I recently wandered into the local Catholic church for prayer; it was about mid-day and I was driving by. I had the desire to go inside the beautiful church (Protestants are aesthetically challenged with our multi-purpose buildings, and coffee shops to boot; indeed, nothing about our houses of faith even resemble a church . . . I digress). So I did. I crossed myself out of respect, a rite even Luther employed, and sat down and prayed. It was quiet in the massive ediface. The statuary was immaculate–pardon the pun. Yes, I know, someone will easily dismiss them as idols, but I don’t want to grace that ahistorical argument. Anyhoo, while there, I took a gander through the prayerbook and there was an interesting affirmation of non-Catholic Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ, but separated because of impure worship. Rome believes (and every one of us carry our theological snobbery into these discussions with our claims to exclusivity) that the Protestants because of a lack of apostolic succession do not possess the true Eucharist. They acknowledge a common objective baptism, but not true Communion.
I don’t hold that aaginst the Holy Father, Benedict XVI and His flock, we presbyterians would quickly awash his entire herd into the lowest part of hell claiming along with the Arminians that they cannot be saved precisely becuase they do not frame sola fide the same was the Synod of Dort. The fact is as Rome’s subtle trajectory about Baptism is evident, they are justified because sola fide is true; we are not justified for having a right cerebral understanding of sola fide. In essence, there will be plenty of presbyterians in hell, just like there will be plenty of the Roman stock in hell as well (only after a brief stint in purgatory obviously . . .).
June 23, 2008 at 10:34 pm
You just wandered into a catholic church? That’s awesome. Is it the one near the walmart? I love catholic churches. Absolutely beautiful.
I was wondering Reverand, since you are indeed a shepard of a flock, what your views on how a church is built, and for what reasons should one start a church. And especially since you mentioned catholics, and they have a heirarchy, also about the leadership in churches. I come to many different ideas based on some research, but was wondering if you had any Biblical foundations for such an issue (such as pastors, elders, deacons, etc.) and if you would post an entry on it. I know you are so knowledgable in such things and would love to hear your thoughts. If not, that’s ok.
Hope your family and soon to come are doing very well!
June 24, 2008 at 12:25 am
Just to play the devil’s advocate, just what is a church suppose to look like. I thought that the church was the people not the building, but I digress.
I wonder if the acceptance of us “non-Catholic brothers” is merely political rather than religious. My feeling is that it is more of the latter. As far as I know conservative Catholics (pre-Vatican II Catholics) don’t hold Protestants to be brothers and sisters in Christ.
June 24, 2008 at 1:27 am
David & Jamie,
Well, the anabaptist interpretation of the church, underscored by a skewed version of the “priesthood of all beleivers” (kinda like McClaren’s “Emergent” business) would have the church meeting in a wooden glade with no clergy, since we all come with some gift, wait on the Holy Spirit for no matter how long to lead the service with singing and the occasional “inspired” impromtu message.
Christianity cannot do without Christendom. The “personal relationship” will always enculturate, transform one’s sphere of influence and blossom Christian culture, no matter where it is. The impromptu gatherings of Acts gave way to formal worship; elders were ordained in every city, the church served by deacons, and under persecution, they met in tombs, then in legal status, they met in house churches, which as one liturgist observed, Roman house churches looked a lot like the form of a cross. Hence, historic churches maintained this pattern for centuries for obvious aesthetic and theological reasons.
Yeah, Protestants were deemed separated brethren at Vatican II, which Benedict XVI upholds. They also made strides on the doctrine of justification, that is, Vatican II is not Trentine; I’ll double check that, but I believe it is the case.
David, I believe there is a case to be made for the presbyterian form of government, that is, a elder-governed church is not autonomous, but part of a larger group of churches, similar to the Jerusalem church and her children. It is obvious from Acts that the elders there had some imput into the missionary churches. True, the churches in the 2nd century did establish bishops, similar to the moderators of the Scottish Kirk. Church Councils were basically gathered presbyteries, hence what we call a “Synod” or “General Assembly.” Also, the Bible does distinguish between the elder who teaches and the elders who rule; though they are equal in office, they have differing responsibilities. To me it is apparent (e.g. Acts 20) that the titles bishop, pastor, elder and teacher are synonyms for the same office, again, they denote varying functions.
Hopefully, I’m not clear as mud.
June 24, 2008 at 7:24 am
No, indeed the body is the church. But the church building is fine if it looks snazzy as well. I mean, the Lord’s Tabernacle and temple were spectacles to be sure, designed and detailed by God.
I thank you for your response Rev. Johnson. Very interesting indeed!
PS – isnt it crazy Ryan and Jessi are going to have a baby?!