|
|
Post by angli_fan on Dec 1, 2003 8:46:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Dec 1, 2003 10:10:38 GMT -5
Whalon says: "Their existence is a continual reminder of the centuries of strife among Christians, giving the lie to all our claims to be following Jesus. For the Lord's commandment has no loopholes, admits no exceptions: we are to love one another as he has loved us (John 15:12). Overlapping jurisdictions are standing stones of witness to our failure to honor Christ in each other."
I guess it depends on your ecclesiology. Having been raised in a Methodist tradition, I was always taught that the wholeness or completeness of the Church was not present in any particular denomination. The Church, as I was taught, was the mystical body of Christ. The Church embodied those who are joined with Christ in heaven and on earth. The Church transcended all types of boundaries. Seen through those eyes, a scandal of particularity was not quite as heinous as the writer implies. This, of course, is a Protestant ecclesiology.
I'm not particularly scandalized by the existence of Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, etc. It is my conviction from years of study, that the Bible contains contrary views. It is not a simple outline of a faith. Are predestinarians correct. Yes, I believe that the way they have heard the Holy Spirit interpreting scripture is valid. What about Arminians? Well, when I read what they say, having been interpreted through the Holy Spirit, I have to conclude that they are correct. I've long since come to view the attainment of Biblical Truth not to be as simple as some would claim. We have Holy Scripture, given to us by God. We have the witness of the Holy Spirit, God present in the world today. But, we also have man in the picture. Sinful, disobedient and ignorant man. It almost seems to me that Biblical interpretation is like the game "Telephone." A message comes from the Bible, is carried to the hearer by the Holy Spirit, but by the time it passes through that incomplete conduit, it may be garbled when I hear it.
On the other hand, if I were persuaded to take a Catholic view, I might be convinced that the writer was on to something. If I were to take an ultra-catholic view, such as is held by Orthodox, I would be scandalized that so many had chosen to go into schism from the one true Church. The onus, in that situation, lies totally with those who do not hold the Orthodox view of the Christian faith.
|
|
