2 weeks ago
Showing posts with label LCMS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LCMS. Show all posts
(*Update*)
Here the InternetMonk blog posts that started this whole thing.
In addition, Todd Wilken of Issues Etc., has done an interview with the author of "The Coming Evangelical Collapse", Michael Spencer. Give it a listen!
Wow! Here is some "glass-is-half-full" positive news about American Evangelicalism from Michael Spencer, columnist for the Christian Science Monitor, he says:
"We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West."
"Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century."
"This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good."
"Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I'm convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close."
Ah, there's nothing like callin'em as you see'em!
Now, According to Spencer, here's why (many reasons I agree with, by the way):
"1. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism."
"2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught."
"3. There are three kinds of evangelical churches today: consumer-driven megachurches, dying churches, and new churches whose future is fragile."
"4. Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism."
"5. The confrontation between cultural secularism and the faith at the core of evangelical efforts to "do good" is rapidly approaching."
"6. Even in areas where Evangelicals imagine themselves strong (like the Bible Belt), we will find a great inability to pass on to our children a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith."
Now, according to Spencer, what will be left?
"•Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success."
"•Two of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions."
"•A small band will work hard to rescue the movement from its demise through theological renewal."
"•The emerging church will largely vanish from the evangelical landscape, becoming part of the small segment of progressive mainline Protestants that remain true to the liberal vision."
"•Aggressively evangelistic fundamentalist churches will begin to disappear."
"•Charismatic-Pentecostal Christianity will become the majority report in evangelicalism."
"•Evangelicalism needs a "rescue mission" from the world Christian community."
"•Expect a fragmented response to the culture war."
This partly jives with an (AFP) report regarding the rise of secularism, and other reports regarding declining Church membership across the board.
The basic gist of the (AFP) press report states that:
"Secularism is gaining ground in the United States, eating away at the percentage of Americans who identify with the Protestant Christianity of the founding fathers, a poll published Monday showed."
"The percentage of Americans who adhered to no particular religion jumped from 8.2 percent in 1990 to 15 percent last year, the third American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) conducted over 10 months last year by pollsters from Trinity College in Connecticut, showed."
"When the survey was conducted in 2001, 14.1 percent of respondents said they were not religious."
Now, if what these reports are stating is indeed fact, then things will definitely be a-changin' in the religious and political landscape as we know it. However, for now, I want to go back to Spencer's reasons why and expectations of things to come.
First he says, "Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism."
When he states the term "Evangelicals" I will suppose that he's referring to everything under the umbrella of "American-style Evangelicalism".
Oddly enough, much of the "culture war" phenomena was started by the family values oriented LDS Church. Only since the late sixties, following the social and political upheaval of the times did the fundamentalists jump on board and try to "take back culture", as if they had owned it at one time or another, or that it's theirs by right or something. Now we have organizations like Focus on the Family, and Campus Crusades for Christ, etc., who follow more of a "deeds not creeds" mentality, which believes nothing more than civil righteousness as God pleasing acts. That's when you hear guys such as Hagee, or Robertson, et. al, claim that when any calamity which befalls the United States is a just punishment from God because of the immoral republic. These guys are classic theologians of glory, God rewards good behavior and punishes evil behavior, therefore when anything bad happens to the nation, it's because of the immorality of its people. Yet, these guys fail to see that everything, even the good things man does is nothing but evil. and for a better explanation on this point see thesis 6, and proof from the Heidelberg disputation.
As for the political element of it all, it is frankly disturbing. It is right for everyone outside the fray of Evangelicalism to look with a jaundiced eye at the gland-hand, Christian, political action committee lobbyists who cozy up with politicians in hopes of affecting some legislation favorable to their side. One hasn't seen such coziness between Church and State since the 15th century, and heaven forbid you tell a fundamentalist that he resembles the papacy, for he's sure to respond, "but I don't pray to Mary or the Saints, or go to confession, or believe the Pope is infallible", as if this "style-over-substance" were the only thing that separates us from Rome.
Later he says, "[w]e Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught."
I'll assume, once again, that when he speaks of "orthodox" that he's speaking of Churches rooted in Biblical doctrine and the Word of God. If this is the case, then I must say that I agree with him. The discipline, or lack thereof, regarding American Churches in passing on their faith, correctly mind you, in favor of the "happy-clappy" style of worship and personal devotion, has showed itself highly inferior to secularist intellectuals, especially when a young Christian is faced with it on their college campus.
Regarding what Spencer is anticipating for the Evangelicalism to come, he said, "[e]xpect [it] to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches...."
Oh no, not more of this! I suppose though if people are going to reject the Gospel and sound Biblical doctrine, not that the current American Evangelical Churches necessarily teach such things, but the masses will still need an idol of "Christian-Lite", you know, heavy on pop-psychology and lite on doctrine, to get them through. I just wish this won't be the case, but I'll suppose we'll see.
Later he says, "[t]wo of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions."
Well, this is already an occurring phenomenon. Please see my article here, and response to that article here where I wrote about, and then communicated with a Fr. Hackney who converted from the LCMS to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Also, another more notable case is that of Christian Apologist Francis Beckwith, who converted from (I'm not exactly sure what Church body he was originally affiliated with, but it was something akin to American Evangelicalism, I think, but please don't quote me on that) to Roman Catholicism.
So, I guess if people grow disgusted by "content-less", "un-historic" Christianity then it would make some sense for someone to gravitate towards something with a tremendous weight of history and meaningful tradition.
All-in-all no one knows what the future holds, and as for me, I'm with Luther (in more ways than just this one) when he says, and I paraphrase, "if someone knew beyond the shadow of a doubt the world were to end tomorrow, I would plant a tree today." So, in regard to crumbling Church movements, where crumblings have actually happened, and rumors of crumblings are supposed to happen, we, that is Confessional Orthodox Lutherans must preach the Gospel to lost and broken souls today.
(But then again maybe there's something to all this, perhaps this is what Dave Wilkerson was talking about on his blog. But then again, maybe not.)
.
.
(This story was originally found in the "Toledo Blade" publication:)
Meet Rev. (or I guess now Father) Daniel Hackney.
He is not what would be considered a "high-rank" Lutheran converting over to the Eastern Orthodox tradition so to speak, however, his case does give us an object lesson into how the deep-roots of heterodoxy in ones past can easily influence one to stray from true apostolic Christianity, such as the kind found in orthodox Lutheranism. (I will abstain from any distinctive critique at the moment in saying that he was apart of the LC-MS, which could possibly mean he never valued orthodox Lutheranism, but that for now is neither here nor there, because of my personal ignorance to aspects of his life and the inconsequential nature of such a thing to the ultimate moral of the story.)
In his early life he was raised as an "ecumenical mutt", a term he affectionately applies to himself, and his life was not unlike many "boomers" his age. Here's a brief biography provided by David Yonke, religion editor of the Toledo Blade:
"...his parents were Baptists who attended church with his older siblings but had lapsed after he was born."
His affectionate self-description as "ecumenical-mutt" is pretty accurate given his personal history, but, for now pay close attention to the Pentecostalism of his background and just keep that fresh in you minds as I shall return to it later.
It is also evident that he was ambitious in "deeds-oriented" evangelicalism, yet, unfortunately, the article does not touch on anything regarding the evolution of his stance on theology, in that, at a certain point in his life, one of couple of things may or may not have occurred in his Christian walk so as to perhaps drastically change his views, theologically speaking of course.
Here is what I'm driving at, first, it's hard to know if he ever left behind any of his affiliations with Pentecostalism, and the Jesus Movement oriented Christianity of his youth, I mean, did he choose Lutheranism because he saw it as being more conservative, grounded, what have you, than the "hocus-pocus" nature of Pentecostalism; or, was he one of those who believes it's possible to strain out and keep the good "stuff" from the kettle-top of such heterodox organizations while being able to dispense the rest easily down the drain? Alas, we shall never know! However, depending on what path, if either he took, there are two profound conclusions of dire warning to all Lutherans who are not careful when playing "footsie" with other denominations.
The first warning is to beware of sources from church bodies other than your own! Not that this is any guarantee against heterodoxy, for liberalism is rife EVERYWHERE, however, you have, in my opinion, a better chance at staying true to your own confession by viewing everything outside your tradition with a jaundiced eye no matter what time in your life you read it, or have read it. Yet, that is not to say that everything within Lutheranism is beyond reproach, or everything without to be leavened with error. At this point though, it must be said that the best attitude is always that of the Bereans, to test everything in light of the scriptures.
In Rev. Hackney's case, he was turned on to Orthodox Christianity when:
"...he was in high school and read a book by Bishop Kallistos Ware titled The Orthodox Church."
In his opinion this really, "whet [his] appetite..."
And, we all know the rest of the story regarding his "spiritual" upbringing and life history. Yet, if we were to map out the devil's strategy in the life of a believer we would be astounded by the fact that he doesn't always build roadblocks in the path of a Christian, but that sometimes he builds bridges.
The bridge can serve as the second warning to be gained by Father Hackney's story, which is really the same as the first; beware of sources outside of orthodox Lutheranism!!!
You see, early in his life he was turned onto the Orthodox Church, and he then seemingly went in a different direction by embracing Pentecostalism and the Jesus Movement tripe of his youth. All the while he was interested in church history and was a student of it in one form or another. Then, in the middle of it all he embraced Lutheranism; so much so that he became a Lutheran minister in the LC-MS for ten years. Only to embrace the Orthodox Church after his lapse from the LC-MS. Little is said about his thoughts on Missouri, and it's shame that the interviewer didn't ask, yet what we have is what we have.
However, the real kicker is that beside the formalities, theologically speaking, there really is very little difference between the "juvenile" Pentecostalism of his youth and the "mature" Orthodoxy of his current years, for one of the main tenants of both Church bodies theologically speaking is that revelation and authority are capable of being given outside of scripture.
Now, granted, the way that each of these faiths present this facet of their theology is different; with the Orthodox it's about tradition and the consensus of the Father's (ie. Church Fathers), and how that tradition and consensus jives with Scripture. Where it does not jive, it is open to interpretation as long as it doesn't coherently contradict any other theological or traditional dogma as agreed upon by the Fathers. This ultimately means that Scripture is not solely the rule and norm of all things Christian, and the only Scripture that is authoritative is that which is in agreement with the Fathers and prior Church traditions.
It is different, yet similar to Pentecostalism in this sense; Pentecostalism believes that there is human authority outside of scripture like the Orthodox Church, but that this human authority can only be trusted if they are the Lord's "anointed". This "anointing" is proven by signs and wonders like healing the sick, speaking in tongues, prophesying, et. al., and the "anointed ones" are capable of prophesying things as direct revelation from God outside of His Word. This revelation is expected to be, and accepted as authoritative for their parishioners.
Also, with the Orthodox, both the relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit are essentially two different things, and not necessarily one dependent upon the other in the order of triune procession. According to the Orthodox, they both proceed from the Father, but it is not the Son proceeding from the Father, and the Spirit proceeding from the Son, thus they are subsequently related, yet mutually independent entities only related by the Father. So, if one were to take this to it logical consequence, one would be forced to admit that the Trinity, at least by human understanding, is related, is even of one essence, but is not in any way unified. This disagreement between the Western and Eastern Church is one that goes all the way back to the 879-880 Council of Constantinople where the filioque controversy was anathematized by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
While the Orthodox view of the Trinity is definitely not in line with Scripture, they at least still affirm a Trinity, where Pentecostals affirm what only could be called a "modalistically-uncertain" concept of our Triune God. Now, depending upon the "type" of Pentecostal, for it's hardly a unified Church body, I have heard everything affirmed about the Trinity from, Jesus was just a really good "Dude" adopted by the Father because of his goodness, too, there was God the Father at first, and then He came as the Son on Earth, and now He is the Holy Spirit. There are iterations upon iterations regarding everything in between those two spectrum's, but hopefully you get the point, which is, as regarding the Trinity, they are obviously way out there in left field far from any sound Scriptural teaching.
Most of the problem, as usual, has to do with human reason's need to understand something that's basically beyond all comprehension. How can God be three in one and one in three; how could Christ be God, while praying to God the Father, etc.? It doesn't make sense, that is at least according to human reason. But does not the Orthodox as well suffer from this worship of reason, for when we seek to put man as the authority over God and His Word, all sorts of errors are bound to spring up like Lillie's in April. Human reason always demands supremacy, even, unfortunately, over the Lord our God.
While, admittedly, these two Churches are different, there are similarities between them, and one can see that it wouldn't be too hard for a deceiver like Satan to bridge the errors of both, that is if one still harbored a soft spot in their heart for the heterodoxy of their youth.
Now, that is not to say that this is what happened to Rev. (or now Father) Hackney. I don't know the man personally, and I wouldn't want somebody speculating about me when they had no idea who I was, or what the circumstances of my life were personally. Yet, his story I believe is an excellent springboard for discussion on this strange phenomena of people with a liberal past all-of-a-sudden embracing Eastern Orthodoxy, or Roman Catholicism based on superficial reasons, such as:
"...[he] felt drawn by the history and continuity of Orthodox Christianity."
(this one is hard to understand, the age of the Church lends to its authenticity? If so, how?) or that,
"Most people come into contact with God through the worship services. Most people don't read their Bibles, really,...And so [he] wanted to be a part of something whose worship transcends categories such as traditional and contemporary, something that remains the same so that [he] can have the assurance that [his] children and their children will be praying the same prayers, singing the same hymns, and worshiping in the same way."
(excluding his statements about reading Bibles and transcendance, could the rest not be achieved in confessional Lutheranism?) or that,
"...there was a desire for something else..."
(I suspect another desire for something else will perhaps arise in time, but then again who knows?) or that,
"[He] found in the Orthodox Church a richness in their daily prayer lives,...They had a structure. They had offices of prayer that are easy to follow. And by daily commemorating the saints that have gone before us, [he is] now connected with them in a way that has found its fullness in the Orthodox Church."
(once again, excluding the statement regarding commemoration of the saints and his connection to them through the Church, couldn't he have had just as rich a daily prayer life with the offices of prayer found in pastoral service books, or hymnals, etc.?)
However, if there is one ray of sunshine in regards to Father Hackney it is this:
"I'm committed to religious pluralism, and by that I mean everyone has a right to worship as they deem necessary according to their conscience," Father Daniel said. "This does not mean that we have to accept what everyone believes, we have the right to disagree." [emphasis mine]
I do not share his same enthusiasm about religious pluralism, however I do agree that we don't have to accept what everyone believes, and in that spirit I do not accept what Father Hackney believes. Perhaps one day he and others like him will see, and I pray it happens sooner rather than later, that what he and others like him are looking for, this style over substance, this personal fulfillment over the resignation of our will unto God's, this restless heart that we feel must be tamed by what pleases us, will one day find rest in the comfort given us by the pure doctrine of the Lutheran Church, something he already had in his hands and unfortunately let slip away.
..
(This story was originally found in the "Toledo Blade" publication:)
Meet Rev. (or I guess now Father) Daniel Hackney.
He is not what would be considered a "high-rank" Lutheran converting over to the Eastern Orthodox tradition so to speak, however, his case does give us an object lesson into how the deep-roots of heterodoxy in ones past can easily influence one to stray from true apostolic Christianity, such as the kind found in orthodox Lutheranism. (I will abstain from any distinctive critique at the moment in saying that he was apart of the LC-MS, which could possibly mean he never valued orthodox Lutheranism, but that for now is neither here nor there, because of my personal ignorance to aspects of his life and the inconsequential nature of such a thing to the ultimate moral of the story.)
In his early life he was raised as an "ecumenical mutt", a term he affectionately applies to himself, and his life was not unlike many "boomers" his age. Here's a brief biography provided by David Yonke, religion editor of the Toledo Blade:
"...his parents were Baptists who attended church with his older siblings but had lapsed after he was born."
His affectionate self-description as "ecumenical-mutt" is pretty accurate given his personal history, but, for now pay close attention to the Pentecostalism of his background and just keep that fresh in you minds as I shall return to it later.
It is also evident that he was ambitious in "deeds-oriented" evangelicalism, yet, unfortunately, the article does not touch on anything regarding the evolution of his stance on theology, in that, at a certain point in his life, one of couple of things may or may not have occurred in his Christian walk so as to perhaps drastically change his views, theologically speaking of course.
Here is what I'm driving at, first, it's hard to know if he ever left behind any of his affiliations with Pentecostalism, and the Jesus Movement oriented Christianity of his youth, I mean, did he choose Lutheranism because he saw it as being more conservative, grounded, what have you, than the "hocus-pocus" nature of Pentecostalism; or, was he one of those who believes it's possible to strain out and keep the good "stuff" from the kettle-top of such heterodox organizations while being able to dispense the rest easily down the drain? Alas, we shall never know! However, depending on what path, if either he took, there are two profound conclusions of dire warning to all Lutherans who are not careful when playing "footsie" with other denominations.
The first warning is to beware of sources from church bodies other than your own! Not that this is any guarantee against heterodoxy, for liberalism is rife EVERYWHERE, however, you have, in my opinion, a better chance at staying true to your own confession by viewing everything outside your tradition with a jaundiced eye no matter what time in your life you read it, or have read it. Yet, that is not to say that everything within Lutheranism is beyond reproach, or everything without to be leavened with error. At this point though, it must be said that the best attitude is always that of the Bereans, to test everything in light of the scriptures.
In Rev. Hackney's case, he was turned on to Orthodox Christianity when:
"...he was in high school and read a book by Bishop Kallistos Ware titled The Orthodox Church."
In his opinion this really, "whet [his] appetite..."
And, we all know the rest of the story regarding his "spiritual" upbringing and life history. Yet, if we were to map out the devil's strategy in the life of a believer we would be astounded by the fact that he doesn't always build roadblocks in the path of a Christian, but that sometimes he builds bridges.
The bridge can serve as the second warning to be gained by Father Hackney's story, which is really the same as the first; beware of sources outside of orthodox Lutheranism!!!
You see, early in his life he was turned onto the Orthodox Church, and he then seemingly went in a different direction by embracing Pentecostalism and the Jesus Movement tripe of his youth. All the while he was interested in church history and was a student of it in one form or another. Then, in the middle of it all he embraced Lutheranism; so much so that he became a Lutheran minister in the LC-MS for ten years. Only to embrace the Orthodox Church after his lapse from the LC-MS. Little is said about his thoughts on Missouri, and it's shame that the interviewer didn't ask, yet what we have is what we have.
However, the real kicker is that beside the formalities, theologically speaking, there really is very little difference between the "juvenile" Pentecostalism of his youth and the "mature" Orthodoxy of his current years, for one of the main tenants of both Church bodies theologically speaking is that revelation and authority are capable of being given outside of scripture.
Now, granted, the way that each of these faiths present this facet of their theology is different; with the Orthodox it's about tradition and the consensus of the Father's (ie. Church Fathers), and how that tradition and consensus jives with Scripture. Where it does not jive, it is open to interpretation as long as it doesn't coherently contradict any other theological or traditional dogma as agreed upon by the Fathers. This ultimately means that Scripture is not solely the rule and norm of all things Christian, and the only Scripture that is authoritative is that which is in agreement with the Fathers and prior Church traditions.
It is different, yet similar to Pentecostalism in this sense; Pentecostalism believes that there is human authority outside of scripture like the Orthodox Church, but that this human authority can only be trusted if they are the Lord's "anointed". This "anointing" is proven by signs and wonders like healing the sick, speaking in tongues, prophesying, et. al., and the "anointed ones" are capable of prophesying things as direct revelation from God outside of His Word. This revelation is expected to be, and accepted as authoritative for their parishioners.
Also, with the Orthodox, both the relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit are essentially two different things, and not necessarily one dependent upon the other in the order of triune procession. According to the Orthodox, they both proceed from the Father, but it is not the Son proceeding from the Father, and the Spirit proceeding from the Son, thus they are subsequently related, yet mutually independent entities only related by the Father. So, if one were to take this to it logical consequence, one would be forced to admit that the Trinity, at least by human understanding, is related, is even of one essence, but is not in any way unified. This disagreement between the Western and Eastern Church is one that goes all the way back to the 879-880 Council of Constantinople where the filioque controversy was anathematized by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
While the Orthodox view of the Trinity is definitely not in line with Scripture, they at least still affirm a Trinity, where Pentecostals affirm what only could be called a "modalistically-uncertain" concept of our Triune God. Now, depending upon the "type" of Pentecostal, for it's hardly a unified Church body, I have heard everything affirmed about the Trinity from, Jesus was just a really good "Dude" adopted by the Father because of his goodness, too, there was God the Father at first, and then He came as the Son on Earth, and now He is the Holy Spirit. There are iterations upon iterations regarding everything in between those two spectrum's, but hopefully you get the point, which is, as regarding the Trinity, they are obviously way out there in left field far from any sound Scriptural teaching.
Most of the problem, as usual, has to do with human reason's need to understand something that's basically beyond all comprehension. How can God be three in one and one in three; how could Christ be God, while praying to God the Father, etc.? It doesn't make sense, that is at least according to human reason. But does not the Orthodox as well suffer from this worship of reason, for when we seek to put man as the authority over God and His Word, all sorts of errors are bound to spring up like Lillie's in April. Human reason always demands supremacy, even, unfortunately, over the Lord our God.
While, admittedly, these two Churches are different, there are similarities between them, and one can see that it wouldn't be too hard for a deceiver like Satan to bridge the errors of both, that is if one still harbored a soft spot in their heart for the heterodoxy of their youth.
Now, that is not to say that this is what happened to Rev. (or now Father) Hackney. I don't know the man personally, and I wouldn't want somebody speculating about me when they had no idea who I was, or what the circumstances of my life were personally. Yet, his story I believe is an excellent springboard for discussion on this strange phenomena of people with a liberal past all-of-a-sudden embracing Eastern Orthodoxy, or Roman Catholicism based on superficial reasons, such as:
"...[he] felt drawn by the history and continuity of Orthodox Christianity."
(this one is hard to understand, the age of the Church lends to its authenticity? If so, how?) or that,
"Most people come into contact with God through the worship services. Most people don't read their Bibles, really,...And so [he] wanted to be a part of something whose worship transcends categories such as traditional and contemporary, something that remains the same so that [he] can have the assurance that [his] children and their children will be praying the same prayers, singing the same hymns, and worshiping in the same way."
(excluding his statements about reading Bibles and transcendance, could the rest not be achieved in confessional Lutheranism?) or that,
"...there was a desire for something else..."
(I suspect another desire for something else will perhaps arise in time, but then again who knows?) or that,
"[He] found in the Orthodox Church a richness in their daily prayer lives,...They had a structure. They had offices of prayer that are easy to follow. And by daily commemorating the saints that have gone before us, [he is] now connected with them in a way that has found its fullness in the Orthodox Church."
(once again, excluding the statement regarding commemoration of the saints and his connection to them through the Church, couldn't he have had just as rich a daily prayer life with the offices of prayer found in pastoral service books, or hymnals, etc.?)
However, if there is one ray of sunshine in regards to Father Hackney it is this:
"I'm committed to religious pluralism, and by that I mean everyone has a right to worship as they deem necessary according to their conscience," Father Daniel said. "This does not mean that we have to accept what everyone believes, we have the right to disagree." [emphasis mine]
I do not share his same enthusiasm about religious pluralism, however I do agree that we don't have to accept what everyone believes, and in that spirit I do not accept what Father Hackney believes. Perhaps one day he and others like him will see, and I pray it happens sooner rather than later, that what he and others like him are looking for, this style over substance, this personal fulfillment over the resignation of our will unto God's, this restless heart that we feel must be tamed by what pleases us, will one day find rest in the comfort given us by the pure doctrine of the Lutheran Church, something he already had in his hands and unfortunately let slip away.
.
.
.
In a blog post from the religion editor of the Washington Post, Julia Duin makes an interesting, albeit naively humorous comment regarding the decline in congregational attendance across many "main-line" denominations, she says specifically in reference to the LCMS:
"...the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (down 1.44 percent)...The Missouri Synod loss is a surprise in that conservative groups generally do not decline in American churchdom."
Hmmm!
While she may be right or wrong about conservative church bodies (I'm not sure that's anything but anecdotal), she obviously doesn't know that much of Missouri left any kind of semblance to "conservative" a long time ago. Case in point, the ablaze movement. This is perhaps why church attendance is declining in the first place, but then again, maybe not!
."...the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (down 1.44 percent)...The Missouri Synod loss is a surprise in that conservative groups generally do not decline in American churchdom."
Hmmm!
While she may be right or wrong about conservative church bodies (I'm not sure that's anything but anecdotal), she obviously doesn't know that much of Missouri left any kind of semblance to "conservative" a long time ago. Case in point, the ablaze movement. This is perhaps why church attendance is declining in the first place, but then again, maybe not!
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
