I know this is going to sound counter-intuitive to many of you but in my Orthodox journey so far, recognizing the authority of The Church and Apostolic Tradition has not denigrated scripture but has actually helped me to hold to the authority of scripture more fully. Growing in my understanding of…
If you’re not already, go follow Ian here. He’s blogging through his journey into Orthodoxy and it’s a fascinating and enlightening read.
Well this gets into a whole host of other conversations, namely: what (if at all) should Christians’ involvement in government be, are governments (Christian involvement or not) capable of Just action, is Just War Theory a viable option?
Before getting into a full blown conversation I’d just like to know exactly what it is we’re talking about.
Kate Middleton meeting Idris Elba is all of us meeting Idris Elba.
This is your daily Andrew PSA telling you that Adam as a historical figure and evolution are not at odds with one another (unless you do some really bad dating using verses you pull out).
Aka, por que no…
The Noah story was appropriated from the Gilgamesh mythos.
We need to distinguish literalism and inspiration. Just because we take a text analogically or literarily rather than strictly literally does not mean that we don’t “believe the Bible.”
Half done with seminary
When this kind of stuff happens in churches, I don’t even stand. I sit and scowl.
Everything he says makes me want to pull my hair out.
Wait then what did God use to save before the concept of a “sermon” as we know it existed? Because until the last 400 years the Eucharist was the center of the Christian worship service not a time of teaching.
So does God change his nature or do you not understand church history Driscoll? I’m getting mixed messages.
I’m pretty sure you two are missing the point. It’s not about what the building looks like or what symbols they use, but the message that’s being taught there.
Yeah he could have worded it a little better but I have the feeling you two have a prejudice that is overriding your ability to simplify what he’s saying.
No I’m not missing the point of this. Or at least I don’t think I am. What Driscoll was implying was a slight to many Catholic and Orthodox churches who have a high emphasis on symbolism as their way to connect with God and the mystery around that that ties into their tradition (which outdates any Protestant tradition by over 1000 years)
I mean I do have an anti-Driscoll bias, and he might have a slight point that at many churches you might not hear Jesus at the church, but his point about a Sermon being central to God saving people is foolish and discounts Centuries of church action and tradition before.
Still doesn’t change the fact that a symbol is not what saves you, which is the key point of this. Jesus’ death and resurrection took the pomp and circumstance away from the Jewish leaders. And then the Catholic Church just brought it all back.
There’s a lot of the Catholic Church (and the Mormon Church too because they do a lot of the same things) that involves ceremony and symbols and things that do nothing but create a level of idol worship that distracts people from actually worshiping God.
So say what you will about what he’s “insulting”, but you can’t deny that the cliche of “it’s what’s on the inside that counts” is the message of his post.
The earliest Christians had a very complex system of symbolism that developed REALLY early on. Baptism and the Eucharist are hugely symbolic acts which the church has always observed in her worship.
Also, you’re talking as if the Roman Catholic Church is something that just kind of happened, sneaking up and messing with Christianity. That’s just bad history.
You also seem to be defining salvation as an idea which is only concerned with the “saving” of persons’ souls and not the renewal and salvation of all things.