apologize? that’s crazy.

apologize? that’s crazy.

It is about time. Apology accepted. It is the Anabaptist way, i mean sorry, Christian way.

It is about time. Apology accepted. It is the Anabaptist way, i mean sorry, Christian way.

My question would be what have the Mennonites done for the Church and Church history? Besides personal pacifism, and the fact that Menno Simons was anti-Trinitarian, that is a negative. As to Christian works, perhaps no other Church has done as much as the Roman Catholic. I agree with Jim here, this kind of apology seems political?
Fr. R.

My question would be what have the Mennonites done for the Church and Church history? Besides personal pacifism, and the fact that Menno Simons was anti-Trinitarian, that is a negative. As to Christian works, perhaps no other Church has done as much as the Roman Catholic. I agree with Jim here, this kind of apology seems political?
Fr. R.

Sadly, like many in my own Anglican Church now, I see too many language games, equivocation, and loss of definite truth with both Lutherans and Mennonites today. Can I apologize for the liberal stupidity in my own Church, not hardly!
Fr. R.

Sadly, like many in my own Anglican Church now, I see too many language games, equivocation, and loss of definite truth with both Lutherans and Mennonites today. Can I apologize for the liberal stupidity in my own Church, not hardly!
Fr. R.

Fr. Robert, What exactly did Luther “do” that you consider so essential and marvelous except call the Pope the antichrist and tell him to go to hell? That took guts, but others had done so before him, and others were bound to do so after him. After that, I like the fact that Luther translated the entire Bible into the vernacular, native German, allowing everyone to read it, including other Reformers and Anabaptists, who began to form their own opinions. The invention of the printing press of course was more of a revolution than the rise of Lutheranism. Pretty soon nobody could keep new ideas and questions from being spread via the printed word. But really, the Catholic Church was not at its height in terms of power and control when Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door. The Catholic Church had already undergone the great schism in which it had not one pope but three rival popes at the same time, and Rome had been sacked.

As for what Luther also did, he and his followers took over properties belonging formerly to Catholic monks and nuns, including land a nd churches. His followers smashed sacred art. He instituted his own catechism and religion in the regions of whichever princes turned toward Lutheranism, and the people were all baptized into the new Lutheran churches and had to learn its catechism. All of them. No freedom of conscience or religion. So things didn’t change all that much once Lutheranism arose to oppose Catholicism. The same disavowal of freedom of conscience.

And as we all know Melanchthon drafted and Luther signed a document demanding the dead penalty for anyone in Saxony who disavowed the Apostle’s Creed, a document aimed mainly at any non-Lutheran sectarians who dared to preach their biblical interpretations in Saxony, and, after being exiled, dared to return. The threat of Anabaptists was that they believed a person chose their beliefs and was baptized as an adult. While Lutheranism like Catholicism believed “get ‘em while they are young,” baptize the children into a particular “church” that was supported by a particular prince or king, and have all of his subjects agree on religion, catechise them all into a single interpretation from birth onward. No freedom of conscience. But of course, some compromises eventually had to be made since people could and did come to disagree on religion, what with Catholics and Lutherans, and evern more burgeoning Protestant sectarians arising, each with their interpretation and the printing presses running full blast spreading every sort of interpretation and question. But it took a Thirty Years War–sparked originally by differences between the Protestant and Catholic Leagues–before the Catholics and Lutherans would finally grow so exhausted at arguing over the superiority of their beliefs, that they acquiesed into a state of uneasy peace, and also formally recognized the existence of a third major group, the Calvinists.

Then still later came more questions, during a period nicknamed the Enlightenment, and Reimarus lead to Strass, Wrede, Schweitzer, it goes on and on. Thanks to Luther.

But the genuine heros in my opinion were the Christians who lived during Luther and Calvin’s day and who argued for “INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND BELIEF.” Luther and Calvin only believed in the duty of public magistrates to try and impose a particular belief on all their subjects. So the real heros it turned out were men like Castellio, who opposed Calvin’s belief in the duty of public magistrates to persecute heretics. Those men have no colleges named after them because they were so reviled even in their own day, as were some major Anabaptists who likewise argued for individual freedom of conscience.

Fr. Robert, What exactly did Luther “do” that you consider so essential and marvelous except call the Pope the antichrist and tell him to go to hell? That took guts, but others had done so before him, and others were bound to do so after him. After that, I like the fact that Luther translated the entire Bible into the vernacular, native German, allowing everyone to read it, including other Reformers and Anabaptists, who began to form their own opinions. The invention of the printing press of course was more of a revolution than the rise of Lutheranism. Pretty soon nobody could keep new ideas and questions from being spread via the printed word. But really, the Catholic Church was not at its height in terms of power and control when Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door. The Catholic Church had already undergone the great schism in which it had not one pope but three rival popes at the same time, and Rome had been sacked.

As for what Luther also did, he and his followers took over properties belonging formerly to Catholic monks and nuns, including land a nd churches. His followers smashed sacred art. He instituted his own catechism and religion in the regions of whichever princes turned toward Lutheranism, and the people were all baptized into the new Lutheran churches and had to learn its catechism. All of them. No freedom of conscience or religion. So things didn’t change all that much once Lutheranism arose to oppose Catholicism. The same disavowal of freedom of conscience.

And as we all know Melanchthon drafted and Luther signed a document demanding the dead penalty for anyone in Saxony who disavowed the Apostle’s Creed, a document aimed mainly at any non-Lutheran sectarians who dared to preach their biblical interpretations in Saxony, and, after being exiled, dared to return. The threat of Anabaptists was that they believed a person chose their beliefs and was baptized as an adult. While Lutheranism like Catholicism believed “get ‘em while they are young,” baptize the children into a particular “church” that was supported by a particular prince or king, and have all of his subjects agree on religion, catechise them all into a single interpretation from birth onward. No freedom of conscience. But of course, some compromises eventually had to be made since people could and did come to disagree on religion, what with Catholics and Lutherans, and evern more burgeoning Protestant sectarians arising, each with their interpretation and the printing presses running full blast spreading every sort of interpretation and question. But it took a Thirty Years War–sparked originally by differences between the Protestant and Catholic Leagues–before the Catholics and Lutherans would finally grow so exhausted at arguing over the superiority of their beliefs, that they acquiesed into a state of uneasy peace, and also formally recognized the existence of a third major group, the Calvinists.

Then still later came more questions, during a period nicknamed the Enlightenment, and Reimarus lead to Strass, Wrede, Schweitzer, it goes on and on. Thanks to Luther.

But the genuine heros in my opinion were the Christians who lived during Luther and Calvin’s day and who argued for “INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND BELIEF.” Luther and Calvin only believed in the duty of public magistrates to try and impose a particular belief on all their subjects. So the real heros it turned out were men like Castellio, who opposed Calvin’s belief in the duty of public magistrates to persecute heretics. Those men have no colleges named after them because they were so reviled even in their own day, as were some major Anabaptists who likewise argued for individual freedom of conscience.

Let’s see what did Luther do? Stand up against the Roman Catholic Church, with powerful reform ‘in Word & Spirit’, and live to tell about it. The great Reformational Leader, who with God’s grace changed the course of Western civilization. Yes he was not a perfect human being, that’s why he needed (like the rest of us sinful beings) personal mercy and grace! Yes, we are still standing on his shoulders, as the rest of the Reformers!
And the Anabaptists were the radical part of the reformation, there were at least six different groups, some taught a Docetic and apocalyptic Christianity. Some practiced polygamy. And some were simply fired with a revoluntionary zeal for changing the world. And only later did some accept the role of a pacifist minority, separate from the world. And many, like Menno Simons were anti-Trinitarian. Menno followed the gnostic theolog, Valentinus, as to the person of Christ. Yes, radical reformers.. as they still are often. But now many in and of their groups are liberals, and follow the the social gospel, with a unitarian Christ. This is always the final appeal to liberation, and the argue to so-called freedom. There are some historic Anabaptists, that still see and follow the biblical Christ, some creeds, etc. and their own conservative traditions. But they are small now.
Fr. R.

Let’s see what did Luther do? Stand up against the Roman Catholic Church, with powerful reform ‘in Word & Spirit’, and live to tell about it. The great Reformational Leader, who with God’s grace changed the course of Western civilization. Yes he was not a perfect human being, that’s why he needed (like the rest of us sinful beings) personal mercy and grace! Yes, we are still standing on his shoulders, as the rest of the Reformers!
And the Anabaptists were the radical part of the reformation, there were at least six different groups, some taught a Docetic and apocalyptic Christianity. Some practiced polygamy. And some were simply fired with a revoluntionary zeal for changing the world. And only later did some accept the role of a pacifist minority, separate from the world. And many, like Menno Simons were anti-Trinitarian. Menno followed the gnostic theolog, Valentinus, as to the person of Christ. Yes, radical reformers.. as they still are often. But now many in and of their groups are liberals, and follow the the social gospel, with a unitarian Christ. This is always the final appeal to liberation, and the argue to so-called freedom. There are some historic Anabaptists, that still see and follow the biblical Christ, some creeds, etc. and their own conservative traditions. But they are small now.
Fr. R.

So, because they were ‘anti-trinitarians’ they deserved to be killed? Or because Luther did great things, it’s okay that the Anabaptists were killed? Hardly. Instead, as I stated previously, if the Lutheran group felt the need to apologize, good for them, regardless if it is political or not. The world might be a better place if people apologized just a little bit more.

So, because they were ‘anti-trinitarians’ they deserved to be killed? Or because Luther did great things, it’s okay that the Anabaptists were killed? Hardly. Instead, as I stated previously, if the Lutheran group felt the need to apologize, good for them, regardless if it is political or not. The world might be a better place if people apologized just a little bit more.

Where in the world did I say kill the anti-trinitarians? Or that they deserved to be killed? The point I do keep saying, is that we cannot judge the 16th century, by 21st century standards! It was simply a very different world. And I will always disagree about political standards, making any spiritual policy.
Fr. R.

Where in the world did I say kill the anti-trinitarians? Or that they deserved to be killed? The point I do keep saying, is that we cannot judge the 16th century, by 21st century standards! It was simply a very different world. And I will always disagree about political standards, making any spiritual policy.
Fr. R.

Amazing — you illustrate the mindset from then — today! You apparently are unaware of the great persecution endured by Anabaptists then — at the hands of Lutherans, Reformists, Catholics etc….. That the Lutherans, Catholics et. al. are getting around (if belatedly) to recognizing a great injustices committed, that’s quite welcome — healing a very, very old, yet still remembered tragedy and, yes, crime. More power to the Lutheran brethren for having the courage to dig deeply and realize what happened — and actually to concede many of the points made by the Mennonites & others then. No wonder that they “removed their collars” in shame in realizing what was done.

Ah, but here we have an almighty far right wing Anglican, who buys a 500 year old smear about Mennonites being anti-Trinitiarian…. (not true, by the way)… as if that somehow justifies the hellacious treatment they endured.

Shame lives on.

Amazing — you illustrate the mindset from then — today! You apparently are unaware of the great persecution endured by Anabaptists then — at the hands of Lutherans, Reformists, Catholics etc….. That the Lutherans, Catholics et. al. are getting around (if belatedly) to recognizing a great injustices committed, that’s quite welcome — healing a very, very old, yet still remembered tragedy and, yes, crime. More power to the Lutheran brethren for having the courage to dig deeply and realize what happened — and actually to concede many of the points made by the Mennonites & others then. No wonder that they “removed their collars” in shame in realizing what was done.

Ah, but here we have an almighty far right wing Anglican, who buys a 500 year old smear about Mennonites being anti-Trinitiarian…. (not true, by the way)… as if that somehow justifies the hellacious treatment they endured.

Shame lives on.

I re-read what I wrote, nothing there that is not historical. As I said, there are some Mennonites that follow some parts of the historic church and theology, but they are in the minority. I respect some of their personal Christian works also. As a “churchman” myself, and certainly conservative Anglican, I see things from that historical position and place. We should note, as I have said again and again, that the church today is under the throws of postmodernism and deconstruction. – Fr. R.
.

I re-read what I wrote, nothing there that is not historical. As I said, there are some Mennonites that follow some parts of the historic church and theology, but they are in the minority. I respect some of their personal Christian works also. As a “churchman” myself, and certainly conservative Anglican, I see things from that historical position and place. We should note, as I have said again and again, that the church today is under the throws of postmodernism and deconstruction. – Fr. R.
.

I’m a contemporary Mennonite, that is 21st Century North American, and am painfully aware that we still often teach about our identity as those radical reformers who others killed – and too much of a martyrdom complex exists in our current sense of identity. Receiving apologies from the other churches, for whatever reasons, is helpful and meaningful as we seek to build the Unity in the Spirit that I believe all Christians need to seek for the sake of our witness to the Gospel of the Reconciling Christ and for our mutual work, hopefully synergistic, in participating in the reign of God as it is now and yet not yet complete. Interchurch apologies, I hope, bring us into awareness of how we dealt with our diferences in the past, so we can learn new ways of being together that ultimately give glory to God and reflect in our joint witness the ‘radical’ way living in Christ and for Christ demands of each of us. I hope these apologies, and our awareness of them, serve to give God glory. and I believe they can. I am grateful that the Lutheran, Reform and also Catholic churches have extended their hand to us in this way. I am hopeful that their gestures will also call contemporary Anabaptist groups to a more ecumenical spirit and a recognition that we all have “gifts” to share with one another for the glory of God.

I’m a contemporary Mennonite, that is 21st Century North American, and am painfully aware that we still often teach about our identity as those radical reformers who others killed – and too much of a martyrdom complex exists in our current sense of identity. Receiving apologies from the other churches, for whatever reasons, is helpful and meaningful as we seek to build the Unity in the Spirit that I believe all Christians need to seek for the sake of our witness to the Gospel of the Reconciling Christ and for our mutual work, hopefully synergistic, in participating in the reign of God as it is now and yet not yet complete. Interchurch apologies, I hope, bring us into awareness of how we dealt with our diferences in the past, so we can learn new ways of being together that ultimately give glory to God and reflect in our joint witness the ‘radical’ way living in Christ and for Christ demands of each of us. I hope these apologies, and our awareness of them, serve to give God glory. and I believe they can. I am grateful that the Lutheran, Reform and also Catholic churches have extended their hand to us in this way. I am hopeful that their gestures will also call contemporary Anabaptist groups to a more ecumenical spirit and a recognition that we all have “gifts” to share with one another for the glory of God.

Thank you, Susan. I believe that apologies go a long way into fixing past problems.

Thank you, Susan. I believe that apologies go a long way into fixing past problems.

Uggh.God accomplishes much of His will through imperfect people. Martin Luther played the role he was supposed to play, and he was not perfect. Far from it…but Martin Luther knew that. In his last known words, he knew that.

Most students of Christian Theology recognize that Luther played a very significant role in the Reformation, along with others. Many of his theological writings are very inspiring. John Wesley was very inspired by Luther’s Preface to Paul’s Letter to the Romans.

I went to school with Mennonites, I am still friends with Mennonites, and although my background was Lutheran, I am pretty ecumenical.

However, I sense a bit of smugness here based on what we know now. It’s easy to judge Luther harshly, given that he was a man of the Middle Ages. It’s hard to understand why Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or the Anglican or Roman Catholic churches could execute heretics.

Luther’s original response was the opposite. But prior to the more peaceful Annabaptism of Menno Simons, there were some violent issues and Luther’s theological tolerance was not the driving force for the sternness developed towards them, he viewed them as civilly disobediant.

I am not going to defend the mistakes of any religious reformer, but neither would I sit in judgment of them as some of these posts so easily do.

I can appreciate all of the denominations, and like Luther, see that all of them have some truth to them.

As for the purpose of an apology, we know that churches are a man-made constructs, but we also know that Jesus prayed that we all be one. I would view a church that apologizes for its’ past mistakes much more favorably than a church that believes it has made none. It’s much the same way with people.

And as far as these self-indulgent rants about past injustice, the Mennonite Church still hasn’t gotten around to establishing a firm view of human sexuality and gays.

I don’t think the way any of the Christian churches behaved over gays or the initial spread of AIDS is anything to be arrogant about.

“We are all beggars…”–Luther’s last words.

Uggh.God accomplishes much of His will through imperfect people. Martin Luther played the role he was supposed to play, and he was not perfect. Far from it…but Martin Luther knew that. In his last known words, he knew that.

Most students of Christian Theology recognize that Luther played a very significant role in the Reformation, along with others. Many of his theological writings are very inspiring. John Wesley was very inspired by Luther’s Preface to Paul’s Letter to the Romans.

I went to school with Mennonites, I am still friends with Mennonites, and although my background was Lutheran, I am pretty ecumenical.

However, I sense a bit of smugness here based on what we know now. It’s easy to judge Luther harshly, given that he was a man of the Middle Ages. It’s hard to understand why Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or the Anglican or Roman Catholic churches could execute heretics.

Luther’s original response was the opposite. But prior to the more peaceful Annabaptism of Menno Simons, there were some violent issues and Luther’s theological tolerance was not the driving force for the sternness developed towards them, he viewed them as civilly disobediant.

I am not going to defend the mistakes of any religious reformer, but neither would I sit in judgment of them as some of these posts so easily do.

I can appreciate all of the denominations, and like Luther, see that all of them have some truth to them.

As for the purpose of an apology, we know that churches are a man-made constructs, but we also know that Jesus prayed that we all be one. I would view a church that apologizes for its’ past mistakes much more favorably than a church that believes it has made none. It’s much the same way with people.

And as far as these self-indulgent rants about past injustice, the Mennonite Church still hasn’t gotten around to establishing a firm view of human sexuality and gays.

I don’t think the way any of the Christian churches behaved over gays or the initial spread of AIDS is anything to be arrogant about.

“We are all beggars…”–Luther’s last words.

BTW..Susan I thought your comments were very well-stated and articulated. My family history just happens to be one long recorded. Most of my ancestors lived in Switzerland and came to the United States in the 1700s as Swiss Brethren. There were more Mennonites than Swiss Brethren so many just became Mennonites. So many of my ancestors were Mennonites. Then came Methodism, and I suppose they converted.

My immediate family agreed to visit a Lutheran church and that is where I was baptized and that is where my spiritual journey started. However, living in a town that was historically Mennonite, I learned about the persecution of the Annabaptists and I understood more clearly why my ancestors moved here.

So what am I to do, seriously? I don’t play the “we were martyred card”…those who were martyred suffered that horror, so the “victim” mentality is not a Christian mentality, it’s one of Pride. As a Lutheran, what am I to do?
Pretend that our church didn’t make mistakes? We don’t worship Luther, and I would hope one doesn’t worship Menno Simons or John Calvin, but I fear that some do…they just don’t realize it.

Since modern day has been mentioned, how many of the churches mentioned reviewed their history of the role of women in the face of biblical scholarship, that shows Junia (Romans) was a woman, and that the name was intentionally altered to a fictitious name Junias, to make “one of the greatest of the apostles” a man, when no such masculine form of such a name exists. There are no records of it during that time period, yet there are replete records of Junia and the original early texts, from various sources, all say Junia. (various sources could be quoted but I will go with Richard Bauckham, Phd Cambridge, “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”)
So what of the role of women? King James changed Deaconess to ‘servant’.

Various Lutheran churches and other Protestant churches corrected the error, and Paul’s letter to the Roman’s makes more sense, since in that very same letter he states that “there is neither male nor female…in Christ”. Oh, but how many of the churches were not happy with that. So then comes all of the interpretations, the modifications, the “let’s put it in perspective of our own beliefs”

Freedom of individual thought was no more a characteristic of the Annabaptists than of any of other group. They simply had “different beliefs” which at that time, did not extend to women!!!

The Society of Friends was actually the first group of Christians to have women preach just as men do, just as Junias did, and just as Phoebe did.

This “oh she just did women’s work” is not historically accurate and it was a shining truth of Christianity, setting it apart from many other religions, by acknowledging that we are all one in Christ, until it was changed
by MEN.

As for Fr. RRobert, I quite agree that we face a crisis with the postmodernist subjectivism that in the U.S. is a revival of the “power of positive thinking” people. They are growing faster than any of the churches listed here, so I think we should rally at least some semblance of common ground and faith in Jesus Christ. It’s more important to think of yourself as a Christian than as a Mennonite or a Lutheran. That is secondary, and I feel sorry for those who have been raised and indoctrinated into such a tight denominationalism that they can’t see the positive things that most denominations have produced, and if we have produced anything, it falls very short of Christ’s love and mercy. So I think we should all work on this.

At the same time, Fr.Robert, you must keep in mind that the conservative Anglican body likes to confuse the postmodern subjectivists with Christians who are simply not of the same conservative ilk as yourself. Conservative churches have invested so much time and energy into condemning gay people, that they lost sight of all of the people that just get turned off by religion/church as hypocritical, judgmental and dogmatic.

You worry more about gay Christians, than this ant-Christin “power of my own will over my destiny” subjectivism of which you speak. I read a woman the other day that teaches people that “she is in charge of her own destiny through her own will.” If her will can’t clear the snow off her sidewalk, how will it determine her destiny (or fate).

The new age revival has no God, but cosmic unity. It does not address sacrifice for others, it speaks only of personal happiness and the achievement of goals. I know so many people influenced by it, and they are ignorant of Jesus’ actual teachings. You send these good-natured, but ill-informed people even a St. Frances prayer and it makes their daily devotionals seem so shallow.

So why don’t we focus more on gently sharing the teachings of Jesus? Rod frighteningly boasts his denomination before Christianity disguising it as a joke…but he’s intentionally putting his annabaptist heritage before Christianity, whether he feigns it as a joke or a half joke.

Fr. Robert is correct that many Mennonites have turned to a Unitarian view and I’ve seen a lot of them list both.
Now originally in Europe, a Unitarian was distinct from Trinitarianism. The Unitarians of today (at least in the U.S.) barely even consider themselves Christian. They think Jesus said some nice things, but they hardly view him as anything other than a person. Theologically, they are baffling because the subjective nature of their acceptance of all religions negates the belief in one true God!

My one friend started a Unitarian Church some months ago, and the one couple is Atheist, and attend to “instill morals and tolerance” in their children. God not required!

So I no longer call myself a Lutheran, but neither am I uneducated about the History of Christian thought or of comparative denominationalism or of textual criticism of the Bible.
Oh, but I am one of those gay guys! One of those who protested and took political action to warn people about the spread of HIV back in the 80s, not just for ourselves, but for minorities and all people…one of those gay guys that the Old Testament says to stone.

This whole Mennonite-Lutheran-Anglican-Roman Catholic-denominatalionism is in decline. As Christians, we are losing our friends and society to false beliefs that do not even acknowledge Jesus Christ, whether you view Him as the Messiah, as co-eternal with the Father, the Son of Man–Christians are called to serve Christ, not their own church team.

But lastly Fr. Robert, I must take issue with your use of the word “stupidity”. Any one (not just a biblical scholar) knows that you are not supposed to call people idiots or stupid. All of us, in truth, have a subjective view, but we have FAITH in Jesus Christ. I could quote the book of James or other parts of the Gospel that rebuke such name-calling, but I’d rather just remind us all of the following:

Romans 12:1-21 ESV / 2 helpful votes
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. …

And

BTW..Susan I thought your comments were very well-stated and articulated. My family history just happens to be one long recorded. Most of my ancestors lived in Switzerland and came to the United States in the 1700s as Swiss Brethren. There were more Mennonites than Swiss Brethren so many just became Mennonites. So many of my ancestors were Mennonites. Then came Methodism, and I suppose they converted.

My immediate family agreed to visit a Lutheran church and that is where I was baptized and that is where my spiritual journey started. However, living in a town that was historically Mennonite, I learned about the persecution of the Annabaptists and I understood more clearly why my ancestors moved here.

So what am I to do, seriously? I don’t play the “we were martyred card”…those who were martyred suffered that horror, so the “victim” mentality is not a Christian mentality, it’s one of Pride. As a Lutheran, what am I to do?
Pretend that our church didn’t make mistakes? We don’t worship Luther, and I would hope one doesn’t worship Menno Simons or John Calvin, but I fear that some do…they just don’t realize it.

Since modern day has been mentioned, how many of the churches mentioned reviewed their history of the role of women in the face of biblical scholarship, that shows Junia (Romans) was a woman, and that the name was intentionally altered to a fictitious name Junias, to make “one of the greatest of the apostles” a man, when no such masculine form of such a name exists. There are no records of it during that time period, yet there are replete records of Junia and the original early texts, from various sources, all say Junia. (various sources could be quoted but I will go with Richard Bauckham, Phd Cambridge, “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”)
So what of the role of women? King James changed Deaconess to ‘servant’.

Various Lutheran churches and other Protestant churches corrected the error, and Paul’s letter to the Roman’s makes more sense, since in that very same letter he states that “there is neither male nor female…in Christ”. Oh, but how many of the churches were not happy with that. So then comes all of the interpretations, the modifications, the “let’s put it in perspective of our own beliefs”

Freedom of individual thought was no more a characteristic of the Annabaptists than of any of other group. They simply had “different beliefs” which at that time, did not extend to women!!!

The Society of Friends was actually the first group of Christians to have women preach just as men do, just as Junias did, and just as Phoebe did.

This “oh she just did women’s work” is not historically accurate and it was a shining truth of Christianity, setting it apart from many other religions, by acknowledging that we are all one in Christ, until it was changed
by MEN.

As for Fr. RRobert, I quite agree that we face a crisis with the postmodernist subjectivism that in the U.S. is a revival of the “power of positive thinking” people. They are growing faster than any of the churches listed here, so I think we should rally at least some semblance of common ground and faith in Jesus Christ. It’s more important to think of yourself as a Christian than as a Mennonite or a Lutheran. That is secondary, and I feel sorry for those who have been raised and indoctrinated into such a tight denominationalism that they can’t see the positive things that most denominations have produced, and if we have produced anything, it falls very short of Christ’s love and mercy. So I think we should all work on this.

At the same time, Fr.Robert, you must keep in mind that the conservative Anglican body likes to confuse the postmodern subjectivists with Christians who are simply not of the same conservative ilk as yourself. Conservative churches have invested so much time and energy into condemning gay people, that they lost sight of all of the people that just get turned off by religion/church as hypocritical, judgmental and dogmatic.

You worry more about gay Christians, than this ant-Christin “power of my own will over my destiny” subjectivism of which you speak. I read a woman the other day that teaches people that “she is in charge of her own destiny through her own will.” If her will can’t clear the snow off her sidewalk, how will it determine her destiny (or fate).

The new age revival has no God, but cosmic unity. It does not address sacrifice for others, it speaks only of personal happiness and the achievement of goals. I know so many people influenced by it, and they are ignorant of Jesus’ actual teachings. You send these good-natured, but ill-informed people even a St. Frances prayer and it makes their daily devotionals seem so shallow.

So why don’t we focus more on gently sharing the teachings of Jesus? Rod frighteningly boasts his denomination before Christianity disguising it as a joke…but he’s intentionally putting his annabaptist heritage before Christianity, whether he feigns it as a joke or a half joke.

Fr. Robert is correct that many Mennonites have turned to a Unitarian view and I’ve seen a lot of them list both.
Now originally in Europe, a Unitarian was distinct from Trinitarianism. The Unitarians of today (at least in the U.S.) barely even consider themselves Christian. They think Jesus said some nice things, but they hardly view him as anything other than a person. Theologically, they are baffling because the subjective nature of their acceptance of all religions negates the belief in one true God!

My one friend started a Unitarian Church some months ago, and the one couple is Atheist, and attend to “instill morals and tolerance” in their children. God not required!

So I no longer call myself a Lutheran, but neither am I uneducated about the History of Christian thought or of comparative denominationalism or of textual criticism of the Bible.
Oh, but I am one of those gay guys! One of those who protested and took political action to warn people about the spread of HIV back in the 80s, not just for ourselves, but for minorities and all people…one of those gay guys that the Old Testament says to stone.

This whole Mennonite-Lutheran-Anglican-Roman Catholic-denominatalionism is in decline. As Christians, we are losing our friends and society to false beliefs that do not even acknowledge Jesus Christ, whether you view Him as the Messiah, as co-eternal with the Father, the Son of Man–Christians are called to serve Christ, not their own church team.

But lastly Fr. Robert, I must take issue with your use of the word “stupidity”. Any one (not just a biblical scholar) knows that you are not supposed to call people idiots or stupid. All of us, in truth, have a subjective view, but we have FAITH in Jesus Christ. I could quote the book of James or other parts of the Gospel that rebuke such name-calling, but I’d rather just remind us all of the following:

Romans 12:1-21 ESV / 2 helpful votes
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. …

And

David,

First, I re-read my statements. Just to bring my mind back to memory. One has to do that at my age, lets just say I am a bit over 50. Just a bit..lol.

My statement about the “stupidity” of my own Anglican tradition stands! I may be a conservative, but I have had to live, work and serve those who are certainly not; of my positions, even within my own Anglican Church & Body. I don’t ask people to be me, but I do seek to preach and teach the historical Gospel, especially from the tradition of the Anglican Church and the Thirty-nine Articles. Which has really always been biblical, though again certainly within the via-media..the Church of the middle way: Catholic & Reformed. And I am somewhat Reformed in the classic sense, but also within the modern so-called “theological” sense. In the likes of such moderns (so-called) as many of the Dutch Reformed. My list would be rather long, but I will name a few.. G.C. Berkouwer, and Emil Brunner, etc.

Also, I read and like Martin Luther certainly. And I know some Lutherans, and have preached in their churches. But I must confess I don’t know the depth of the Lutheran battles.
Here I would include the great but almost forgotten man Zwingli, since he though Reformed was a reformer with Luther. I have been of late really enjoying Zwingli’s part and theology, though I am not a “Zwinglian”. Let me recommend W. P. Stephen’s book: The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli. Also there you can see his part in the battles he had with the Anabaptists. And in the biblical place and theology, I still agree with him as to the nature of covenant baptism. Though I see the doctrine of the Sacraments, as an classic Anglican, in ‘Word & Sacrament’…”an outward and visible sign of an inward grace”.

I cannot speak for every body or everything in the Church Anglican, but I can seek to speak to the Church there as I have seen it, and experienced it. I am a theolog type, and certainly a “churchman”.

Finally David (one of my son’s is named David btw), I cannot speak to you, save only as a pastor-teacher. You have seen some of my thoughts correctly, and some incorrectly. I don’t agree with you on your positions about women biblically & theologically. And I certainly hold to the biblical standards on human sexuality. What you are and do, you of course will alone stand before God, and give an account. As we all shall as individuals, (Acts 10:42). It is to Him, that I seek to give both my life and testimony myself, (2 Tim.4: 1-5).

In His service,
Fr. Robert

David,

First, I re-read my statements. Just to bring my mind back to memory. One has to do that at my age, lets just say I am a bit over 50. Just a bit..lol.

My statement about the “stupidity” of my own Anglican tradition stands! I may be a conservative, but I have had to live, work and serve those who are certainly not; of my positions, even within my own Anglican Church & Body. I don’t ask people to be me, but I do seek to preach and teach the historical Gospel, especially from the tradition of the Anglican Church and the Thirty-nine Articles. Which has really always been biblical, though again certainly within the via-media..the Church of the middle way: Catholic & Reformed. And I am somewhat Reformed in the classic sense, but also within the modern so-called “theological” sense. In the likes of such moderns (so-called) as many of the Dutch Reformed. My list would be rather long, but I will name a few.. G.C. Berkouwer, and Emil Brunner, etc.

Also, I read and like Martin Luther certainly. And I know some Lutherans, and have preached in their churches. But I must confess I don’t know the depth of the Lutheran battles.
Here I would include the great but almost forgotten man Zwingli, since he though Reformed was a reformer with Luther. I have been of late really enjoying Zwingli’s part and theology, though I am not a “Zwinglian”. Let me recommend W. P. Stephen’s book: The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli. Also there you can see his part in the battles he had with the Anabaptists. And in the biblical place and theology, I still agree with him as to the nature of covenant baptism. Though I see the doctrine of the Sacraments, as an classic Anglican, in ‘Word & Sacrament’…”an outward and visible sign of an inward grace”.

I cannot speak for every body or everything in the Church Anglican, but I can seek to speak to the Church there as I have seen it, and experienced it. I am a theolog type, and certainly a “churchman”.

Finally David (one of my son’s is named David btw), I cannot speak to you, save only as a pastor-teacher. You have seen some of my thoughts correctly, and some incorrectly. I don’t agree with you on your positions about women biblically & theologically. And I certainly hold to the biblical standards on human sexuality. What you are and do, you of course will alone stand before God, and give an account. As we all shall as individuals, (Acts 10:42). It is to Him, that I seek to give both my life and testimony myself, (2 Tim.4: 1-5).

In His service,
Fr. Robert

Fr. Robert:
I would stand by my comment on your use of the word “stupidity”. Certainly as an educated man whose native tongue is English, I would think that alternative words could be found such as “misguided”,”incorrect”, “unwisely” or “problematic”. To me, at first reading, it sounded like someone referring to other Christians as “stupid” and since we are all made in God’s image and have (I hope) received the Holy Spirit, this is considered sinful. Jesus states it, James states it. So it would be my hope that you would reconsider the matter, since how people perceive statements is not necessarily how we intend them. It’s just a suggestion, your behavior is your own.

As for Mennonites (yes, I misspell anabaptist all the time), it is Susan’s comment that impresses me as the time of Mennonites that I have had the pleasure to befriend. What I don’t feel Mennonites see, is how clickish they appear to the rest of the Christian world. This is in part because they are a small church, spread out. They are to be commended for their tenacity and unity. Many Mennonites know each other all over the country and attend Mennonite Universities such as Goshen. My classmates did not discuss their faith that much, but in the U.S. Lutherans are considered quiet and a bit silent. Until recently.

In the United States, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, our largest body, recently and narrowly approved of gay unions for both members and pastors. Although we are a confessional body, a “congregationalist” compromise was offered so that churches in areas not agreeing with church policy did not have to accept a gay pastor who is in a long-term union.

I will not discuss the issue further, because this strays from the original topic. I found some of the statements posted as rather academic and not terribly of a Christian spirit, although other people who posted seem to get the point.

It means something that the Roman Catholic Church has offered apologies. The reason for a church offering apology is our recognition that we are not perfect. The catholic church (Christ’s flock if you will) will not be made perfect until some eschatalogical point in the future. So for any church to pretend it has not made mistakes has proven to be a bad plan for any denomination.

I would say that Luther’s influence on Protestantism and Catholicism is of major import. Those who posted otherwise are at best naive. The Roman Catholic Church signed an agreement over “Justification by Grace through Faith” over 10 years ago and the agreement was recently celebrated, and this belief was also adopted by the Mennonites.

As I tried to point out, many Mennonite writers acknowledged Luther’s initial disdain over trying to defeat heretics through execution or even imprisonment. He made several statements regarding this, however some incidents involving civil disobediance led to his change of opinion. I recently read an article about this subject specifically from a Mennonite page, so perhaps the posters may wish to revisit their own church’s web page and freshen up on the details. Moreso, I believe the focus should be about today in terms of ecumenical dialogue.
This is another aspect of Lutheranism (at least in the U.S.) that certain posters seem to ignore as well.

The ELCA has formed “full communion” agreements with Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists (UMC), United Church of Christ (UCC), Moravians and Reformed churches. That’s a staggering amount of ecumenical effort…an area that is in no way a strong point of the Mennonite church, which is why I appreciated Susan’s comments.

As for your statements on tradition, I hear that a lot from pastoral opposition groups in various denominations (I poke my nose in everywhere–stealth web intervention!). I believe that tradition is a very weak ground to stand upon. Tradition over the role of women has changed in many churches. Again, this is not a place to debate the matter, I simply used it and the worldwide slow action of churches regarding HIV to point out that as churches, we all fall short of God’s glory and purpose. Tradition allowed for slaves, it allowed for overtly harsh corporal punishment of children, it allowed for the deprivation of Equal Human Rights to large numbers of people. To rest Christendom on tradition would be like the man who built his house upon the sand. Christendom is mostly rightly placed, and exists truly…only on Jesus Christ and the Grace of God, our creator.

Ecumenism in the United States is very important. When denominations isolate themselves, and consider missionary work their “good works”…they really don’t have that great of effect on our society. Luther did not fight the church without intellect and persuasion. It is true that others objected to abuses by the Roman Catholic Church, however they were not terribly successful. One must give credit where credit is due, and had Luther not done what he did, it’s quite possible that Protestant efforts could have failed.

As for the peasant’s revolt, technically there is a little more to it, and it was brewing with or without the Reformation. Some may wish to debate that, I don’t care to debate it, I have studied it enough.

All I wished to communicate here is that Christianity, whether practiced by denominations, or by Christians at home that do not attend church is declining in North America. Church’s are dividing up between political liberalism and conservatism, with the focus on politics and politicians, and not the most important issues of salvation or the teachings of behavior that Jesus so astutely expounded upon.

My comment to you sir, is that I do not seek to change your mind about gays. You weren’t born gay, and you have no idea what it is like. I would say that there are many gay Christians who have not yielded their faith despite opposition. To the contrary, the issue is across the board, and I have read a number of Mennonite statements (and Methodist, and Presbyterian) to know that the matter is not adequately settled.

I remember being told that Lutherans would never share communion with Methodists. My father has been in both denominations and he’s the same Christian regardless of which church he happens to be a member with. It was a Lutheran female pastor that dismissed my ecumenical predictions back in 2004, and we recently signed the Full Communion agreement with the UMC. So I don’t rely on the judgement of pastors, priests, and even some theological scholars.

If I sound like I have an agenda, I do! I maintain that true freedom of thought, need not seperate us from sharing in the common ground of Christianity and being one in Christ. If I have my belief as to what communion represents, I have no problem kneeling beside a Methodist who may have a different interpretation. We look foolish to the world through our division. More properly displayed, our diversity and common ecumenical Christian cooperation should show the world the Love of God reflected in us. Until people are at that level…we are failing the world in showing that Christians are renewed by the Holy Spirit and reflect love.

There are about 75,000,000 Lutherans worldwide. There are about 80,000,000 Anglicans (colonialism, lol!). I could list many other churches that have all been effected by Martin Luther. So if Mennonites insist on remaining “aloof” from the ecumenical movement, I feel badly for them. In one way, they are so small that they need to focus on their own church, but I question the theological and historical knowledge of someone asking what Martin Luther did!

Back to the point, Lutherans are a confessing church. This has two meanings…it deals with our organizational structure and catholic liturgy and creeds, but it also means that we confess we are sinners. We have sinned, and those who lived hundreds of years ago, have sinned as well.

But in a historical perspective, Luther WAS a man of the Middle Ages, though highly educated and intelligent. To break with the RC Church was not an easy thing to do, and it prompted a lot of revision in Luther’s own theological and Christological belief systems. If you can’t see the hand of God in the Protestant Reformation, I am daunted. Even many Catholics realized the Church needed a Reformation. It’s just sad they went with the Spanish Inquisition!

But these people, in these times, were dealing with Black Plague, wars, rumors, superstitions. Luther feared “chaos”, and sought to reform what he believed was the true church. King David made mistakes, St. Paul made mistakes, but Luther lived his life by conscience. So it does touch a nerve with me that so many younger people can be so flippant, and actually view themselves as victims. Many Christians died killing each other and Jesus states that people would kill each other thinking it was for God.

I did not expect to find such flippant remarks about the apology offered by the Lutherans, but I can tell you they are nice people. Some congregations are blue collar, some white collar. They struggle with doctrinal issues. I supposed I am bothered because I have met two types of Mennonites. The really kind sweet gentle kind of people that are a joy to have in your life, and then an upper middle class clickish group of people that don’t seem to mix much outside of their circle of Mennonite friends, and they just have this attitude that they are morally superior because they feel the hands of their church to be more clean, shall we say.

Luther inspired millions. The number of Anabaptists is quite small. That’s fine…but when you are talking about a man who influenced millions and millions of Christians, indeed Christianity itself, I just am daunted by some of the flippant comments. An apology is a reconciliatory gesture…and does not Jesus speak of how blessed are the peacemakers? So for some of the posters to really miss the point is sad, but this is just one page. I will have to check on broader sources and more updated information tomorrow.

But to be honest, I just love my Mennonite friends, I let them do their stuff, but I focus on the larger Protestant bodies, not that we merge and give up our beliefs, but that we do allow for freedom of belief and expression, while maintaining our denominational flavor. It’s like world cultures…when you think of diverse foods, it’s a great thing. When you think of oppression and orthodox conformity, it’s not a good thing.

We can all celebrate our faiths and do so with much more mutual respect than what we have evidenced.

Thank you for your reading suggestions. I generally read a lot of Paul Tillich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Richard Bauckham (one of the most brilliant biblical scholars around today). Bauckham almost single-handedly destroys many of the modernist theories of the past 200-300 years regarding the authenticity of the Gospels as well as their dates and the accuracy of the information.

If you have a desire to understand the New Testament in a modern yet traditional view of authenticity, you can’t beat Richard Bauckham.

Fr. Robert, feel free if you wish to discuss any theological or historical issues with me, I find them all interesting. I have a lot of questions about churches in Europe these days, regarding the Anglican church, the Socieity of Friends, the Baptist faith in Europe compared to the Baptist faith in the U.S.

In terms of Reformed theologians, I must confess my knowledge is limited to Karl Barth. Barth, Bonhoeffer, and Tillich are pretty big influences on me, as was Luther.

Honestly, I have problems with Calvinism but I try to just be “ecumenical” even though I disagree over much of his beliefs, his life, his writings. But we all have someone that we just don’t get!!

I do wish the Anglican Church would abandon Robert Gagnon’s influence. It is my opinion, that any theologian that builds his entire career on arguing against homosexuals is a bit “odd”. I find his web page very self-gratifying and argumentative and I was so disappointed that a professor from Pittsburgh Theological Seminary would publish a book that has been embraced by the Anglican church!

It’s my opinion that he is too inflexible to reason with, based on personal experience and observational experience (he loves to post email arguments he’s had on his web page, some being several years old). To me, I find his book and his education “misguided”. : ^ )

You can email me if you’d like (or anyone) at shallen1963@gmail.com

God’s guidance to all of us!!!

David

Fr. Robert:
I would stand by my comment on your use of the word “stupidity”. Certainly as an educated man whose native tongue is English, I would think that alternative words could be found such as “misguided”,”incorrect”, “unwisely” or “problematic”. To me, at first reading, it sounded like someone referring to other Christians as “stupid” and since we are all made in God’s image and have (I hope) received the Holy Spirit, this is considered sinful. Jesus states it, James states it. So it would be my hope that you would reconsider the matter, since how people perceive statements is not necessarily how we intend them. It’s just a suggestion, your behavior is your own.

As for Mennonites (yes, I misspell anabaptist all the time), it is Susan’s comment that impresses me as the time of Mennonites that I have had the pleasure to befriend. What I don’t feel Mennonites see, is how clickish they appear to the rest of the Christian world. This is in part because they are a small church, spread out. They are to be commended for their tenacity and unity. Many Mennonites know each other all over the country and attend Mennonite Universities such as Goshen. My classmates did not discuss their faith that much, but in the U.S. Lutherans are considered quiet and a bit silent. Until recently.

In the United States, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, our largest body, recently and narrowly approved of gay unions for both members and pastors. Although we are a confessional body, a “congregationalist” compromise was offered so that churches in areas not agreeing with church policy did not have to accept a gay pastor who is in a long-term union.

I will not discuss the issue further, because this strays from the original topic. I found some of the statements posted as rather academic and not terribly of a Christian spirit, although other people who posted seem to get the point.

It means something that the Roman Catholic Church has offered apologies. The reason for a church offering apology is our recognition that we are not perfect. The catholic church (Christ’s flock if you will) will not be made perfect until some eschatalogical point in the future. So for any church to pretend it has not made mistakes has proven to be a bad plan for any denomination.

I would say that Luther’s influence on Protestantism and Catholicism is of major import. Those who posted otherwise are at best naive. The Roman Catholic Church signed an agreement over “Justification by Grace through Faith” over 10 years ago and the agreement was recently celebrated, and this belief was also adopted by the Mennonites.

As I tried to point out, many Mennonite writers acknowledged Luther’s initial disdain over trying to defeat heretics through execution or even imprisonment. He made several statements regarding this, however some incidents involving civil disobediance led to his change of opinion. I recently read an article about this subject specifically from a Mennonite page, so perhaps the posters may wish to revisit their own church’s web page and freshen up on the details. Moreso, I believe the focus should be about today in terms of ecumenical dialogue.
This is another aspect of Lutheranism (at least in the U.S.) that certain posters seem to ignore as well.

The ELCA has formed “full communion” agreements with Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists (UMC), United Church of Christ (UCC), Moravians and Reformed churches. That’s a staggering amount of ecumenical effort…an area that is in no way a strong point of the Mennonite church, which is why I appreciated Susan’s comments.

As for your statements on tradition, I hear that a lot from pastoral opposition groups in various denominations (I poke my nose in everywhere–stealth web intervention!). I believe that tradition is a very weak ground to stand upon. Tradition over the role of women has changed in many churches. Again, this is not a place to debate the matter, I simply used it and the worldwide slow action of churches regarding HIV to point out that as churches, we all fall short of God’s glory and purpose. Tradition allowed for slaves, it allowed for overtly harsh corporal punishment of children, it allowed for the deprivation of Equal Human Rights to large numbers of people. To rest Christendom on tradition would be like the man who built his house upon the sand. Christendom is mostly rightly placed, and exists truly…only on Jesus Christ and the Grace of God, our creator.

Ecumenism in the United States is very important. When denominations isolate themselves, and consider missionary work their “good works”…they really don’t have that great of effect on our society. Luther did not fight the church without intellect and persuasion. It is true that others objected to abuses by the Roman Catholic Church, however they were not terribly successful. One must give credit where credit is due, and had Luther not done what he did, it’s quite possible that Protestant efforts could have failed.

As for the peasant’s revolt, technically there is a little more to it, and it was brewing with or without the Reformation. Some may wish to debate that, I don’t care to debate it, I have studied it enough.

All I wished to communicate here is that Christianity, whether practiced by denominations, or by Christians at home that do not attend church is declining in North America. Church’s are dividing up between political liberalism and conservatism, with the focus on politics and politicians, and not the most important issues of salvation or the teachings of behavior that Jesus so astutely expounded upon.

My comment to you sir, is that I do not seek to change your mind about gays. You weren’t born gay, and you have no idea what it is like. I would say that there are many gay Christians who have not yielded their faith despite opposition. To the contrary, the issue is across the board, and I have read a number of Mennonite statements (and Methodist, and Presbyterian) to know that the matter is not adequately settled.

I remember being told that Lutherans would never share communion with Methodists. My father has been in both denominations and he’s the same Christian regardless of which church he happens to be a member with. It was a Lutheran female pastor that dismissed my ecumenical predictions back in 2004, and we recently signed the Full Communion agreement with the UMC. So I don’t rely on the judgement of pastors, priests, and even some theological scholars.

If I sound like I have an agenda, I do! I maintain that true freedom of thought, need not seperate us from sharing in the common ground of Christianity and being one in Christ. If I have my belief as to what communion represents, I have no problem kneeling beside a Methodist who may have a different interpretation. We look foolish to the world through our division. More properly displayed, our diversity and common ecumenical Christian cooperation should show the world the Love of God reflected in us. Until people are at that level…we are failing the world in showing that Christians are renewed by the Holy Spirit and reflect love.

There are about 75,000,000 Lutherans worldwide. There are about 80,000,000 Anglicans (colonialism, lol!). I could list many other churches that have all been effected by Martin Luther. So if Mennonites insist on remaining “aloof” from the ecumenical movement, I feel badly for them. In one way, they are so small that they need to focus on their own church, but I question the theological and historical knowledge of someone asking what Martin Luther did!

Back to the point, Lutherans are a confessing church. This has two meanings…it deals with our organizational structure and catholic liturgy and creeds, but it also means that we confess we are sinners. We have sinned, and those who lived hundreds of years ago, have sinned as well.

But in a historical perspective, Luther WAS a man of the Middle Ages, though highly educated and intelligent. To break with the RC Church was not an easy thing to do, and it prompted a lot of revision in Luther’s own theological and Christological belief systems. If you can’t see the hand of God in the Protestant Reformation, I am daunted. Even many Catholics realized the Church needed a Reformation. It’s just sad they went with the Spanish Inquisition!

But these people, in these times, were dealing with Black Plague, wars, rumors, superstitions. Luther feared “chaos”, and sought to reform what he believed was the true church. King David made mistakes, St. Paul made mistakes, but Luther lived his life by conscience. So it does touch a nerve with me that so many younger people can be so flippant, and actually view themselves as victims. Many Christians died killing each other and Jesus states that people would kill each other thinking it was for God.

I did not expect to find such flippant remarks about the apology offered by the Lutherans, but I can tell you they are nice people. Some congregations are blue collar, some white collar. They struggle with doctrinal issues. I supposed I am bothered because I have met two types of Mennonites. The really kind sweet gentle kind of people that are a joy to have in your life, and then an upper middle class clickish group of people that don’t seem to mix much outside of their circle of Mennonite friends, and they just have this attitude that they are morally superior because they feel the hands of their church to be more clean, shall we say.

Luther inspired millions. The number of Anabaptists is quite small. That’s fine…but when you are talking about a man who influenced millions and millions of Christians, indeed Christianity itself, I just am daunted by some of the flippant comments. An apology is a reconciliatory gesture…and does not Jesus speak of how blessed are the peacemakers? So for some of the posters to really miss the point is sad, but this is just one page. I will have to check on broader sources and more updated information tomorrow.

But to be honest, I just love my Mennonite friends, I let them do their stuff, but I focus on the larger Protestant bodies, not that we merge and give up our beliefs, but that we do allow for freedom of belief and expression, while maintaining our denominational flavor. It’s like world cultures…when you think of diverse foods, it’s a great thing. When you think of oppression and orthodox conformity, it’s not a good thing.

We can all celebrate our faiths and do so with much more mutual respect than what we have evidenced.

Thank you for your reading suggestions. I generally read a lot of Paul Tillich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Richard Bauckham (one of the most brilliant biblical scholars around today). Bauckham almost single-handedly destroys many of the modernist theories of the past 200-300 years regarding the authenticity of the Gospels as well as their dates and the accuracy of the information.

If you have a desire to understand the New Testament in a modern yet traditional view of authenticity, you can’t beat Richard Bauckham.

Fr. Robert, feel free if you wish to discuss any theological or historical issues with me, I find them all interesting. I have a lot of questions about churches in Europe these days, regarding the Anglican church, the Socieity of Friends, the Baptist faith in Europe compared to the Baptist faith in the U.S.

In terms of Reformed theologians, I must confess my knowledge is limited to Karl Barth. Barth, Bonhoeffer, and Tillich are pretty big influences on me, as was Luther.

Honestly, I have problems with Calvinism but I try to just be “ecumenical” even though I disagree over much of his beliefs, his life, his writings. But we all have someone that we just don’t get!!

I do wish the Anglican Church would abandon Robert Gagnon’s influence. It is my opinion, that any theologian that builds his entire career on arguing against homosexuals is a bit “odd”. I find his web page very self-gratifying and argumentative and I was so disappointed that a professor from Pittsburgh Theological Seminary would publish a book that has been embraced by the Anglican church!

It’s my opinion that he is too inflexible to reason with, based on personal experience and observational experience (he loves to post email arguments he’s had on his web page, some being several years old). To me, I find his book and his education “misguided”. : ^ )

You can email me if you’d like (or anyone) at shallen1963@gmail.com

God’s guidance to all of us!!!

David

David,

Sometimes the use of a powerful literary word is needed in such matters, and “stupidity” hits the nail on the head for me as I have seen the madness of the CoE, and just Anglicans in general. And since I am older, I have seen how the English speaking world has fallen from a Judeo-Christian world-view. It is most obvious, that the Church of God on earth is in a time of declination, and certainly a moral and spiritual downgrade. If one cannot see this? Then one is in deep trouble! Yes, postmodernism is the rule today, in Church and culture. The Church can no longer really affect the culture, at least in any major way. Yes, good and evil go down together until the end. But as our Lord said, shall He find faith on the earth when He returns? (Lk. 18:8)

Richard Bauckham is a good man, but he certainly has some weak biblical presuppositions in certain areas theologically. The issue of woman in the Church is both creational and theological in the biblical reality! (1 Tim.2:13-15 / Eph.5: 22-33).

Since I am a “churchman” and theolog type, we perhaps don’t share the same view of the Church in the ecumenical sense. Though I can really appreciate the reality of the incarnate Body of Christ on earth. The real Church is the Body regenerate, but only God “knows” His own people. (2 Tim.2:19) The Church will be a “mixed” Body on earth till the Eschaton. And I am “Calvinist” in the aspect of grace & glory!

Got to run..

Best,
Fr. Robert

David,

Sometimes the use of a powerful literary word is needed in such matters, and “stupidity” hits the nail on the head for me as I have seen the madness of the CoE, and just Anglicans in general. And since I am older, I have seen how the English speaking world has fallen from a Judeo-Christian world-view. It is most obvious, that the Church of God on earth is in a time of declination, and certainly a moral and spiritual downgrade. If one cannot see this? Then one is in deep trouble! Yes, postmodernism is the rule today, in Church and culture. The Church can no longer really affect the culture, at least in any major way. Yes, good and evil go down together until the end. But as our Lord said, shall He find faith on the earth when He returns? (Lk. 18:8)

Richard Bauckham is a good man, but he certainly has some weak biblical presuppositions in certain areas theologically. The issue of woman in the Church is both creational and theological in the biblical reality! (1 Tim.2:13-15 / Eph.5: 22-33).

Since I am a “churchman” and theolog type, we perhaps don’t share the same view of the Church in the ecumenical sense. Though I can really appreciate the reality of the incarnate Body of Christ on earth. The real Church is the Body regenerate, but only God “knows” His own people. (2 Tim.2:19) The Church will be a “mixed” Body on earth till the Eschaton. And I am “Calvinist” in the aspect of grace & glory!

Got to run..

Best,
Fr. Robert

I would acknowledge that Bauckham does make some weak presuppositions, most notably over Papias and the authorship of the Gospel of John, and it is odd yet interesting how he will meticulously prove some things, and yet climb out on a limb with others. However, many people do this. Perhaps it’s human nature. I enjoy following his thought processes; they’re certainly preferable to the sloppy conjecture and derivative mass-publishings of “biblical scholar” and agnostic, Bart Ehrman.

I am no spring chicken…I am in my late 40s. But I look at life a little differently. Firstly, modernism and postmodernism can be tricky words. The form critics were modernists and they made a lot of presuppositions as to the Gospel, so I would contend that modernism is not necessarily as enlightened or accurate as once believed. The use of the word postmodernism is tricky than, especially for those who do not study philosophy or theology.

In the US, postmodern “subjectivism” is what I view as problematic, but I hardly feel defeated by it. It is a non-intellectual movement that I feel is a fad…a retro-return to the “it’s all good”, “happiness is a state of mind” shallow thinking of the 70s. Trite, happy “truisms” that one would usually associate with a sales pep talk or a motivational diet technique has been elevated as if possessed some metaphysical properties and the “truisms” are taken literally!

I am a positive person, but it’s “not all good”. Happiness is an emotion, and it’s not healthy to feel that life is about one emotion…particularly one’s own happiness. It’s the same stuff from the 70s, regurgitated by people on Facebook or followers of any word that comes out of Oprah Winfrey’s mouth.

As I alluded to previously, many that fall for this are not satisfied with it when faced with more serious issues, the realities of the world. Many are unaware of what Jesus actually said, and they are just turned off by the dogmatic “we are right everyone else is wrong” attitude that has unfortunately been incorrectly expressed by too many Christians.

Since God’s love is of a world-view, I find it important that churches express more of a common ground. We live now in a society where no one wants to hear Jesus quoted, but they will listen to pop-culture celebrities and ‘spiritual gurus” that literally steal many of the Bible’s teachings and simply change a few words.

But I don’t feel defeated about it all, since I know that God is in control. Our job is not to tire, but to continue to preach the Gospel. I hold that faith in Jesus Christ and his teachings are primary.

I would suspect we have greatly different views concerning creation, the role of women (a scriptural debate is not the purpose of this particular post, although I could present one), and other matters.

My point, that I will reiterate is that a basic ecumenism between the churches seems mandatory in my view.
To that end, I try to accomplish something with regards to Christian ecumenism everyday.

We are not saved by passing a theological test. Theologians have their purpose and their weaknesses.

So to bring end to this point, I would reiterate that ecumenism…finding common ground through prayer and faith in Jesus Christ is very important to our Christian callings.

I may not subscribe to Calvin’s theories of predestination, I may not agree with a Creationist, or someone who views the Bible as “inerrant”. But I do believe that we are called to teach the Gospel of Christ.

It seems to me that many churches get lost in the same type of dogmatic legalism of the Sadducees or the loftiness of the Pharisees.

I live in a world where it is important just to share a quote from Jesus, because so many haven’t heard much of what He said. Either their parents never taught them, or they have heard quotes from elsewhere in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament.

So I read these posts and I come across someone like Susan, who seems to “get” the point of ecumenism, without lessoning the tradition of her own faith. It’s the short, “oh, I think this sounds clever witty” flippant comments that bother me. Flippant comments are generally made by flippant people. As the quote from Romans points out, it is better to think soberly on these matters.

So I end with where I began, thinking much the way Luther did…we are beggars for the mercy and wisdom of God.
If i only have a certain amount of time, it is best that I use it for those who have not heard the Gospel presented in any complete form. Theology is is interesting to me, but it’s not for everyone, in terms of deep study.

Many need more than theological arguments and certainly they need more than “the power of positive thinking”.
One need only read the trite quotes posted on Oprah Winfrey’s page (I only know because someone Facebooked them to me)and then look at the people in Haiti or Africa or Asia, or even in my own country and see how this empty, neo-new age thought falls far short of what people truly need.

I am saying denominationalism is really a good thing, since people will inevitably disagree on interpretations. However, if we stand united as Christians in love, than we are One, though we are many.

God Bless Everyone!

David

I would acknowledge that Bauckham does make some weak presuppositions, most notably over Papias and the authorship of the Gospel of John, and it is odd yet interesting how he will meticulously prove some things, and yet climb out on a limb with others. However, many people do this. Perhaps it’s human nature. I enjoy following his thought processes; they’re certainly preferable to the sloppy conjecture and derivative mass-publishings of “biblical scholar” and agnostic, Bart Ehrman.

I am no spring chicken…I am in my late 40s. But I look at life a little differently. Firstly, modernism and postmodernism can be tricky words. The form critics were modernists and they made a lot of presuppositions as to the Gospel, so I would contend that modernism is not necessarily as enlightened or accurate as once believed. The use of the word postmodernism is tricky than, especially for those who do not study philosophy or theology.

In the US, postmodern “subjectivism” is what I view as problematic, but I hardly feel defeated by it. It is a non-intellectual movement that I feel is a fad…a retro-return to the “it’s all good”, “happiness is a state of mind” shallow thinking of the 70s. Trite, happy “truisms” that one would usually associate with a sales pep talk or a motivational diet technique has been elevated as if possessed some metaphysical properties and the “truisms” are taken literally!

I am a positive person, but it’s “not all good”. Happiness is an emotion, and it’s not healthy to feel that life is about one emotion…particularly one’s own happiness. It’s the same stuff from the 70s, regurgitated by people on Facebook or followers of any word that comes out of Oprah Winfrey’s mouth.

As I alluded to previously, many that fall for this are not satisfied with it when faced with more serious issues, the realities of the world. Many are unaware of what Jesus actually said, and they are just turned off by the dogmatic “we are right everyone else is wrong” attitude that has unfortunately been incorrectly expressed by too many Christians.

Since God’s love is of a world-view, I find it important that churches express more of a common ground. We live now in a society where no one wants to hear Jesus quoted, but they will listen to pop-culture celebrities and ‘spiritual gurus” that literally steal many of the Bible’s teachings and simply change a few words.

But I don’t feel defeated about it all, since I know that God is in control. Our job is not to tire, but to continue to preach the Gospel. I hold that faith in Jesus Christ and his teachings are primary.

I would suspect we have greatly different views concerning creation, the role of women (a scriptural debate is not the purpose of this particular post, although I could present one), and other matters.

My point, that I will reiterate is that a basic ecumenism between the churches seems mandatory in my view.
To that end, I try to accomplish something with regards to Christian ecumenism everyday.

We are not saved by passing a theological test. Theologians have their purpose and their weaknesses.

So to bring end to this point, I would reiterate that ecumenism…finding common ground through prayer and faith in Jesus Christ is very important to our Christian callings.

I may not subscribe to Calvin’s theories of predestination, I may not agree with a Creationist, or someone who views the Bible as “inerrant”. But I do believe that we are called to teach the Gospel of Christ.

It seems to me that many churches get lost in the same type of dogmatic legalism of the Sadducees or the loftiness of the Pharisees.

I live in a world where it is important just to share a quote from Jesus, because so many haven’t heard much of what He said. Either their parents never taught them, or they have heard quotes from elsewhere in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament.

So I read these posts and I come across someone like Susan, who seems to “get” the point of ecumenism, without lessoning the tradition of her own faith. It’s the short, “oh, I think this sounds clever witty” flippant comments that bother me. Flippant comments are generally made by flippant people. As the quote from Romans points out, it is better to think soberly on these matters.

So I end with where I began, thinking much the way Luther did…we are beggars for the mercy and wisdom of God.
If i only have a certain amount of time, it is best that I use it for those who have not heard the Gospel presented in any complete form. Theology is is interesting to me, but it’s not for everyone, in terms of deep study.

Many need more than theological arguments and certainly they need more than “the power of positive thinking”.
One need only read the trite quotes posted on Oprah Winfrey’s page (I only know because someone Facebooked them to me)and then look at the people in Haiti or Africa or Asia, or even in my own country and see how this empty, neo-new age thought falls far short of what people truly need.

I am saying denominationalism is really a good thing, since people will inevitably disagree on interpretations. However, if we stand united as Christians in love, than we are One, though we are many.

God Bless Everyone!

David

David,

I wrote a blog post on “Postmodernity” some months back..(irishanglican.wordpress.com). I am very aware of the many ideas afoot with modernism, postmodern, deconstruction, etc. Also true theological study is a real discipline & work, and not something done lightly. Like the G. Orthodox teach, there are sadly few real “theologians” in the Church. It is something the whole Church should recognize, a true “ecumenical” reality.

And there is a biblical and historical aspect to “Tradition”. Even the Protestant Reformers knew this. As the Ecumenical Councils, etc. Indeed a real “ecumenical” spirit and search is rare in the Church today. But it must be done within the historical life of the Church also.

Best,
Fr. R.

David,

I wrote a blog post on “Postmodernity” some months back..(irishanglican.wordpress.com). I am very aware of the many ideas afoot with modernism, postmodern, deconstruction, etc. Also true theological study is a real discipline & work, and not something done lightly. Like the G. Orthodox teach, there are sadly few real “theologians” in the Church. It is something the whole Church should recognize, a true “ecumenical” reality.

And there is a biblical and historical aspect to “Tradition”. Even the Protestant Reformers knew this. As the Ecumenical Councils, etc. Indeed a real “ecumenical” spirit and search is rare in the Church today. But it must be done within the historical life of the Church also.

Best,
Fr. R.

[...] others [...]

It is interesting that many theologians downplay their role, yet others insist differently.
Karl Barth said that any person of faith is a theologian. They most certainly play a role (particularly with hermeneutics and Christian History), however, if you are in the real world, dealing with the common man, they aren't going to be interested in supralapsarianim vs. infralapsarianism and one would sound pretentious to do so in that environment.
Fr. Robert, in the real world we meet people that may have never read the Bible, may have only seen crooked, corny Tele-evangelists, or listened to the prattlings of Pat Robertson.

Worse, you could be dealing with lost people–lost on oxycontin or other drug addictions, lost and marginalized because their parents abandoned them, or they grew up foster homes or their parents mistreated them. You meet alcoholics, you meet hustlers, you meet people losing their faith because they have no real connection to God.

Oswald Chambers said that “Moral People” cannot deal with “immoral people” and yet that's exactly the people Jesus Christ came to save. A problem with Calvinism is that everyone that goes to church thinks they are “the elect” not realizing that arrogance.

As for historical aspect to tradition, “the poor” which is what Christians were first called were greatly left out of that tradition or they were taken advantage regarding it. From corrupt Popes to Henry VIII.

As for Ecumenical Councils, they went too far. The Athanasian Creed with it's polemical aspects is an example of this. Forcing people to speak a spiritual “pledge of allegiance” that should never have gone past the Apostles Creed.

Tradition is something already mentioned here. Just as with Roman Catholocism, the Reformers had territorial theocratic views. Disagreement was treason and hence Christians burned Christians, beheaded them, hanged them, all in the name of heresy, and heresy was a tradition of the Church.

The Church's worry so much that people will make up their own beliefs, that they downplay the Holy Spirit being necessary to interpret Scripture. They downplayed that because they could not tolerate diversity as an attribute of God and viewed it as a threat leading to heresy. But look at all of the Biblical inerrant mindset that still came up with all sorts of interpretations that contradict each other, whether it be communion/Eucharist/Mass or Baptism or the role of women in the Church.
Many of the Old Testament teachings of the Sadducee were traditions and Jesus picked apart many of them in the Book of Mark.
True ecumenical spirit is through Christ. Church ecumenism is often over money, optimizing seminary revenue, reducing church costs. Read any of the statements made by bishops on full-communion agreements and they all mention money.

I agree with you that Theological study is important. But I also recognize that it is confined to wealthier people and falls prey to the same aristocratic flaws of educational clout and reputation. God gives grace unto the humble. Two theologians can bicker all day and some kind Christian with little or no education can go forth filled with the Holy Spirit. When we look at the Slave Trade, it is an indictment of the very idea of Church Tradition, lacking the Holy Spirit as its prime mover.

Respectfully,

David