Netanyahu: Muslims responsible for Holocaust.

[BedellBrave]

Well here's a hint, it goes back to a BIG Baptist convention back around 1850 (don't recall the exact year but that's pretty close) and a GREAT BIG blowup that happened at that convention. Who can fill in the rest of the blanks on this one?

Most all Southern denominations have their origins in the same thing. So happy to see the SBC and the PCA, two historically southern churches, making great strides at public repentance for past sins. I know my own denomination is working through the issue ourselves. Sins of the fathers and all.

Shouldn't we be encouraged that the younger generation that is coming into leadership is willing to tackle the sins of our past?

 

[Oklahomahawk]

Most all Southern denominations have their origins in the same thing. So happy to see the SBC and the PCA, two historically southern churches, making great strides at public repentance for past sins. I know my own denomination is working through the issue ourselves. Sins of the fathers and all.

Shouldn't we be encouraged that the younger generation that is coming into leadership is willing to tackle the sins of our past?

Sure, as long as they don't replace them with a bunch of new ones of their own. That seems to be how things go these days, one step forward and two steps back. Hopefully this will be an exception, I certainly hope so. If they'll keep ALL political connections out of it I think that will be a big step forward, but I don't see that happening either. Maybe I'm just down tonight.

 

[BedellBrave]

Sure, as long as they don't replace them with a bunch of new ones of their own. That seems to be how things go these days, one step forward and two steps back. Hopefully this will be an exception, I certainly hope so. If they'll keep ALL political connections out of it I think that will be a big step forward, but I don't see that happening either. Maybe I'm just down tonight.

Well you are a crotchety old cynic.

I suspect you just aren't as familiar with the goings-on in these denominations as I would be - and that's no slight on you, it's just more my bailiwick than it is yours. But if you are interested in this more inside-baseball stuff, then read folks like Russell Moore and Al Mohler (for the SBC) and Ligon Duncan, Sean Lucas, Tim Keller, etc. (for the PCA) - also follow guys like Lecrae, John Piper, Anyabwile Thabiti, Anthony Bradley, etc. Both denominations are making-have-made denominational statements. The next step is for repentance and attempts at reconciliation to take place at a more local level - particularly in the big-steeple, historical churches within these denominations (particularly those in the deep South). Anyway, it's good news for those who care.

 

[50PoundHead]

AA, there are indeed several types of Lutherans - the three biggest that I know of and 50 can correct me - the ELCA (or what used to be called the ELCA) - it's a mainline church that leans left theologically and politically; the LCMS (Missouri Synod) - it's an evangelical denomination and the second largest Lutheran denomination (I'd probably fit in there if I were Lutheran ;-) ) and the Wisconsin Synod - a very conservative even fundamentalist type of Lutheran Church.

50, are you ELCA (or what use to be ELCA)? I'm familiar with both ELCA and LCMS. My impression is that the ELCA is going the way of most mainline churches, that is to say, dwindling. But the LCMS seems to be holding their own if not growing. Wisconsin Synod - not growing.

I'm ELCA, but I really have no affinity to the over-arching church. I go to church to worship and nothing else. I don't care if the person sitting next to me is a Communist or a neo-Nazi. The more I have read, the more I have fallen away from Luther's thought (the anti-Semitism is minor in my growing distance from Luther). Lutherans are experiencing the same split that the Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians over the gay marriage/gay ordination issues. Lots of spin-off organizations (North American Lutheran Church and Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ are the two biggest).

As per easing up on Luther a bit on his anti-Semitism, I just really can't even if I am putting myself into his era. It's not a deal-breaker for me, but I do find it somewhat amusing that some--not you per se--can give Luther a break on this, but insist that the US Constitution is written in stone and is in no way a product of an entirely different era.

 

[BedellBrave]

My main issues with anachronistic judgmentalism are that we acknowledge what we are doing and that we understand that we are making such judgments based on some over-aching view of morality that we too often assume is just a given.

Here's my forecast - the pro-SSM mainline denominations will become the de facto State church and likely wither on the vine.

 

[50PoundHead]

My main issues with anachronistic judgmentalism are that we acknowledge what we are doing and that we understand that we are making such judgments based on some over-aching view of morality that we too often assume is just a given.

Here's my forecast - the pro-SSM mainline denominations will become the de facto State church and likely wither on the vine.

I'm pretty much a historicist, so I generally agree with that statement. The problem here isn't whether or not Luther wrote what he wrote (or even believed it) or the era in which he wrote it, the results of those writings reinforced anti-Semitic sentiments which, one could argue, are still prevalent in large portions of the Western world today. The problem comes from when one faction or the other puts claims on "universal truths" which may or may not be either true or universal.

I think all mainline denominations were eroding prior to any talk of gay marriage. Having grown up in the Lutheran church, I think the battle between the aesthetes and non-aesthetes has been going on since the beginning of the 20th century with the publishing of Rauschenbusch's The Social Gospel and it has found its expression in a variety of debates, most of them over the role of the church in the community. The current debate over homosexuality is merely, in my view, the current playing field of the debate.

 

[AerchAngel]

My main issues with anachronistic judgmentalism are that we acknowledge what we are doing and that we understand that we are making such judgments based on some over-aching view of morality that we too often assume is just a given.

Here's my forecast - the pro-SSM mainline denominations will become the de facto State church and likely wither on the vine.

Then disband the church. Giving in is accepting that the word of God is immaterial therefore not the be all end all.

Even the black Baptist preachers wouldn't tolerate this and I don't think ever will. They will just kick you out of church. I got kicked out (by my grandpa) and it wasn't about that.

 

[BedellBrave]

Then disband the church. Giving in is accepting that the word of God is immaterial therefore not the be all end all.

Even the black Baptist preachers wouldn't tolerate this and I don't think ever will. They will just kick you out of church. I got kicked out (by my grandpa) and it wasn't about that.

AA, I'm not sure why mainliners exist, to be honest. Liberal theology isn't appreciably different than left-leaning secular thought. So what are you getting that you can't get via plenty of other venues? That said, there's a measure of community that these congregations provide and for the ministers and other employees, there's a check. Having State approval I think will ensure them a place. There'll be fewer people in the pews, but the lights will stay on and the ministers will still do their thing. And that's not all bad from a community standpoint because there will be charitable operations run out of these congregations.

 

[50PoundHead]

AA, I'm not sure why mainliners exist, to be honest. Liberal theology isn't appreciably different than left-leaning secular thought. So what are you getting that you can't get via plenty of other venues? That said, there's a measure of community that these congregations provide and for the ministers and other employees, there's a check. Having State approval I think will ensure them a place. There'll be fewer people in the pews, but the lights will stay on and the ministers will still do their thing. And that's not all bad from a community standpoint because there will be charitable operations run out of these congregations.

I strongly doubt we will ever have a state church here other than the informal state church that we've had since the founding of the Republic.

 

[BedellBrave]

I strongly doubt we will ever have a state church here other than the informal state church that we've had since the founding of the Republic.

Agreed - and that's why I said "de facto" earlier. By that I mean, that I think the only churches that will maintain tax-exempt status will be those that reflect the States' thinking vis-a-vie SSM (and whatever comes next). Others will be allowed, just taxed and possibly harassed more by zoning boards and the like - especially as the church moves more and more toward a house church model. I don't think that's necessarily bad for the church, but I do think it's what will happen and is happening.

 

[50PoundHead]

Agreed - and that's why I said "de facto" earlier. By that I mean, that I think the only churches that will maintain tax-exempt status will be those that reflect the States' thinking vis-a-vie SSM (and whatever comes next). Others will be allowed, just taxed and possibly harassed more by zoning boards and the like - especially as the church moves more and more toward a house church model. I don't think that's necessarily bad for the church, but I do think it's what will happen and is happening.

I don't think any church with any measure of legitimacy will ever be taxed regardless of their doctrine.

 

[BedellBrave]

You have more faith than I do.

 

[50PoundHead]

You have more faith than I do.

I just don't see how any Supreme Court could totally abolish the Wall of Separation that, while not officially part of the Constitution, has clearly dictated the country's approach to religious observance. If anything, I think the Wall has gotten higher, making it ever more difficult to meld the two. There may be--long after we are both dead--a backlash against some of the recent court decisions on religious practice and how it affects observance of secular law (i.e. Hobby Lobby case), but I think very narrow grounds will be used to rule on those cases, much like it was in the Hobby Lobby case. Both sides will try to do end-runs on the overall framework, but I don't think there will ever be an erosion. You have to remember, I am in my 60s. I can remember when school prayer was banned and recall all the apocalyptic hand-wringing that accompanied that.

 

[AerchAngel]

AA, I'm not sure why mainliners exist, to be honest. Liberal theology isn't appreciably different than left-leaning secular thought. So what are you getting that you can't get via plenty of other venues? That said, there's a measure of community that these congregations provide and for the ministers and other employees, there's a check. Having State approval I think will ensure them a place. There'll be fewer people in the pews, but the lights will stay on and the ministers will still do their thing. And that's not all bad from a community standpoint because there will be charitable operations run out of these congregations.

As my Baptist uncle said, we lost our way.

I am afraid you are right. The days of the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's is over. I remember our church being big and vibrant. I go home on a visit, 15 people in the pews. I asked dad what happened, he said that people don't believe in God anymore but their own lust and gratification.

Think about the last sentence and why we fought, yet those who made this are the ones who he admires politically and he refuses to see it.

Slow erosion of the church and morality will cause destruction eventually of this world. Through social sins and individual greed will be the end of humanity.

 

[AerchAngel]

Agreed - and that's why I said "de facto" earlier. By that I mean, that I think the only churches that will maintain tax-exempt status will be those that reflect the States' thinking vis-a-vie SSM (and whatever comes next). Others will be allowed, just taxed and possibly harassed more by zoning boards and the like - especially as the church moves more and more toward a house church model. I don't think that's necessarily bad for the church, but I do think it's what will happen and is happening.

If they want SSM let them, just don't force the church to acknowledge. The Catholic Church don't honor our marriage in their church even though they would put my name on any envelope.

I am happy with that.

 

[Oklahomahawk]

As my Baptist uncle said, we lost our way.

I am afraid you are right. The days of the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's is over. I remember our church being big and vibrant. I go home on a visit, 15 people in the pews. I asked dad what happened, he said that people don't believe in God anymore but their own lust and gratification.

Think about the last sentence and why we fought, yet those who made this are the ones who he admires politically and he refuses to see it.

Slow erosion of the church and morality will cause destruction eventually of this world. Through social sins and individual greed will be the end of humanity.

I think your Uncle has at least most of it pretty close to right. Of course it's a general statement and shouldn't be meant to include 100% of any church or group, but I think he's pretty darn close. I also stand by my previous statement that religion and politics should be strictly separated, way more than any person on the other side of the aisle thinks church and state should be separated to protect the state from the church. Politics is poison, period. It's like hard drugs, everybody thinks "it's OK I can handle it" but it never works out that way, though I know many would disagree.

As for forcing churches to marry Same Sex couples I am firmly against it, as far as letting them get married, as far as legal rights, etc., goes I say why not? I've got enough to answer for come judgement day I don't need the guilt over keeping people apart who want to be together. I usually describe it as "My plate is going to look like Michael Moore's plate after he goes through a once through only trip at an all you can carry buffet line. I don't need one more chicken leg on there.

I'm not saying "it's OK" by God's rules I'm just saying I"m not going to try and stop them as long as they don't try to run over churches and ministers who don't want to marry them. That should never happen, but it will, sooner or later. As for losing tax exempt status, or any other sort of real persecution I think it would actually do the church good, or at least do Christianity good. We've gotten too comfortable (collectively) and we've placed too much faith in mammon and not enough in a being we claim created the world and can do literally anything for his people. Then look at these gigantic cathedrals all over the place, gigantic structures that make the Taj Mahal look like an army tent from the War of 1812.

 

[50PoundHead]

If they want SSM let them, just don't force the church to acknowledge. The Catholic Church don't honor our marriage in their church even though they would put my name on any envelope.

I am happy with that.

Heck, the Catholic Church is just becoming familiar with the concept of divorce. My guess it will be light years before they bend on same-sex marriage. I think the trickier part is whether or not homosexuals should be barred from receiving Holy Communion, but the church isn't a club.

 

[BedellBrave]

I just don't see how any Supreme Court could totally abolish the Wall of Separation that, while not officially part of the Constitution, has clearly dictated the country's approach to religious observance. If anything, I think the Wall has gotten higher, making it ever more difficult to meld the two. There may be--long after we are both dead--a backlash against some of the recent court decisions on religious practice and how it affects observance of secular law (i.e. Hobby Lobby case), but I think very narrow grounds will be used to rule on those cases, much like it was in the Hobby Lobby case. Both sides will try to do end-runs on the overall framework, but I don't think there will ever be an erosion. You have to remember, I am in my 60s. I can remember when school prayer was banned and recall all the apocalyptic hand-wringing that accompanied that.

So you think tax-exempt status will remain even for those who won't publicly accommodate what is deemed to be now a fundamental human right? Again, you've got more faith than I do. Hope you are right, but in my mind losing tax-exempt status isn't that bad of a thing.

 

[BedellBrave]

As my Baptist uncle said, we lost our way.

I am afraid you are right. The days of the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's is over. I remember our church being big and vibrant. I go home on a visit, 15 people in the pews. I asked dad what happened, he said that people don't believe in God anymore but their own lust and gratification.

Think about the last sentence and why we fought, yet those who made this are the ones who he admires politically and he refuses to see it.

Slow erosion of the church and morality will cause destruction eventually of this world. Through social sins and individual greed will be the end of humanity.

I don't actually think we are seeing terrible declines in Evangelical churches. Declines in some, stagnation in some, but growth in many others. The predominate losses have been in liberal (mainline) churches - and I understand that theologically, and as a historically orthodox Christian, that doesn't really bother me all that much. Nor will I be saddened much by the decline of mega-churches with vacuous messages and materialistic excesses.

 

[AerchAngel]

I think your Uncle has at least most of it pretty close to right. Of course it's a general statement and shouldn't be meant to include 100% of any church or group, but I think he's pretty darn close. I also stand by my previous statement that religion and politics should be strictly separated, way more than any person on the other side of the aisle thinks church and state should be separated to protect the state from the church. Politics is poison, period. It's like hard drugs, everybody thinks "it's OK I can handle it" but it never works out that way, though I know many would disagree.

As for forcing churches to marry Same Sex couples I am firmly against it, as far as letting them get married, as far as legal rights, etc., goes I say why not? I've got enough to answer for come judgement day I don't need the guilt over keeping people apart who want to be together. I usually describe it as "My plate is going to look like Michael Moore's plate after he goes through a once through only trip at an all you can carry buffet line. I don't need one more chicken leg on there.

I'm not saying "it's OK" by God's rules I'm just saying I"m not going to try and stop them as long as they don't try to run over churches and ministers who don't want to marry them. That should never happen, but it will, sooner or later. As for losing tax exempt status, or any other sort of real persecution I think it would actually do the church good, or at least do Christianity good. We've gotten too comfortable (collectively) and we've placed too much faith in mammon and not enough in a being we claim created the world and can do literally anything for his people. Then look at these gigantic cathedrals all over the place, gigantic structures that make the Taj Mahal look like an army tent from the War of 1812.

If I can put a million thanks on this I would. You absolutely nailed it on both sides.