Do We Have a Christ Followers Thread?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

13 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

The largest church In Houston, Second Baptist, the famous pastor Ed Young was recorded during sermon recently saying don’t vote for Lina Hidalgo. His sign out front also has a sign mocking being Woke. 
 

I’d say it’s not just patriots pretending when the pastors and leaders of churches, who have been those people for decades, are now teaching politics and division. 

Dr. Young is 100% wrong for engaging in secular politics from the pulpit.  I heard about that and about what he preached about the Houston judges. It annoys me too and is counterproductive for reaching the lost. Because much of what Second Baptist preaches is the truth and that church does many wonderful things in the Houston community.

On the other end of the spectrum is a church I drive by every day near the corner of San Felipe and 610 that basically has whatever is the theme of the day from the Democratic platform in big bright, colorful, electric lights on their sign.  

I cannot stand politics from the pulpit.  It is not Godly.  I honestly have no idea how my pastor votes.  And I do not care.  If you can tell how your pastor votes from the sermons they preach, I would suggest you find another church.  Because otherwise you are likely in an unholy echo chamber.

 

Edited September 28, 2022 by Johnny Sack

[Brisketexan 105154]

13 hours ago, Clintonaldo said:

 I think what you are seeing now are fake patriots claiming they are Christians. 

Yep.  And make no mistake about what they are doing.  They hold abhorrent belief/attitude X.  That attitude rightly opens them up to criticism.  SO, to shield themselves, they cover abhorrent belief X in the mantle of Christianity -- "I believe abhorrent belief X because I'm a Christian!  You hate me because of my faith, and you hate Jesus and God too!"  Slapping the "part of my faith!" label on your previously held shitty opinion makes the belief literally "sacred," and anyone who criticizes me isn't merely a critic with a different opinion; no, they are a HERETIC, and APOSTATE, and an ATHEIST WHO HATES GOD!  WHY ARE CHRISTIANS SO PERSECUTED IN THIS COUNTRY????

Christians aren't persecuted in this country.  Not even a little bit.  Dickheads who do shitty things?  They are criticized rather relentlessly.  If you are feeling attacked, it is almost certainly NOT because you are a christian...rather, it is likely because you are a dickhead who does shitty things.

13 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

The largest church In Houston, Second Baptist, the famous pastor Ed Young was recorded during sermon recently saying don’t vote for Lina Hidalgo. His sign out front also has a sign mocking being Woke. 
 

I’d say it’s not just patriots pretending when the pastors and leaders of churches, who have been those people for decades, are now teaching politics and division. 

And this is also true.  That said, it's hard to figure out what comes first, the politics or the mantle of faith meant as a shield against criticism.  But the split is pretty clear.  I mean, think of this -- you have two groups who claim to be Christian: 1) Sister Norma Pimentel and Catholic Charities, providing humanitarian aid to desperate migrants with no questions asked, and 2) American "conservative Christians" who openly demonize brown migrants and celebrate their suffering and cruelty inflicted on them.  BOTH claim to be Christian (one quite a bit more loudly than the other).  Yet, when you pick up the Gospel of Matthew, and consider which group is following its unambiguous teaching, it's obvious which group is acting as Christ-followers, and which isn't.  It's no coincidence that the group that more loudly proclaims "WE'RE CHRISTIANS!  LOOK AT US!" is the farthest from the Gospels.

12 hours ago, F250 said:

I would say this is a correlation. The RCC unlike the Eastern Church ingested Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy into it's theology. The root of Western thought is Greek in origin and it incubated under Roman Catholic scholars for centuries. There wasn't anything unique about Christianity except the structure of the Roman Catholic Church that filled in a void after the fall of Rome.

Bingo.  The connection of Christianity and the West is much more about the surviving institutions (the institution of the Church filled a governance void) than it is about Gospel-originated theology.  And that truth doesn't need to be read as denigrating Christian theology; it's meaningful, purposeful, and beautiful on its own.  To the contrary, the constant need to bolster the credibility of "the Christian faith" by crediting it with all that is good about Western civilization demeans and diminishes that actual theology.

[SydneyCarton 48110]

9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Dr. Young is 100% wrong for engaging in secular politics from the pulpit.  I heard about that and about what he preached about the Houston judges. It annoys me too and is counterproductive for reaching the lost. Because much of what Second Baptist preaches is the truth and that church does many wonderful things in the Houston community.

On the other end of the spectrum is a church I drive by every day near the corner of San Felipe and 610 that basically has whatever is the theme of the day from the Democratic platform in big bright, colorful, electric lights on their sign.  

I cannot stand politics from the pulpit.  It is not Godly.  I honestly have no idea how my pastor votes.  And I do not care.  If you can tell how your pastor votes from the sermons they preach, I would suggest you find another church.  Because otherwise you are likely in an unholy echo chamber.

 

You're right, he's 100% wrong. And I haven't seen the church at 610 and San Felipe, but I've got one near me on 11th street and TC Jester that is obviously very left of center, particularly in the religious world. Welcoming of all, Rainbows, etc. They are regularly vandalized. All Lives Matter sign ripped off, etc. And while I think it is important that some churches openly advertise to underserved or persecuted communities to let them know it's a church that will accept them, the vandalism as a response isn't surprising. Of course, this church's most valuable asset is the land it sits on, it doesn't seem to be  rolling in money, and if anything looks shabby. Second Baptist meanwhile has an annual budget of 53 millions of dollars across 5 campuses, and was named for sheltering an employee who sexually assaulted a 12 year old. These things don't feel like apples to apples to me. In fact, and this is an honest question, can someone name me a billion dollar mega-chruch that preaches obviously left? I'm sure some exist, but I've never seen one, and I'd be curious see what one is like.

For reference above in regards to 2nd baptist: https://houston.culturemap.com/news/city-life/10-06-14-houston-megachurch-slapped-with-sexual-abuse-lawsuit-over-youth-pastors-behavior-asks-for-prayer

Also, I digress a bit. The point is, you may hate it, it may infuriate you, and that's all fair. But the fact is this is a massive, giant church that influences its flock tremendously, and if anything the mega-churches of the world are becoming more common and more powerful and a driving force in these kinds of things. We can hate it and not approve of it, but we can't deny that their influence is increasing, not decreasing among the devout, even as overall affiliation with Christianity seems to drop off. In fact, I think that increases the power of the mega-church.  

[texasdago 7575]

Yeah... Second Baptist... that used to be my church in Houston and I gradually grew disenchanted by the church as I watched it get more and more interweaved with politics and what I found to be toxic politics.  Over time, when I was still active, I saw the church cared more about "BIG SHOWS!!!!" and "Giant Crazy Nutty Flashy Christmas Shows!!!!" and Bible study classes that were big dance parties rather than just focusing on the foundations.  It was all smoke and mirrors and a perfect Memorial-area example of "look at me" Christianity.  Yeah... so much money... SO MUCH going to just surface-level flashy BS that had little to do with the great commission.  That's why when I was tithing to the church, I always noted that I wanted my tithes going to "missions" so it didn't go to salaries, lighting for some silly Easter show, etc. etc.  

I met my wife at that church but honestly would be happy never setting foot in there again.

[SydneyCarton 48110]

9 minutes ago, texasdago said:

Yeah... Second Baptist... that used to be my church in Houston and I gradually grew disenchanted by the church as I watched it get more and more interweaved with politics and what I found to be toxic politics.  Over time, when I was still active, I saw the church cared more about "BIG SHOWS!!!!" and "Giant Crazy Nutty Flashy Christmas Shows!!!!" and Bible study classes that were big dance parties rather than just focusing on the foundations.  It was all smoke and mirrors and a perfect Memorial-area example of "look at me" Christianity.  Yeah... so much money... SO MUCH going to just surface-level flashy BS that had little to do with the great commission.  That's why when I was tithing to the church, I always noted that I wanted my tithes going to "missions" so it didn't go to salaries, lighting for some silly Easter show, etc. etc.  

I met my wife at that church but honestly would be happy never setting foot in there again.

I have a buddy who decided to leave Second Baptist, and start his own grass roots church in Katy. They were doing very well, but like many churches they got crushed by Covid, lost half their congregation. And the inevitable conversations started to show up to draw back congregants...do we need to hire a full time, professional  band? Other suggestions of things that put butts, but were more spectacle than biblical. I believe they resisted, and a reason was "We left 2nd Baptist for a reason, that's not who we're trying to be" but the fact that these are important conversations that have to take place because congregations are getting desperate, and the oxygen is being taken up by mega-churches...I find it telling.

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

You're right, he's 100% wrong. And I haven't seen the church at 610 and San Felipe, but I've got one near me on 11th street and TC Jester that is obviously very left of center, particularly in the religious world. Welcoming of all, Rainbows, etc. They are regularly vandalized. All Lives Matter sign ripped off, etc. And while I think it is important that some churches openly advertise to underserved or persecuted communities to let them know it's a church that will accept them, the vandalism as a response isn't surprising. Of course, this church's most valuable asset is the land it sits on, it doesn't seem to be  rolling in money, and if anything looks shabby. Second Baptist meanwhile has an annual budget of 53 millions of dollars across 5 campuses, and was named for sheltering an employee who sexually assaulted a 12 year old. These things don't feel like apples to apples to me. In fact, and this is an honest question, can someone name me a billion dollar mega-chruch that preaches obviously left? I'm sure some exist, but I've never seen one, and I'd be curious see what one is like.

For reference above in regards to 2nd baptist: https://houston.culturemap.com/news/city-life/10-06-14-houston-megachurch-slapped-with-sexual-abuse-lawsuit-over-youth-pastors-behavior-asks-for-prayer

Also, I digress a bit. The point is, you may hate it, it may infuriate you, and that's all fair. But the fact is this is a massive, giant church that influences its flock tremendously, and if anything the mega-churches of the world are becoming more common and more powerful and a driving force in these kinds of things. We can hate it and not approve of it, but we can't deny that their influence is increasing, not decreasing among the devout, even as overall affiliation with Christianity seems to drop off. In fact, I think that increases the power of the mega-church.  

I cannot.  But most mega churches I know of are apolitical.  See Lakewood/Osteen. Probably because they want a large tent so they can get more contributions and sell more books.

All sorts of churches violate federal nonprofit law when it comes to politics from the pulpit.  The AME and other black churches are just as big of offenders as Second Baptist.  The government should enforce 501(c)(3) on the entire lot of them.

[SydneyCarton 48110]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

I cannot.  But most mega churches I know of are apolitical.  See Lakewood/Osteen. Probably because they want a large tent so they can get more contributions and sell more books.

All sorts of churches violate federal nonprofit law when it comes to politics from the pulpit.  The AME and other black churches are just as big of offenders as Second Baptist.  The government should enforce 501(c)(3) on the entire lot of them.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

32 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

No way.  Unless you also want to tax all nonprofits.  Most that own their real estate would be history.  Churches, parks, hospitals, universities, museums, zoos, planned parenthood clinics, private schools, animal shelters, hospitals, youth camps, women's shelters, etc. 

You could not, under the First Amendment, single out religious nonprofits for taxation and exclude secular nonprofits.

 

Edited September 28, 2022 by Johnny Sack

[YGIFS 19452]

Yes, because of all those pesky Zoos advocating for overturning certain SCOTUS rulings.  I agree with you, it's a slippery slope and where does it end after churches?  But organized faith is singular in our nation as being the root cause of so much political policy making.  I have served non-profits numbering in the dozens and in only a handful have politics ever arisen.   But we must put an end to the trickle-down economic mantra being forced upon battered rape victims in women's shelters.  It must stop!  Otherwise, we must tax them!  

[Uncle Nate 2097]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Dr. Young is 100% wrong for engaging in secular politics from the pulpit.  I heard about that and about what he preached about the Houston judges. It annoys me too and is counterproductive for reaching the lost. Because much of what Second Baptist preaches is the truth and that church does many wonderful things in the Houston community.

On the other end of the spectrum is a church I drive by every day near the corner of San Felipe and 610 that basically has whatever is the theme of the day from the Democratic platform in big bright, colorful, electric lights on their sign.  

I cannot stand politics from the pulpit.  It is not Godly.  I honestly have no idea how my pastor votes.  And I do not care.  If you can tell how your pastor votes from the sermons they preach, I would suggest you find another church.  Because otherwise you are likely in an unholy echo chamber.

 

One of the many reasons I love my church and denomination.  My pastor, and all pastors within this denomination, are expected to only preach Law and Gospel...the truth that Jesus, as the perfect lamb, saves us through his substitutionary atonement on the cross.

When you are preaching Law and Gospel, you don't have any time or space for secular stuff like politics.  

But on the flipside, when you do preach 100% from Scripture, inevitably some will think you are doing some political advocating by simply pointing out Law.  I could see those who live, eat, and drink politics sitting in one of our services, hearing a sermon about Law and Gospel, and coming away thinking there were political undertones when in fact all the pastor did was preach the Law and share the Gospel.

[crash_davis 23113]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Dr. Young is 100% wrong for engaging in secular politics from the pulpit.  I heard about that and about what he preached about the Houston judges. It annoys me too and is counterproductive for reaching the lost. Because much of what Second Baptist preaches is the truth and that church does many wonderful things in the Houston community.

On the other end of the spectrum is a church I drive by every day near the corner of San Felipe and 610 that basically has whatever is the theme of the day from the Democratic platform in big bright, colorful, electric lights on their sign.  

I cannot stand politics from the pulpit.  It is not Godly.  I honestly have no idea how my pastor votes.  And I do not care.  If you can tell how your pastor votes from the sermons they preach, I would suggest you find another church.  Because otherwise you are likely in an unholy echo chamber.

 

If pastors were teaching about Grace, the teachings of Jesus, and doing God's work, then all pastors would sound like Democrats. 

Greedy cash money-gun loving-freedom of speech to say racist shit-fuck-the poor loving Jesus is a man made excuse to be an asshole. And there are millions of assholes in this country. And all those millions proclaim to be Christians.

That's some funny shit.

Edited September 28, 2022 by crash_davis

[Johnny Sack 8397]

51 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

If pastors were teaching about Grace, the teachings of Jesus, and doing God's work, then all pastors would sound like Democrats. 

 

Really?  Which ones?

Edited September 28, 2022 by Johnny Sack

[SydneyCarton 48110]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

No way.  Unless you also want to tax all nonprofits.  Most that own their real estate would be history.  Churches, parks, hospitals, universities, museums, zoos, planned parenthood clinics, private schools, animal shelters, hospitals, youth camps, women's shelters, etc. 

You could not, under the First Amendment, single out religious nonprofits for taxation and exclude secular nonprofits.

 

Only one (although I'm sure many here would argue Universities make 2) of those things regularly and traditionally violate the 501c(3) tenets and get political. Only one are breeding grounds for sewing division in society. But...you're probably right. Churches should simply have a different set of qualifications for achieving and maintaining their tax exempt status. Something like 50% or even 80% of all profits have to demonstrably be flowed back into community giving. Caps on Salaries of employees. Caps on number of employees, yearly audits to maintain said status. And most of all, as you mentioned, having that shit revoked the second they become outwardly political. And NONE of that money can flow back into PACs or any other political campaigns, 1st amendment be damned. Now, I can't imagine why those things could never happen...even before the supreme court made this shit fait accompli 20 years ago, much less now. 

[crash_davis 23113]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yes, Democrats are as a group lovely people, tolerant, and not hateful in any way.  See the summer of love, 2020.

So you think the major themes and teachings of the Bible are more aligned to the party of assholes? Get the fuck out of here with your feeble attempt at deflection.

[F250 28777]

1 hour ago, Uncle Nate said:

One of the many reasons I love my church and denomination.  My pastor, and all pastors within this denomination, are expected to only preach Law and Gospel...the truth that Jesus, as the perfect lamb, saves us through his substitutionary atonement on the cross.

When you are preaching Law and Gospel, you don't have any time or space for secular stuff like politics.  

But on the flipside, when you do preach 100% from Scripture, inevitably some will think you are doing some political advocating by simply pointing out Law.  I could see those who live, eat, and drink politics sitting in one of our services, hearing a sermon about Law and Gospel, and coming away thinking there were political undertones when in fact all the pastor did was preach the Law and share the Gospel.

Law and Gospel can mean different things depending on the denomination. What denomination are you, LCMS?

[Willfully Horn 8027]

It pleases me to include the following blog in this thread. Spoliered for those who might get upset.

”Green Hair, Mustard Seeds, and Me”  by Shawn Powers

 

Spoiler

It’s been a couple weeks now, and my green hair is starting to fade. My light brown roots are peeking through, and since I don’t go many places, most people who will see me have seen me. And while I tweeted a short explanation, I haven’t gotten too detailed when explaining why my hair is green. Mostly because I was (am) angry, and it was hard to talk about it without being mean. And that rationale is sorta the whole point.

In order to really understand my green hair, however, you need to understand me a bit. I don’t really talk about my faith much publicly these days, and that’s been on purpose. Largely because what “Christian” seems to mean in society these days doesn’t really align with what it means to me personally. But also partially because I’m not a man of great faith. When I see Jesus talk (twice) about having faith as tiny as a mustard seed, my first thought is something like, “um, what about people with the faith of a basil seed?” (full disclosure: I haven’t gardened very much, basil seeds are probably not the smallest, they’re just the smallest I’m familiar with, and MUCH smaller than mustard seeds)

Shawn, Let Me Explain Matthew 17:20…

Please don’t. I already know. I really do. I’ve taught bible class, led youth group, served on deacon/elder boards, and heck even preached Sunday sermons. I’m familiar with conventional wisdom on the metaphor, and I’m not claiming that I’ve discovered some new, deeper, more holy meaning. No, when I consider the notion of small faith affecting change, I’m encouraged in spite of the biblical focus. Jesus was stressing that God is so great, even the smallest sliver of infinity is still infinity. (See? Old habits die hard. Here I am preaching…)

But what if my small faith is combined with weak belief and mountains of uncertainty? Is my basil seed of faith still enough to move mountains? Maybe. And, maybe not. The thing is, I still need to live my life in a way that seems right. And let’s be frank here, when I say “weak belief”, I’m not just throwing out church-y phrases. Do I believe in God? Sure, usually. I guess. But pretending to have a rock solid faith for the sake of saving church ladies from “the vapors” seems a bit un-Christian. Heh.

Bro, Do You Even Christian?

Yes. Yes, I consider myself a Christian. But only because Jesus seems to be someone worth following. Whether you think Jesus was/is the creator of the universe, becoming a man to redeem the world, or just a rebellious lover of humanity — he was a really awesome guy. I want to be like him, because he cared about the outcast, taught people to think instead of blindly obeying, valued people over anything else, and got furious at the exploitation of human beings by those in power. And Jesus was kind. He must have been, or the children wouldn’t have flocked around him.

So yes, while in many, many ways I do not identify with the modern, American version of “Christianity”, I do consider myself Christian. Maybe not a “good” Christian. Maybe not even a good representation of “Christ-like”, but inasmuch as I’m anything, I’m a person trying to be like Jesus. And most days, that’s enough for me. To be clear, that’s not enough for many folks, and so many will not consider me a Christian. That’s OK.

But Dude, if You’re Wrong [Insert Crackling Fire Sounds]

Yeah, so if you’re a Christian to avoid burning in Hell, you’ve missed the point. Maybe Hell is a place of fire and pain, maybe it’s a metaphor for separation from God. And maybe it’s simply a description of the empty worthlessness a life lived for selfish gain gets a person. I honestly don’t know. But I also don’t need to know.

The way I strive to live my life is not predicated on a promise of future reward. I don’t choose kindness so that someday I’m given an oceanfront view in heaven. Empathy is not a vehicle to riches, in this world or the next. And my motivation for helping others is not accrue favor from a higher being, but rather to, you know, help someone because they need help.

For what it’s worth, this is also why I’m far less concerned about people who aren’t Christians than traditional Christianity would dictate. And here is where I lose a lot of folks who were mostly ok with my particular take on living a Christ-like life. That’s OK. I’m not starting my own religion, and I’m not telling anyone they should “Christian” like I do. But here’s the thing, Jesus didn’t seem to be a guy overly concerned about technicalities. If there is an afterlife, and some metaphorical pearly gates, it seems like a pretty low-rent heaven that would allow douchebags with the proper punch card into eternal glory, and send caring, compassionate Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, etc., into eternal torture.

Does that mean I’m trying to do some magic hand-wavy trick to turn “the way, the truth, and the life” into a moralistic litmus test for heaven? Um, no. I don’t feel a need to do that. Again, my motivation for how I live my life is not a future reward. In fact I’ve always been suspect of folks who need that carrot in order to do the right thing. My little basil seed of faith is apparently sufficient to follow the example of Jesus, even if he doesn’t want to be friends with me afterward.

Ok. You’re Outta the Club

I know. No, seriously, I know. Writing this and posting it publicly will actually be sufficient cause to prevent me from holding a role as teacher or leader in a church. It will be a rationale for people who have been uncomfortable with my brand of living life to finally put me in the “other” camp. It might sever friendships, and it will disappoint people who thought I was someone else.

But that’s OK too.

I am a Christian, because I think Christ is someone worth following. I think the modern Christian Church resembles the Pharisees in the bible far more than it represents Jesus and his gang. And I can’t pretend to be something I’m not in order to fit in. That really doesn’t seem like the sort of thing Jesus did either. My faith might be tiny, but my resolve is not.

That Was a Lot. But, Why is Your Hair Green?

Heh. You still want to know? Cool. It’s difficult to explain without painting some folks in an unflattering light, but my hair is green because my daughter was treated poorly for dyeing her own hair. She was a volunteer assistant coach at the Christian school from which she graduated. Partway through the season, when she dyed her hair bright red, she was told she could no longer represent the school in public. There was a new rule, which she hadn’t been told about, that volunteers were not allowed to have unnaturally colored hair.

The rub, however, is that she was still allowed to help in practice, just not sit on the bench during games, or get announced as a coach during the pre-game. Her “look” was appropriate enough to exploit for free labor, but not “good enough” for the public to associate with the school in an official role. And she was gutted. So I dyed my hair in solidarity.

So What Now?

I dunno, coffee? I mean, it’s not like I’ve suddenly changed who I am, and my life is on a different trajectory. If I haven’t been living my life loud enough that people are shocked to learn I was a heathen all along, well, maybe things change for them. As for me, I’ll continue to live life the best way I know how. When presented with new information, I’ll change my views accordingly. If given a choice between kindness and and cruelty, I’ll strive for the former, while rallying against the latter. And with all my shortcomings, failings, poor choices, and inevitable mistakes: I’ll try to leave this world a little better than I found it. Regardless of where my next stop might be.

 

Edited September 28, 2022 by Willfully Horn
Edit

[Uncle Nate 2097]

9 minutes ago, F250 said:

Law and Gospel can mean different things depending on the denomination. What denomination are you, LCMS?

Yes...LCMS.  Probably my use of the terms Law and Gospel capitalized gave it away, huh? 

The thing is...if we follow Scripture, it shouldn't mean different things.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

So you think the major themes and teachings of the Bible are more aligned to the party of assholes? Get the fuck out of here with your feeble attempt at deflection.

They're all pretty much hateful assholes.  Part of being a politician in the 2020s.  But fine, show me one whose words and deeds are Christ-like.

[SydneyCarton 48110]

3 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

Yes...LCMS.  Probably my use of the terms Law and Gospel capitalized gave it away, huh? 

The thing is...if we follow Scripture, it shouldn't mean different things.  

I feel like...expecting people to read the same thing and 100% come to the same conclusions isn't even achievable when dealing with basic level factual statements:
"It's hot outside."
"That is an ugly baby."
"Your girlfriend is fat."

I'm mostly being funny above, but you get the idea. While obvious to many, people will disagree based upon personal opinions and bias, because there isn't an empirical measure for any of those things. And now imagine that scale where things are much, much more open to personal interpretation and opinion. We all know there is scripture that advocates terrible things that aren't accepted in modern society as well. So now you're subjectively picking and choosing. That's a problem. Or even different versions of the Bible. 

What you're suggesting is idealist, but damn near impossible, imo. 

[F250 28777]

2 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

Yes...LCMS.  Probably my use of the terms Law and Gospel capitalized gave it away, huh? 

The thing is...if we follow Scripture, it shouldn't mean different things.  

Yeah, that kind of signaled LCMS.

 

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

I feel like...expecting people to read the same thing and 100% come to the same conclusions isn't even achievable when dealing with basic level factual statements:
"It's hot outside."
"That is an ugly baby."
"Your girlfriend is fat."

I'm mostly being funny above, but you get the idea. While obvious to many, people will disagree based upon personal opinions and bias, because there isn't an empirical measure for any of those things. And now imagine that scale where things are much, much more open to personal interpretation and opinion. We all know there is scripture that advocates terrible things that aren't accepted in modern society as well. So now you're subjectively picking and choosing. That's a problem. Or even different versions of the Bible. 

What you're suggesting is idealist, but damn near impossible, imo. 

The most interesting aspect of this thread is when posters make a statement as a "matter of fact" when they should be prefacing such statements with "It is my personal belief..." basically they need to add a "imo" to such claims.

Throughout this thread there have been a number of statements about the doctrine of Justification/Sanctification made as if this belief is the correct belief despite this being a very controversial topic across Christendom.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, F250 said:

Yeah, that kind of signaled LCMS.

 

The most interesting aspect of this thread is when posters make a statement as a "matter of fact" when they should be prefacing such statements with "It is my personal belief..." basically they need to add a "imo" to such claims.

Throughout this thread there have been a number of statements about the doctrine of Justification/Sanctification made as if this belief is the correct belief despite this being a very controversial topic across Christendom.

It is my belief that it is a matter of fact that Calvinism is wrong. 

[F250 28777]

27 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

It is my belief that it is a matter of fact that Calvinism is wrong. 

[markstanco 12577]

It is my belief that it is a matter of fact that Calvinism is wrong. 

A local baptist church is losing a ton of people over this with their newish pastor. I’m non-denom at a fun church so never been but a great friend left the baptist for this very reason. He has gone on missions to Central America, yada yada with them.

He made me laugh when he left, his thought is “ so I can go out and bang whores every night while married and it doesn’t matter, or I can go to church twice a week and it doesn’t matter. Yea sign me up for that”

[Uncle Nate 2097]

18 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

I feel like...expecting people to read the same thing and 100% come to the same conclusions isn't even achievable when dealing with basic level factual statements:
"It's hot outside."
"That is an ugly baby."
"Your girlfriend is fat."

I'm mostly being funny above, but you get the idea. While obvious to many, people will disagree based upon personal opinions and bias, because there isn't an empirical measure for any of those things. And now imagine that scale where things are much, much more open to personal interpretation and opinion. We all know there is scripture that advocates terrible things that aren't accepted in modern society as well. So now you're subjectively picking and choosing. That's a problem. Or even different versions of the Bible. 

What you're suggesting is idealist, but damn near impossible, imo. 

It's not idealist.  The problem is thinking that we humans can interpret scripture, when in fact it is scripture that interprets scripture.  Any interpretation of scripture should and must be tested against other passages in the Bible.

One may think this is simplistic and naive approach, but in fact it is exactly what the Bible instructs us to do.  God did not leave us a mystery to solve...his Word interprets his Word for us.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

15 hours ago, F250 said:

Yeah, that kind of signaled LCMS.

 

The most interesting aspect of this thread is when posters make a statement as a "matter of fact" when they should be prefacing such statements with "It is my personal belief..." basically they need to add a "imo" to such claims.

Throughout this thread there have been a number of statements about the doctrine of Justification/Sanctification made as if this belief is the correct belief despite this being a very controversial topic across Christendom.

Actually, St. Paul is very clear on this.  It's only controversial to those who believe evolving Church doctrine supersedes scripture.

[SydneyCarton 48110]

22 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

It's not idealist.  The problem is thinking that we humans can interpret scripture, when in fact it is scripture that interprets scripture.  Any interpretation of scripture should and must be tested against other passages in the Bible.

One may think this is simplistic and naive approach, but in fact it is exactly what the Bible instructs us to do.  God did not leave us a mystery to solve...his Word interprets his Word for us.

No, this clears everything up immensely. It's well known that the Bible never contradicts itself. This is easy to understand, particularly to a population rapidly declining in intellect, as well as the potential for being led by religious leaders who don't actually follow or teach the scripture, as we've touched on above. 

Thanks for proving my point, sir. 

[gsoda3 3263]

20 hours ago, crash_davis said:

If pastors were teaching about Grace, the teachings of Jesus, and doing God's work, then all pastors would sound like Democrats. 

you see what you want to see.

On 8/22/2020 at 12:42 PM, RomaVicta said:

And, yes, I did ask for Jesus to come into my life back when I could be sincere about it and nada.

 

not making fun of you or trying to offend-  what were your expectations would happen afterward?  what did you want to happen?  asking because the act of turning to Jesus to have Him in your life is an act of surrendering control of your life over to Him.  it signifies a realization that how we want to live our life is different from God's (wrong), that we submit to how God wants us to live, and that we are in need of forgiveness and completely powerless to effect change on our own.  the resulting decision of that change of heart would be evidenced by new desires in the face of many constant failures to actually live that way.  

[Uncle Nate 2097]

25 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

No, this clears everything up immensely. It's well known that the Bible never contradicts itself. This is easy to understand, particularly to a population rapidly declining in intellect, as well as the potential for being led by religious leaders who don't actually follow or teach the scripture, as we've touched on above. 

Thanks for proving my point, sir. 

No need to be snarky.

Never said it was easy to understand.  But if we need to interpret scripture, we need to interpret it with scripture.  That's why there is Bible Concordances...to help us with this chore.

Also why any pastor should be willing to tell his congregation to please check his work at all times with what is in the Word, and to call him out should he preach something contrary to the Word.  

[SydneyCarton 48110]

2 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

No need to be snarky.

Never said it was easy to understand.  But if we need to interpret scripture, we need to interpret it with scripture.  That's why there is Bible Concordances...to help us with this chore.

Also why any pastor should be willing to tell his congregation to please check his work at all times with what is in the Word, and to call him out should he preach something contrary to the Word.  

You see snark, and sure I'm a sarcastic bloke, but I've gone out of my way to keep the tone low on this thread out of respect for the topic and hand, and the desire for civil discourse. Although I'm sure some folks aren't thrilled on how this thread has morphed from it's intended purpose. 

You say you don't think this is idealistic. And then you talk about the difficulty. But the fact of the matter is, this is America where half the country can't agree with almost anything on the other half, and they're aggressive and violent about it at this point. But you expect them to adhere to what you consider to be the one "proper" way to interpret scripture. That's idealistic. Some might say naive. But I'll personally say that it's about as close as impossible as impossible gets. And your anecdote about the pastor proves it. "Well, they should all be open to criticism, questioning, and have their work checked." But many are not. They currently just are not. And they're being rewarded for it in many regards. Do I need to post the video of the guy who "admitted" to sexually assaulting a girl as a teenager when she called him out during service, and he cried, and most of the congregation hugged him and forgave him while shunning and ostracizing her? Ignoring a present reality for how "things should work" is idealism, imo. 

[RomaVicta 29929]

43 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

 

not making fun of you or trying to offend-  what were your expectations would happen afterward?  what did you want to happen?  asking because the act of turning to Jesus to have Him in your life is an act of surrendering control of your life over to Him.  it signifies a realization that how we want to live our life is different from God's (wrong), that we submit to how God wants us to live, and that we are in need of forgiveness and completely powerless to effect change on our own.  the resulting decision of that change of heart would be evidenced by new desires in the face of many constant failures to actually live that way.  

I don't feel mocked. It was college in the 70s, and I was really struggling with what has since been diagnosed (and treated, thank goodness) with depression. But it wasn't just chemical. I was really torn about what life is all about and how to proceed. Over and over, I heard that if you sincerely invite Jesus into your heart, there would be a change. A belief. A faith. A path. As you describe, I was offering surrender.

I did so and found myself unchanged. Over the years, I concluded that belief in God is an intuition that many wise and good friends of mine have about the divine. I only found myself continually losing arguments with myself about any point in denying my own observations and intuition.

I struggled a long time with the feeling this life is all there is. 

When I worked on oil rigs and made good money from time to time, I would buy books so I would have something to show for my earnings after my spendthrift ways made me broke again.

One book I bought was the Penquin Classic, Livy's The War with Hannibal. I was shocked at how much like our lives were the lives of the Romans. Look at all they did. Look at how their ordinary lives went along just fine without belief in an eternal afterlife. It was like walking into a room full of people who I could relate to. It's so lonely when you step away from notions of God. Thus ended that feeling of freakish loneliness.

I'd also bought Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra. I crawled through that about a page at a time, and further found thinking not tied to or enslaved by some notion of truth revealed by a god. It took years to get comfortable with mortality. I'm older now. I don't lament that I will pass forever from this world. 

You write:

it signifies a realization that how we want to live our life is different from God's (wrong), that we submit to how God wants us to live, and that we are in need of forgiveness and completely powerless to effect change on our own.  the resulting decision of that change of heart would be evidenced by new desires in the face of many constant failures to actually live that way.  

I think this is the dogma that is to underpin the need for belief. It's like the fine print to the constant promise that asking Jesus into your life will change your life. You seem to be saying that inviting Jesus into one's life doesn't change much until you opt for the indoctrination and the, forgive me, insidious notion of sin. Toss in heaven and hell, and one might argue it's something of a vicious con game playing on guilt and in-group out-group dynamics. You find yourself in East Texas claiming Catholics are all going to hell while you are one of the lucky few going straight to heaven.

I don't mean to suggest that is the way of all Christians. Certainly, I don't presume to describe your method of faith. Many great acts come from Christian beliefs or, more accurately, Christian philosophy. From the ancients, I've learned philosophy. Not the profound considerations of immortality or religious interpretation, just philosophy as a way to run a life. Stoicism grabbed me when I was young. Socrates' simple questioning guided my philosophic mind.

Lastly, I don't think anyone needed revealed religions to point out good versus bad acts. 

It's too vast a subject to continue. I mainly want to give a taste of my journey. Again, when I describe certain aspects of certain sects of Christianity above, I don't presume to project them onto you. I appreciate the respectful way you approached me, and I hope I have met the same standard.

 

Edited September 29, 2022 by RomaVicta

[F250 28777]

2 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

Actually, St. Paul is very clear on this.  It's only controversial to those who believe evolving Church doctrine supersedes scripture.

It's been controversial since Luther kicked off the Reformation 500 years ago. It wasn't controversial for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

There is a pretty good book called "Christianity's Dangerous Idea" that covers the history of Christianity as it forms new denominations and theology as various sects mutate based on biblical interpretation. Protestant Christianity keeps changing and everyone is convinced that their biblical interpretation is correct.

 

[YGIFS 19452]

7 minutes ago, F250 said:

It's been controversial since Luther kicked off the Reformation 500 years ago. It wasn't controversial for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

There is a pretty good book called "Christianity's Dangerous Idea" that covers the history of Christianity as it forms new denominations and theology as various sects mutate based on biblical interpretation. Protestant Christianity keeps changing and everyone is convinced that their biblical interpretation is correct.

 

Only time you start to worry about the rapture happening is when people quit mentioning how we're in the end times.

Only time you start to worry about a multi-theater war within Christianity is when there's finally a break in spin-off interpretations.  They can't see from within that it's the incessant splintering, re-envisioning of Christianity that allow the rest of civilization to progress and advance.  

[SydneyCarton 48110]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

It's been controversial since Luther kicked off the Reformation 500 years ago. It wasn't controversial for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

There is a pretty good book called "Christianity's Dangerous Idea" that covers the history of Christianity as it forms new denominations and theology as various sects mutate based on biblical interpretation. Protestant Christianity keeps changing and everyone is convinced that their biblical interpretation is correct.

 

To take this point and and expand, as well as dumb it down for those of us slightly less as educated on the topic as yourself...

I would argue that the existence of all the different sects of Christianity is proof that there is not, and cannot ever be, some version of absolute truth on the subject. 

It isn't just the Protestants versus the Catholics. Within Protestants you have Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Evangelicals, etc. Then you have Mormons, and under that is the LDS, FLDS, and other fringe groups. Don't forget Orthodox. 

[Anastasis 23475]

55 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Don't forget Orthodox. 

They can't even agree on what day Christmas should be celebrated.

 

[F250 28777]

51 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

To take this point and and expand, as well as dumb it down for those of us slightly less as educated on the topic as yourself...

I would argue that the existence of all the different sects of Christianity is proof that there is not, and cannot ever be, some version of absolute truth on the subject. 

It isn't just the Protestants versus the Catholics. Within Protestants you have Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Evangelicals, etc. Then you have Mormons, and under that is the LDS, FLDS, and other fringe groups. Don't forget Orthodox. 

Yeah, pretty much this. I would say that most groups are in agreement with the primary tenets of Christianity. There aren't many that reject the content of the early creeds but might do so from a "creeds are not in the Bible" and "it's Papist!!" perspective.

Regarding the Orthodox, personally I consider the Orthodox to have deviated the least from the early Christian Church. I once had an Orthodox priest explain that Protestants were fine with their heterodox Christianity, they are wrong but they should be fine. It was funny because he basically said "Y'all are not good but it should get the job done" as if Protestants were the Hill County Fare of Christianity.

 

[SydneyCarton 48110]

3 minutes ago, F250 said:

Yeah, pretty much this. I would say that most groups are in agreement with the primary tenets of Christianity. There aren't many that reject the content of the early creeds but might do so from a "creeds are not in the Bible" and "it's Papist!!" perspective.

Regarding the Orthodox, personally I consider the Orthodox to have deviated the least from the early Christian Church. I once had an Orthodox priest explain that Protestants were fine with their heterodox Christianity, they are wrong but they should be fine. It was funny because he basically said "Y'all are not good but it should get the job done" as if Protestants were the Hill County Fare of Christianity.

 

Not everyone can be Opus Dei, I guess. 

[MeerkatBong 115]

13 minutes ago, F250 said:

Yeah, pretty much this. I would say that most groups are in agreement with the primary tenets of Christianity. There aren't many that reject the content of the early creeds but might do so from a "creeds are not in the Bible" and "it's Papist!!" perspective.

Regarding the Orthodox, personally I consider the Orthodox to have deviated the least from the early Christian Church. I once had an Orthodox priest explain that Protestants were fine with their heterodox Christianity, they are wrong but they should be fine. It was funny because he basically said "Y'all are not good but it should get the job done" as if Protestants were the Hill County Fare of Christianity.

 

I think this is because if you are meeting the salvagefic bar (or whatever the theological word that is used for salvation) of faith in heart and mind, then the differences between denominations are not disqualifying. And I don't say that in a "once saved; always saved" sort of way that a lot of non-Christians think is a great argument and loophole to just knowingly sin over and over, unrepentant and cavalier. 

From what I understand, though you are marked in the book of life, you can still live a very hard and miserable life until you die if you aren't living in the way prescribed in the NT.

[Anastasis 23475]

3 minutes ago, MeerkatBong said:

salvagefic bar (or whatever the theological word that is used for salvation)

soteriological

[Brisketexan 105154]

26 minutes ago, MeerkatBong said:

And I don't say that in a "once saved; always saved" sort of way that a lot of non-Christians think is a great argument and loophole to just knowingly sin over and over, unrepentant and cavalier. 

Non?   Yeah...no.  A metric shitton of Christians, typically the most vocal and assertive "Christians," believe and act EXACTLY that way.  They are flaming assholes to everyone, they celebrate cruelty, but then they wave around the "but I accepted Jesus as my lord and savior!" card around like this guy used his diplomatic credentials:

It's not just that they're mean assholes -- the world is full of mean assholes.  It's that they do so while simultaneously waving around a membership card in a club that has, as one of its two foundational tenets, "don't be a mean asshole."

In case you can't tell, as someone who has really grown into his faith in the past 20 years, I am utterly disgusted by American "Christians," and I am just fine if "the Church" dies.

[YGIFS 19452]

IT's JUST BEEN REVOKED! 

['stache 21819]

5 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

you see what you want to see.

not making fun of you or trying to offend-  what were your expectations would happen afterward?  what did you want to happen?  asking because the act of turning to Jesus to have Him in your life is an act of surrendering control of your life over to Him.  it signifies a realization that how we want to live our life is different from God's (wrong), that we submit to how God wants us to live, and that we are in need of forgiveness and completely powerless to effect change on our own.  the resulting decision of that change of heart would be evidenced by new desires in the face of many constant failures to actually live that way.  

Word salads like this are just mind blowing to me. There is zero meaning to these words as put together and yet millions upon millions of people will nod their head in agreement.

[gsoda3 3263]

13 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I don't feel mocked. It was college in the 70s, and I was really struggling with what has since been diagnosed (and treated, thank goodness) with depression. But it wasn't just chemical. I was really torn about what life is all about and how to proceed. Over and over, I heard that if you sincerely invite Jesus into your heart, there would be a change. A belief. A faith. A path. As you describe, I was offering surrender.

I did so and found myself unchanged. Over the years, I concluded that belief in God is an intuition that many wise and good friends of mine have about the divine. I only found myself continually losing arguments with myself about any point in denying my own observations and intuition.

I struggled a long time with the feeling this life is all there is. 

When I worked on oil rigs and made good money from time to time, I would buy books so I would have something to show for my earnings after my spendthrift ways made me broke again.

One book I bought was the Penquin Classic, Livy's The War with Hannibal. I was shocked at how much like our lives were the lives of the Romans. Look at all they did. Look at how their ordinary lives went along just fine without belief in an eternal afterlife. It was like walking into a room full of people who I could relate to. It's so lonely when you step away from notions of God. Thus ended that feeling of freakish loneliness.

I'd also bought Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra. I crawled through that about a page at a time, and further found thinking not tied to or enslaved by some notion of truth revealed by a god. It took years to get comfortable with mortality. I'm older now. I don't lament that I will pass forever from this world. 

You write:

it signifies a realization that how we want to live our life is different from God's (wrong), that we submit to how God wants us to live, and that we are in need of forgiveness and completely powerless to effect change on our own.  the resulting decision of that change of heart would be evidenced by new desires in the face of many constant failures to actually live that way.  

I think this is the dogma that is to underpin the need for belief. It's like the fine print to the constant promise that asking Jesus into your life will change your life. You seem to be saying that inviting Jesus into one's life doesn't change much until you opt for the indoctrination and the, forgive me, insidious notion of sin. Toss in heaven and hell, and one might argue it's something of a vicious con game playing on guilt and in-group out-group dynamics. You find yourself in East Texas claiming Catholics are all going to hell while you are one of the lucky few going straight to heaven.

I don't mean to suggest that is the way of all Christians. Certainly, I don't presume to describe your method of faith. Many great acts come from Christian beliefs or, more accurately, Christian philosophy. From the ancients, I've learned philosophy. Not the profound considerations of immortality or religious interpretation, just philosophy as a way to run a life. Stoicism grabbed me when I was young. Socrates' simple questioning guided my philosophic mind.

Lastly, I don't think anyone needed revealed religions to point out good versus bad acts. 

It's too vast a subject to continue. I mainly want to give a taste of my journey. Again, when I describe certain aspects of certain sects of Christianity above, I don't presume to project them onto you. I appreciate the respectful way you approached me, and I hope I have met the same standard.

 

really appreciate you explaining that, thanks.  i obviously don't know why your experience differs from mine or others but i'm earnestly praying you do find what you were looking for in the person of Jesus.    

8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

and I am just fine if "the Church" dies.

i know what you mean, and it's a common sentiment, but the church is the bride of Christ of which He is the head.  

[mchookem 16336]

13 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I don't feel mocked. It was college in the 70s, and I was really struggling with what has since been diagnosed (and treated, thank goodness) with depression. But it wasn't just chemical. I was really torn about what life is all about and how to proceed. Over and over, I heard that if you sincerely invite Jesus into your heart, there would be a change. A belief. A faith. A path. As you describe, I was offering surrender.

I did so and found myself unchanged. Over the years, I concluded that belief in God is an intuition that many wise and good friends of mine have about the divine. I only found myself continually losing arguments with myself about any point in denying my own observations and intuition.

I struggled a long time with the feeling this life is all there is. 

When I worked on oil rigs and made good money from time to time, I would buy books so I would have something to show for my earnings after my spendthrift ways made me broke again.

One book I bought was the Penquin Classic, Livy's The War with Hannibal. I was shocked at how much like our lives were the lives of the Romans. Look at all they did. Look at how their ordinary lives went along just fine without belief in an eternal afterlife. It was like walking into a room full of people who I could relate to. It's so lonely when you step away from notions of God. Thus ended that feeling of freakish loneliness.

I'd also bought Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra. I crawled through that about a page at a time, and further found thinking not tied to or enslaved by some notion of truth revealed by a god. It took years to get comfortable with mortality. I'm older now. I don't lament that I will pass forever from this world. 

You write:

it signifies a realization that how we want to live our life is different from God's (wrong), that we submit to how God wants us to live, and that we are in need of forgiveness and completely powerless to effect change on our own.  the resulting decision of that change of heart would be evidenced by new desires in the face of many constant failures to actually live that way.  

I think this is the dogma that is to underpin the need for belief. It's like the fine print to the constant promise that asking Jesus into your life will change your life. You seem to be saying that inviting Jesus into one's life doesn't change much until you opt for the indoctrination and the, forgive me, insidious notion of sin. Toss in heaven and hell, and one might argue it's something of a vicious con game playing on guilt and in-group out-group dynamics. You find yourself in East Texas claiming Catholics are all going to hell while you are one of the lucky few going straight to heaven.

I don't mean to suggest that is the way of all Christians. Certainly, I don't presume to describe your method of faith. Many great acts come from Christian beliefs or, more accurately, Christian philosophy. From the ancients, I've learned philosophy. Not the profound considerations of immortality or religious interpretation, just philosophy as a way to run a life. Stoicism grabbed me when I was young. Socrates' simple questioning guided my philosophic mind.

Lastly, I don't think anyone needed revealed religions to point out good versus bad acts. 

It's too vast a subject to continue. I mainly want to give a taste of my journey. Again, when I describe certain aspects of certain sects of Christianity above, I don't presume to project them onto you. I appreciate the respectful way you approached me, and I hope I have met the same standard.

 

username checks out

[BearSchlong 8098]

Wait, the CFO is the 2nd guy listed right after the pastor who got fired from his 20 year post at Calvary Baptist?

https://setxchurch.com/staff/

That mother fucker has driven more people crying from his congregation than I can count.

Really they ought to be classified as a hate group.

Nathan Cothan is a devil. Making more than $280k a year and demands the “poor preacher” discount when patronizing his own congregation’s businesses?

Granted, I am PCUSA, we have a head woman pastor who may be a lesbian (it’s non of my business), and I’ve never heard a political message from anyone in that church.

[Born to Run 6569]

i know what you mean, and it's a common sentiment, but the church is the bride of Christ of which He is the head.  

Largely agree with the sentiments you were responding to.

Ex Catholic, trying to follow the Luthern Church with my lady friend. It feels like I'm going through the motions.

I'm a Reiki practioner and after my pops died I fully became a believer. I felt the energy where my dad left this world as real as anything I've felt in my life. I knew where he passed and how before I was told. I can lay hands on friends around a campfire and leave non believers feeling shook, and believers feeling amazed. With zero effort because it'd just the Holy Spirit at work. I love praying and fellowship. I don't trust or feel authentic in any churches. Yet.

[tx 3 putt 77050]

On 9/28/2022 at 9:39 AM, Brisketexan said:

2) American "conservative Christians" who openly demonize brown migrants and celebrate their suffering and cruelty inflicted on them.

 

today's Christian faith and tenets, only apply to whites (and their one brown friend and their one black friend) 

[South Austin 52519]

We’ve had a few members leave my parish (Episcopal) over the past couple years because we were getting too “political.” I’m very familiar with our clergy’s sermons, the missions our laity supports, and our messaging. Openly as a church body, we don’t endorse candidates or criticize elected political leaders, and when a priest has addressed tragedies like that in Uvalde, there isn’t a shred of discussion on gun control.

As far as I can discern, too “political” is aimed at the decision we made to allow gays to marry in our church. And I’ve heard that a couple parishioners specifically complained about that on their way out the door.  Those folks have known they’ve been a part of a church with fellow parishioners who are gay and have even served in leadership positions. Yet approving a liturgy to allow them to marry in our church was somehow the last straw.

I don’t see where Jesus said anything about homosexuality, or drawing some arbitrary line for respecting their dignity at marriage rites. Yet when we decide to include them in the sacrament of marriage, that’s when it gets too “political.”

[SydneyCarton 48110]

35 minutes ago, South Austin said:

We’ve had a few members leave my parish (Episcopal) over the past couple years because we were getting too “political.” I’m very familiar with our clergy’s sermons, the missions our laity supports, and our messaging. Openly as a church body, we don’t endorse candidates or criticize elected political leaders, and when a priest has addressed tragedies like that in Uvalde, there isn’t a shred of discussion on gun control.

As far as I can discern, too “political” is aimed at the decision we made to allow gays to marry in our church. And I’ve heard that a couple parishioners specifically complained about that on their way out the door.  Those folks have known they’ve been a part of a church with fellow parishioners who are gay and have even served in leadership positions. Yet approving a liturgy to allow them to marry in our church was somehow the last straw.

I don’t see where Jesus said anything about homosexuality, or drawing some arbitrary line for respecting their dignity at marriage rites. Yet when we decide to include them in the sacrament of marriage, that’s when it gets too “political.”

This is my surprised face. You can’t see it, but I’m shocked, really. 
 

But honestly, I am somewhat surprised to see what you typed about an Episcopal church. As someone who was raised very catholic, by a mother who almost twice entered a nunnery and ended up a catholic school teacher, many Catholics view Episcopalians as some form of lazy Catholics. But they’re also seen as very Liberal, for obvious reasons. It would be the last place I’d have expected that kind of prejudice. Then again, ThisIsAmerica.gif. 
 
If I were practicing, I’d almost certainly be an Episcopalian. It’s such an American version of Christianity, but in the good ways, namely it’s democratic. It’s local. 

[South Austin 52519]

Sydney, I’m also the son of a Catholic mom, and I was baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church growing up. I only joined the Episcopal Church in 2009.

I think the term “lazy Catholic” or “Catholic lite” was apt for a while. It’s basically the same creed and liturgy, except the Episcopal Church does does not adhere to and is not governed by the hierarchy of the Pope and the Vatican (or The Church of England, from which it separated when we kicked Britain the fuck out of our country).

But then the Episcopal Church started ordaining women as priests, and, a couple decades later, gays and lesbians. And during this time the Catholic Church has grown even more entrenched in its dogmatic, almost unforgiving positions on issues such as abortion and homosexuality. So I’m not sure that even a light-hearted label of “Catholic lite” is appropriate anymore for the Episcopal Church.

And regarding the gays and the Episcopal Church, a lot of those folks left about 15-20 years ago after the national church elected its first openly gay bishop. I’m fact, that was when whole parishes across the country separated from the Episcopal Church, and a chuck of parishioners at my church left, either for the Catholic Church or the nearby big box nondenominational church. So at the time our congregation approved of same-sex marriage in our church a few years ago, the number of people who departed because that was the last straw for them was actually (thankfully) pretty low.

Edited September 30, 2022 by South Austin

[SydneyCarton 48110]

20 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Sydney, I’m also the son of a Catholic mom, and I was baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church growing up. I only joined the Episcopal Church in 2009.

I think the term “lazy Catholic” or “Catholic lite” was apt for a while. It’s basically the same creed and liturgy, except the Episcopal Church does does not adhere to and is not governed by the hierarchy of the Pope and the Vatican (or The Church of England, from which it separated when we kicked Britain the fuck out of our country).

But then the Episcopal Church started ordaining women as priests, and, a couple decades later, gays and lesbians. And during this time the Catholic Church has grown even more entrenched in its dogmatic, almost unforgiving positions on issues such as abortion and homosexuality. So I’m not sure that even a light-hearted label of “Catholic lite” is appropriate anymore for the Episcopal Church.

And regarding the gays and the Episcopal Church, a lot of those folks left about 15-20 years ago after the national church elected its first openly gay bishop. I’m fact, that was when whole parishes across the country separated from the Episcopal Church, and a chuck of parishioners at my church left, either for the Catholic Church or the nearby big box nondenominational church. So at the time our congregation approved of same-sex marriage in our church a few years ago, the number of people who departed because that was the last straw for them was actually (thankfully) pretty low.

I was aware of a big chunk of this, which is what makes it so surprising there were still some left to get offended? I guess the last 6 years have increased polarization everywhere. Still, to up and leave your community for a decades old precedent…sigh.