An Evangelical Parable

A friend wrote this and wondered if I might put it up for you consideration (and it really was a friend, not a "friend"!).

He also told this parable to some who trusted in their intellectual acumen that they were cultured, and treated simple-minded evangelicals with paternalistic scorn: 

“Two persons went up into their respective, preferred religious settings to engage in spiritual exercises, one a female pastor with a Ph.D. in religious studies from Candler School of Theology and the other an RV-salesman from Alabama, a faithful NASCAR fan.  The pastor, standing at the podium of a national academic conference on ‘Imaginative Religious Hospitality: Genesis 19 and the Socio-Linguistic Alienation of the GLBT Community,’ pontificated thus: 

‘Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer, we are celebrating the fact that those assembled here have seen beyond the narrow, petty, doctrinaire perspectives of other men, inerrantists, complementarians, anti-Darwinians, and even ‘single-issue’ evangelicals.  We recycle, read The New York Times, engage in inter-faith religious services with local imams, and write letters to the editor about Darfur, AIDS, global poverty, climate change, and healthcare reform.’ 

But the NASCAR fan, kneeling at the front altar of his local Southern Baptist church, would not look up at Brother Jim who was standing beside him praying, but wept bitterly in his handkerchief, saying, ‘Lord Jesus, I know you died for my sins, and I just ask you to come into my heart and be my personal Lord-n-Savior.  Amen.’  I tell you, this NASCAR fan went to the Sunday potluck meal in the fellowship hall justified, rather than the other.  For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Comments

[Beth from TN]

Amen to all that!

[Karen]

Oddly enough, my experience is that the NASCAR fan is going to spend his time in church patting himself on the back for voting Republican and listening to Glen Beck which of course makes him a much superior Christian, while the minister will spend her weekend collecting money for Haitian relief, but as they say on the 'Net, your mileage may vary.

[Bananas Gorilla]

>Oddly enough, my experience

That is truly and incredibly odd.

[Karen]

Bananas, you don't believe a NASCAR fan male could ever by a pompous ass?

[Matt]

Does the author of the parable really think he's not "exalting himself" by claiming to see into the souls of others? That takes some hubris!

[James Gibson]

I have always believed the real modern-day Pharisees are the theological revisionists who push their agenda in the name of "tolerance" and "inclusiveness," crying out for "justice" while looking down their noses at less "sophisticated" folk. The female pastor with the Ph.D. might well spend her weekend collecting money for Haitian relief, but she would do so only to have another good deed to add to her list the next time she "prayed." In the company of his friends, the NASCAR fan might become a little full of himself, but maybe that's why he sees the need to keep falling on his knees in the presence of God.

[Bananas Gorilla]

>Bananas, you don't believe a NASCAR fan male could ever by a pompous ass?

Yes, but the odds, relative to the heretic minister and rebel against God, aren't in favour of such an eventuality.

[AC]

"NASCAR fan" is a cultural Marxist codeword for someone (re: Southern White Men) the liberal elites enjoy despising. So when Karen decides to add a shot, I reckon I just see more bullets flying from the enemy lines.

[Fat Albert]

To quote a former pastor ( who also likes NFL football - oh the horrors!) "If you can't say Amen, you probably need to say ouch!"

[John FB]

"I have always believed the real modern-day Pharisees are the theological revisionists "

Snootiness isn't a virtue, to be sure, but let's put things in perspective: Christians of any stripe today aren't generally putting to death those who challenge their authority or religious doctrines.

On the other hand, two popular self-professed Christians of the Right said in regards to the suffering in Haiti (I'm paraphrasing):
- Those Haitians are all devil-worshippers. Serves 'em right (Pat Robertson)
- Obama's going to use this to curry favor with those black folk. Besides, we already give: it's called taxes (Rush "There's No Recession For Me" Limbaugh)

[Bananas Gorilla]

If you're going to quote them actually quote them given how easy it is to obtain the quotes via Google. And where is Limbaugh professing to be a practicing Christian? Maybe you should google that as well.

[Margaret]

Much truth is said in satire.

[Christopher Hathaway]

John, when you say you are paraphrasing it really means you are interpreting what they said to fit what you are predisposed to think they mean.

It's the same revisionist spin.

[Hunter Baker]

A wonderfully re-written parable. Much appreciated.

[John]

I will bet you my tired old soul that more money is raised for Haiti today in little evangelical churches than in all the "theological revisionist" churches laid from one end of Park Avenue to the other.

[Matt]

I don't find anything productive in all this stereotyping. It seems someone decided to play God by creating hypothetical hated and beloved (by himself) examples of his own stereotypes, and then proclaiming that his favored stereotype is "justified", while the other is not. S/he knows this ... how? Ah, this person has decided s/he speaks for God and is standing in for God. Now we're all going to wrangle about which of us, depending on which stereotype we identify with, is preferred by God?

I don't find this either charitable or productive. We're supposed to love highly educated women and Nascar drivers. We're admonished not to judge others. Must one's faith really degenerate into a squabble about who Daddy's favorite is? That decision is not ours to make.

[Christopher Hathaway]

The point should not be that God loves the NASCAR fan more than He loves the woman pastor but that God's love and Justification have nothing to do with status or what we and the world judge as meritorious qualities. It should overthrow our comfortable way of thinking that we who are the "right" kind of people are therfore closer to God. God loves the humble. In liberal churches the parable should take the form above. In conservative churches it should be different.

Phariseism is not a distinct ideology. It is a condition of the heart universal to man.

[Joe]

Re: " I just ask you to come into my heart and be my personal Lord-n-Savior."

Scott Cairns related a story about one of his pilgrimages to Mount Athos (Greece) where he and a monk were seated on rocks discussing spiritual matters, when of all things, an evangelical Protestant showed up to demand of them, "Do you know Jesus Christ as your personal savior?" To which the monk replied, "No, I like to share Him."

[James Kabala]

Actually, Karen makes a bit of a good point, even though her motives may be malicious.

After all, my understanding (I defer to an expert for correction if necessary) is that the Pharisees were not heretical or deficient in theology, at least not until Jesus came along. Before Jesus, they were on the right side of intra-Jewish disputes with the Sadducees and other groups over resurrection of the dead and so forth. Doesn't St. Paul himself say this in Acts?

The Pharisee of the parable was self-righteous even though his theological beliefs were correct, not because they were heretical. This modern parable, contrasting the educated and sophisticated heretic with the rustic of orthodox beliefs, has a valid moral for our times, but it is not the same as the moral of the original parable.

[Respectabiggle]

At least part of Jesus' intent in choosing a Pharisee and a tax collector was to contrast not their orthodoxy, but their societal status. A Pharisee would be a respected member of the community, whereas tax collectors were reviled. Whether an educated urban elite or a guy with a Dale Jr. cap is more respected probably depends a lot on where you live.

And I'll second John's bet:
"I will bet you my tired old soul that more money is raised for Haiti today in little evangelical churches than in all the "theological revisionist" churches laid from one end of Park Avenue to the other ".

[Bananas Gorilla]

>We're supposed to love highly educated women and Nascar drivers.

We do. The woman's problem is she was a rebel against God, not that she was educated.

[John H. Guthrie]

Underling Karens comment is the sterotype that Liberals are more compassionate with their time and money. But that is not the truth. The fact is that Conservatives, including Evangelicals, give far more money to charitable causes than Liberals. Here is a story from the New York Times by a Liberal columnist lamenting the wide gap in giving to charity between Liberals and Conservatives- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html. People belonging to denominations with theological revisionist leadership tell me that much money sent to the denominations for mission and charitable work gets tied up in denominational bureaucracies.

[Matt]

John H. Guthrie, I've seen other studies suggesting that atheists and highly educated Christians are more likely to give to charity than believers and undereducated Christians. I can't see that it matters one way or the other. The "parable" above tells us what the author believes, not what God believes (let's not get the two confused!).

Bananas, you're assuming that the woman rebelled against God. Again, you're making the assumption that you know what God believes, which strangely enough just happens to coincide with what you believe. I think we should all stop trying to speak for God (or confusing ourselves with Him.)

[John H. Guthrie]

Matt, if such studies exist please provide a link. I have searched before to see if anyone refuted the study refered to in the NT Times article and can find none. I was refering to Karen's comment, not the article itself.

[Judy K. Warner]

A recent book, Who Really Cares, answers the question of who gives more to charity. To quote from the product description on Amazon:

Surprising proof that conservatives really are more compassionate--and more generous--than liberals.

We all know we should give to charity, but who really does? Approximately three-quarters of Americans give their time and money to various charities, churches, and causes; the other quarter of the population does not. Why has America split into two nations: givers and non-givers?

Arthur Brooks, a top scholar of economics and public policy, has spent years researching this trend, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Really Cares, he demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes. Strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills-all of these factors determine how likely one is to give.

I would also like to correct John FB's misconception about Rush Limbaugh's statement, which I can do since I happened to be listening when he said it, and also the next day when he repeated it in response to distortions like John FB's. He discouraged his listeners from giving to the government fund drive and encouraged them to give to private charities to help the Haitians.

[Karen]

The original parable was designed to make its hearers engage in self-examination, and consider their own biases. This parable, which is only about people made up by the writer, only reinforces the biases of "Touchstone" readers. No one who subscribes to this magazine is a feminist and bloody few readers are. So, who is going to react to this in any way but patting himself on the back.

[John H. Guthrie]

Matt, the study by Arthur Brooks mentioned in Judy K. Warner's column is the study refered to by the liberal NY Times columnist lamenting the rate of Liberal giving I linked to. I went to Google and typed in "Liberals Give More To Charity" and read the first five pages. Not one entry presented any statisical evidence that Liberals give more to charity. In fact, some entries point to evidence that religious people donate more to non-religious causes than the non-religious themselves. There were also studies that show that the working poor give more money to charity than the middle class.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

It's a most interesting question, is it not? If we draw certain conclusions from Scripture and the historic teachings of the faith, are we doing so because they support our preconceived opinions rather than any objective evaluation of their truth? That, at least, is the charge Karen is making here. (And she is of course correct that there are damn few feminists on this board, or the subscriber list of Touchstone. Just as there are few complementarians on the subscriber list of Ms, I would imagine.) But her charge has one small flaw in it. I find myself compelled by my faith to forgive and pray for those who have harmed me. I by myself would not have chosen to do that, but Scripture and the historic teachings of the Church compel me to do it. Why don't I seek after a faith (or none) that permits me to curse my enemies and seek their harm instead? That is what I would choose to do if I were left to my own desires, I assure you. Odd how that fails to meet her paradigm. I wonder if my views of the nature of men and women are somehow also traceable to the teachings of the faith rather than my own desires? But that would disappoint Karen, and how can I bear to do that?

[John H. Guthrie]

"Do you know Christ as your personal savior...no, I like to share him." Clever remark, but it does not reflect the reality of the last couple hundred years of Church history. The fact is that while the term "personal savior" may be an unfortunate term, the branch of the Church which uses it has been responsible for the greatest expansion of the Church around the world. While I am mindful of the contributions made by all branches of the Church over the centuries,posts like that remind me why I am leery of the modern eccumenical movement.

[Bananas Gorilla]

>Bananas, you're assuming that the woman rebelled against God.

Any woman who pursues ordination is a de facto rebel against God.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

So, for whom is the term "personal savior" unfortunate? The person saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, who created him as a unique human person because He wanted to share Eternity with him? I don't think so. Is it the people who think that because they are members of a particular ecclesiastical body that they are thus saved by their membership rather than any objective action of Christ? Perhaps. Or the people who think Christ was a mere historical figure that the early church exalted to Godhood due to their own needs for recognition and honor? Almost certainly.

I am a person. Christ entered into my individual life to offer me salvation. Person + savior. Whassup with knocking that?

[John H. Guthrie]

Deacon Michael, the term "personal savior" is not Biblical. Unfortunately, modern Evangelicals, of which I am one, have focused so exclusively upon their own salvation that they neglect the full Gospel message. Jesus and the Apostles preached "Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand." John 3:3 states "Jesus replied, 'I assure you, unless you are born again, you can never see the Kingdom of God." This passage speaks of being born again with the purpose of entering the Kingdom of God. Salvation is just the first component of the full Gospel message. Our witness for Christ should not only include the forgiveness of sins but the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to transform us into the disciples Jesus wants us to be. The term "personal savior" comes from a modern church culture that neglects to preach the full Gospel message. Despite this criticism of this term used by my fellow Evangelicals, the point of my previous post is that it is the Evangelicals who have been mostly responsible for the greatest expansion of the Church around the world.

[Christopher Hathaway]

John Gothrie, the terms Trinity or homoousios are not Biblical either. I think you are attributing to this term "personal Savior" attitudes that may occur with some evangelicals but which are not necessary to the term. I have noted many Christians who have grown up in the church and have never rejected the faith but who show little evidence that that faith has made any impact on their lives or that they truly believe it. That is what I have always assumed the term "personal" savior was meant to correct. It directs people to the truth that it is not enough for the church to believe in Christ. Every individual must bow in his own heart to God.

This statement nowhere denies the greater corporate significance of being a member of those redeemed by Christ.

[Christopher Hathaway]

I Meant John Guthrie.

[Michael D. Harmon]

And Mr. Hathaway made the point clearly and well that I only made obscurely and poorly. I thank him for that. Jesus is either every Christian's personal savior, or He is not a savior at all.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Jesus is either every Christian's personal savior, or He is not a savior at all.

True enough. But why, then, the adjective: "personal"? Of course, any dimwitted grammatical slip may be easily forgiven. But more to the point, why canonize it in the Evangelical lexicon so much so that our hypothetical NASCAR fan mouths it, without reflection, in deep prayer? Certainly better adjectives could be used: beautiful? holy?? powerful??? matchless???!

[Bananas Gorilla]

>But why, then, the adjective: "personal"?

Because it is a counter to erroneous tendencies to overemphasize the corporate nature of salvation. This may in turn lead to the reverse error but such is human existence.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Steve, have you never heard someone say of another, "he's a personal friend of mine"? Yes, it's a bit redundant grammatically but it highlights the intimacy of the relationship. Repetition often does that in speech and literature. If I say to a woman "I love you with all my heart" would it be a reasonable retort for her to tell me that it wouldn't really be love if I did it with half my heart? Correct, yes, but missing the point.

[John H. Guthrie]

As to other terms used by the Church are not in Scripture, point taken. It is not my intent to paint the Evangelical world with a broad brush or imply that its Gospel proclamation is totally flawed. Nor was it my intent to imply that Jesus does not save individuals.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

Mr. Guthrie: I never interpreted you to say Jesus does not save individuals. Who else is there to be saved? The question is about the means by which He does it. We are not saved by membership in a denomination or by adhering to a set of propositional truths -- though both are part of the fullness of being a Christian. We are saved by a one-on-one personal relationship with Jesus, in which He gives us faith as an unmerited gift by means of grace, and not by works, lest any man should boast. And yet, we are saved for works which God has prepared in advance for us to do, so that our faith might be seen by its fruit.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

"Who else is there to be saved?"

Perhaps all of creation that has been groaning together in the pangs of childbirth for the freedom of the glory of the sons of God?

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Though not Eastern Orthodox myself, I do agree with Father Stephen at "Glory to God for All Things", here, Deacon Harmon. The language of "one-on-one personal relationship" is rather weak and misleading, compared to the scriptural language of "communion". Notice that's the bit in your comment that doesn't come directly from the language of the scriptural text, which can sometimes (though not always) be an important red flag.

"One-on-one personal relationship" implies that salvation is apart from the Church. Why are we united to him by baptism in the same waters, if it is just a one-on-one thing? Why do we drink from the same cup? Our salvation comes through union with Christ - a far deeper and all-encompassing thing than a "personal relationship". It unites us to others he is united with, such that whatever we do to them we do to him. It makes us mediators of his love for the entire world. It changes our very being. We feed on his body and recieve the bread of heaven and the cup of salvation. We shine like lights to a world in darkness, and work for all things to be made new. "Communion" captures all this - "one-on-one personal relationship" only communicates a subset of it.

[John H. Guthrie]

Deacon Michael, my comment concerning the salvation of individuals was in response to someone else's comment. I thought it best to clear up any understanding concerning my original comment on this issue. As to your comments on how we are saved, I agree that we are not saved by works, being a member of a particular branch of the Church, or by merely assenting to a set of truths.

[Bananas Gorilla]

People who shudder at the thought of a personal relationship with Christ should bear in mind that the alternative in an impersonal relationship with Christ. The terminology of personal relationship is not all encompassing nor does it cover all bases but it is bizarre to see people twitch so over something that is manifestly true.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Fair enough, Mr. Gorilla. Of course, I think what people react to is often real errors that are often associated with the language. Evangelicalism has an unfortunate track record of focusing on the personal in almost total exclusion of the communal (which makes it an important corrective to areas where personal faith is deemphasized), and can even fall into a sort of de facto neo-gnosticism. So that's what people worry about - the very real problems that can go along with the language.

To the moderator: I am an Evangelical.

[Michael D. Harmon]

I agree there is no salvation outside the Church. I agree that there are no Lone Ranger Christians, that Christ called us to be part of his Body (although even a prisoner serving a life sentence in solitary confinement can be a part of that Body). But if you are looking for examples of imprecise and misleading statements, I refer back to those who would be tempted to believe that either church membership or propositional assent is sufficient for salvation, and I was merely trying to correct that misunderstanding, which I found inherent in previous statements on this post.

To put it another way, what church was Dismas part of when Christ told him, "This day you will be with me in Paradise"? (The Church of Jesus Christ, of course.)

The thing about horses is that when you lose your balance, you can fall off them on either side....

[Bananas Gorilla]

>Evangelicalism has an unfortunate track record of focusing on the personal in almost total exclusion of the communal (which makes it an important corrective to areas where personal faith is deemphasized), and can even fall into a sort of de facto neo-gnosticism.

And as previously observed this is an over-reaction to the opposite sort of error, namely an overemphasis on the corporate nature of salvation.

[John H. Guthrie]

Mr. Gorilla, who is shuddering at the thought of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? Who in this dialogue have denied such a relationship exists between God and His disciples? You are reading too much into a comments concerning the term "personal savior."

[John W.]

Mr. Harmon

"To put it another way, what church was Dismas part of when Christ told him, "This day you will be with me in Paradise"? (The Church of Jesus Christ, of course.)"

And would you say that any group of people getting together in Christ's name are apart of the Church of Jesus Christ?

[Sue Sims]

"I refer back to those who would be tempted to believe that either church membership or propositional assent is sufficient for salvation..."

Goodness - where can I find the people who believe either of these things? Or are they invisible because they're actually made of straw?

I know only too well that the first accusation at least is one often thrown at Catholics (since they were thrown at me when I converted from evangelicalism to Catholicism). Funnily enough, it's generally followed up a couple of minutes later into the discussion by my interlocutor telling me that Catholics believe in 'works-righteousness' and think they have to earn their salvation by doing things; and, about ten minutes later, that Catholics don't have assurance of salvation even though - I'm told - that's clearly taught in the Bible (Romans 10:9, etc).

I love evangelicals (heck, my husband and many of my friends are still thus), but logic isn't always a feature of their argumentation.

[Bananas Gorilla]

>Goodness - where can I find the people who believe either of these things?

Which is why, arguably, it is better stated to say that there are people who overemphasize the corporate aspect of salvation.

[John FB]

Michael writes: "I agree there is no salvation outside the Church."

Which Church might that be?

Sue writes: "Funnily enough, it's generally followed up a couple of minutes later into the discussion by my interlocutor telling me that Catholics believe in 'works-righteousness'"

Indeed! It's especially funny when the same people insist on the things one must *do* and *believe* to be saved! (After all, isn't "believing in" something a work of the intellect and will?)

[Bananas Gorilla]

>Which Church might that be?

The catholic Church...

[John FB]

Bananas, you must be an anti-Vatican II Traditionalist? The RCC has become a bit more nuanced in this regard (in case you missed the memo!).

Pre-Vatican II:
We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).

The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino).

Post-Vatican II (Revised 2nd Edition Catechism): "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."

[MCModerator]

Folks, you're threatening to push across unacceptable boundaries on this site of sectarian polemics. Please keep it civil, or the thread will be closed.

[Bananas Gorilla]

>Bananas, you must be an anti-Vatican II Traditionalist?

The catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic church, that would place me far from that status!

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

Well, I have been asked a couple of questions, so let me reply to them:

1) "... would you say that any group of people getting together in Christ's name are a part of the Church of Jesus Christ?"

No, I would say the people who are ACTUALLY getting together in Christ's name are a part of the Church of Jesus Christ. I can be mistaken about who they are, but He knows all His sheep, and He calls them by name.

2) if there is no salvation outside the church, "...what church might that be?"

The one referenced above, of course. It includes people who belong to all denominations, and some who (like Dismas) belong to no formal body but discover, perhaps at the very end of their lives, who He is -- and, of course, accept Him. "Remember me when you come into your kingdom." Some may find they have found Him even when He is presented to them as the demon Tash.

[John W.]

Deacon Michael

Can you give any evidence for this view of the church as invisible and not a defined, incarnational body with shared doctrine before the Protestant reformation? I ask because I eventually rejected this view because it seems to me to have been created to deal with the what I would argue is an embarrassing lack of doctrinal or functional unity in the post-reformation world.

I know my question may sound polemical, but let me assure you it is honest.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Hi John W.,

Deacon Michael should answer your question, of course, but I do want to at least ask you a counter-question. Doesn't the Catholic Church believe something similar, in that we Protestants can have a real and spiritual, if imperfect, share in the grace God pours on his One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? Aka, there is sacramental grace in our baptisms, despite ourselves, etc.?

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Or have I been reading too much watered-down overly-gentle RCIA material? ;-)

[Steve Nicoloso]

Wonders: Probably. The RCIA material I had lacked an Imprimatur (it had actually been removed) and appeared to be carefully designed to foster practical atheism in the would-be convert. The catechism (and, for you, the Summa) is all you really need.

But back to our hypothetical NASCAR-luvin' rube: Yes, yes, we all can forgive someone saying so-and-so is a personal friend. Heck, we can even forgive someone for prefacing with "At this point in time..." But what we have here is a prayer from the rube. And he has been trained by liturgical language to insert this word: "personal" in the adjectival clause, in his prayer purporting to be in his own words from his own heart. So how did that strange, and strangely specialized adjective get there?

Now smart people, smart believers, such as those that frequent the Mere Comments blog are well aware that, yes, the salvation Jesus offers is, in fact, personal, as well as corporate. And the august participants on this blog are well aware that the Personal Savior nomenclature is quite separate from seeing Jesus as my personal buddy or my personal co-pilot or my personal Twelve Step Program. But what makes us so sure that our hypothetical rube is as learned as us?

My point is not that it's unbiblical or even (properly understood) at all untrue; but rather that it is a linguistic and theological construction that A) is not natural, and therefore B) was inculcated (i.e., he was catechized to say it this way); and finally C) while technically true, deserves no special place of honor in the private devotions of the faithful. Yet our hypothetical rube, when deep in honest prayer, says it... reflexively... unreflectively, and not altogether implausibly.

[Margaret]

"Any woman who pursues ordination is a de facto rebel against God."

Oh, Mr Bulver, you only say that because you are a man.

[John W.]

Wonders,

I'm afraid I'm not Catholic, so I wouldn't want to presume to answer for the Latins among us. My understanding of the Orthodox teaching is that, while there is grace outside of God's Church, it is precisely that, outside the Church. I think this is entirely different from what Deacon Michael is arguing. I think the difference is the same as arguing that a Hindu CAN be saved versus that Hindus and Christians are basically equal. Obviously Deacon Michael is not positing this, but the logic is the same. I'm not saying that Lutherans can't be saved, rather that they are saved then outside the Church, or brought into the Church at the eschaton.

Deacon Michael and Wonders:
Where do we draw the doctrinal line? At Christ? Which/who's Christ? The Nicene Creed? Isn't any line in the sand somewhat arbitrary from a protestant perspective?

Again, I mean no disrespect and these are honest questions.

[Robert Espe]

John W,
In all fairness, I don't think you can paint the church as unified before the reformation. You say you are Orthodox, and I believe the great schism pre-dates the reformation.

Wonders is correct in his understanding of Catholic teaching regarding the relation between the Roman and Protestant churches. I understand that the Orthodox consider their church to be THE mother church (a claim to which Catholics may fairly also lay claim as it seems almost impossible to objectively determine who left who when the one church first split so long ago). However, the existence of the universal "Mere" Christian church is the foundation upon which this blog is posited, and I don't believe you will find a serious student of Scripture in any denomination who doesn't believe that all who espouse the creeds bear the name Christian (as CS Lewis said, you might call some "bad" Christians rather than not Christians at all).

The Creeds (Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian's) are the line. It sometimes takes some prodding to get a Protestant to admit that it also includes Orthodox and Catholic, but they will eventually admit it(and go figure, they think that those churches are missing the "fullness of truth" of a relationship with Jesus Christ). Christ's church is supposed to be unified. The fact that it is not does not make it not the Church, it just makes it disobedient and imperfect, rather like the individual Christian who knows how they should act and continue to behave otherwise.

[Bananas Gorilla]

>But what makes us so sure that our hypothetical rube is as learned as us?

I think we have every reason to think so, probably more so given a comment like that.

[William Tighe]

"However, the existence of the universal "Mere" Christian church is the foundation upon which this blog is posited ..."

I don't think so, and if it were true I would not have associated myself with either Touchstone (of which I am a Contributing Editor) or this blog for (in the former case) well over a decade. The foundation is, rather, the existence of "Mere Christian" Christian individuals, not of any invisible "Mere Christian church" whose existence I do not accept.

[John W.]

I have to agree with William Tighe. I have immense respect for all of the writers of the Touchstone magazine and generally of people who I have encountered here on this blogsite. But the principle of a Mere Christian church is at base a protestant idea.

"John W,
In all fairness, I don't think you can paint the church as unified before the reformation. You say you are Orthodox, and I believe the great schism pre-dates the reformation."

Well fine but this does not prove the point of the invisible church. I believe (and forgive my bluntness) that in 1054 the west left the Church by submitting to false doctrines and a heretical ecclesiology, just as Mr. Tighe and Mr. Espe think that the Orthodox east left the Church because of its refusal to submit to Rome, the universal Apostolic See. No one with a passing knowledge of church history could ever argue that those who historically called themselves CHristians were ever all united into one church. But historically the Church (lets say R.C. or Orthodox) has always viewed itself as one historically definable, incarnational body with a defined set of doctrine that your either in or out of. To make the leap to saying the church is invisible can't be supported by historical schisms unless one assume a protestant ecclesiology.

And how do we interpret the line "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic CHurch"? And what about the Filioque? Just to say the line is the creeds is not sufficient in my view. Because the Creeds are the property of the CHurch, not of individual Christians and need to be interpreted by the CHurch. So again we come back to the basic question which church? Lutheran? Calvinist?

As regards Tounchstone in general, just because I think Mr. Tighe to be a schismatic heretic and he thinks me to be a heretical schismatic doesn't mean we can't be very good friends and don't have a lot to talk about in terms of common causes and common enemies. But isn't it crucial to know precisely where we all stand?

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

The language is certainly different, in that Protestant individuals would talk of the "invisible church" whereas Catholics (I presume, correct me if I'm wrong) would talk of those apart from the Church "invsibly" sharing in the grace of the Church. But am I wrong to see at least some practical similarity here even if there is a difference in language?

[Bananas Gorilla]

>But am I wrong to see at least some practical similarity here even if there is a difference in language?

I think it would be more likely to look that way to a Protestant that to an RC or EO.

[smh]

As the editor who has probably written most on the character of the Fellowship, I must say that Dr. Tighe's assessment is correct. "Mere Christianity" as understood by C. S. Lewis depends on an ecclesiology that is distinctively Protestant, and is in fact held to by some Protestants and not by others. (The very conservative Protestants among whom I was raised did not believe in it any more than Dr. Tighe does.)

That does not, however, mean that Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants who believe the marks of the True Church lie only upon their own fellowships, cannot, in agreement with and in obedience to their churches, cooperate to a certain extent, and for a certain while, with those their churches recognize as being fellow-Christians only in some qualified way.

That is why I, who agree with Lewis's understanding of Mere Christianity as representing of the faith of the Church, and Dr. Tighe, who does not, are working together here. And it is why when the question comes up as it did in this string, I feel it necessary to assure Christians who do not agree with Lewis on the point that it is not necessary, nor has it ever been.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

John W: What Steve said.

As an additional point (or perhaps I am simply trying harder to get expelled from this board) I don't think Roman Catholics are "imperfect Christians," or Presbyterians are, or Lutherans, or Orthodox. But that's because I don't think there are any "perfect Christians." I certainly do not think my own communion is "the One True Church," and I can say that because I have personally heard the Patriarch say it. We are instead part of the One True Church.

And yes, your results may differ.

I further will drive off the cliff by saying that I don't care to define its boundaries, except by the Creeds (but you can believe in the essence of them without holding them as articles of faith, as I would say Baptists do).

If I meet someone holding holding a sign at a pro-life rally that says, "Jesus loves the little children," I will not interrogate him on Christology, but embrace him as a brother. If Jesus ends up having a different view of his faith at the Last Trump, well, that's His right. And yes, I do believe in an invisible Church, which overlaps the boundaries of the many visible ones. Otherwise I would have to think I can see into a man's heart and make judgments on its condition. I have enough problems with my own dark and sinful heart to want to be the judge of anyone else's. Who belongs and who doesn't?

Jesus knows, and I don't. Now, brothers and sisters, how may I serve you?

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

I do think it's important, Deacon Harmon, to distinguish between someone being "in the Church" (by which Protestants and Catholics mean two very different things) and a person being "a brother in Christ", or "a fellow Christian". When Catholics say that Protestants like me are outside the Church, they do not necessarily mean that I am not those other things. They aren't making any sort of statement about my heart or motivation, like an Evangelical would be by saying the exact same words.

[John W.]

Deacon Michael: I'm surprised we all haven't gotten kicked off yet. I've been throwing the word 'heretic' around with worrying frequency.

What Wonders said. I hope and pray I would not presume to make any statements about anyones eternal destiny. I also would want to say that declaring the Truth, as I see it of course, does not exclude me from loving or embracing anyone (although I do a good bit of excluding on my own).

"Jesus knows, and I don't. Now, brothers and sisters, how may I serve you?" I know I'm being quite belligerent so please forgive me, but I'm a young guy and I haven't yet learned the wisdom of not picking fights with my elders and betters. That said, I find the logic of this statement quite troubling, because it seems to me to be equivalent to relativist spirituality, those among us who believe that all religions are basically the same." In other words I could say, by this same logic: Well I am a CHristian, but I don't know absolutely that my faith is The Truth, only God does, so I don't want to preclude the possibility of worshipping the same god as Islam or Hinduism.

(Note: I'm not saying Muslims and Hindus can't be saved, only that they do not worship He Who Is)

[Bananas Gorilla]

>Note: I'm not saying Muslims and Hindus can't be saved, only that they do not worship He Who Is

They can be saved but they will cease to be Muslims and Hindus when they are.

[Kamilla]

Margaret,

Would it matter to you if a woman said the same thing? Any woman who pursues ordination is, whether she realizes it or not, in rebellion against God.

Does that help?

Kamilla

[Margaret]

Sorry, I wondered if the allusion might be too obscure. I refer to CS Lewis's Ezekiel Bulver, precocious discoverer of Bulverism. http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html

[MCModerator]

Comment deleted for vulgar language and ad hominem attack.

[Kamilla]

Oh, I got the Bulverism reference. I daresay most of us around here did as most of us are pretty familiar with CSL.

I did think it was kinda funny that you said it though - which was why I tweeked you in response the way I did.

Or am I wrong, and you are not the Margaret who used to comment on my blog?

Kamilla

[Margaret]

See, I was right, you of course knew what I was talking about. Such a pleasure to be "on the same page." I always enjoy your comments, Kamilla, and am glad to learn you have a blog... I don't know if I've ever visited it though! What's the url?

[Kamilla]

Margaret,

Thank you - I'm sorry for my misplaced teasing and confusing you with someone else.

Just click on my name, it links to my blog.

Kamilla

[MCModerator]

The following has been posted on several previous threads, but since some people apparently didn't see those, and aren't reading the ground rules (even though a link is now posted to every thread), here is another reminder:

Any questions or complaints about the moderating of this site are to be sent by e-mail to the editor. Comments about this are NOT to be posted on any threads -- period. All such comments will be deleted. People who persist in posting them will be banned from the site.

For the record, this policy, like all of the ground rules, was agreed upon unanimously by all the editors. The editors set policy; the moderators merely implement it. The moderators consult regularly with the editors about moderating decisions, and the editor, not a moderator, decides whether to ban a person from the site.

Please, please regularly re-read and follow the ground rules.