses…. I can only assume the Priest knew your brother personally and if that was the case then I am sorry it happened… the Priests I know do not have a sixth sense to be able to tell who is or is not Catholic, just like they can’t tell who is or is not in a state of grace.

    Please remember all – when hammering us Catholics on this issue that the Eastern Orthodox also practice closed communion as well…..

    LikeLike

15. With the right spin on it, it could be Janet Mefferd’s mistake for outing Driscoll’s plagiarism.

    LikeLike

16. I think the Pope’s comments were taken way out of context by folks in general…

    As Catholics – we already understand that in our faith tradition, if we choose the Sacrament of Marriage, we agree to be open to life and are expected to have children if possible. This does not mean at all costs because if a couple cannot have offspring, they are not mandated to use any means available to accomplish this. In fact it is exactly the opposite, and we are to accept what is occurring.

    That does not mean all Catholics agree with the Pope. And as mentioned before he is addressing what seems to be a growing trend among the well educated and socio-economically advantaged…fore-going children altogether for other stimuli. But like everything else in society today, if we group anything we are in trouble. If we give an opinion that does not reflect what the masses want we are labeled at the minimum wrong and at the extreme hateful. Sometimes we just need to reflect on it at face value, if you find it valuable then good, if not, or you find it does not apply then discard it. But these days we are more apt to scream that the orator must repent and change his ways, ok maybe extreme but at the least we get …OFFENDED… as if mere words cause us to fall… and then some times we want an apology from the orator, even if the words did not apply to us….

    My thoughts….

    LikeLike

17. Did you, like, see the new episode of Honey Boo Boo?

    LikeLike

18. I actually think Cloe Dashenelle would have made a good Pepper Potts.

    LikeLike

19. Actually no….

    The Catholic Church encourages vocations as Religious, Married AND Single. It’s just that if your married there is an expectation to go forth and multiply. Pope Francis is addressing a growing trend of DINK’s (dual income no kids) who seem to be embracing materialism over selflessly raising of children, he also groups those substituting pets for companionship. I did not get from this article that he was addressing those who married older, those who could not have children for medical reasons or those whose vocation would cause them not to be able to focus on the raising of children.

    LikeLike

20. Tom, I think the vexatious spirit has left the room. Didn’t like the laughter, I’d guess. Too bad she didn’t realize that it’s just a box of rain…

    LikeLike

21. Ok, doing so now.
    …
    …
    …
    What-the-serious-#$%^?!?

    the microwave cooking for one sounds the saddest but some of those other items are…. uh, wrong. Although I enjoy that the anti-birth control pill whose descriptions are in ALL CAPS is a whopping 648 pages long…

    LikeLike

22. What’s that?

    LikeLike

23. You brought spice to the comment table Daisy! grin

    LikeLike

24. I think you’re on to something.

    LikeLike

25. One thing I have noticed is that if you are never married, and especially never married and have no children, and you are around age 40 and above, to large parts of the church you are invisible, a non-person. I am talking about straight, older singles in conservative churches. A woman is assumed to have something wrong with her – maybe she is really a “feminist” (often a code word for lesbian). A man is assumed to have lived like a playboy or else he is gay.

    I kind of laugh at the hypocrisy in Evangelicalism. I remember the mania over Tim Tebow because he claimed to be a virgin and he was – I don’t know – in his mid twenties I guess. I won’t get into how sick I am of hearing about either how “moral” someone is or else how “gay” someone is. I’m sure many an Evangelical father dreamed of marrying off a daughter to him. He’s a football star and he is “pure” – it doesn’t get better than that in some Evangelical circles. But I thought, what if Tebow had not been a sports star. What if he had been a normal-looking guy who happened to be an engineering major at college or maybe he was a clerk at the drug store or whatever. And he was still a good, “pure” Christian. Obviously he wouldn’t have been a celebrity – fine. But my question is, would those folks who idolized Tebow have been so enthusiastic about an equally “pure” guy who just happened to not have been a sports celebrity?

    LikeLike

26. From one of, if not the MOST pro-abortion, uber-feminist liberal child with a keyboard and a byline??? I trust you are familiar with MIZ Marcotte’s, um, work. especially her Slate articles!

    [And anyone believing that the Pope is equating voluntary childlessness with INFERTILITY is either being untruthful, or has an IQ as high as the polar ice float he has been living on for the last 10 years. They are as similar as a hangnail and pancreatic cancer which has spread to the whole body. Sheesh……this is wrong in so many, many ways….]

    LikeLike

27. EZK said,
    She’s the only one who ever won an argument with Jesus 🙂

    I think that is accurate.

    If memory serves, the only time Jesus said, “This person’s faith astounds me!” was when talking to gentiles, like the Roman guard guy.

    It’s interesting Jesus often seemed frustrated or bummed out by a lack of faith by his fellow Jewish citizens, but found gentiles who had faith, or more faith.

    LikeLike

28. Post Script for Pattie.

    Also, your idea that only young married RC couples are permitted to be offended by the Pope’s comments is strange in that if you apply it to any other topic, you might be able to see more clearly why people who are not RC are offended.

    If the Pope had said that Roman Catholics who are black are weirdos, selfish, and dummies, I would bet that even non-Roman Catholic black people (and whites and other groups) would find that offensive, understandably so…

    Yet you would argue, “If you are a black Southern Baptist, a black Methodist, or a black agnostic, ignore the Pope’s comments, as they are only directed at black Roman Catholics.”

    You cannot or do not see how even black people (in that example) would still be offended, even if the Pope is only talking in context of black RCs??

    Pattie, anytime you hear stories about Independent Fundamentalist Baptists in the news (like the IFB guy who raped a teen, got her pregnant, and the IFB preacher made the victim apologize to the whole church for having been raped!), or when you hear or read about the abuses or rude comments of other groups (such as Southern Baptists, Baptists, Muslims, New Atheists), you tell me you don’t have an opinion of these stories or groups, even though you yourself are not a Baptist, Muslims or New Atheist? Come on.

    LikeLike

29. She’s the only one who ever won an argument with Jesus 🙂

    LikeLike

30. When Driscoll paid to get his marriage book listed on NYT best seller list, was that a mistake, or, was his mistake that fact being found out and publicized?

    LikeLike

31. Doris said
    Why is it disgusting? Because 16 is too young?

    Uh oh, Doris likes to watch that video of Schapp polishing his shaft. I bet she has that video on You Tube bookmarked in her browser. 😆

    LikeLike

32. Suzanne,
    it is a propensity that shows up in Islam too. In some nations that are predominantly Islam, if a woman is raped, her family will stone her to death.

    IIRC, they also have a ridiculous rule in Islam that a woman has to have four or more eye witnesses to testify on her behalf if she claims she was raped.

    Many men never want to be held accountable for their sexual sin, they would prefer all the blame to fall on the woman involved.

    That’s one reason I am not in total agreement with Christian “modesty” teachings, where Christians say that
    1. men are visually oriented, so that
    2. women should dress modestly.

    As far as point 1,
    Women are ALSO visually oriented (I am a woman who enjoys seeing photos of buff, shirtless movie actors, as do many other women),
    and 2.,
    I don’t care how a woman is dressed, even if she is dressed only in a thong bikini, it’s still up to the man to take personal responsibility for his thought life and actions.

    Christians often totally abuse that “lest a brother should stumble” verse to let men totally off the hook on these issues.

    LikeLike

33. The comments section didn’t get awesome until I showed up today and participated. (ha ha, just kidding)

    Doris dragged things down, as did the lady who insists only Roman Catholics have a right to have opinions on views Mr. Pope declares that are reported in the main stream press.

    LikeLike

34. Pattie said

    Pattie says:
    June 7, 2014 at 7:07 pm
    @Numo……your obsession with the RCC and the Holy Father is very, very odd for someone who claims to understand Catholic theology and yet rejects it out of hand. (The current Pope offends you with statements made to his OWN flock….??? )

    I was raised Southern Baptist, am kinda agnostic now, and Pope’s attitude offends me.

    I am a never married virgin lady over 40 yrs of age who had hoped to marry. Most churches of whatever denomination treat women like me like poo poo. And I will call that out regardless of any church or denom that does this

    I do not have to be Roman Catholic to find Mr Pope’s commentary on childlessness to be annoying or offensive.

    I do not like ANY group who judges other people’s choices of whether or not to have children, and make them feel shamed or guilty over not having kids.

    LikeLike

35. Er, that shoud have been “StarK,” not “Star”

    LikeLike

36. You said,

    Gwyneth Paltrow has been the prime example of totally out of touch celebrities ever since she returned to the public consciousness after appearing in Iron Man.

    I totally did not buy her as a love interest for Tony Star and wish the movie people had gotten a different actress for the role of Pepper Potts in Iron Man.

    LikeLike

37. I think Doris is a troll.

    LikeLike

38. Pattie said,

    *if you are NOT Roman Catholic, then nothing he has to say is addressed to you, anyway, and you shouldn’t care what he says any more than how you care about what your neighbor or the green-grocer has to say.

    Wrong-o.

    Many times, if I see bias from anyone in regards to adult singles or the childless or childfree, I will speak up and correct their prejudices and ignorance.

    I don’t care if that person is Roman Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, agnostic, atheist, or whatever.

    There is way too much prejudice in religious and secular culture against people, especially women, who never marry or who never have kids, and some bias against other singles (eg, divorced, widowers).

    LikeLike

39. Heaven’s Gate is okay, but Once Upon A Time In The West is so much better.

    LikeLike

40. numo said,

    I’ve seen people flat out wash their hands of their elderly parents; am afraid his perfect scenario is by no means a given. Go check the local nursing homes and assisted living facilities and see just how many peoples’ children bother with the parents who are in those places. Bottom line: far fewer than in the view from Francis’ rose-clored specs.

    Bingo.

    There are forums and blogs by parents who do nothing but complain and cry about how their adult children ignore them now.

    There are mothers in their 50s, 60s, older who say even when they got cancer, their adult children will not visit, phone, send a card. Some of them express regret over having children.

    There are sites and blogs for younger parents, who admit they wish they “never had children,” who feel their toddler, infant, or teen is too demanding, and they wish they had stayed childless.

    One never hears these sorts of admissions from Christians who push and hype getting married and having kids, it’s like they want to paint a rosy, Norman Rockwell idealistic view of family.

    Also, when one of my grandparents was in a nursing home, we did go to visit her every Saturday, but I noticed when we went, we were the exception. Other than the nurses who worked there, I did not see family of other residents visiting.

    As a matter of fact, while I was out there in the open area to visit my grandma, while another family member was chatting with her, other old people would approach ME to talk to ME because they were lonely.

    Just because you have children does not mean they will support you in your old age financially or visit you at the seniors rest home.

    LikeLike

41. @ Robert F

    Please see,
    Remaining Childless Does Not Lead To Loneliness In Old Age – Study from UF

    LikeLike

42. Kathe said

    You’re not married, he’s not talking to/about you.

    That’s part of the problem – and your attitude about this is part of the problem for adult singles.

    The problem being:
    Women (and men) who don’t neatly fit into some Christian’s world views of how life should be.

    Gender role teachings, and expected Life Script teachings, by the Catholic, Baptist, and Protestant churches, assume all individuals will marry and have children, and these view points and expectations exclude never married, infertile, widowed, and divorced people.

    If one is not a nun or priest, the Catholic church seems to expect a person to marry and crank out children. Well, what if you do not? You’re either ignored, or some churches insult you (see Southern Baptist Al Mohler’s derogatory blog posts about adult singles.)

    LikeLike

43. numo said

    …. I could go on and on. As a never-married woman who did want kids (and is now well past the age where that happens), I also wish he’d spared a thought for those who are in like circumstances – very much including those who are dealing with infertility.

    That is sort of where I fall, too.

    I believe sex is for marriage only, meaning, if I did have a baby, it would have to be with a husband.

    I have never found “Mr Right,” and I am not about to have a kid alone. Thus far, I have abstained from sex in my life, as I am single.

    Many of these pro natalist / pro nuclear family views fail to consider not everyone fits neatly into their worldview.

    There is a 40-something woman named Melanie Notkin who wanted to have kids, but only with a spouse, but she never got married – she wanted to, but never met Mr. Right. She has written books and articles about it. I think one of the books is entitled “The Otherhood.”

    You can read more about her and her experiences and views as a childless never married woman here:
    Celebrating Other’s Day

    LikeLike

44. Jesus’ words on divorce have been misunderstood. See this article:
    What God Has Joined

    LikeLike

45. I take it that the poster calling herself Doris is either here to troll or just flame?

    LikeLike

46. HUG said

    And Gnostic fanfic writers and Medieval Hagiographers (“Jesus did not poop”) have already covered all the bases of that absurdity.

    That reminds me of an occasion I visited a Christian apologetics blog, and some atheist, who thought he was being clever, kept mentioning to the readers on said blog Jesus defecating, blowing his nose, or urinating.

    The atheist guy somehow thought mentioning that Jesus had bodily functions disproved Christianity.

    Christians recognize that Jesus was fully human and full deity while on earth – so obviously, he had bodily functions.

    It was one of the dumbest strikes against Christianity I’ve ever seen pulled by an atheist, and many atheists often like to portray themselves as super logical, rational, intellectual types. Oh please.

    LikeLike

47. @ Paul
    Said, “I’ve sometimes felt that Jesus calling the canaanite woman a dog was a mistake.”

    I saw an interesting article about this last week, but I cannot remember where.

    The interpretation put forward is not that Jesus was putting the woman down, but he was verbalizing the stereotypes the 12 disciples had about Gentiles. He was trying to show them they were wrong about Gentiles.

    It might be this post:
    Jesus Invites A Woman to Correct His Disciples’ Attitude of Hierarchy

    LikeLike

48. No, she was a teen, he is a 50 something adult with more life experience. He’s guilty, she was ignorant.

    LikeLike

49. I’m unsure if the blog owner would consider this ad hominem, but based on her views and comments vis a vis Jack Schapp, a pervy adult who preys on teen kids, Doris sounds creepy, deranged, perverted and sick to me.

    LikeLike

50. @ Doris
    Said “How do you know she didn’t seduce him?”

    It’s completely irrelevant if she did seduce him.

    She’s a teen aged kid, he’s a 50 something adult. The onus is on him to practice sexual self control and maturity – and he’s a married man. The Bible condemns adultery.

    LikeLike

51. Pope what’s his face has already received push back from childfree and childless couples for his horrible comments about people who don’t want kids or who cannot have them.

    Pope Francis Is Wrong About My Child-Free Life by Amanda Marcotte

    LikeLike

52. Summary: discourse is breaking down in America.

    LikeLike

53. “Why on earth would anybody WANT to be low class?” I don’t even understand this comment. None of us chose the station in life we were born into; some are able to rise above it, some not. Some may choose to stay where they are for various reasons (family ties, etc.)
    In my mind, this attitude is far too common and has been used as an excuse for all sorts of mistreatment of entire classes of people throughout history.

    LikeLike

54. Why is it always the woman’s fault? Why do colleges routinely have rape avoidance seminars but not often “How to exercise self control” classes for men? So what if the girl pursued this pastor? He could easily just have said “Not gonna happen, now leave me alone”.

    LikeLike

55. Re: Gwennyeth Paltrow with the war analogy.

    Something struck me when I read her comment and the response she received. While I realize that people ought to choose their words carefully and be sensitive to others’ circumstances, I feel as though we’ve entered a time in modern discourse in which analogies and hyperbole have become almost altogether taboo due to their potential as emotional triggers and/or due to political correctness. Surely this is a large gray area that requires some wisdom? The following are just my thoughts on this at the moment:

    – Figures of speech are not intended to convey 100% equivalence of the subjects being compared. Listeners should be wise enough and mature enough to recognize this, to the point of giving the speaker the benefit of the doubt, or at least a gracious answer if we feel one is required.

    – Figures of speech are often hyperbolic to better highlight the similarity of the things compared, even if minor.

    – It is true that politicians regularly use (abuse!) hyperbole to intentionally and deceitfully evoke emotional reactions in their hearers. Perhaps this is a big reason people seem to have become over-sensitized to hyperbole.

    – Public expression of indignation at perceived rhetorical injustices seems very popular right now to the point of being a social obligation (you must speak out against all triggers to be a good citizen!)

    If we read a passage in a book that said something like “And I came out of that business meeting feeling like I had just been through a war,” we would not condemn the author of the book, nor the character for using hyperbole in his comparison of how stressful and harrowing a meeting subjectively felt, as this is not an atypical use of non-literal language. No analogy is perfect; ALL of them break down. And while I agree that some analogies are better than others and that there is plenty of room for discussion, I generally find it silly when I read someone’s blanket dismissal of a particular use of imagery by saying “surely X is not the same exact thing as Y!” Of course not. If it were exactly the same, then it wouldn’t be a figure of speech, would it?

    LikeLike

56. Thanks Robert. very apropos.

    And two more stanzas;

    You must really consider the circus
    It just might be your kind of zoo
    I can’t think of a place that’s more perfect
    For a person as perfect as you.

    And it’s not like Im leaving you lonely
    Cause I wouldn’t know where to begin
    Well I know you wake up here only
    When the snakes come marching in.

    LikeLike

57. The gideons also used to use the NKJV for a more modern alternative to the KJV, but recently they have switched to using the ESV. There were several KJV only types who weren’t too happy about it, even though the KJV is still an option.

    LikeLike

58. It is actually coming out in the New King James Version.

    LikeLike

59. Miguel, I think there are some big cultural differences between the Midwest and the East Coast; ditto for the LCMS and the admittedly regional, very-early-immigrants to Pennsylvania part of the ELCA that I grew up in. The ELCA itself is the result of a merger of several synods, and that has both up and down sides.

    Just curious: do you know much about Preuss’ position re. inerrancy – that resulted in the Seminex – back in the 70s? It does seem to me, from what little I know, that the LCMS has its share of differences w/in the synod itself, and turmoil, too.

    Fwiw, I was never barred from taking communion at the LCMS church that I attended for a while during grad school. The knew I was LCA (this was prior to the merger), but they didn’t mind. It was a fairly conservative church, too. All this to say that there’s definitely variance in practice the further you get from the Midwest. Have heard this from folks who are members of the LCMS, fwiw.

    LikeLike

60. “The church is indeed a much wider ark of salvation than we may be able to handle, and yet, Christ says the path is narrow. ” Yes, as narrow as one man, Jesus Christ himself.

    What it comes down to is that I agree with Leithart’s statement, and you don’t. That’s something we can both live with, and we really don’t have much choice in the matter, do we? My own attitude continues to be that, if Christian Baptism is the adequate criteria for recognizing that someone is Christian, then it is only symmetrical and fitting to require only Baptism as a prerequisite for admission to the Eucharist.

    LikeLike

61. There is a particularly small sect of a Baptist group that was very dogmatic about closed communion, because they had to know for certain you were saved before they gave it to you. Therefore, they opened their altars not to anybody in their denomination, but only to members of their specific congregation. If you wanted to commune in their worship, you could meet in advance with the Pastor to verify that you are indeed a Christian.

    LikeLike

62. Dana, you’d be surprised how Lutheran your sentiments here actually are. We also believe that the Logos is the eternal, incarnate Son of God. We additionally believe that the Logos comes to us through the means of grace, which include the preached Gospel, the written Scriptures, and the Sacraments. You might call our entire religion the “spirituality of the Logos.” When we say “Word of God,” we mean Christ, to which all of Scripture testifies. All other teaching is measured against this canon, and that which lines up with it is also the “Word of God.” So believe it or not, we would actually call Luther’s small catechism the Word of God, because we believe it to be a 100% accurate articulation of the teaching of Scripture, and thus a proclamation of Christ and His gospel, through which he works in our lives. You can’t confine the Logos to one printed product: the nature of the Bible itself, an eclectic amalgamation of various sources, testifies to this. Neither can you separate Christ from the Scriptures or the means of grace. Where people avail themselves of these, Christ is truly present among them, bestowing his gifts of grace upon them.

    LikeLike

63. Steve, that’s not what any Lutheran body has ever taught. We’re always open minded on polity issues. The episcopacy has no more power to water down the Gospel than an independent congregation. There is no basis for asserting that.

    LikeLike

64. Miguel,

    I obviously have not had time to read most of the articles, but given that this thread is going to peter out in about a day I’ll give my thoughts on what I have looked at.

    The most thorough explanation and defense of the practice seems to be the LCMS commission report, and although I appreciate a great deal of their exegesis I don’t think that the leap from the text’s emphasis on personal/class divisions to a policy which fences the table based on doctrinal divisions is justified. Paul clearly was not talking about doctrinal differences in 1 Corinthians 11 (as even the authors of the study admit), and in my opinion to speculate that Paul would have treated doctrinal disagreement in the same way cannot form the basis for official church practice as it goes beyond the letter (specific situation in Corinth) and principle (personal/class rifts incompatible with proper reception of the Supper) of the passage.

    LikeLike

65. Robert, I think Eucharistic dogma is probably far more complex than simply “low” or “high.” Indeed, there are many in the Anglican communion with a very Lutheran or even Roman Catholic ish view of the Eucharist. However, a truly Lutheran or RC view requires institutional unity on this doctrine, where as Anglicanism (along with all Reformed) generally does not. You’re free to have your position on communion and ordination and still be a Christian, but they are both equally overturning the historic positions, and thus you cannot expect the historic traditions to be ok with this. We are perfectly ok with you having your own views in your own churches. And it does not necessarily follow that if don’t commune you that we don’t believe you are a Christian. We will get to the same table, eventually, and we look forward to it. For now, the things which separate us are real and tangible, not purely theoretical and spiritual. Our position is that a truly incarnational, non-gnostic understanding of the supper leads to a genuinely physical break in fellowship with divergent teachings. We don’t hope to reconcile our differences by pretending they don’t matter. We’re still in God’s family together, but we don’t want to willfully turn a blind eye to our family dysfunction.

    I’m all for the honor system. Even in Roman Catholic churches, this is how I see it practiced. I confess to having communed in mass when I was a Baptist, ’cause I didn’t think it was a big deal. I recognize now that it was disrespectful of me towards their teaching.

    The church is indeed a much wider ark of salvation than we may be able to handle, and yet, Christ says the path is narrow. We’re not saying those we won’t commune are going to hell. We might say they are “of a different spirit.” Everybody arguing for open communion insists to deny somebody the table is to deny the legitimacy of their faith, but it simply is not so. In fact, we’re saying that it is ok for them to be of a different denomination. The first step is always admitting the problem! 😀

    LikeLike

66. Had to look him up. He seems to be a drum-circling New Age type. Was there anything in particular you wanted to draw my attention to?

    LikeLike

67. Beautifully put, Pattie.

    LikeLike

68. I’m just glad I won’t be kneeling before YOU on Judgment Day.

    LikeLike

69. Legal age varies a lot. Anyway, 16 is old enough to know what’s what.

    It’s as natural for a man to desire a young girl, as it is for a girl to desire a strong, successful man.

    LikeLike

70. But then, that would make them equally guilty.

    LikeLike

71. Gotcha, Jacob. Believe me, I have my own doubts about the issue as well, many of which are along the lines you express. I am not remotely an expert on this issue, which is why, for the time being, I have decided to trust my church teaching. They’ve only steered me right so many times before, I’m not going to rush to judgement until I have studied it thoroughly to the highest degree. And for the time being, I do see many benefits of the teaching, and I am often put off by the sort of intolerant rhetoric used to argue against it (which is a truly ironic thing). It just seems more peaceful and unified for us to tolerate each other’s view at our own respective communion tables, and sit together at other tables to work towards mutual understanding and greater consensus. The ball is really rolling on that in our days, and I think minimizing our Christological differences by opening our altars completely is only going to inhibit true progress and honest ecumenical dialogue.

    LikeLike

72. +1 🙂

    LikeLike

73. Numo,

    I don’t think God would bar people from his table for not having THE correct understanding.

    Yes. And I would add: He would not bar somebody from eternal paradise for not being able to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity with the utmost Christological precision. And yet, as the Athanasian creed says: “Therefore, whoever desires to be saved must think thus about the Trinity.” There’s a tension between the necessity of a sound understanding in teaching, and the necessity of a sound understanding for salvation.

    I don’t see God saying “you can’t celebrate communion if you don’t understand it right.” However, that doesn’t mean that our different views are inconsequential to our unity as believers. It is a Christological issue, and those have historically always been of the utmost importance. Our churches fence the table because we not only believe the other church bodies to be in err, but that those errs, while not necessarily damning, are significant and harmful. To share the table with them is to either endorse such teaching as acceptable or minimize it as harmless. We are perfectly ok with them communing in their own churches and perfectly content that God accepts them at those tables.

    I’m kind of reluctant to go here, as much as I know how politically correct it isn’t, but the ELCA is a denomination that is Lutheran by heritage and culture, but not necessarily by creed. Their “quia” subscription to the confessions is a blank check to make an infinite number of exceptions, which their ministers do, even on core doctrines that are not Lutheran distinctives. Additionally, they have overturned historic Lutheran positions on multiple issues, in the name of progress of course, but which nonetheless leave them in a position of being halfway between classic Lutheranism and generic progressive mainline-ism. Their ecumenical relationships with groups such as the Episcopal church have influenced their doctrine towards the rationalistic slant of the rest of the mainlines, all of which are of Reformed heritage (and equally inconsistent with their historic confessions). We can argue whether this is a good thing, but at the very least, it is certainly a new development.

    So in every broad tradition you there are two distinctive streams breaking out: the confessional, which seeks repristenize of the original doctrinal positions, and the progressives, which seeks to harmonize them with developing thought. The latter all tend to drift towards with the culture and towards each other, and the former tend to be more closed minded.

    The problem is, however, that “Lutheran” doesn’t mean whatever I say it means. The historic consensus reached in 1580 is truly remarkable among Protestantism and fosters a strong degree of unity amongst those who profess such teaching. Every now and then somebody grows discontent with it and forms a break-off group, but it is not fair to say that such innovations are equally Lutheran.

    So while we don’t generally consider the ELCA to be a bunch of looney heretics, we do believe it is objectively fair to insist that we are more Lutheran. And that’s ok, ’cause many faithful believers may never be able to subscribe fully to the Lutheran confessions, but there’s still a tradition for them to exploit the treasures of Lutheran heritage, even if it is done more selectively.

    LikeLike

74. Excellent point. Thank you.

    LikeLike

75. Thanks!

    LikeLike

76. “I just met a girl named Blue Jean….”

    LikeLike

77. Sorry, I must have misunderstood your statement about doctrinal integrity.

    What I meant to say about the historical aspect is that, when the broad denominational divisions of Christianity as we know them today (Catholic, EO, Lutheran, Calvinist, etc) originated, these traditions widely condemned each other as heretical, which lead them to exclude each other from the Lord’s table at their respective churches. The Roman Catholic Church at the time, for example, did not consider the Protestant reformers to be broadly orthodox with some false teachings mixed in but rather to be outright heretical, and vice versa. What I’m saying is that, because closed communion was originally practiced in a context in which groups excluded from communion were also viewed as heretical, the historical argument doesn’t apply to a context in which we accept other denominations as also Christian.

    I will check out the articles, thank you. Just wanted to clarify what I meant to say 🙂

    LikeLike

78. Miguel,
    I do not have a low view of the Eucharist, as you seem to think. I believe that Jesus is really present, body and spirit, in the elements. At the same time, I support women in the priesthood, and believe that all baptized and believing Christians should be invited to the table, on the honor system. The church is the wide Ark of salvation, including those who are more and less deficient in faith, practice and understanding, as well as those who differ in many areas of doctrine, and not the narrow life-raft of the elect, allowing only the pure aboard. In fact, the latter seems very sectarian, Anabaptist and Arminian to me.

    LikeLike

79. Tom, I know you remember this one:

    “I may be going to hell in a bucket, Doris,
    but at least I’m enjoying the ride,
    at least I’ll enjoy the ride.
    Ride, ride, ride,
    at least I’ll enjoy the ride…”

    LikeLike

80. You couldn’t make this stuff up if you wanted to….

    LikeLike

81. Also, stating that a person who has never been married might not have a g?old grasp of the issues involved here is, I’d tthink, fairly clear, and not meant to deride anyone.

    But enough of this; it is a hornet’s nest and I regret saying anything at all on the subject.

    LikeLike

82. I’m by no means obsessed – just think his comment was off the mark.

    LikeLike

83. Glad someone clicked. Did you use the navigation arrows to see all 16 or so items?

    LikeLike

84. Jacob – this ELCA member thanks you. 🙂

    Miguel, I’m kind of surprised at the way you speak of (apparently) generic Lutherans, because there are other synods that have a different take.

    In the end, the Eucharist is a true mystery of the faith, and I don’t think God would bar people from his table for not having THE correct understanding. We know and understand in part, after all.

    LikeLike

85. Hadn’t thought of that (the copyrighting discouraging new translations). Very interesting.

    LikeLike

86. Fair enough, Charlotte

    LikeLike

87. Doris, she was not of legal age, and therefore not responsible. She could have been walking around the room wearing nothing but a come-hither smile, and it would still have been his responsibility to walk out without giving her so much as a hug. He was the adult in the situation.

    LikeLike

88. On the one hand, the copyrighting of translations encourages new and better translations by protecting publishers’ investments and revenues, also prevents texts from being corrupted.

    On the other hand, copyrighting discourages new and better translations by penalizing a publisher who repeats a well-styled phrase from a previously copyrighted translation. So they have to invent new and clever (and clumsy, and stylistically poor) ways of saying the same old thing in 21st-century dialect.

    Stylistically, if you’re going to plagiarize or imitate, borrow from the King James Version instead of the newer ones. It’s still legal, but I’m sure somebody out there is at work closing that loophole.

    LikeLike

89. I didn’t say a sense of doctrinal integrity was impossible for churches who hold to open communion. It simply isn’t possible for those who profess one, yet practice the other, to have a sense of doctrinal integrity. If we truly believe in this practice, and it flows from what we believe, teach, and confess from our study of Scripture, then we are bound to practice what we preach. The LCMS does profess this doctrine, even though many of our clergy and laity don’t like it.

    If you want to play the historic argument, consider the origin of open communion. It is a product of Zwingli and Rationalism, and originated in the 16th century. There’s a reason Lutherans rejected it at the time and have continued to do so. The Lord’s Supper is not an entitlement: it’s a confession of faith. To condemn somebody’s teaching and then share with them the most sacred rite of it is simply inconsistent (and double so because the vast majority of open communion proponents don’t see it as nearly so sacred).

    Also, the historic traditions, while they may have hurled anathemas in the 12th century (or whenever), do not use the term “heretic” for each other anymore. Lutherans, Catholic, and Orthodox all consider each other “heterodox,” within the pale of orthodoxy with some false teachings mixed in. Yet they still maintain their position (united, ironically) on this.

    I suggest you do not understand closed communion as well as you think. As is usually the case with the jettison of historic doctrine and practice, it is more often then not done out of ignorance. Case in point: You assert there is no Biblical justification for it. Here is a whole slate of pastors and theologians (genuine experts in their field) who can articulately argue otherwise.

    Click to access FSLO-1362628009-111009.pdf

    LikeLike

90. Doris, that is just so wrong …

    LikeLike

91. Doris, do you have any opinions as to Richard Rohr?

    LikeLike

92. I will not participate in any group or social structure that DICTATES the inappropriateness of denim. If God didn’t want us to wear denim then what were the 60’s about??

    LikeLike

93. To Catholics, obnoxious trolls who pretend to be Pope and basically ensure that everyone on the thread runs screaming from Catholicism is like the Mormons…

    LikeLike

94. Speaking of UFO cults (from someone introduced to UFOlogy by that original saucer cult the Adamskyites), does anyone remember Heaven’s Gate (formerly “The Two” or “Bo & Peep”)? The mass suicide in San Diego years ago, Ascending to the Next Level on Comet Hale-Bopp?

    Listen to this description and commentary and ask yourself if it reminds you of anyone or any group:

    “Heaven’s Gate was a closed society, suspicious of the external world. In place of the kooky fun of most contactees, Heaven’s Gate was deadly serious. … Unlike most other contactee groups, and practically all of the individual contactees, Heaven’s Gate found little that was good in human nature, little that could give them hope. What hope they had was thought to be coming from above, a starship in a comet’s tail. They had given up on transforming the world; the best they could do was to escape it.”
    — Gregory L Reece, UFO Religion: Inside Flying Saucer Cults and Culture, p.155

    LikeLike

95. Really? A pastor (male or female) is seen not only as an authority, but in many ways, the representative of God on earth. In a case of inappropriate boundaries involving an authority figure IT IS ALWAYS THE FAULT OF THE ONE WITH AUTHORITY! Period.

    LikeLike

96. Yes.

    LikeLike

97. That is so depressing that they are making a “Christian” action movie out of the”Left Behind” books.

    Not surprising, since both Slacktivist and Heathen Critique have presented some pretty strong literary stylistic evidence that Jerry “Buck” Jenkins works all sorts of bad action/spy thriller cliches into his works. Like he looks in the mirror and sees Ian Fleming or Tom Clancy, and sees his bad author self-inserts as James Bond or Jack Ryan.

    Some people will watch that and think that Christianity is all about weird things like people disappearing and calculating the days until the end of the world…

    During the heyday of The Gospel According to Hal Lindsay (back when Henry Kissinger was The Antichrist and the Bible had only 3 1/2 books), IT WAS ALL ABOUT THAT.

    LikeLike

98. +1

    LikeLike

99. Provo and the area around it are far better known for Mormon craziness. It is refered to as “Happy Valley” or the “Happy bubble” by most of the people I know.

    Well, Provo is where BYU and the Empty Sea are located…

    Maybe Salt Lake’s a bit too cosmopolitan and Provo concentrates the Mormoness?

    LikeLike

100. At various times, I’ve managed to be deeply troubled about questions of how the church is defined and where its boundaries are. I find it to be a question about which one can have many informed and important discussions, but ultimately, one is left not knowing – or believing one knows, but knowing too that the issue is contested, and that one is only human.

     In the end, there is only one thing I can really say:

     If I am on the periphery of the periphery of the periphery of the periphery of grace, that is enough for me.

     LikeLike

101. @Numo……your obsession with the RCC and the Holy Father is very, very odd for someone who claims to understand Catholic theology and yet rejects it out of hand. (The current Pope offends you with statements made to his OWN flock….??? )

     There have been many, many serious, kind, and respectful discussions here about Communion and Eucharist. They have, however, been absent manifestly unkind and incorrect comments from commenters like Doris, and equally absent comments that choose to deride the Pope for upholding Catholic theology when addressing other Catholics.

     Perhaps as a middle aged and plump grandmother, I should take the National Basketball Association to task about the standard height of hoops, the speed of all that running around from goal to goal, and the fact that they do NOT provide free sunscreen and subscriptions to “Modern Maturity”, as I plan to play next season….

     LikeLike

102. ‘Umm….Jana? Did you, perchance, major in women’s studies? Sometimes a shoulder is just a shoulder, and modesty zealots are just modesty zealots.”

     Two things:

     1) The insulting tone (towards women’s studies majors) seems unnecessary and disrespectful.
     2) Jana Reiss is Mormon. Jana Reiss is a Mormon woman. I would expect her to know and understand both the context and subtext behind these “shoulder” controversies better than I, a post-evangelical Episcopalian woman or Daniel Jepsen (a man, I presume) would.

     Daniel, I nodded my head throughout your post, rolling my eyes at Schaap and mulling over Leithart’s comments. But I detected a note of sarcasm and disrespect in your paragraph about the Mormons that stopped me and left me feeling unwelcome here. I was not a women’s studies major (my parents would have pulled me out of school!), but I have found my voice and my calling, and the courage to walk in that calling, through the work of feminists and Women’s Studies majors. Please don’t dismiss what you cannot know.

     LikeLike

103. @ Numo…I KNOW that your understanding of Christian faith does not impact me in any way, shape, or form…..and I am fairly certain that the Holy Father, who is a human being of FAR greater faith and holiness than I, is not losing too much sleep about your estimation of his supposed “lack of understanding” either.

     Just do not see how a message aimed at a specific audience of which you are NOT a member matters one whit. I don’t give a rodent’s rump about what the LDS elders have to say about ANYTHING….

     LikeLike

104. Becoming Catholic… would make me less catholic not more.

     I like that. The Apostles’ Creed, which we said together aloud each week the years I spent leading Presbyterian worship, says “I believe in the holy catholic church.” Little c as opposed to Big C. Universal as opposed to small circle. Well said.

     LikeLike

105. If you think I’m a bully, then you’re gonna LOVE the risen Lord Jesus Christ, when you kneel before His Throne on Judgement Day.

     LikeLike

106. You could learn a lot from your Eastern Rite brethren, who preserve the liturgy and theology of the Eastern Church, but without all the political infighting that comes from falling out of communion with the universal Church headed by the Bishop of Rome.

     LikeLike

107. Would you consider the words of Jesus Christ to be rabid?

     LikeLike

108. *Comment deleted by moderator.

     Doris, consider this a warning. Divisive and personally insulting posters will be banned.

     LikeLike

109. I guess I meant the comment directly above yours – you see, the one about living in a small convent and whatnot.

     Those women had more to do with shaping key parts of my life and spirituality than they could ever guess, and I’m deeply grateful for their having given me the opportunity to live with them.

     LikeLike

110. I enjoyed the whole post.

     LikeLike

111. My problem is with what the current pope is quoted as saying. He is not “all Catholics,” and what he said n the quote Daniel posted was his own view (imo).

     As for me having a problem with “all Catholics,” please see the earlier comment I made that’s directly below this one. It will give you a picture of some of the good – and very Catholic – influences on my life, back when I was younger.

     LikeLike

112. What makes your anti-Catholicism better than anti-Semitism?

     LikeLike

113. *Comment deleted by moderator.

     LikeLike

114. >it puts Christianity on the level of some UFO cult.

     Don’t sweat it too much; Evangelicalism has already accomplished this goal. The movie is just piling-on an already large hill.

     LikeLike

115. Correct. Most Open Source biblical studies software ships with the KJV for this reason. And don’t get me started on “Christian” organizations asserting copyright on translations of scripture… How that never comes up or occurs to anyone [it being an intellectually disgusting practice] has always baffled me.

     LikeLike

116. > especially when I walk or bike, which is whenever the weather allows

     Ditto. As someone who arrives most places by not-driving many dress-codes are very impractical. If a dress code is desired the corresponding facility should make provisions for people to change clothes, etc…

     And I don’t have any problems with places choosing to have a dress code. But respect that not everything is stepping out of an climate-controlled SUV at the front door.

     LikeLike

117. Everything is “war” these days; it is the rhetorical device of the 21st century to make your claims and assertions as extreme as possible, as somehow that helps make your point [or a lot of people think it does]. In the main all the extreme-ing of everything just makes people tune-out.

     The soldier has a point; most things are not at all like war.

     And the celebrities are good examples of all that can go wrong with the human psyche when deprived of community.

     LikeLike

118. You’re right–I did overlook that aspect.

     LikeLike

119. How do you know she didn’t seduce him?

     LikeLike

120. But a man should be a person of authority. Since men and women have different stations, by your standards all heterosexual relationships amount to rape!

     LikeLike

121. As a fellow LCMS-er I’m afraid I can’t agree with you on this, Miguel. It’s entirely possible to maintain a sense of doctrinal integrity while still allowing all baptized Christians to come to the communion table. Closed communion might be a historic practice but the traditions that practice it have also historically been antagonistic toward each other, even labeling each other as heretical. Communion is a confession of unity in Christ, not in every matter of doctrine, and if we truly believe in the communion of saints then I can’t see any justification for refusing to administer the Sacrament to a Christian of another denomination. Besides this, there is no biblical justification for the practice of closed communion (1 Corinthians 11 is talking about selfishness and class divisions at the table, not about doctrinal differences).

     LikeLike

122. Nice one, Mule

     LikeLike

123. And you haven’t been talking down to Catholics (and about Catholics) in your comments?

     LikeLike

124. Dr. Fundystan, are you LCMS?

     LikeLike

125. should read “somehow ‘less than’ by default”

     apologies for typos.

     LikeLike

126. also, you’ve assumed that I don’t have a Catholic background.

     As it happens, no, I don’t, but many people who comment here do. Are we somehow ” by default?

     I honestly have to say that the priests and religious I knew when younger (and I knew quite a few!) never spoke to me or of Protestants in the way you’ve been speaking today.

     I shouldn’t let it get under my skin, but after another commenter’s claim that everyone here is heterodox (aside from those who belong to the commenter’s church), I’ve had it.

     LikeLike

127. That doesn’t surprise me. That is usually where abusive behavior starts in men – an abusive, neglecting, or absent father figure. It can’t be an excuse for his actions. His abuse of people which may result from he himself being abused is not a mistake but pathological behavior. He needs help.

     LikeLike

128. you seem intent on making the gulf between the RCC and everyone else as wide as possible.

     Why is that?

     cf. this: …but you would not know that, or be expected to.

     Well gee, I *do* know the RCC’s position on what happens during the eucharist; as it happens, I spent many years in Catholic charismatic circles, lived in a small convent for a year while in college, and have read more than a little on the RCC understanding of the eucharist vs. the Lutheran view of Real Presence vs. the Anglican view.

     So I think you’re being pretty condescending here, and that’s not something I’m saying lightly. This is the 3d comment by you in this thread where you’re talking down to non-Catholics, and I don’t think you’re being fair or giving anyone the benefit of the doubt.

     Sorry to be so harsh, but I’ve kind of had it with being lectured at about how I’m in the wrong blamed church.

     LikeLike

129. “Right Ahead”. Yes!!! Good one, CC.

     LikeLike

130. Oh, but it *does* matter for others, not just Catholics.

     He’s the mot visible church leader in the entire world, after all. and he betrays a fatal lack of understanding about many things in that comment, I’m thinking.

     Also, by no stretch of the imagination do all Catholics agree with your position, so…

     LikeLike

131. Yes, very funny comment!

     LikeLike

132. Yeah, we have folks that walk to church, and many poor (by American standards), as well as a great many refugees from Africa who tend to dress up. So we get everything from jeans and workbooks to three piece suits and dresses. We are, after all, a people from every tribe and tongue and nation. Oh, and at least in Greece the orthodox churches i visited did have dress code signs, but also provided a box full of wraps for women who happened to show up in pants.

     LikeLike

133. My Church is Better Than Your Church, you heterodox fools.

     (No offense intended toward other Orthodox posters.)

     LikeLike

134. I think that is the “fence” I agree with, although I understand closed communion…but not for Baptists.

     LikeLike

135. Well, that answers my previous comment….whatever the Pope and RCC do and say are not directed at you. Catholic teaching is for Catholics; no one else is obligated to listen or respond.

     Your experience of communion IS different, but you would not know that, or be expected to. The gift of changing bread and wine into the Body, Soul, Presence and Divinity of Jesus Christ is limited to those in valid succession to Christ and St. Peter….otherwise, communion is a pretty symbol. It IS *all that different*, and the fact that you do not see or believe this is the very REASON for lack of Eucharistic communion.

     LikeLike

136. I’m not so sure. Luke (whose gospel seems to be the closest to what we might recognize as researched history) indicates that Jesus’ first public sermon (for which he was nearly stoned) was about the Kingdom of God coming to the gentiles, so I’m inclined toward the “rhetorical strategy” perspective myself.

     LikeLike

137. Robert, I think you are mis-hearing this. The Pope was addressing young married couples, and exhorting them to be open to life as part of their sacrament of marriage, This IS the DEFINITION of a Catholic marriage….not that one HAS children, but that one is open to that gift by not using contraceptives. This is not a news flash, nor has it changed at all in 100 years or more.

     Secondly, and as a corollary, Francis is saying that the willingness to invest in new human life ties a couple to the future in the way that a Cocker Spaniel does NOT. No parent is ever assured of love and attention from adult children, or even that the children they may have will LIVE to be adults. What being the parent of adult children means (and this is my own stage of life) is that the fruit of the sacramental love between my husband and myself continues long after us, and that the love and sacrifice that raising these children entailed has taught us so very much about being more Christ-like than we would have been otherwise.

     LikeLike

138. Oh well NOW it’s awful

     LikeLike

139. And Historicists should make a movie titled “Not Yet, But Closer Now.”

     LikeLike

140. Numo, there are really only two ways to approach any and all comments from Pope Francis, or any other Pope…

     *if you are Roman Catholic, he is your spiritual leader, and you are under obligation to prayerfully consider what he has to say. These comments not related to matters of doctrine are not, per se, infallible, but do reflect the essence of the Church’s teaching. (You must also consider the context and the audience he was addressing).

     *if you are NOT Roman Catholic, then nothing he has to say is addressed to you, anyway, and you shouldn’t care what he says any more than how you care about what your neighbor or the green-grocer has to say.

     LikeLike

141. Thanks, Dana.

     Yes, for us, Word of God means Christ Jesus, firstly.
     Then Christ in preaching and teaching.
     Then Christ in the sacraments (Baptism and Lord’s Supper)
     Then in Holy Scripture.

     And pretty much in that order.

     None of those things are dependent upon the proper fingertips touching someone else.

     LikeLike

142. But in the NT, “the Word”/logos doesn’t mean scripture. It means JESUS. In the NT, when scripture is meant, the word used is graphe/Writings, and indicates the OT.

     And in Rom 1.16, it’s *the gospel* that is the power unto salvation for all who believe/trust. Which begs the question, “What is ‘the Gospel’?” (Hint: St Paul defines it up in Rom 1.3-4 – which, if you know how Jesus’ hearers would have understood his talk about “the kingdom of God”, is in no way a contradiction.)

     I have my own “hobbyhorses,” it’s true… Sharing some of the thoughts and questions that eventually led me into the Ev. Wilderness.

     Dana

     LikeLike

143. Robert, about your marriage, I’m not saying the RCC is right in this, but there are two things at play here: First of all, there is what they see as the sacramental nature of marriage. If it truly is on par with Baptism as a means of grace, or at least in the same category, then they can no more commune somebody who rejects their marriage than someone who rejects their Baptism. I think that’s how the thought train goes. The other thing is that the church is trying to maintain a hard line against divorce and not get so cozy with justifying it like so many Protestant groups have. The abandonment of a marriage is, in their view, a willful decision to walk in unrepentance, and thus a sin that bars one from the table as it is a confession of unbelief.

     I, of course, don’t buy into this reasoning, but I do wish the Protestant world could find an even better way to emphasize the seriousness with which we ought to take marriage as disciples of Jesus. I mean, he did have some pretty harsh things to say about divorce, along with some very bold things to say about mercy. I don’t know how to best reconcile the two, but I am positive that is always better to err on the side of the friend of sinners.

     I believe that Christian baptism leads, or should lead, directly to the Eucharistic table

     Believe me, I can see where you’re coming from. But this view of fellowship also assumes your view of the Eucharist. Among the Church bodies who see Christ as physically, literally present, and understand what the implications of such a Holy presence means, you usually see these three commonalities: 1. Male only priesthood. 2. Sacraments celebrated in a manner that reflects the seriousness of what is happening. 3. The table is fenced. Consider carefully the origin of “open communion” and the reasoning why the major historic traditions have never endorsed it. Also, consider the true ecumenical progress that is possible if we long to share a table but must sincerely deal with our differences first. The last century has seen an unprecedented level of amicable, conciliatory dialogue between Rome, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. Churches with a low view of the sacraments tend to define ecumenical dialogue more as “Oh well, those issues never really mattered anyways.” Jesus matters, and these issues are Christological to the extreme.

     You see, everybody who is Baptized IS welcomed at a table, just not at every table. You are welcome at the table you believe in. It is not intellectually honest to drink the cool-aide with the antidote in your pocket, to put it bluntly. Our churches need the integrity to be honest and upfront about what they truly believe, teach, and confess as a matter of conscience, and to insist that these issues truly are so important that to take exception does cause a rift between us. However, a rift at the table is absolutely not the same thing as a rift at the font. Just because we’re denying somebody communion, it does not logically follow that we declare their Baptism invalid. Confessional Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox of all stripes fully expect to see Christians of all denominations who we could not share this earthly table with in heaven, where we will finally and at last share one table for all eternity. And believe it or not, we actually look forward to that part of it, too. (When everybody will finally be Lutheran! 😛 )

     LikeLike

144. Now that is really funny!

     LikeLike

145. From what I understand of his background, his feelings were probably tamped down pretty well by his father’s rough treatment of him.

     Dana

     LikeLike

146. I agree with the good Doctor.

     …and… Jesus was at the same time upholding all things by the word of his power (Heb 1.3). This is part of the mystery and paradox of the Incarnation. The Incarnation is hardly ever discussed among Evangelicals, except as being a) the vehicle by which Christ had to assume a body in order to be sacrificed on the cross, or b) the caring attitude with which we undertake mission into a culture.

     We post-Enlightenment westerners have a very difficult time moving our noggins out of binary/dualistic thought. It ain’t either/or – it’s both/and. My experience is that most E’icals have a much more difficult time with Jesus being human than with him being God, hence the kerfluffle.

     By the way, someone asked before and I saw no answer yet – Is Martha of Ireland ok? She hasn’t been around for a while.

     Dana

     LikeLike

147. I’ve always said that the postmils should make a movie called “Still Here, Still Working”

     LikeLike

148. Dr. Fundystan, Venial sin, that is, sin that does not nullify the state of grace, on the other hand may be forgiven in a multitude of ways: on this side of death by Bible reading, receiving the Eucharist, personal devotions, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, through indulgences, etc.; and, on the other side of death, in purgatory, either by one’s own penance, or from the excess of grace won by Saints, the prayers of the living, indulgences acquired by the living in one’s name, Masses said in one’s name, etc.

     I learned all this when I tried as an adult to reconcile multiple times, unsuccessfully, with the RCC; I found myself running into many of the same issues that Luther ran into when trying to attain a clear conscience in the practice of his faith as a RC.

     LikeLike

149. If Jesus wasn’t born with full, “supernatural” knowledge of who he was and what he was called to do

     That is an interesting Christological proposal. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but I’d be interested to hear that concept fleshed out and defended a bit.

     But I would never go as far as to call Jesus prejudiced. At ever turn, he challenged and overturned traditional prejudice, against women, against Samaritans, and against sinners. I don’t think we should work so hard to make Christ as human as us that he begins to share our sinful tendencies. That’s where, IMO, we cross the line.

     LikeLike

150. Ditto. The friend of tax collectors and prostitutes was clearly not a bigot, that would be WAY out of character for the guy who gave the parable of the GOOD Samaritan.

     LikeLike

151. That is so depressing that they are making a “Christian” action movie out of the”Left Behind” books. Some people will watch that and think that Christianity is all about weird things like people disappearing and calculating the days until the end of the world – it puts Christianity on the level of some UFO cult.

     That Jack Schaap scandal – There is a video of him having some sort of mental breakdown as he is preaching a sermon – he is mimicking sexual activity at his pulpit right in front of everyone – and he alternates between shouting and whimpering and through it all he babbles incoherently – he seems enraged one moment and almost crying the next. I’m feeling sick from watching that. I can’t imagine what that girl must have gone through, enduring his insanity and abuse.

     LikeLike

152. Wasatch High is not really that mormon. At least not when compared to other parts of Utah. Of course there are plenty of weirdos all over. The Wasatch front just refers to the part of the Rockies that surrounds the Salt Lake Valley. Most mormons don’t start wearing temple garments until they are married or when they go on a mission at 19. Mormons do focus a great deal on modesty in the teenage years. This is in preparation for when they will have to wear temple garments. Heber, the city where this high school is located is right next to Park City, a very rich and probably the least Mormon place in utah. . Provo and the area around it are far better known for Mormon craziness. It is refered to as “Happy Valley” or the “Happy bubble” by most of the people I know. lol. But yea modesty is a big deal to Mormons, to the point of craziness for some. So this kind of thing is not surprising. It is par the course for some kids in some parts of Utah. This is just one of the times it went viral.

     LikeLike

153. Sounds like the rules to Monopoly or some other board game.

     LikeLike

154. I question what his point is, too. Is he spinning his recent gaffs as “mistakes” not sin? Even Jesus made “mistakes”, so cut poor, beaten-down, criticized Driscoll some slack? I’m pretty tired of bullies pretending to be victims. The latest is forcing Mars Hill pastors to sign a non-compete clause preventing them from serving as pastor near Mars Hill churches if they ever leave/get fired. Driscoll’s “mistakes” always seem so calculated. I guess competition might hurt Driscoll’s little feelings – if he has any.

     LikeLike

155. Dr. Fundystan, It’s important to understand the essential, though sometimes ambiguous, distinction that RC moral theology makes between mortal sin and venial sin. Properly speaking, mortal sin can be absolved only by the Sacrament of Baptism, first, and subsequently, after falling into post-baptismal mortal sin again, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which restores the state of grace first given in Baptism. One may go one’s entire adult life without receiving the Holy Communion, although it is a mortal sin to miss Holy Communion at the Easter Season, and still not be damned eternally, as long as one receives forgiveness in the Rite of Reconciliation; in the RCC, the salvation wrought in Christ is found between the baptistry and the confessional booth.

     LikeLike

156. That would be my understanding. Of course, I’m not LDS, but the culture/religious dynamics are interesting, so I have spent some time in the LDS blogosphere (plus I have an LDS aunt).

     LikeLike

157. Someone should write a book and then produce a movie titled “Right Ahead.” Not sure what the plot should be but it just seems that it would bring balance to the force.

     LikeLike

158. Here’s the video (under separate cover):

     And YouTube being YouTube, some joker did a dance remix of it:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnbLG332Zw0

     LikeLike

159. So the yearbook situation took place in Wasatch a place that is so LDS it is referred to in the “bloggernacle” (LDS blogosphere) as the Wasatch front and is usually referred to as a place that is not only LDS in religion but has a strong element of Mormon culture.

     So “The Wasatch Front” are the Utah Mormons of Utah Mormons?

     LikeLike

160. For us, the power and authority of God is contained in His Word…alone. (Romans 1:16)

     So we believe that the historic episcopate waters down the pure gospel.

     LikeLike

161. The second paragraph was sarcasm, describing the attitude.

     The first was true. Covered by several spiritual abuse watchblogs. Including some with links to the video.

     LikeLike

162. Nope. I’ve seen it.

     LikeLike

163. No doubt you’re correct, David L, and I knew it even as I was responding to her, but my reflex to protect the integrity of my marriage from attack overrode my better instincts, and I fed her anyway. Mea culpa….

     LikeLike

164. Surely you jest…???

     LikeLike

165. I wonder how much of the LDS concern about bare shoulders is about the temple garments? The temple garments are supposed to be worn by all people who have gone through the temple endowment ceremony (sometime in the teens) and they have sleevelets on the upper portion so that any women wearing spaghetti straps, narrow straps or halter tops it will be obvious that they are not wearing the temple garment.

     I get the feeling that the temple garment is a bit like artificial birth control for Catholics–that is something that is supposed to be followed, but can’t be confirmed that it is being followed or not. Unless the women (or man) is wearing clothing that reveals the truth.

     So the yearbook situation took place in Wasatch a place that is so LDS it is referred to in the “bloggernacle” (LDS blogosphere) as the Wasatch front and is usually referred to as a place that is not only LDS in religion but has a strong element of Mormon culture. So here you have teenagers who probably have gone through their temple endowment ceremonies wearing clothing that makes it apparent that they are not wearing their temple garments, a thing they are supposed to do unless doing an activity that doesn’t allow it (like swimming, for instance). That’s going to directly confront an inconvenient fact for the local culture (many young women aren’t bothering with the temple garments AND don’t mind proving it) and it is also going to tempt other young women to doing the same.

     So I don’t tend to believe it has anything to do with the shoulders as a locus of power! But at the same time I think it does have something to do with feminism. Why are these young women choosing to eschew the garments? Because they recognize they have the agency to do so. Why are their parents not making them wear them? Because they realize the young women have the agency to choose as well. Feminism is all about agency.

     LikeLike

166. “They have a very different understanding of the Christian faith. Theirs is dependent upon properly ordained clergy in historic succession.”

     As an Anglican, I believe that the office of bishop embodies how the catholicity of the Church connects with the local body of believers, so I have no problem with the historic episcopate. I do have a problem with the multiplication of legalisms that bar validly baptized and believing Christians from the Eucharist, and which obstruct the catholicity of the Church in its most local expression.

     LikeLike

167. I’m with you, cermak_rd. I don’t see the problem with jeans. I do see a problem with the multiplication of endless legalisms that erect needless barriers on the basis of the esthetic preferences of a few in the minority.

     LikeLike

168. Courageously answering the need for more Bible editions in the U.S. market, Thomas Nelson has unveiled their new Duck Dynasty Bible.

     Does it come with a complementary ZZ Top beard?

     It will be KJV…

     Why am I not surprised?

     Well, this is a little weird: A new Lifetime reality show will film young mothers giving birth in the wilderness. Born in the Wild will tell the story of mums who will give birth (on camera) in creeks, woods and forests, with no pain killers or medical attendants.

     This got covered on morning drive-fime radio a couple days ago. And I thought “Human Autopsy: Self Explanatory” and “Pimp House” were the bottom of the barrel for Reality Show High Concepts.

     Why am I reminded of that Fluffbunny Wiccan interview on the talk-radio soundtrack in GTA: Vice City?

     “You just need to focus your eyes to look for healthy signs and not the signs of socialised barbarism. Like shaving or wearing deodorant or birthing in a hospital rather than the open air like a wolf cub. Remember brother Romulus and Remus?

     “We’re just a group of people who believe in communal sharing and chanting a lot. And can’t find husbands. Reading magazines, cloaks, wands, horned gods. Rubbing your skin raw with rocks. Dying of old age at 27. Crying in terror when it starts to thunder….”

     LikeLike

169. Uh uh, the Catholic version of Poe is a Latin Mass attender who is also massively anti-Semitic (not just in a we’ll pray for their conversion way, but a they’re hoarding all the assets and controlling the entire world way) and also against the founding of America on Masonic principles. Typically they also mention a lot of special revelations (e.g. Akita, Faustina, of course, Fatima).

     There are perfectly normal Latin Mass attenders, but package it up with the rest and you’ve either got a Catholic Poe or the best anti-witness to Catholicism ever.

     LikeLike

170. Hopefully we will all be Raptured before that movie comes out.

     Also, in the ‘also view items’ list for the stock car bible – the rabbit has nothing on the “Testicle Self Exam Form”. (<– ooo! moderation queue!)

     LikeLike

171. If you don’t want folks to wear jeans into your Church, why not put up a formal dress policy?

     I’m a Gen Xer, I wear jeans everywhere, except where there is a dress policy, then I follow the dress policy. My shul does not have a dress policy, therefore I go in jeans more often that not, especially when I walk or bike, which is whenever the weather allows. Since I’m not the only one who bikes or walks, I’m not the only one not dressed in nice clothing (and I have to argue, I look better in jeans than bike shorts–everyone who is not Adonis/Aphrodite does).

     At some jobs I wear jeans at others I dress by the policy (dockers+polo shirt for instance).

     So if jeans aggravate you enough to get upset about, agitate for a dress policy change.

     LikeLike

172. If I am not mistaken, the King James Bible is not copyrighted. This may be a reason that the Duck Commander Version is KJV. The Gideons use KJV also. You can print and sell KJVs without copyright concerns

     LikeLike

173. We can have a non-overpopulated world or even a world where some areas are having a birth dearth and still have nations/regions that are overpopulated. Any nation or region that does not produce enough food or natural resources or trade goods that can be exchanged for enough food and/or does not produce/have access to enough potable water to sustain its population. Such areas, are by nature, overpopulated. The historical way of dealing with this is either widescale emigration (such as the great leaving of Ireland) or famine/disease which destroys the excess. The modern way of dealing with it is aid, but because it depends upon good will and also tends to make the receiving nation a bit of a dependent, it isn’t ideal either.

     LikeLike

174. That’s correct.

     At my father’s funeral mass, the priest ran halfway down the aisle to retrieve the host out of the hand of my brother-in-law before he ingested it.

     LikeLike

175. No, never heard of it until now. Not much into Legos.

     LikeLike

176. “How graceless can you get?”

     Two words: CHURCH LADY.

     Though Doris is more “CHURCH LADY WITH ROSARY”.

     LikeLike

177. Regarding the above paragraph concerning Peter Leithart:

     One thing we all share in common, regardless of our inherited or chosen Church affiliation is this: Our brokenness. We are broken inwardly because of sin. We are broken in our churchiness because of our inability to discern truth from error, communion from separation, and much more. The very terminology we use in our attempts at self definition will probably never be fixed. We draw away from each other because of pebbles that we elevate to become mountains. What means one thing to a Calvinist, means another to to a Wesleyan. However we see ourselves, at bottom we are broken, and it is up to Christ to save us. But now its much easier to see the error or sin in the other than it is in ourselves.

     The resolution of history will come when Jesus brings all to fruition, and all knees bow before the King.

     LikeLike

178. And Gnostic fanfic writers and Medieval Hagiographers (“Jesus did not poop”) have already covered all the bases of that absurdity.

     LikeLike

179. #7 of that list is hilarious. I’m posting that on my Facebook wall when the movie premieres.

     LikeLike

180. Whitney Houston is a CELEBRITY, just like Gwynneth Paltrow.
     Need I say more?

     LikeLike

181. “Polishing-the-Shaft Schaapf”. Famous for a sermon where he simulated masturbation with an arrow shaft while his yes-men deacons sitting all in a row behind him Amen-ed. (Video exists somewhere, probably on YouTube.)

     But it’s the WOMAN’s fault, not the ManaGAWD’s. Stone the harlot, PTL.

     LikeLike

182. To rightly receive Holy Communion in RCC Eucharistic theology, you must be in a state of grace, which is well nigh impossible unless you believe and obey what the RCC church teaches, and avail yourself of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (something that only Catholics are allowed to do) when you inevitably sin. Otherwise, partaking of the Holy Communion knowingly in a state of sin, for both Catholics and non-Catholics alike, is an additional mortal sin, which leads to damnation unless confessed in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

     Catholic also believe in the Real Presence, though in a different way from Lutherans.

     LikeLike

183. Sine Christ is not actually present in the bread and wine for Baptists…then why would a Baptist care one way or the other.

     We invite all the baptized who believe Christ to be truly present in the meal to come and receive it (our fence). We’d rather err on the side of God’s grace for real sinners, than to fence it off too strictly.

     LikeLike

184. Since the Holy Spirit is not reliant on anything that man has (proper historic lineage)…there Holy Spirit is just power. No gas needed.

     LikeLike

185. I’ve always wondered what Jesus is going to say about CCM when we all see the other shore.
     “Dude, what was up with that stupid ‘Jesus I am so in love with you’ ditty? Are you retarded? Does it look like I’m so in love with you? Creeper. Go have have some mulled wine and enjoy the golden streets while I think of a suitable penance.”

     LikeLike

186. I just threw up a little bit in my mouth…

     LikeLike

187. It’s odd, kinda, to me. I actually understand closed or close communion for Lutherans, because of the Real Presence understanding (although I am Lutheran, I don’t actually agree with this position, but understand it). I don’t really understand closed communion for Catholics, because I thought the Eucharist was seen as imparting grace? If so, shouldn’t it be open to everyone – perhaps even more so to the unregenerate? Maybe someone with Catholic theological knowledge could chime in. But I sure as shooting don’t understand how any Baptist could practice closed or close communion. It just seems illogical to me.

     LikeLike

188. 😀

     LikeLike

189. I almost read his comments as self lament for his chosen celibacy.

     LikeLike

190. +1′ Robert F! While you expressed above that your comment was uncharitable, I disagree. Bullies need a swat on the snout from time to time.

     LikeLike

191. I know this is a bit tangental, but we will always run into trouble when we start trying to make absolute statements regarding negatives. The main reason for this is that the result will always be relative to how we define the denial. Incidentally, this is why inerrancy has suffered from “death by a thousand qualifications” in some circles. But the idea that Jesus didn’t put dirt in his mouth as a baby, or stub his toe, or measure wrong before cutting once or twice is absurd on its face.

     LikeLike

192. You forgot adultery.

     LikeLike

193. It’s like Poe’s Law, but the Catholic version.

     LikeLike

194. Yep, because it’s your supper, not the Lord’s Supper. And because Paul specifically said, “Examine everyone else to see if they’re in the faith.”

     LikeLike

195. The passage in Hebrews about Christ being “made” perfect (Hebrews 2:10) through suffering seems to open the door to possible mistake-making. Likewise, there is the account of Jesus healing the blind man in Mark 10. Jesus first spits on the man’s eyes, but his vision is not fully healed. Jesus then touches the man, and he sees. The story suggests some sort of trial and error process. Maybe.

     LikeLike

196. If Jesus wasn’t born with full, “supernatural” knowledge of who he was and what he was called to do, and if he grew up in a Jewish setting being taught their prejudices about non-Jewish people, there had to have been some point in his ministry where he realized for the first time that his calling was to save more than just the Jews. So, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say that by talking back to Jesus, that woman taught him a lesson and changed his thinking.

     Also, the way Mark tells it, Jesus was exhausted and was trying to escape to some quiet place with his disciples (Mk 6:31) but the crowd wouldn’t leave them alone. He tries to them the slip by walking on water (6:48) but a new crowd gathers, so he heads all the way up to Tyre, and tries to keep his presence there a secret (7:24). And then this woman won’t leave him alone. I wonder if, being human and totally exhausted and having tried for days to escape the crowds, he just didn’t have any patience left to give her a more gracious answer.

     LikeLike

197. ” But is it possible that most of us who have never been in battle are guilty of having spoken of war in terms that are ignorant its reality?”

     No doubt true; to that degree, we’re all wet.

     But the particular fault to which the celebrity set are prone is in thinking that the minutia of there lives are indeed paralleled in importance only by events on a global scale with and having the gravity of something like war. This is an attitude most common among adolescents, and the gods we find in ancient Greek and Roman literature.

     LikeLike

198. Doris is trolling. Even if she doesn’t know she is doing it.

     We should not feed her.

     LikeLike

199. No one likes whiney celebs, of course, but for goodness sake, if one can’t use metaphors, then what’s left of language? One should surely be able to use war as a metaphor for more important purposes:

     The Culture Wars
     The War on Christmas
     “Onward Christian Soldiers”

     Never mind. Jerry’s right.

     LikeLike

200. Same here

     LikeLike

201. Makes three of us.

     And may I charitably suggest that if the story of a celebrity pastor using his position, authority and spiritual language to seduce a girl young enough to be his granddaughter, and then blaming her, doesn’t give you the heebie jeebies….then maybe your heebie jeebie gland may need checked.

     LikeLike

202. I really don’t think many people consider the longer-term affect on the girl, which is why many of these stories come out years later. I wrote about this recently, although I wasn’t thinking of this particular story at the time.

     http://paulwilkinson.wordpress.com/2014/05/25/the-young-girl-in-the-coffee-shop/

     LikeLike

203. Hmm. I’ve always read that passage as rhetorical genius. The edge of the comment, using the common insulting vernacular, makes the positive point perfectly. That is professional-speach-writer quality stuff.

     LikeLike

204. Ditto.

     LikeLike

205. Kudos to the Mormons.

     We fight the bare shoulders fight every summer. And not just with women.

     Boomers think they should be able to wear jeans anywhere, and they taught that bad habit to their kids and grandkids.

     We have so much to answer for, CCM being the first in a long list.

     LikeLike

206. Whoever plays Carpathia, if he tortures Nicolas Cage with bees, I will see that movie ten times.

     LikeLike

207. Green. Haven’t you seen The Ten Commandments.

     LikeLike

208. Why? It did what it was supposed to- motivate her to talk back to Him, to not let herself be limited by the traditional stereotype of her heritage, and instead stand up and contend with God. In other words, to prove that tho she be a Canaanite by birth, by character she is a daughter of Israel.

     JC is NEVER PC! For the Right or the Left.

     LikeLike

209. …ignorant *of* its reality.

     LikeLike

210. Not to defend Ms. Paltrow, I think the soldier’s response was right on the money. But is it possible that most of us who have never been in battle are guilty of having spoken of war in terms that are ignorant its reality?

     LikeLike

211. So, how can the Orthodox remain true to ourselves, AND improve catholicity around the table?

     You guys already know this, so I don’t expect anybody to stumble at it. I also don;t expect to convince anyone by it, but the communion of Orthodox churches believes that it is the The Church™ founded by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (tomorrow, BTW) and that the table represents our full communion with Christ and with each other.

     Not a communion As Long As My Views Are Respected. Not a communion With Reservations or Quid Pro Quos. Not an almost-there communion, or a minimalist, We-All-Believe-In-Jesus communion. Not a You’re-Not-The-Boss-Of-Me-And-You’re-Not-So-Big communion.

     A perfect communion. And you don’t improve catholicity by allowing people who believe things that Aren’t So to it. Our beef with Rome, with the Augsburg Confession, and with the 39 Articles are matters of history and well attested. Abandon them, repent, and submit to our bishops and you can come to our cup. Why not, if it’s Not That Big A Deal As To Interrupt Communion?

     Complain all you want to about our internecine quarrels and our jurisdictional anarchy. We leave that behind at the Cup and Spoon.

     That being said, we have ways we display our catholicity with the heterodox. We distribute the prosfora to all who request it. Our clergy are allowed to commune other baptized Christians in extremis if their own clergy are unavailable. We routinely commune the Oriental Orthodox which scandalizes the über-correct on both sides. The heterodox can receive Eucharistic blessings, which take longer to administer. Our communion line is jammed with heterodox seeking blessings, but we wouldn’t have it any other way.

     LikeLike

212. “…by and large world population has stabilized in recent years.”

     True in the sense that the rate of growth has stabilized, but false in the sense that the stable rate of growth is unsustainable in the long run. The low growth, and even reduction, in the first world shows the way to avoiding a Mathusian dystopia. Population growth falls, and even disappears, in cultures with high standards of living. Raise everyone’s standards of living and the problem goes away.

     LikeLike

213. “Overpopulation,” ah yes, the very respectable cover story for liberal racism and distaste for the poor.”

     The Liberal response to overpopulation is to observe that population growth lowers naturally with rising standards of living. So the solution to overpopulation is to improve the standard of living everywhere. Thank goodness all those poor brown people have someone working to save them from that racist fate!

     LikeLike

214. Danielle, I’m afraid I can’t take too much credit for being charitable; if you look at the comments below, you will see one response in which I was more than just a little uncharitable.

     The woman compared my marriage to the sexual exchange of animals, for Pete’s sake. Without knowing anything about any of the particulars, without knowing if my wife and I fall within the boundary of what even the RCC charitably (ironic) allows as “invincible ignorance,” she is ready to make a sweeping judgement about a situation of which she is necessarily ignorant. A judgement, btw, that no Catholic clergy I’ve ever met would have rendered in just the pharisaical way she did, not even in the context of the confessional.

     How graceless can you get….

     LikeLike

215. 1. Really?
     2. Yes
     3. Yes
     4. Yes
     5a. Doesn’t matter
     5b. Yes

     LikeLike

216. “If Christ’s condemnation of divorce / remarriage is to mean anything it all…”

     Well, there’s the problem. You are taking a statement about grace and and turning it into a statement of law. The point Jesus was making through that whole section was that even someone fastidious about keeping the Mosaic law was still not truly righteous by the standards of God. Such a person might, in this particular example of many, divorce his wife following all the rules about how to do it, yet still not be righteous. In another example, a man might never engage in sexual relations within anyone other than his wife, but if he has lusted in his heart for another woman (and how many have not?) then he is not truly righteous. And so on, and so on, and so on.

     The point is that true righteousness comes only from God. We do not and cannot achieve it through our actions. Many people are very uncomfortable with this. They want a clear rulebook to follow: keep all the rules, and you win! Yipee! So they trawl the words of Jesus and Paul for anything that can be taken as rules, and thank God that they are not sinners like those other people.

     Marriage between two people is like union with God. Unlike God, however, we are sinners. Marriages are therefore imperfect. Some are more imperfect than others. Some are so broken that it is better for everyone involved to end it. This is the result of sin: not “sin” in the sense that we figure out which partner did that bad deed so we can cluck our tongues disapprovingly at that person, but sin in the sense that all mankind is fallen. Let he who is without sin first cluck his tongue disapprovingly.

     LikeLike

217. It was rather charitable of Robert to dignify that with a response.

     LikeLike

218. Because his position of authority over her renders true consent impossible. Also using “God’s will” to manipulate someone into sex…

     LikeLike

219. “Why on earth would anybody WANT to be low class?”

     Maybe you could tell us….

     LikeLike

220. Why would we expect anything different from Gwyneth Paltrow? It’s hard for me to be critical of her foolish analogy; it would be like being critical of water for being wet.

     LikeLike

221. “The official word from Benedict is that Protestants moving into the Catholic church experience greater ‘fullness’… ”

     If we read “fullness” as “catholicity,” that’s exactly the issue to which Leithart is speaking. He, and others like me, disagree: the closed communion of the RCC is the result of a lesser degree of “fullness” or “catholicity.”

     LikeLike

222. And here is an example of the kind of Catholicism I will always reject, which in spirit is indistinguishable from the most hard hearted fuming of a rabid fundagelical.

     LikeLike

223. I pray for your soul, which is in peril. May your heart learn mercy.

     LikeLike

224. Here’s hoping that Left Behind takes off like a rocket, resulting in Tommy Nelson putting out the Nic Cage Bible.

     w

     LikeLike

225. What’s wrong with having a class bias? Why on earth would anybody WANT to be low class?

     LikeLike

226. Why is it disgusting? Because 16 is too young? (Wake up–that’s a pretty typical age.) Because of the age difference? Because premarital sex is always wrong? (That horse is out of the barn.) Because the girl had second thoughts, or the man was a celebrity pastor?

     LikeLike

227. My wife and I have never led, nor do we lead, the lavish lifestyle the Pope skewers in his comments, nor do we have children. We married in our thirties, struggled with financial issues, my wife developed cancer (in remission now for over a decade), continued, and continue, to struggle with even more financial difficulties, advancing old age and declining health. The Pope knows none of our issues, nor is he positioned to render a valid judgement on our decision not to have kids. He speaks whereof he does not know.

     I know that my wife and I are not the specific audience of young married couples to whom the Pope was talking. But it is rather unkind of him to hold up the childless and lonely old age (yes, it often is) of people like us as object lessons to other couples in the dire and pitiable fate that awaits them if they do not have children. It hurts to have one of the most respected and loved religious leaders in the world use you as an example of what not to do to be a happy and fulfilled couple, especially when he speaks in ignorance of the specifics of your life.

     And what is the Pope saying, anyway? Have children, and your children will make your life happy and fulfilled? Is that the purpose and value of children, and is it even always true? No and no. Its an appeal to the consumer mindset to consume one set of products instead of another in the name of personal happiness. Is this Catholic teaching?

     LikeLike

228. So who’s going to play the Antichrist–Pauly Shore?

     LikeLike

229. What kind of gas is the Holy Spirit, then?

     LikeLike

230. Catholic theology distinguishes between natural marriage and spiritual marriage. Your marriage is similar to the mating of animals. Your wife, however, is considered spiritually married to her “ex” husband.

     If Christ’s condemnation of divorce / remarriage is to mean anything it all, your relationship cannot be considered as anything other than adulterous. The Church’s teaching simply reflects that more faithfully than any of the Protestant churches have dared.

     LikeLike

231. Not a sin?

     LikeLike

232. I’ve sometimes felt that Jesus calling the canaanite woman a dog was a mistake.

     LikeLike

233. Where did I imply racism or distaste for the poor?

     I try to be reasonable here; you seem to be seeing things in my comments that aren’t there and were never intended to be there.

     Maybe kick back and pull a chair up, just relax a bit more? This *is* the Saturday Ramblings edition of imonk, after all…

     LikeLike

234. Yes, well.. As long as communion in the RCC remains closed, the point remains. Fwiw, I’m Lutheran, so I don’t know that my experience of the Eucharist is all *that* different, really. But I belong to a synod that doesn’t restrict communion to synod members only, so there you go.

     LikeLike

235. He’s from Latin America; it would have been kinder to express concern for those who are struggling to feed the kids they have instead of lambasting a small minority of well-off people.

     I’ve seen people flat out wash their hands of their elderly parents; am afraid his perfect scenario is by no means a given. Go check the local nursing homes and assisted living facilities and see just how many peoples’ children bother with the parents who are in those places. Bottom line: far fewer than in the view from Francis’ rose-clored specs.

     Besides, I don’t know that lecturing people as in that comment is going to have *any* positive effect.

     I actually do like this pope, but he’s pretty tone-deaf on this issue.

     LikeLike

236. Well, that was a very selective reading of my comment! I put just about everything in there but the kitchen sink.

     As for overpopulation, it is a sad reality for most of the people in this world – so very many kids (and adults) to feed, and scant money/resources. It’s not cool for a celibate cleric to go rattling on about this topic w/out acknowledging the serious problems faced by too many out here. (Even in the US and Canada.) It goes hand in hand w/harsh economic realities. Just because a very few people can afford to live the way he’s talking about is no excuse to go after all childless couples, nor to skate past he cost of *raising* children.

     He is famed for talking about the practical realities of the church’s mission. Wish he’d mentioned the poor, the hungry, et. al

     LikeLike

237. Interesting video. On the other side, here’s a list of some things I’d rather do than see the new Left Behind movie:

     http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/new-left-behind-movie/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=formerlyfundie_060614UTC070605_daily&utm_content=&spMailingID=46131562&spUserID=NDEwMTQ5ODQ5MDAS1&spJobID=460777198&spReportId=NDYwNzc3MTk4S0

     The first, standing on top of that tower brings chills to me.

     LikeLike

238. Is that anything like “He no play a the game, he no make a the rules” kind of response one American politician spouted years ago?

     Re: “overpopulation”. The “Population Bomb” (Paul Erlich, 1970) fizzled and the western world (read: mostly white middle class) is in the throes of a SHRINKING population. This does not discount certain regional population issues but, by and large world population has stabilized in recent years.

     The problem in Europe and North America is that not enough wage earners are being born to support the social programs of government. But THAT is ANOTHER subject for another time…

     LikeLike

239. Leithart is overstating it a bit. Some Catholics will insist that no Protestant Eucharist is real, but others–including high up churchmen such as Kasper–will frame it as, “we don’t know where the Holy Spirit is not.” The official word from Benedict is that Protestants moving into the Catholic church experience greater “fullness” the sacraments, but what they experienced before was not empty or void. Neuhaus wrote similar thoughts.

     LikeLike

240. You’re not married, he’s not talking to/about you.

     “Overpopulation,” ah yes, the very respectable cover story for liberal racism and distaste for the poor.

     LikeLike

241. Of COURSE Jesus made mistakes! How many tradesmen out there learned their craft perfectly by listening to instruction? I’ll tell you…NONE! Learning involves making mistakes, miscalculations and miscues in the process of trying to master a skill. The same goes for toddlers learning to feed themselves, learning to walk and getting potty trained.

     Sin is knowing what is right and then doing the opposite volitionally. Miscutting a piece of wood while trying to do it correctly is NOT sin. Taking three steps and then falling on your face while learning to walk is a mistake, NOT a sin.

     Now when a man says he made a mistake when he decided to dilly dally with that cute young thing down the street while his wife is not around, well, he’s just not being honest. That was no “mistake”, that was SIN!

     LikeLike

242. Gwyneth Paltrow has been the prime example of totally out of touch celebrities ever since she returned to the public consciousness after appearing in Iron Man. She recently said she thinks water can sense positive and negative emotions and alter its structure because of said emotions. What the hell ever. Not really sure why she’s A-list anyway. What has she done recently? A pretty unremarkable performance in the Iron Man movies? That’s all that’s required for mega-fame? Huh. Interesting.

     The Cubbies have won four in a row and have passed the surprisingly horrible Rays for the second worst record in baseball. Third base prospect Kris Bryant is putting up jaw-dropping numbers in Double-A and is probably headed to the majors shortly. Fellow top prospect Javier Baez is struggling in Triple-A, but he’s barely turned 21 and is playing at a level far beyond most guys his age. Likely a September call-up, or possibly earlier if the major league team deals incumbent second baseman Darwin Barney.

     Unrelated to anything, but I don’t know any other way to contact HUG. HUG, you’ve mentioned that you’re in the furry fandom. Have you purchased any Lego Legends of Chima products? Granted, the cartoon is aimed at kids and is pretty bad from what I’ve seen, but the products themselves are pretty fun. The figures, who are anthropomorphic animals of many different types, are fantastically detailed.

     LikeLike

243. Steve…that’s one of the funniest comments I’ve read here! Bravo!!

     LikeLike

244. Remember that time years ago at the Grammys, when Whitney Houston thanked Jesus for giving her the adultery song “Savin’ All My Love for You” ?
     If true, Jesus might’ve made a mistake there.

     LikeLike

245. “Both my marriage, and the many times I’ve participated in Eucharist outside the RCC, are valid and real, and neither can be diminished by the insufficiently catholic RCC understanding or assessment of them.”

     Sure. They have a very different understanding of the Christian faith. Theirs is dependent upon properly ordained clergy in historic succession.

     My pastor likes to call that (that which emanates from fingertip to head of the newly ordained)…”blue gas”.

     There is NO “blue gas”. The Word contains it’s own authority. Try and argue that with a Roman Catholic …till you are blue in the face.

     LikeLike

246. Amen, Robert.

     LikeLike

247. Re. Pope Francis, I so wish he had addressed the reality of

     – people who keep having kids but who are bad parents

     – the absolute fact that having kids does NOT mean that they will be there for you when you’re old (trust me; I know whereof I speak on this one)

     – overpopulation

     – people who know they do not want kids/do not feel they would be good parents who give of themselves and their time to others

     – the innate class bias in his statement

     …. I could go on and on. As a never-married woman who did want kids (and is now well past the age where that happens), I also wish he’d spared a thought for those who are in like circumstances – very much including those who are dealing with infertility.

     He isn’t in a position to have experienced this stuff firsthand, which is no end of irksome as far as his “advice” is concerned. Better he sit and listen to people who *do* know in this case than saying one.more.word.

     LikeLike

248. I don’t agree with everything I’ve heard or read from Peter Leithart, but I agree with the quote from him in today’s post. I believe that Christian baptism leads, or should lead, directly to the Eucharistic table, and I believe that the prohibitions against the participation of other Christians that exist around the Eucharistic table in the RCC and EOC reflect a deficiency in catholicity.

     For example, as a man married to a formerly divorced woman, I and my wife are both barred by canon law from fully participating in Roman Catholic celebrations of the Eucharist, though we both are baptized and believing Christians. I consider the reasons for this exclusion illegitimate and unwarranted, and I think they diminish the catholicity of the Roman Catholic church.

     Both my marriage, and the many times I’ve participated in Eucharist outside the RCC, are valid and real, and neither can be diminished by the insufficiently catholic RCC understanding or assessment of them.

     LikeLike

249. Driscoll may be right. Here’s how I’ve heard it put: Jesus being fully human and a carpenter’s son means he must have, in his 30 years, at least once, hit his thumb with the hammer. That’s a mistake, but not a sin. A perfect savior can’t be fully human without those kinds of mistakes.

     However, I don’t know or trust were Driscoll may have been going with his spin, so I’m not going to say for sure that he is right.

     LikeLike

250. The Jack Schaap story is disgusting. That is all.

     LikeLike