I just got back from Mass at St. Alexander's. It is a fairly modern Roman Catholic church, there are giant stained-glass windows and a huge Jesus with outstretched arms at the centre of the church. There are the stations of the cross (via crucis), pews, pianos, not too different from some Anglican churches aside from the obvious things I've mentioned. The Homily (sermon) was on Jesus the Good Shepherd, and all of the liturgy was about Jesus actually, every other word was Christ, and Mary and the Pope only got one name drop a piece the whole time. One thing was unusual though to my low church experience, we had to kneel for the Eucharist - which if you believe as I do, it's Jesus, it isn't that big of a deal to have to kneel - and we had things to recite that I didn't know - luckily I have memorized the Apostles Creed etc, but not everything.
I was thinking, as I knelt and dodged the people rushing forward and back to the pews in a synchronized pattern, man this is a bit strange and uncomfortable to me. Then I thought about what the Mass claims to be and a few other things. The Mass is supposed to be (it can be argued of course) an ancient service handed down by the apostles, and I figure if I felt comfortable through all of it, and it simply catered to my needs, how would that by Christ-centred and Historic Christianity. I started to think, maybe worshipping God IS supposed to be a bit scary.
Proverbs says 'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom', but we are to love God perfectly and St. John writes that 'perfect love casts out fear' it's a bit of a paradox. Some people translate 'fear' as 'reverence', and that might be closer to it. I decided to go through the bible and see whether worship involved fear.
In Exodus 19 it describes when God is about to give the law to Moses. It says that God descended onto the mountain in a dense cloud, and that "all the people who were in the camp trembled". In Exodus 24:17 it says "the LORD was like a devouring fire on the top of the mountain in the sight of the people of Israel". I can't find it now - I wish I could, but I read a verse the other day where the people of God were to go before the Lord but they were too terrified and wanted Moses to do it, because they were afraid. These are God's people here, Israel, the body which now includes the church (for you covenant theologians out there). It is interesting to me that God's worship was on his terms, his way, not what was comfortable, little to nothing about the law was 'like everyone else' or 'comfortable'.
In Isaiah 6 when Isaiah has a vision of heaven, even the angels cover their faces from God, and the description of heaven is scary. I mean they burn his lips with a coal for his ordination, come on!
In the gospels Jesus message and God's truth got him killed. And he said lots of scary things about fearing God who can kill the body and the soul.
In Acts 4 the believers pray for boldness because they are persecuted so much. In Acts 5 God strikes Ananias and Sapphira DEAD for commiting a high handed sin against God (or a mortal sin for Catholics). God is scary, there's no getting around it.
Philippians 3:20 it says that 'our citizenship is in Heaven' St. Paul describes the church as a colony of Heaven - something the Philippians understood as the city of Philippi was a Roman colony of Greece. The people were different from the surrounding towns, they spoke Latin, they had Roman culture and Roman food etc. So when Paul describes what we are to be like - it is a description of something unrecognizable to the culture, completely 'un-seeker sensitive' in appearance, but seeker sensitive in love/charity. Likewise Peter's epistle calls us 'aliens in this world'.
Finally in Revelation 4, when St. John is witnessing the worship in Heaven, he describes a crazy Rainbow-colored, lightning-shooting, throne with people chanting a liturgy over and over for all eternity, falling on their faces before God, surrounded by strange scary sounding animals. This is God. This is worship, and it's not hard to imagine that being in the presence of Almighty God worshipping the Creator of the Universe, maybe should fill us with 'fear and trembling' - as we are told by Paul to work out our salvation in. (Phil.2.12)
I guess the thesis of all this is, I think Bill Hybels is wrong, God wants loving people, but still, people who fear him, people called out to be different and strange to those around them. Not churches that are afraid to put up crosses because they might 'offend' people... maybe that offends Jesus, I mean he seemed a little attached to the cross if I remember (forgive me for that off colour joke).
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Baptism
"We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" - Nicene Creed
My entire life I've been taught at our Evangelical Baptist Church that baptism is 'an outward sign, of an inward reality'. I was baptized at 16 and I thought little about it before hand. When I was in the tank I gave my testimony and conversion story and agreed with the whole saved sola fide (faith alone) blah blah, and then the baptismal formula and as I was dunked with the word 'Spirit' ringing in my ears I came out of the water. .... let it be known I'm no charismatic, I have no problem with them at all, but I'm more tempted towards rationalism than anything, I'm a doubter. But when I came out of that water I felt this rush come over me, it was a bit like being shocked, but in a good way. I felt incredibly holy. I was utterly confused and stumbled out of the tank... it did not feel like 'an outward symbol' ...
I am well aware that my personal experience should not be enough to convince anyone, but I find it interesting as I read St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Augustine, and the Nicene creed above all else that the early church - in my limited knowledge - seems like it was overwhelmingly in favour of 'regenerative baptism'. Now if you stumbled onto this blog and you aren't one of my theology friends then I'll explain. Regenerative Baptism is the idea that in baptism your sins are washed away, and forgiven. This is an idea within the East Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and some Anglican and Lutheran churches (note *some).
As the Council of Trent says, "If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema". Anathema means cursed to hell. I'm not sure I would go that far, but those Catholics, they're sticklers for orthodoxy.
I think it's interesting as I've never come close to believing that before, how it seems strangely close to the experience I felt. In St. Gregory's book he likens baptism to the Israelites crossing the Sea of Reeds (or Red Sea for you KJV folks). He says that as the Egyptians were drowned, so our sins are washed away. ... He also says creepy stuff about not being able to sin after baptism, but I'm going to ignore that for this post.
I think it's crazy how we can read those words from Nicea that Baptism is FOR the forgiveness of sins and still disagree with this idea. ... I guess it's like we can read the words "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" and ignore those as well.
I again am not sure where I stand on alot, I know so very little but I feel like I'm learning tons as I go along. I mean just yesterday I argued for believers baptism with Lance lol, but I think this position is alot stronger. Once again I am left with the uncomfortable feeling that in Protestantism the only place left is the teetering, splintering, liberal theology infested, Anglican communion. God save it.
My entire life I've been taught at our Evangelical Baptist Church that baptism is 'an outward sign, of an inward reality'. I was baptized at 16 and I thought little about it before hand. When I was in the tank I gave my testimony and conversion story and agreed with the whole saved sola fide (faith alone) blah blah, and then the baptismal formula and as I was dunked with the word 'Spirit' ringing in my ears I came out of the water. .... let it be known I'm no charismatic, I have no problem with them at all, but I'm more tempted towards rationalism than anything, I'm a doubter. But when I came out of that water I felt this rush come over me, it was a bit like being shocked, but in a good way. I felt incredibly holy. I was utterly confused and stumbled out of the tank... it did not feel like 'an outward symbol' ...
I am well aware that my personal experience should not be enough to convince anyone, but I find it interesting as I read St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Augustine, and the Nicene creed above all else that the early church - in my limited knowledge - seems like it was overwhelmingly in favour of 'regenerative baptism'. Now if you stumbled onto this blog and you aren't one of my theology friends then I'll explain. Regenerative Baptism is the idea that in baptism your sins are washed away, and forgiven. This is an idea within the East Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and some Anglican and Lutheran churches (note *some).
As the Council of Trent says, "If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema". Anathema means cursed to hell. I'm not sure I would go that far, but those Catholics, they're sticklers for orthodoxy.
I think it's interesting as I've never come close to believing that before, how it seems strangely close to the experience I felt. In St. Gregory's book he likens baptism to the Israelites crossing the Sea of Reeds (or Red Sea for you KJV folks). He says that as the Egyptians were drowned, so our sins are washed away. ... He also says creepy stuff about not being able to sin after baptism, but I'm going to ignore that for this post.
I think it's crazy how we can read those words from Nicea that Baptism is FOR the forgiveness of sins and still disagree with this idea. ... I guess it's like we can read the words "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" and ignore those as well.
I again am not sure where I stand on alot, I know so very little but I feel like I'm learning tons as I go along. I mean just yesterday I argued for believers baptism with Lance lol, but I think this position is alot stronger. Once again I am left with the uncomfortable feeling that in Protestantism the only place left is the teetering, splintering, liberal theology infested, Anglican communion. God save it.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Zombie Illustration - Sin/Total Depravity and Congregational Polity
So I was watching 28 weeks later the other day, which is a scary and awesome movie. I was thinking about how the virus spreads and people become zombies or 'infected'. Basically the person gets the virus and suddenly they are changed, they look the same, but then they start flailing and screaming and become filled with rage. They vomit up blood and are altogether disgusting, just looking at them is horrifying and they don't seem human anymore. Their only desires suddenly shift and now the only thing they want to is kill and spread the disease.
I think this is a great picture of sin. The way that it spreads throughout humanity, so that in the end we still 'look' a bit human, just like we still have the Imago Dei - that we are made in the image of God, but it is marred and made all the more repulsive in the light of the power of this infection this sin. We become utterly helpless, infected, hostile to everyone. One Quaker Theologian said 'humanity is united together after the fall only in their mutual enmity with God' and I think that is a great description of the infected. They don't work as a team really, they move together but only in their hunger for death and spreading the infection. This is what I think it is like for God to look at sinful humanity. We would never say that killing an infected zombie is 'wrong' or 'unjust' but actually that it helps rid the world of evil. And it's not the fault of God that we've infected ourselves. So I think this view has helped me ALOT in understanding sin and redemption. But the good news of course is that God cures some of us.
I also was thinking, in that situation that all men and women stand equal before God. All equally infected, or cleansed by God. This made me wonder about the way churches are run. Maybe the Brethren have their polity right? As George Fox says "Why should any man have power over any other man's faith, seeing Christ Himself is the author of it?". Bonhoeffer echoes this sentiment a bit when he describes how before God we stand with either one mediator (Jesus) or none, and that there is no priest or pastor between the Lord and us. So maybe a Congregational church polity isn't that far off.
It's also funny to think when you look at the greatest human acheivement or character, and look at God how quantitatively different they are. So much so that who can honestly make up a system of good works to earn salvation. Our finite works are nothing, in comparison to infinite goodness. Once again I feel Luther was right, and as Paul says 'Faith from first to last'.
I think this is a great picture of sin. The way that it spreads throughout humanity, so that in the end we still 'look' a bit human, just like we still have the Imago Dei - that we are made in the image of God, but it is marred and made all the more repulsive in the light of the power of this infection this sin. We become utterly helpless, infected, hostile to everyone. One Quaker Theologian said 'humanity is united together after the fall only in their mutual enmity with God' and I think that is a great description of the infected. They don't work as a team really, they move together but only in their hunger for death and spreading the infection. This is what I think it is like for God to look at sinful humanity. We would never say that killing an infected zombie is 'wrong' or 'unjust' but actually that it helps rid the world of evil. And it's not the fault of God that we've infected ourselves. So I think this view has helped me ALOT in understanding sin and redemption. But the good news of course is that God cures some of us.
I also was thinking, in that situation that all men and women stand equal before God. All equally infected, or cleansed by God. This made me wonder about the way churches are run. Maybe the Brethren have their polity right? As George Fox says "Why should any man have power over any other man's faith, seeing Christ Himself is the author of it?". Bonhoeffer echoes this sentiment a bit when he describes how before God we stand with either one mediator (Jesus) or none, and that there is no priest or pastor between the Lord and us. So maybe a Congregational church polity isn't that far off.
It's also funny to think when you look at the greatest human acheivement or character, and look at God how quantitatively different they are. So much so that who can honestly make up a system of good works to earn salvation. Our finite works are nothing, in comparison to infinite goodness. Once again I feel Luther was right, and as Paul says 'Faith from first to last'.
Our lives are not our own. an illustration
"In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps." - Proverbs 16:9
I was thinking about this on a walk in the woods yesterday. I think we usually lie to ourselves in a few ways when it comes to life. We either tell ourselves that everything that happens to us is our fault because we are the masters of our fate - as a poet once said, we make our own destiny. I think the other thing people believe is blind fatalism, in that we can fight all we want but in the end we can't change anything, the universe has conspired against us and onward we float toward the eventual waterfall.
I have felt both ways before, and I'm sure I will again. But I've been thinking, maybe Jared/Calvin is right and we are able to choose our own way, but strangely every path we choose was really the only path we could choose anyway. Maybe it's like Rob Whittaker used to tell us, and the will of God is like a 6 lane highway. We can switch lanes, but we're still headed in the same direction.
I have a feeling that our lives are not our own. I feel like I have been given an incredible gift - life. It can feel like a burden sometimes, and maybe it can be so painful because it is so valuable. I don't know if you can have one and not the other. The whole good without evil argument that apologists use.
I used to think we had alot more control over how we lived. I used to think life turned out well for Christians and problems were like mini-fires that pop up every once in a while, and we simply put them out and move on. That's how I used to imagine struggles and trials which was easy, we overcome and move on.
My image now is alot different. I feel like life - maybe I should specify, the Christian life - is like walking through a forest fire. It's not a perfect world with small fires, it's a world of smoke and flames and black burnt out forest that we wander through, and every once in a while a wind blows by and we catch a glimpse of the blue sky, we get a breath of clean air, and we know that one day we will reach the end of this slow walk through the ruins, to a good place once more. It's not that life is like a checklist to go through, or accomplishments to be made, but more like a long long movie, with boring parts, sad parts, and amazing parts. Every beautiful thing we see is an image - a small part of the glory ahead.
So that's what I think life is like. I also think that everyone else in our world is taking a completely different approach. I feel like everyone else is saying for us to just sit down and enjoy the wasteland, and that it's actually the greatest good there is. That we are delusional for thinking there's an end to the forest fire, and that our best chances lay in enjoying life in this fallen place, and that if we go off walking for our whole lives we waste what little hope we have left.
That is my Forest fire illustration. My next post will be a 28 days later/ Zombie illustration.
I was thinking about this on a walk in the woods yesterday. I think we usually lie to ourselves in a few ways when it comes to life. We either tell ourselves that everything that happens to us is our fault because we are the masters of our fate - as a poet once said, we make our own destiny. I think the other thing people believe is blind fatalism, in that we can fight all we want but in the end we can't change anything, the universe has conspired against us and onward we float toward the eventual waterfall.
I have felt both ways before, and I'm sure I will again. But I've been thinking, maybe Jared/Calvin is right and we are able to choose our own way, but strangely every path we choose was really the only path we could choose anyway. Maybe it's like Rob Whittaker used to tell us, and the will of God is like a 6 lane highway. We can switch lanes, but we're still headed in the same direction.
I have a feeling that our lives are not our own. I feel like I have been given an incredible gift - life. It can feel like a burden sometimes, and maybe it can be so painful because it is so valuable. I don't know if you can have one and not the other. The whole good without evil argument that apologists use.
I used to think we had alot more control over how we lived. I used to think life turned out well for Christians and problems were like mini-fires that pop up every once in a while, and we simply put them out and move on. That's how I used to imagine struggles and trials which was easy, we overcome and move on.
My image now is alot different. I feel like life - maybe I should specify, the Christian life - is like walking through a forest fire. It's not a perfect world with small fires, it's a world of smoke and flames and black burnt out forest that we wander through, and every once in a while a wind blows by and we catch a glimpse of the blue sky, we get a breath of clean air, and we know that one day we will reach the end of this slow walk through the ruins, to a good place once more. It's not that life is like a checklist to go through, or accomplishments to be made, but more like a long long movie, with boring parts, sad parts, and amazing parts. Every beautiful thing we see is an image - a small part of the glory ahead.
So that's what I think life is like. I also think that everyone else in our world is taking a completely different approach. I feel like everyone else is saying for us to just sit down and enjoy the wasteland, and that it's actually the greatest good there is. That we are delusional for thinking there's an end to the forest fire, and that our best chances lay in enjoying life in this fallen place, and that if we go off walking for our whole lives we waste what little hope we have left.
That is my Forest fire illustration. My next post will be a 28 days later/ Zombie illustration.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Discipline and Life Change as a result of what we believe
"All living theology grows out of personal experience" - Howard H. Brinton (Friends Theologian)
I think this is a very important idea, that whatever our philosophy of life be, or our theology is, that it should be intrinsically tied to our living. Religion was once defined by a teacher of mine as 'how to live right', and the latin 'religare' means a 'relationship with God'. Both of these definitions work together in my opinion.
Some might say that my theology changes my life as it's generally all I talk about, and the fact that I am hated at brock for it. However I must say that I have so much to live out in my faith. I thirst for discipline, and the ability to act upon what I know is right. I know Walmart uses child labour and that Shane Claiborne is right about most things, but at the same time, I don't seem to believe what I preach enough to actually act on it and drive somewhere else. This isn't just about theology either, take the environment. My brother works as a Forest Ranger guy and his wife is in the Ministry of Natural Resources job circuit as well, I've read alot of theology about ecology and how we should treat the earth better. I mean who thinks we should ruin the earth? no one. So I support the Green Party in debates lots of times, and defend extra costs spent to protect nature, but what do I do? Drive an SUV by myself with Premium Gas, and then vote conservative because they lower our taxes. What an awful contradiction. There are plenty of other sins I could go into but I'll keep this G-rated.
I am fascinated as I study the Anabaptists, the Mennonite Brethren, the Quakers and the Low Church denominations alot. After studying the high church Anglican/Catholic/Orthodox theology, it is like a breath of fresh air - or maybe just air that I am more comfortable with. I am amazed at them because they act so strongly on what they believe. They don't go to war, they live completely simple lives, away from society, in a Christian family, and abstain from pretty much everything. Many of them even in the 17th centuries like the Quakers refused baptism because they believed wholly in Christ and that he didn't need 'a sprinkling of cold water' -as one Quaker said- to save them. Now this isn't shocking to most, but just look at this debate between Voltaire (Catholic/Deist) and a Quaker: http://www2.gol.com/users/quakers/voltaire_and_the_quakers.htm
It was believed (and still is even by some protestant denominations) that for someone not to be baptized was for them not to be a Christian. Voltaire gets horrified about the fact that this holy man who loves the Lord hasn't been baptized. The Quaker defends himself and pretty much pwns Voltaire in the end using scripture.
Where this ties into the topic again, is the fact that they believed something strongly about God, that is not 'served by human hands' as Paul says in Acts 17, and even though many said they were in fear of Hell, they stuck firm and trusted God. I desire in my own life the strength to live that way. To be simple, and to know what is right and do it. To live right in every aspect, healthwise, schoolwise, jobwise, etc.
I've currently reordered my own values and tried a bit and put alot more emphasis on Christ, and not worry so much about my own accomplishments and success as just being satisfied in his goodness. I know that sounds stupidly trite and 'spiritual' but actually I think that all 3 of you reading this might disagree with this choice, and maybe it is wrong, I don't know (just trusting my inner light as the Friends say). But if I'm worried about school or stressed out from a long day and I have homework or something, I just sit down and pray or relax or read my bible instead. So I might do worse in school, but I am much more at peace, and I am constantly remembering that my entire life is in God's hands and he will lead me wherever I go, and that I should be still and know that he is God, instead of trying to prove myself and earn my own self-worth from my meager accomplishments. Maybe I'm just 'Christianizing' laziness, but I don't know, and maybe I'm totally wrong, but right now it is the path I am taking, and in this moment I look to my brothers and sisters the Anabaptists and remember that my religion is about living right, and being a Friend of God.
I think this is a very important idea, that whatever our philosophy of life be, or our theology is, that it should be intrinsically tied to our living. Religion was once defined by a teacher of mine as 'how to live right', and the latin 'religare' means a 'relationship with God'. Both of these definitions work together in my opinion.
Some might say that my theology changes my life as it's generally all I talk about, and the fact that I am hated at brock for it. However I must say that I have so much to live out in my faith. I thirst for discipline, and the ability to act upon what I know is right. I know Walmart uses child labour and that Shane Claiborne is right about most things, but at the same time, I don't seem to believe what I preach enough to actually act on it and drive somewhere else. This isn't just about theology either, take the environment. My brother works as a Forest Ranger guy and his wife is in the Ministry of Natural Resources job circuit as well, I've read alot of theology about ecology and how we should treat the earth better. I mean who thinks we should ruin the earth? no one. So I support the Green Party in debates lots of times, and defend extra costs spent to protect nature, but what do I do? Drive an SUV by myself with Premium Gas, and then vote conservative because they lower our taxes. What an awful contradiction. There are plenty of other sins I could go into but I'll keep this G-rated.
I am fascinated as I study the Anabaptists, the Mennonite Brethren, the Quakers and the Low Church denominations alot. After studying the high church Anglican/Catholic/Orthodox theology, it is like a breath of fresh air - or maybe just air that I am more comfortable with. I am amazed at them because they act so strongly on what they believe. They don't go to war, they live completely simple lives, away from society, in a Christian family, and abstain from pretty much everything. Many of them even in the 17th centuries like the Quakers refused baptism because they believed wholly in Christ and that he didn't need 'a sprinkling of cold water' -as one Quaker said- to save them. Now this isn't shocking to most, but just look at this debate between Voltaire (Catholic/Deist) and a Quaker: http://www2.gol.com/users/quakers/voltaire_and_the_quakers.htm
It was believed (and still is even by some protestant denominations) that for someone not to be baptized was for them not to be a Christian. Voltaire gets horrified about the fact that this holy man who loves the Lord hasn't been baptized. The Quaker defends himself and pretty much pwns Voltaire in the end using scripture.
Where this ties into the topic again, is the fact that they believed something strongly about God, that is not 'served by human hands' as Paul says in Acts 17, and even though many said they were in fear of Hell, they stuck firm and trusted God. I desire in my own life the strength to live that way. To be simple, and to know what is right and do it. To live right in every aspect, healthwise, schoolwise, jobwise, etc.
I've currently reordered my own values and tried a bit and put alot more emphasis on Christ, and not worry so much about my own accomplishments and success as just being satisfied in his goodness. I know that sounds stupidly trite and 'spiritual' but actually I think that all 3 of you reading this might disagree with this choice, and maybe it is wrong, I don't know (just trusting my inner light as the Friends say). But if I'm worried about school or stressed out from a long day and I have homework or something, I just sit down and pray or relax or read my bible instead. So I might do worse in school, but I am much more at peace, and I am constantly remembering that my entire life is in God's hands and he will lead me wherever I go, and that I should be still and know that he is God, instead of trying to prove myself and earn my own self-worth from my meager accomplishments. Maybe I'm just 'Christianizing' laziness, but I don't know, and maybe I'm totally wrong, but right now it is the path I am taking, and in this moment I look to my brothers and sisters the Anabaptists and remember that my religion is about living right, and being a Friend of God.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
The Anabaptists: From the Radical Reformation to Radically Dogmatic
I was thinking about the History of the Anabaptists today. The Church I was raised in and the school I was taught in were both Mennonite/Anabaptist. When I read history about them it is hillarious for me to categorize them as 'The Radical Reformation' - Radical? ... a church that excommunicates someone for dancing seems a little old fashioned to me, but such is the historical shift. I think it's funny to read about the first Anabaptists and how they set up this polygamous theocracy in Munster, believing that once they had enough babies and reached 144 000 people, they would be raptured and the Kingdom of God would be at hand. I know people who have been kicked out of Anabaptist churches for getting pregnant, and I can barely imagine one where people were constantly copulating in hopes of bringing about God's will.
Menno Simons I guess was quite different from those at Munster, so maybe that ties in a bit. As I read his writing I find nothing that shocking; in fact about 70% of his writing is just direct quotes from Scripture and the other 30% is about how Catholics are wrong about everything... so maybe there is a bit of continuity between the Mennonites then and now lol. The only shocking thing I found was that he quotes the Apocrypha, right next to scripture and makes no distinction. I think that fact would scare a few of the grannies at the local MB church.
As cynical as I can be about the Mennonites, they do have a great history. I will always remember the stories my grandmother handed down to me about how the Ukranian Orthodox and the Mennonites used to actually befriend each other at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution and how they escaped to Canada with money sown in their clothes and had miracles occur where they narrowly escaped guards and jumped off trains and hid in fields, all to preserve their faith. Maybe that's why my grandma was so pissed when I looked at Catholicism, it's like a slap in the face to all of my heritage. It's wild how movements change though. Nowadays the Mennonites are strangely dogmatic in their anti-dogmatism. So they claim to have no creed, but if someone brings up Just War theory they call them heretics, or if someone mentions infant baptism, they are on the side of the Anti-Christ. Maybe when you are persecuted by everyone (like they were in the Reformation), you choose what things you'll die for, and in essence become dogmatic about those things. It's probably hard to die for the freedom to choose to believe whatever you want. It's a bit airy.
I did find it funny though that one Reformation program said that the Anabaptists promoted 3 things which were intolerable to 16th century culture:
1. Freedom to choose your own religion, 2. Not drinking alcohol, 3. Not beating your wife. lol good ol' Anabaptists
Menno Simons I guess was quite different from those at Munster, so maybe that ties in a bit. As I read his writing I find nothing that shocking; in fact about 70% of his writing is just direct quotes from Scripture and the other 30% is about how Catholics are wrong about everything... so maybe there is a bit of continuity between the Mennonites then and now lol. The only shocking thing I found was that he quotes the Apocrypha, right next to scripture and makes no distinction. I think that fact would scare a few of the grannies at the local MB church.
As cynical as I can be about the Mennonites, they do have a great history. I will always remember the stories my grandmother handed down to me about how the Ukranian Orthodox and the Mennonites used to actually befriend each other at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution and how they escaped to Canada with money sown in their clothes and had miracles occur where they narrowly escaped guards and jumped off trains and hid in fields, all to preserve their faith. Maybe that's why my grandma was so pissed when I looked at Catholicism, it's like a slap in the face to all of my heritage. It's wild how movements change though. Nowadays the Mennonites are strangely dogmatic in their anti-dogmatism. So they claim to have no creed, but if someone brings up Just War theory they call them heretics, or if someone mentions infant baptism, they are on the side of the Anti-Christ. Maybe when you are persecuted by everyone (like they were in the Reformation), you choose what things you'll die for, and in essence become dogmatic about those things. It's probably hard to die for the freedom to choose to believe whatever you want. It's a bit airy.
I did find it funny though that one Reformation program said that the Anabaptists promoted 3 things which were intolerable to 16th century culture:
1. Freedom to choose your own religion, 2. Not drinking alcohol, 3. Not beating your wife. lol good ol' Anabaptists
Pastoral Issues
I've been wondering lately about the whole thing in Evangelicalism where people pick a church by pastor and kind of go from church to church untill they find the best one. I kind of do this as well (though I do study the theology lightly behind each of the churches). I wonder about the role of a pastor is in Protestant churches. The Priesthood of all believers kind of destroys everything Paul says about Bishops and Deacons and Pastors at the church, and having a Congregational polity kind of destroys the idea of God placing leaders in the church to lead the people in the right way, even if it is the unpopular way.
My Pastor and I are a bit at odds lately for lots of complex reasons but I feel like I'll probably end up just finding another church and go there. But there's another problem. The closest church to my house is the 1st Presbyterian church, which is led by a female minister who barely speaks english and preaches at a sunday school level, the music sucks, the pews are rock hard, and there's probably a congregation of 35 people mostly over 60. But because I am my own pope in essence, I can choose to drive 20 minutes to the 'cool' non-denominational church in the town, with friends my age who attend, good preaching and good music. But then again, why should I judge on those characteristics, maybe I should go back to the Nicene creed and find a church that is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, well I don't know if any 'Holy' churches exist these days... Ok so lets remove Holy and go with Apostolic, Catholic and One. I could go Catholic ... but then I'd have to throw away my bible. I could go Anglican... but then I'd have to throw away God (liberal Anglicans in Canada). I could go Orthodox... but then I'd have to learn Ukranian or Greek and make up a fake family tree.
So maybe I'll just give up on theology all together and go Mennonite Brethren...
My Pastor and I are a bit at odds lately for lots of complex reasons but I feel like I'll probably end up just finding another church and go there. But there's another problem. The closest church to my house is the 1st Presbyterian church, which is led by a female minister who barely speaks english and preaches at a sunday school level, the music sucks, the pews are rock hard, and there's probably a congregation of 35 people mostly over 60. But because I am my own pope in essence, I can choose to drive 20 minutes to the 'cool' non-denominational church in the town, with friends my age who attend, good preaching and good music. But then again, why should I judge on those characteristics, maybe I should go back to the Nicene creed and find a church that is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, well I don't know if any 'Holy' churches exist these days... Ok so lets remove Holy and go with Apostolic, Catholic and One. I could go Catholic ... but then I'd have to throw away my bible. I could go Anglican... but then I'd have to throw away God (liberal Anglicans in Canada). I could go Orthodox... but then I'd have to learn Ukranian or Greek and make up a fake family tree.
So maybe I'll just give up on theology all together and go Mennonite Brethren...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)