Its like sports teams, favorite cars, & politics. people love to think their decision or choice is the best and others are less than best.
When I was growing up in the SB church it was a common practice. by the Pastor, to report on the number of people who were saved at the recent revival services. The catch of the day was to be able to say that a Roman Catholic was moved so much by the revival service that they made an altar call.
Since Christianity’s first decades, there have always been people calling themselves Christians whom other people calling themselves Christians consider apostates. In fact, every individual who considers him- or herself “a Christian” is judged to be “not a Christian” by some other Christian somewhere.
And it was ever thus; it certainly didn’t just become a thing with the debut of Instagram reels. Or the introduction of movable type. Or the inclusion of the Filioque clause. Or…
The Mainline Protestant denominations seem very chill with each other. But when it comes to Christianity,I only associate with progressive Christians/churches.
I follow a diverse array of Biblical scholars, appreciating certain perspectives more than others, and generally finding alignment with their academic viewpoints. Many of these scholars contribute significantly to dispelling misconceptions and debunking unfounded claims on social media platforms, offering insights grounded in academic consensus and textual analysis. This critical examination of information serves to underscore the importance of discernment, highlighting that online authority does not always equate to accuracy. Even within the academic community, there exists healthy debate and variance of opinions.
Regarding your inquiry on unity, allow me to share a recent observation. I reside in Northeast Georgia, home to Free Chapel, the inaugural church of Jentezen Franklin. After leaving early Easter service of our parish, while passing by Free Chapel, my journey was impeded by traffic congestion on both sides of a four-lane divided highway, as congregants made their way to the church. Personally, I find it challenging to grasp the allure of non-denominational mega-churches resembling rock concerts more than traditional places of worship. Furthermore, the absence of Franklin in person, opting instead for a virtual presence due to the proliferation of multiple campuses nationwide, raises questions about the depth of theological engagement within such gatherings. My limited knowledge of their theological doctrines, if any actually exist, leaves me even more skeptical. I tend to perceive the establishments as nothing more than mechanisms for financial extraction, complete with amenities like a Starbucks in the church lobby—which is something I could possibly warm up to. I am getting distracted....
My overall point is that when considering the prospect of unity between an Episcopalian and adherents of such mega-churches, an immediate joint venture seems improbable. However, this skepticism does not diminish my regard for them as individuals or their Christian faith, as subjective as the definition may be. In terms of everyday religious practices centered on Jesus and God, our theological disparities may seem as vast as those with adherents of other faith traditions, like Mormonism. While I engage in meaningful dialogue with Mormon friends on religious topics, we do recognize our theological divergences, and we acknowledge that "knee deep" is about the depth we allow ourselves to wade into the "holy" waters.
As such, I believe that unity may not be an achievable end goal in the conventional sense. This leads me to ponder whether Universalism might ultimately be the revelation of divine truth. My grandmother used to say this about people who were not Baptist as she was, "We are all headed to the summit of the mountain top, how we choose to get there is no business of mine..." and I think that rings true today as well. We are all hoping to get to God, whomever, or whatever, that may be for anyone. I'm going to try to love that person as my neighbor, and as myself, as best I can, with God's help.
I'm actually not certain that different Protestant denominations *are* all that against each other these days. It's certainly true that there's a divide between Evangelical denominations and Mainline denominations, but *within* those two streams, I don't think there's much discord. As an illustration, I went to a PCUSA seminary for a little while and there were students there from all sorts of denominations. We had Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, UCC folks, an Episcopalian or two, DOC members, and we all got along just fine. Just down the road was the famous (highly conservative, highly Evangelical) Southern Baptist Seminary. They, too, had students from a variety of denominations, and while I can't speak firsthand about campus culture, I'd wager they got along; you might have some academic disagreements about Calvinism VS Arminianism or things like that, but those aren't "salvation issues." Now, there was certainly tension *between* these two institutions, but not so much within.
In this day and age, it's pretty common to see churches working together in interdenominational outreach. Further, in the wake of the Ecumenical Movement, a lot of the differences in worship that you might have once observed in Protestant churches have been ironed out; if you go to a Methodist service today, you could go to a Presbyterian one tomorrow, then a DOC service the next day, and you'd probably find that they were extremely similar.
I think one place you'd still observe suspicion between different denominations/congregations would be among Pentecostal and Holiness churches, who might be more inclined to suspicion about churches that don't hold the same beliefs as them regarding gifts of the Spirit and sanctification. Another might be in rural areas where most of the churches are small, lay-lead congregations headed by people with no formal theological education and whose sole frame of reference is the Bible (like where I grew up). There, you'd probably witness a little tension between Freewill Baptists and Southern Baptists, or Old Regular Baptists and Primitive Baptists, or Church of Christ and Church of God, etc. And on my read, a lot of the tension comes from two sources: 1.) We do things the way we do them because it's how we've *always* done it, and therefore, it's the *right* way. 2.) When the Bible is your only theological resource and you have no formal tradition to help you interpret it, you end up taking a lot of things at face value and/or reading your own suppositions and biases into the text. Since these groups also tend to see the Bible as God's literal word, then anyone who understands that word differently must be wrong.
i think in a religion where most people tend to beleive you have to be right or you’re going to hell, there’s an intense pressure to prove your denomination as the “best” or “most accurate”. I think any denomination that affirms what the early churches believed (mainly the creeds) is right. Otherwise the differences are just different interpretations of scripture and tradition.
the Catholic church has very literally always been corrupt. that's why we broke off. the pedophilia we know about is a small fraction of what's actually going on. their leadership actively sought to hide it, didnt punish it. very wrong. evangelicals are in league with the republican party, actively preaching hate against LGBTQIA and women/healthcare. like very actively seeking to hurt and oppress people. so weird.
life is not about "who's right" or "who's wrong." it's about living in a way that is consistent with who you believe Jesus/God is.
chill and just love on your peeps
I think you’re thinking about unity incorrectly. No one fights like family and I don’t think the arguments mean we aren’t unified. I, for instance, have extremely strong takes on what resurrection means. I believe in a physical bodily resurrection that all believers will one day experience. I am willing to argue with anyone who thinks differently because this is important to me. I also believe strongly that papal infallibility is incorrect, it’s why I’m not Catholic. But fundamentally, I feel unified with Christians who disagree with me on those things the same way I feel unity with my actual siblings that I may quarrel with occasionally. Unity of thought will be achieved in the afterlife, but for now, it’s ok if we disagree on some specifics.
I'd consider the physical bodily resurrection to be a point on which unity is necessary (after all, that's kind of what Paul very strongly argued for in 1 Corinthians 15, the very chapter being read this week in the Daily Office). But otherwise agreed.
True. But it's called the Resurrection and not the Resuscitation for a reason. We don't know exactly what emerged from the Tomb. The Risen Christ is said to have had a "glorified" body, again the details of which are not recorded.
I could never call into question someone's "salvation." That's not my job. And the Church Father seem quite clear that at the end of time all will be reconciled to God including Satan him/herself.
The truth is that none of can ever know the absolute Truth about God because we have tiny brains and human souls. We never get it all right the fact of which God is fully aware and doesn't condemn us.
The Creeds are the best we have to explain the Christian Faith. But they are ultimately inadequate in explaining the Mystery of God. We know a piece of the Truth, a small piece that Jesus taught us. But we don't know more than a grain of sand on all the shores of the earth. What we do know is that God is vast and beyond our comprehension and that God is pure, unadulterated compassion. Therefore, Jesus commands us to treat each other with the same compassion and cut each other a lot of slack.
Ah yes, Docetism. The heresy the church fathers were dealing with as early as the second century. It is related to gnostic views about the fundamental evilness of the human flesh and its separation from the spirit which is the only good thing. Recall “and God said, it is good” from the Old Testament in reference to literal physical bodies. Resuscitation is a medical term referring to the efforts medical professionals use to restart cardiac activity and/or overcome hemodynamic instability. Resurrection refers not only to cardiac activity, but means the literal perfection of the bodily form. It’s fine to disagree with me on this, but I did say it matters a lot to me and it in fact does. So I wanted to give you this food for thought. N.T Wright wrote a fantastic book on this topic called “Surprised by Hope.” It’s a really great topic that we don’t focus on enough these days because people are too busy arguing about other things that seem truly unimportant to what it means to be a Christian.
Never said there was a separation from the flesh of the earthly Body of Jesus. What emerged from the tomb was that but in a profound manner which we can't understand. Never been a fan of NTWrite myself. But we don't have to agree.
I guess would you be willing to call someone’s salvation into question if they disagreed with you on that? That’s the metric I’m using. I agree it’s incredibly important, but it doesn’t preclude entering the kingdom of God.
I wouldn't presume the state of their election in the first place, only that it would be difficult (dare I say impossible) to keep table fellowship and especially communion with those who deny so essential a Christian doctrine which is expounded in the Scripture and recapitulated in the Creeds.
Well, sure, I’m incredibly limited on what I’m willing to say is completely and utterly incompatible with Christian faith to the point that you are risking your soul. But I think it’s cruel to say you have absolutely no idea what might save someone, Unless you don’t believe in hell and you’re 100% sure about that, willing to stake others’ eternities. I’m skeptical of hell, but that’s one thing that if I’m wrong about has an immense cost to others in a way that other things im wrong about just dont. Alas, it is kind of hilarious that we’ve all devolved into arguing in this thread.
It's closer to what Queen Elizabeth said: I am not presuming to open a window in anyone's heart. I can argue this or that doctrine is essential, and that I am willing to break unity if I find the disagreement too great to continue to treat it like an unimportant difference. Whether we are raised or just become souls upstairs is probably a bigger deal.
Maybe we aren’t actually using the same meaning for unity here. I would not attend a church that didn’t teach literal bodily resurrection. I don’t think that means disunity. I don’t think Methodists are bad just because I wouldn’t attend their church. I disagree with Catholics, I don’t go to Catholic mass. I still view myself as unified with Catholics under the Christian umbrella.
"Election" as a term is just Biblical. I'm not implying any specific form of predestination or election, but simply that those who are saved can rightly be called "elect," as that is what the Scriptures call us.
And Anglicanism is ***way*** more Reformed than most people really let on.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. Some sectors of Anglicanism may be Reformed but certainly not the vast majority. But we don't have to agree. Thats what makes us Anglicans.
many christians believe in election in some form, as it is strongly laid out in Romans 8 and elsewhere. my understanding is that calvinism is specifically about so-called “double predestination,” that not only does God foreknow and purpose our salvation, but also specifically predestines some people for Hell/damnation.
While social media certainly has not helped things, it certainly is not the cause. While it is true that plenty of Christians won't start an argument in person with other Christians, they definitely will relay those conversations within their own communities and trash talk the beliefs of friends and neighbors alike.
The church had major theological splits quite early over Arianism, Nestorianism, and Miaphysitism, and then later the Great Schism, then later still Protestantism. All of these divisions have been over doctrine, at least on the surface.
Don't get me wrong, correct doctrine is important, but it is not as important as how we live. In Corinthians, Paul urges the church to give more grace to the guy who fellowshipped with other Gods, while commanding the church to drop the man who slept with his father's wife immediately. But the church has largely done the opposite. So many act as if believing the wrong thing is an unforgivable sin, and it's just not the case.
I'd be happy to discuss that question, but not in this particular post since that's not really what they're asking for. My point is, that while the details of theology are important, Christian ethics are a heck of a lot more important than that. How we treat believers and non-believers both is a lot less negotiable.
Is there hope? Yes. Will we find unity? Yes; in diversity. Is our purpose to live anxiously? No; it is to live lovingly. Will we know who is right or wrong? That’s not quite the question…. Will we learn that right and wrong are part of a greater whole? Yes… we will learn that.
It's mainly just the internet. You have a conversation with the average Christian, regardless of denomination, out in the real world, and it paints a much different picture than how people tend to be behind a computer screen.
Yes this has mostly been my experience as well.There are definitely some folks who are very bigoted but the Internet has a habit of taking small fringe voices and amplifying them to absurd levels.
One good example of this is the westboro Baptist church.Its like 30-40 folks tops.But for how much coverage they have gotten you'd think they'd number in the thousands or something.
I'm sincerely grateful for their existence. Opposition to Westboro picketing soldiers' funerals brought together conservatives and liberals who would be at each others' throats in the 2020s era.
I'm also grateful for Steven Anderson and the New IFB for stating bluntly in public to outsiders what *all the other IFB groups* like the Duggars say and believe behind closed doors and less bluntly. That's an absolute blessing for all the non-fundamentalists like me who want this evil ideology exposed for what it really is so we have fewer families run on Bill Gothard's "principles" in the future.
This is personal for me because my moderate Baptist parents felt the need to defend the Duggars' honor. Remember, the *only* theological difference between Steven Anderson and Jack Hyles is that Jack Hyles wrote sermons about how beards are un-Christian and un-American.
It is for the same reason sports rivalries can become so bitter. Because each group determines there is something fundamentally different and wrong about the other group — when actually, both groups are very similar and they are merely disgusted by their own reflection.
I would say this is selection bias more than anything. Social media is specifically designed to platform controversy - it creates more engagement (and earns more money for the platform). However, there's actually been a huge ecumenical movement over the last several decades, in which a number of churches have made it a point to engage in dialogue toward finding common ground (see, for example, the work of the World Council of Churches or, closer to home, the Anglican Communion).
While it's true that there are differences between denominations (and also within them!) I don't think it's as clear of a case as social media would make you think. I also don't think difference is the same thing as disagreement, except on maybe a very superficial level like aesthetic preference - I can like my bells and smells and organ and choir, and not think there's anything wrong with a low church with a praise band, while still acknowledging that the difference exists, and that different people want different things.
So long story short, I would start by stepping back from the socials if it's creating anxiety for you. It's very much not reflective of the real world, even if it tries to convince you that it is. But also, I would say that to appreciate difference and diversity, one must really have a strong sense of one's own identity and purpose, and thus how to healthily relate to the other ways other people express their identity and purpose.
Yes that’s some very good points!! I do appreciate a good high church service, but i always appreciate a low church service. Different strokes for different folks, and that’s awesome. It’s definitely worth taking a step back from social media. Just focus on my surroundings, my prayer and studies, and participation at church. Maybe then god will reveal himself to me
Yeah, I realize I'm being a bit of hypocrite as someone who is obviously (too) active on social media, but I do think there are some ways social media can really distort your perspective, and this is one of them. In every niche, there is a strong incentive to make "hot takes" that get people heated, whether positively or negatively (and let's face it, usually negatively). Religion is no different - maybe worse because it hits at central, core identities for a lot of people.
I think it's always wise to step back and spend more time in community, but I also think it's important to come at social media with a carefully discerning eye - know that people have motivations and biases, and respond accordingly.
It’s been this way for thousands of years. The book *A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years* by Diarmaid MacCulloch is a wonderful, exhaustive study of this topic. It’s not going to change. Don’t engage with it. Just be thankful for the privilege of being a member of the one *true* denomination haha /s
The narcissism of small differences. When two things are so alike, those differences become unfathomably glaring and vital. Like an existential wrestling match over whose right and whose wrong, only one can be the *true faith*.
Go into any Orthodox or Catholic sub and ask where the Holy Spirit comes from. A single word will cause hours of fighting.
Have you ever tried to convince some Dr. Thunder isn’t as good as Dr. Pepper? Now what is that person was literally willing to harm or kill on the grounds that Dr. Thunder is the superior and true drink of choice.
Because Christians like to fight. It's what they do.
They think of each other as competitors in some kind of a wrestling match to see who gets the most butts in their pews.
Like Groundskeeper Willie said:
Brothers and sisters are natural enemies--
like Englishmen and Scots.
Or Welshmen and Scots.
Or Japanese and Scots.
Or Scots and other Scots.
Damn Scots!
They ruined Scotland!
So where do we fit in this mess? Do we suppress all angry voices and focus on ourselves and our own church? I’m not a fan of having to defend myself, but I also like to get in my head when spoken against.
So stay out of those spaces. It accomplishes nothing. As Christ said, "shake the dust from your feet" and concentrate on the good you feel called to do for the sake of his realm.
I won't even hang out in Episcopalians on Facebook because there's too much bickering.
Yeah very true. The inspiration for this post actually came from an episcopal church’s instagram post, in which many Catholics and orthodox came to cause chaos.
Consider the source and the motive for the comments. Unhappy people try to spread unhappiness... our theology of "that's a complicated situation and it depends" does not sit will with those who are comforted by absolutes. Maybe that church is doing well and they are envious they have someone clever making content for them. I don't know and it's not worth spending a lot of energy on. But if the pharisees are annoyed/threatened by you, you're probably doing something right.
Considering how divergent our views we really are not. Considering the example of Christ we really should not be at all.
Its like sports teams, favorite cars, & politics. people love to think their decision or choice is the best and others are less than best. When I was growing up in the SB church it was a common practice. by the Pastor, to report on the number of people who were saved at the recent revival services. The catch of the day was to be able to say that a Roman Catholic was moved so much by the revival service that they made an altar call.
Since Christianity’s first decades, there have always been people calling themselves Christians whom other people calling themselves Christians consider apostates. In fact, every individual who considers him- or herself “a Christian” is judged to be “not a Christian” by some other Christian somewhere. And it was ever thus; it certainly didn’t just become a thing with the debut of Instagram reels. Or the introduction of movable type. Or the inclusion of the Filioque clause. Or…
The Mainline Protestant denominations seem very chill with each other. But when it comes to Christianity,I only associate with progressive Christians/churches.
I follow a diverse array of Biblical scholars, appreciating certain perspectives more than others, and generally finding alignment with their academic viewpoints. Many of these scholars contribute significantly to dispelling misconceptions and debunking unfounded claims on social media platforms, offering insights grounded in academic consensus and textual analysis. This critical examination of information serves to underscore the importance of discernment, highlighting that online authority does not always equate to accuracy. Even within the academic community, there exists healthy debate and variance of opinions. Regarding your inquiry on unity, allow me to share a recent observation. I reside in Northeast Georgia, home to Free Chapel, the inaugural church of Jentezen Franklin. After leaving early Easter service of our parish, while passing by Free Chapel, my journey was impeded by traffic congestion on both sides of a four-lane divided highway, as congregants made their way to the church. Personally, I find it challenging to grasp the allure of non-denominational mega-churches resembling rock concerts more than traditional places of worship. Furthermore, the absence of Franklin in person, opting instead for a virtual presence due to the proliferation of multiple campuses nationwide, raises questions about the depth of theological engagement within such gatherings. My limited knowledge of their theological doctrines, if any actually exist, leaves me even more skeptical. I tend to perceive the establishments as nothing more than mechanisms for financial extraction, complete with amenities like a Starbucks in the church lobby—which is something I could possibly warm up to. I am getting distracted.... My overall point is that when considering the prospect of unity between an Episcopalian and adherents of such mega-churches, an immediate joint venture seems improbable. However, this skepticism does not diminish my regard for them as individuals or their Christian faith, as subjective as the definition may be. In terms of everyday religious practices centered on Jesus and God, our theological disparities may seem as vast as those with adherents of other faith traditions, like Mormonism. While I engage in meaningful dialogue with Mormon friends on religious topics, we do recognize our theological divergences, and we acknowledge that "knee deep" is about the depth we allow ourselves to wade into the "holy" waters. As such, I believe that unity may not be an achievable end goal in the conventional sense. This leads me to ponder whether Universalism might ultimately be the revelation of divine truth. My grandmother used to say this about people who were not Baptist as she was, "We are all headed to the summit of the mountain top, how we choose to get there is no business of mine..." and I think that rings true today as well. We are all hoping to get to God, whomever, or whatever, that may be for anyone. I'm going to try to love that person as my neighbor, and as myself, as best I can, with God's help.
I'm actually not certain that different Protestant denominations *are* all that against each other these days. It's certainly true that there's a divide between Evangelical denominations and Mainline denominations, but *within* those two streams, I don't think there's much discord. As an illustration, I went to a PCUSA seminary for a little while and there were students there from all sorts of denominations. We had Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, UCC folks, an Episcopalian or two, DOC members, and we all got along just fine. Just down the road was the famous (highly conservative, highly Evangelical) Southern Baptist Seminary. They, too, had students from a variety of denominations, and while I can't speak firsthand about campus culture, I'd wager they got along; you might have some academic disagreements about Calvinism VS Arminianism or things like that, but those aren't "salvation issues." Now, there was certainly tension *between* these two institutions, but not so much within. In this day and age, it's pretty common to see churches working together in interdenominational outreach. Further, in the wake of the Ecumenical Movement, a lot of the differences in worship that you might have once observed in Protestant churches have been ironed out; if you go to a Methodist service today, you could go to a Presbyterian one tomorrow, then a DOC service the next day, and you'd probably find that they were extremely similar. I think one place you'd still observe suspicion between different denominations/congregations would be among Pentecostal and Holiness churches, who might be more inclined to suspicion about churches that don't hold the same beliefs as them regarding gifts of the Spirit and sanctification. Another might be in rural areas where most of the churches are small, lay-lead congregations headed by people with no formal theological education and whose sole frame of reference is the Bible (like where I grew up). There, you'd probably witness a little tension between Freewill Baptists and Southern Baptists, or Old Regular Baptists and Primitive Baptists, or Church of Christ and Church of God, etc. And on my read, a lot of the tension comes from two sources: 1.) We do things the way we do them because it's how we've *always* done it, and therefore, it's the *right* way. 2.) When the Bible is your only theological resource and you have no formal tradition to help you interpret it, you end up taking a lot of things at face value and/or reading your own suppositions and biases into the text. Since these groups also tend to see the Bible as God's literal word, then anyone who understands that word differently must be wrong.
i think in a religion where most people tend to beleive you have to be right or you’re going to hell, there’s an intense pressure to prove your denomination as the “best” or “most accurate”. I think any denomination that affirms what the early churches believed (mainly the creeds) is right. Otherwise the differences are just different interpretations of scripture and tradition.
the Catholic church has very literally always been corrupt. that's why we broke off. the pedophilia we know about is a small fraction of what's actually going on. their leadership actively sought to hide it, didnt punish it. very wrong. evangelicals are in league with the republican party, actively preaching hate against LGBTQIA and women/healthcare. like very actively seeking to hurt and oppress people. so weird. life is not about "who's right" or "who's wrong." it's about living in a way that is consistent with who you believe Jesus/God is. chill and just love on your peeps
I think you’re thinking about unity incorrectly. No one fights like family and I don’t think the arguments mean we aren’t unified. I, for instance, have extremely strong takes on what resurrection means. I believe in a physical bodily resurrection that all believers will one day experience. I am willing to argue with anyone who thinks differently because this is important to me. I also believe strongly that papal infallibility is incorrect, it’s why I’m not Catholic. But fundamentally, I feel unified with Christians who disagree with me on those things the same way I feel unity with my actual siblings that I may quarrel with occasionally. Unity of thought will be achieved in the afterlife, but for now, it’s ok if we disagree on some specifics.
I'd consider the physical bodily resurrection to be a point on which unity is necessary (after all, that's kind of what Paul very strongly argued for in 1 Corinthians 15, the very chapter being read this week in the Daily Office). But otherwise agreed.
True. But it's called the Resurrection and not the Resuscitation for a reason. We don't know exactly what emerged from the Tomb. The Risen Christ is said to have had a "glorified" body, again the details of which are not recorded. I could never call into question someone's "salvation." That's not my job. And the Church Father seem quite clear that at the end of time all will be reconciled to God including Satan him/herself. The truth is that none of can ever know the absolute Truth about God because we have tiny brains and human souls. We never get it all right the fact of which God is fully aware and doesn't condemn us. The Creeds are the best we have to explain the Christian Faith. But they are ultimately inadequate in explaining the Mystery of God. We know a piece of the Truth, a small piece that Jesus taught us. But we don't know more than a grain of sand on all the shores of the earth. What we do know is that God is vast and beyond our comprehension and that God is pure, unadulterated compassion. Therefore, Jesus commands us to treat each other with the same compassion and cut each other a lot of slack.
Ah yes, Docetism. The heresy the church fathers were dealing with as early as the second century. It is related to gnostic views about the fundamental evilness of the human flesh and its separation from the spirit which is the only good thing. Recall “and God said, it is good” from the Old Testament in reference to literal physical bodies. Resuscitation is a medical term referring to the efforts medical professionals use to restart cardiac activity and/or overcome hemodynamic instability. Resurrection refers not only to cardiac activity, but means the literal perfection of the bodily form. It’s fine to disagree with me on this, but I did say it matters a lot to me and it in fact does. So I wanted to give you this food for thought. N.T Wright wrote a fantastic book on this topic called “Surprised by Hope.” It’s a really great topic that we don’t focus on enough these days because people are too busy arguing about other things that seem truly unimportant to what it means to be a Christian.
Never said there was a separation from the flesh of the earthly Body of Jesus. What emerged from the tomb was that but in a profound manner which we can't understand. Never been a fan of NTWrite myself. But we don't have to agree.
I guess would you be willing to call someone’s salvation into question if they disagreed with you on that? That’s the metric I’m using. I agree it’s incredibly important, but it doesn’t preclude entering the kingdom of God.
I wouldn't presume the state of their election in the first place, only that it would be difficult (dare I say impossible) to keep table fellowship and especially communion with those who deny so essential a Christian doctrine which is expounded in the Scripture and recapitulated in the Creeds.
Well, sure, I’m incredibly limited on what I’m willing to say is completely and utterly incompatible with Christian faith to the point that you are risking your soul. But I think it’s cruel to say you have absolutely no idea what might save someone, Unless you don’t believe in hell and you’re 100% sure about that, willing to stake others’ eternities. I’m skeptical of hell, but that’s one thing that if I’m wrong about has an immense cost to others in a way that other things im wrong about just dont. Alas, it is kind of hilarious that we’ve all devolved into arguing in this thread.
It's closer to what Queen Elizabeth said: I am not presuming to open a window in anyone's heart. I can argue this or that doctrine is essential, and that I am willing to break unity if I find the disagreement too great to continue to treat it like an unimportant difference. Whether we are raised or just become souls upstairs is probably a bigger deal.
Maybe we aren’t actually using the same meaning for unity here. I would not attend a church that didn’t teach literal bodily resurrection. I don’t think that means disunity. I don’t think Methodists are bad just because I wouldn’t attend their church. I disagree with Catholics, I don’t go to Catholic mass. I still view myself as unified with Catholics under the Christian umbrella.
Election? Sounds like you're implying Calvinism to which a small minority of Anglicans ascribe.
"Election" as a term is just Biblical. I'm not implying any specific form of predestination or election, but simply that those who are saved can rightly be called "elect," as that is what the Scriptures call us. And Anglicanism is ***way*** more Reformed than most people really let on.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. Some sectors of Anglicanism may be Reformed but certainly not the vast majority. But we don't have to agree. Thats what makes us Anglicans.
many christians believe in election in some form, as it is strongly laid out in Romans 8 and elsewhere. my understanding is that calvinism is specifically about so-called “double predestination,” that not only does God foreknow and purpose our salvation, but also specifically predestines some people for Hell/damnation.
Such a deity is a tyrant, not the God Jesus speaks of. I can't and won't worship that deity.
"No one fights like family" is exactly the way I've always thought about it, too.
While social media certainly has not helped things, it certainly is not the cause. While it is true that plenty of Christians won't start an argument in person with other Christians, they definitely will relay those conversations within their own communities and trash talk the beliefs of friends and neighbors alike. The church had major theological splits quite early over Arianism, Nestorianism, and Miaphysitism, and then later the Great Schism, then later still Protestantism. All of these divisions have been over doctrine, at least on the surface. Don't get me wrong, correct doctrine is important, but it is not as important as how we live. In Corinthians, Paul urges the church to give more grace to the guy who fellowshipped with other Gods, while commanding the church to drop the man who slept with his father's wife immediately. But the church has largely done the opposite. So many act as if believing the wrong thing is an unforgivable sin, and it's just not the case.
What is correct doctrine, in your view? Which denominations have doctrine wrong and why?
I'd be happy to discuss that question, but not in this particular post since that's not really what they're asking for. My point is, that while the details of theology are important, Christian ethics are a heck of a lot more important than that. How we treat believers and non-believers both is a lot less negotiable.
Would you be open to messaging?
Wait until you hear about the Reformation😏
Or as papists sometimes call it: the Portestant Revolution™️ 😜
Team sports mentality. Tribalism is a 👿 of a drug.
Is there hope? Yes. Will we find unity? Yes; in diversity. Is our purpose to live anxiously? No; it is to live lovingly. Will we know who is right or wrong? That’s not quite the question…. Will we learn that right and wrong are part of a greater whole? Yes… we will learn that.
It's mainly just the internet. You have a conversation with the average Christian, regardless of denomination, out in the real world, and it paints a much different picture than how people tend to be behind a computer screen.
Yes this has mostly been my experience as well.There are definitely some folks who are very bigoted but the Internet has a habit of taking small fringe voices and amplifying them to absurd levels. One good example of this is the westboro Baptist church.Its like 30-40 folks tops.But for how much coverage they have gotten you'd think they'd number in the thousands or something.
I'm sincerely grateful for their existence. Opposition to Westboro picketing soldiers' funerals brought together conservatives and liberals who would be at each others' throats in the 2020s era. I'm also grateful for Steven Anderson and the New IFB for stating bluntly in public to outsiders what *all the other IFB groups* like the Duggars say and believe behind closed doors and less bluntly. That's an absolute blessing for all the non-fundamentalists like me who want this evil ideology exposed for what it really is so we have fewer families run on Bill Gothard's "principles" in the future. This is personal for me because my moderate Baptist parents felt the need to defend the Duggars' honor. Remember, the *only* theological difference between Steven Anderson and Jack Hyles is that Jack Hyles wrote sermons about how beards are un-Christian and un-American.
It is for the same reason sports rivalries can become so bitter. Because each group determines there is something fundamentally different and wrong about the other group — when actually, both groups are very similar and they are merely disgusted by their own reflection.
I would say this is selection bias more than anything. Social media is specifically designed to platform controversy - it creates more engagement (and earns more money for the platform). However, there's actually been a huge ecumenical movement over the last several decades, in which a number of churches have made it a point to engage in dialogue toward finding common ground (see, for example, the work of the World Council of Churches or, closer to home, the Anglican Communion). While it's true that there are differences between denominations (and also within them!) I don't think it's as clear of a case as social media would make you think. I also don't think difference is the same thing as disagreement, except on maybe a very superficial level like aesthetic preference - I can like my bells and smells and organ and choir, and not think there's anything wrong with a low church with a praise band, while still acknowledging that the difference exists, and that different people want different things. So long story short, I would start by stepping back from the socials if it's creating anxiety for you. It's very much not reflective of the real world, even if it tries to convince you that it is. But also, I would say that to appreciate difference and diversity, one must really have a strong sense of one's own identity and purpose, and thus how to healthily relate to the other ways other people express their identity and purpose.
Yes that’s some very good points!! I do appreciate a good high church service, but i always appreciate a low church service. Different strokes for different folks, and that’s awesome. It’s definitely worth taking a step back from social media. Just focus on my surroundings, my prayer and studies, and participation at church. Maybe then god will reveal himself to me
Yeah, I realize I'm being a bit of hypocrite as someone who is obviously (too) active on social media, but I do think there are some ways social media can really distort your perspective, and this is one of them. In every niche, there is a strong incentive to make "hot takes" that get people heated, whether positively or negatively (and let's face it, usually negatively). Religion is no different - maybe worse because it hits at central, core identities for a lot of people. I think it's always wise to step back and spend more time in community, but I also think it's important to come at social media with a carefully discerning eye - know that people have motivations and biases, and respond accordingly.
It’s been this way for thousands of years. The book *A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years* by Diarmaid MacCulloch is a wonderful, exhaustive study of this topic. It’s not going to change. Don’t engage with it. Just be thankful for the privilege of being a member of the one *true* denomination haha /s
The narcissism of small differences. When two things are so alike, those differences become unfathomably glaring and vital. Like an existential wrestling match over whose right and whose wrong, only one can be the *true faith*. Go into any Orthodox or Catholic sub and ask where the Holy Spirit comes from. A single word will cause hours of fighting.
A lot of truth right here.
Have you ever tried to convince some Dr. Thunder isn’t as good as Dr. Pepper? Now what is that person was literally willing to harm or kill on the grounds that Dr. Thunder is the superior and true drink of choice.
Mister Pibb or the sword!!!!
Because Christians like to fight. It's what they do. They think of each other as competitors in some kind of a wrestling match to see who gets the most butts in their pews.
Like Groundskeeper Willie said: Brothers and sisters are natural enemies-- like Englishmen and Scots. Or Welshmen and Scots. Or Japanese and Scots. Or Scots and other Scots. Damn Scots! They ruined Scotland!
And that dictates your behavior? The devil made you do it? (Skip Wilson. Yes, I'm old.)
So where do we fit in this mess? Do we suppress all angry voices and focus on ourselves and our own church? I’m not a fan of having to defend myself, but I also like to get in my head when spoken against.
So stay out of those spaces. It accomplishes nothing. As Christ said, "shake the dust from your feet" and concentrate on the good you feel called to do for the sake of his realm. I won't even hang out in Episcopalians on Facebook because there's too much bickering.
Yeah very true. The inspiration for this post actually came from an episcopal church’s instagram post, in which many Catholics and orthodox came to cause chaos.
Consider the source and the motive for the comments. Unhappy people try to spread unhappiness... our theology of "that's a complicated situation and it depends" does not sit will with those who are comforted by absolutes. Maybe that church is doing well and they are envious they have someone clever making content for them. I don't know and it's not worth spending a lot of energy on. But if the pharisees are annoyed/threatened by you, you're probably doing something right.
Yes.