American Protestant Churches on the Brink
Andy Bearsley
July 13, 1999
ATLANTA, Ga. -- As a natural consequence of growing gay tolerance in society
and vastly increased contact with people who make no secret or apologies
about their sexual orientation, the call for full and open participation of
gay people in mainline Protestant denominations grows louder every year.
"Many realized for the first time that we could really split over this."
An article appearing in U.S. News this week summarizes the strain most
mainline Protestant churches are experiencing, and speaks with several
theologians about what these conflicts hold for the future of millions of
American Protestants.
The article says all of the nation's historic mainline communions --
Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian -- find themselves so deeply
polarized on the issue that there is serious concern they will not survive
the strain. (The United Church of Christ is also mentioned in the U.S. News
report, though it has largely settled the matter in its embrace of gay and
lesbian parishioners, their right to be ordained as clergy and to be joined
in holy communion.) As in years past, denominational gatherings this summer
have been dominated by the issue of homosexual morality. In late June, the
2.6 million-member Presbyterian Church (USA) rejected an attempt to
liberalize its controversial "fidelity and chastity amendment," adopted as
church law in 1997, and declared a two year moratorium on discussion of the
issue.
Presbyterian Church spokesman Jerry Van Marter told the U.S. News that
church delegates were "so concerned about the vitriolic conflicts" over the
issue, the moratorium will actually be used as a hunt for common ground.
"Many realized for the first time that we could really split over this," he
said, "and it frightened them."
Next month the 5.2 million-member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is
expected to review the state of gay rights in the church. The article says
an attempt to overturn a ban on ordination of gay clergy is likely. Similar
debates are expected next year at national meetings of the United Methodist
and Episcopal churches.
But even if a formal split is averted in many cases, the ideological
divisions are too deep to bridge. A gaping theological schism already exists
in many churches. Princeton University sociologist Robert Wuthnow told the
U.S. News that congregations on both the right and the left are forming
strategic alliances and simply ignoring church hierarchies they view as
hostile or out of touch.
Wuthnow asserts that "denominational hierarchies are becoming largely
irrelevant." Mainline Protestantism, he says, is moving toward a
"post-denominational era" in which "liberal" or "conservative" means more
than denominational labels.
In an interesting sideline the Associated Press reported Monday on the
congregational split at a Methodist church in Marietta, an elite suburb of
Atlanta, which pitted far right Republican Congressman Bob Barr against the
governor of Georgia, Roy Barnes.
In an act of defiance against what they saw as the growing acceptance of
homosexuality and same-sex unions by state and national Methodist leaders,
900 parishioners of the self-styled Wesleyan Fellowship, , bolted from their
congregation led by their conservative pastor, the Rev. Charles Sineath.
Barr said his family left the church out of loyalty to Sineath who called
for conservatives to join him. "Our congregation and our pastor should not
be punished for doing what he and the Bible believes is right and for what
we always have stood for," Barr said.
St.Athanasius
Apostolic Church that Christ established.
Seperation.........Man made central authority.........Popular views
enter into dogma..........Heresies enter................God's grace
leaves.
He,who has neither the repentance of the Tax Collector, nor the good deeds of the Pharisee.
"The Word was made flesh in order to offer up this Body for all,
and that we, partaking of His Spirit, might be deified."
Saint Athanasius the Apostolic. 298-373 AD.
Andy Bearsley
St.Athanasius <athmi...@quicknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:378e826e...@w4.cia.com.au...
> Such is the end result of seperation from the One Holy, Universal and
> Apostolic Church that Christ established.
Ummm.... by definition didn't christ create ALL the christian churches?
Andy B.
St.Athanasius
Amen. Peace and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Dear Andy,
You asked.
>Ummm.... by definition didn't christ create ALL the christian churches?
Not at all Andy.
Christ created only one Christian Church. The Bible refers to this
Church in these terms, "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism." There can
never be two Christian Churches no more then there can be two Christs.
What you call christian churches are the inventions of groups of
believers who banded together, voted or such similar and formed a
society or church based on what they perceived truth to be. They then
named it or received a name by others that they eventually took (eg:
The Mormons).
But the Church Christ founded is One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic in
its nature. There are of course many national churches that are a part
of this One Church. To qualify any Church must be able to establish
its:
1.Established only by an Apostle of Christ and continues to teach what
that Apostle taught it. . (Apostolic)
2. Having always been in adherence to the Universal Christian Faith
that the One Church has. (Universal).
3. Having produced within her fold saints that by God's grace have
been able to overcome the devil and acquire that perfection which we
are all called to achieve. (Holy).
Thank you for a question that is in accordance with the intent of this
newsgroup. BTW, I too do not wish to see you depart, whether you now
call me delusional or not.
Peace.
Andy Bearsley
> In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the One God,
> Amen. Peace and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Please stop wishing terrible things upon me. You are wishing me cancer of
the mind. You're certainly not demonstrating you're wanting friendly
dialogue.
> >Ummm.... by definition didn't christ create ALL the christian churches?
> Not at all Andy.
>
> Christ created only one Christian Church.
Christian = Christ-ian. If there were no christ (mythological or
otherwise), there'd be no christian. Therefore christ created every
christian church. Whether you choose to think of them as The One True
Christian Church or not is totally irrelevant.
Andy B.
David C. Northey
Delite throws in the following post since like the above it touches on
the
real location of authority/truth in Christ's Church.
Subject:
Re: No antisemitism before Christianity.
Date:
Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:29:15 -0400
From:
"David C. Northey" <del...@orc.ca>
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.mideast, soc.culture.europe, soc.culture.usa,
alt.atheism
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5
borgie...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <7m7vgg$3a4g$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
> "randolph v kluth" <RKL...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks again. It seems that the auto-response to Jesus by many Jews on
> > this NG is that Jesus was a simpleton or a master-deceiver. The weight
> > of evidence seems to be that Jesus was a very loving human being and
> > of incredible intelligence and insight. Whether he claimed he was
> > Messiah or not is debatable. To me it is very clear that Jesus assumed
> > that role. He just wasn't the kind of guy to wave colored flags
> > reading, Hello, everybody, I'm the Messiah! Have a nice day, Randy
> >
>
> Randy, I beg to differ with you regarding your statement that Jesus
> never claimed to be the Messiah. On the day that Jesus rode into
> Jerusalem on a donkey, the people bowed down and worshipped Him. The
> Pharisees asked Jesus to silence the crowd. Jesus himself replied that
> if he silenced their worship, even the very rocks would cry out.
Delite responds to Johnathan:
Randy seems to be informed by modern historical-critical studies of
the New Testament. (Studies that are normative for most if not all
mainline
churches, including Catholic and Protestant, in Europe and North America
and
Australia.) The historical-critical consensus suggests Jesus did not
claim to be the
Messiah. In fact, job #1 for Jesus of Nazareth was to disentangle
himself from the popular idea of the nationalist Messiah of his day.
So, even if
Jesus did claim to be Messiah, it was not the person many zealots etc
were
attempting to thrust upon him. In fact, it would be easy to argue Jesus
is the
very antithesis of the Old Testament messianic expectations/prophesies.
On top of all this, since the gospels evolved over 50 - 70 years
after Jesus' death, we have to understand the interpretation of Jesus
person
continued to evolve long after he went to heaven. (And actually still
does today, thank
God) Thus, the gospel of John does not contain one verse that is
actually spoken by
Jesus. It is sophisticated interpretation. Thus, in the gospel of John,
Jesus
not only brings the "bread of life" he has become/IS the bread of life.
So New Testament studies are like the person of Christ very, very
complex. And so there is much in the gospels that is not "gospel" =
factual
newspaper reporting. This will prompt some fundies to say modernist
Christians are calling the writers of Luke and John "liars." Not
really. In the final analysis the
gospels tell us the real truth about the Christ, and God, because they
are not entirely
factual.
Same with much of the Old Testament.
All this is very, very tough for many Protestants to accept. They
expect to sit down, read the Bible and harvest the real facts about
Jesus (or
Moses) in the individual solitary mode apart from the tradition and
community of
Christ's body. No way, Jose. What everyone has to realize, I think and
so does the
gospel of John, -the community expressed in consensus is where the truth
lies, at least
for the here and now.
Finally, all this is not to denigate/put down Protestantism. Rather,
to
illuminate the necessary theological changes ongoing now in Protestant
mainline
churches. It all boils down to - "Where two or three (or millions) are
gathered
in my name, there AM I in the midst of them." In other words, the
writer of John,
knowing full well Jesus did not say this (if he had it surely would have
been in Mark,
the earliest Gospel) was actually talking from experience of the living
Christ
in the midst of his holy people long after the Cross. And, thank God,
was wise enough to project the experience/truth back into the times of
the historical Jesus. Much to the benefit of all Christians everafter.
Regards, Delite htttp://www.orc.ca/~delite