-
Pacifism and the Bin Laden Killing
May 16, 2011 | 63 comments
-
Health Care: The Religious Question
December 16, 2009 | 59 comments
Special Report
Political Gaps Strain Churches
No end in sight to the growing political rift between laity and clergy in oldline Protestantism.
In a society already ideologically polarized, many believers go to church in hopes of a respite from conflict. But recent surveys show similar political disparities straining the Christian community. There are huge gaps in political affiliation between clergy and laity, especially in the oldline Protestant denominations. The divide between oldline and evangelical Protestant leaders remains exceedingly wide. The much publicized evangelical left, purporting to bridge that divide with a fusion of evangelical theology and liberal politics, remains statistically insignificant.
It is little wonder that debilitating conflicts have wracked the oldline denominations, contributing to the loss of one-third of their membership over the past 45 years. Oldline church bodies typically depend upon the cooperative endeavors of clergy and lay leadership. But those two leadership groups are pointed in different directions politically and ideologically.
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is the best documented example. The denomination’s research office recently released the results of an exhaustive survey of 3,500 PCUSA members and leaders. Presbyterians in the pews leaned one way politically: 46 percent identified themselves as Republicans, while only 31 percent were Democrats. But pastors leaned sharply in the opposite direction: 23 percent Republicans versus 50 percent Democrats. Specialized clergy, among whom are many top PCUSA officials, were even more lopsided in their partisan allegiances. Only 13 percent were Republicans, as against 65 percent Democrats.
Comparing a 2008 survey of “Clergy Voices” by Public Religion Research with 2008 polling of church members by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reveals similar clergy-laity gaps in other denominations. In the United Church of Christ (UCC), a stunning 77 percent of the ministers call themselves Democrats; only 51 percent of UCC members do the same. Among Episcopal and Evangelical Lutheran (ELCA) clergy, Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3:1. Yet Episcopal and ELCA members are divided almost down the middle.
The United Methodist Church and the American Baptist Churches are the only oldline denominations where pastors and members are even close to being on the same page politically. In both cases, clergy and laity show fairly even splits between Democrats and Republicans. Thus, at least politically, these two denominations are truly “mainline.”
Where political diversity is an accepted fact, clergy and lay leaders will more often understand the futility of trying to impose anyone’s political agenda as the mission of the church. Church unity will have to come through the teachings and work of Christ. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the United Methodists and the American Baptists are the two oldline denominations that seem most likely to hold firm in traditional Christian doctrines.
The situation is different in other oldline denominations, where overwhelmingly left-leaning clergy often imagine themselves to be “prophets” leading their people into a promised land of social justice and world peace. Clergy elites may possess the institutional power to impose this political agenda; however, by doing so they instigate a rift with their church members. To the extent that politics becomes a focus in church life, the divide grows deeper and more damaging. Peter Smith of the Louisville Courier-Journal described the situation succinctly: “Red pew, blue pulpit.”
Evangelical denominations are another world: red pew, redder pulpit. Evangelical ministers are far more heavily Republican than the oldline clergy are Democratic. According to the Paul B. Henry Institute at Calvin College, Republicans outnumber Democrats by an astounding 66-4 percent among Southern Baptist pastors. In the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the margin is 64-4. In the Assemblies of God, it is 74 percent Republicans versus a mere 1 percent Democrats.
There do seem to be a significant number of independents among these evangelical clergy, but Democrats are practically non-existent. It may be that the Democratic Party’s identification with the cultural left — on issues such as abortion and homosexuality — has become so prominent that a Democratic identification is no longer tenable for most evangelical clergy. Evangelical left figures such as the Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners may make a media splash; however, they have few imitators in evangelical pulpits.
One finds Democrats in evangelical pews, but they are a distinct minority. The proportion of Democratic members ranged from 28 percent in the Assemblies of God to 37 percent among Southern Baptists. Republicans held clear majorities in all three evangelical denominations.
Thus it seems most evangelical pastors — unlike most oldline pastors — are preaching to congregations that lean in the same direction as them politically. But they would do well to remember that perhaps a third of those in the pews hold a different partisan loyalty. Even in a solidly conservative evangelical church, it would be unwise for the pastor to emphasize a political agenda. Church unity there, as in the oldline churches, will have to come through the teachings and work of Jesus Christ.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (77) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Alan F.H. Wisdom
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/24/political-gaps-strain-churches
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Alan Brooks| 2.24.10 @ 7:41PM
Join the Catholic Church
Bill| 2.25.10 @ 10:29PM
I have a we little problem with the whole Pope thing. I also do not appreciate having to pray through people to get to G_d. Sorry, I am Lutheran to the CORE, not ELCA
Paul Ashley| 2.24.10 @ 8:01AM
The final paragraph begs the reader toa sk what the author considers to be pushing a "political agenda" from the pulpit. These days, any pronouncement on issues of behavior in comflict with Biblical teaching is considered to be political. I would argue that this is just the Left's way of forcing churches to "shut up". The only subjects that should be termed "political" should be declarations form the pulpit in support of specific politicians and policies. Tangential references to a policy's relation to Biblical teaching is not "political".
Copyleft| 2.24.10 @ 8:18AM
If they're NOT advocating world peace and social justice, why are they allowed to call themselves Christian? Isn't that false advertising?
In any case, this diversity (or "schism," as the author somewhat sensationally puts it) is a good thing. Churches have been facing this problem since Galileo: they can modernize their teachings to accommodate the progress of humanity, or they can be discarded as irrelevant.
The smart ones will survive. The reactionaries will die off and be forgotten, as they deserve.
Ryan| 2.24.10 @ 8:53AM
It's not that advocating world peace and social justice, it's how they define those terms and how much they go against scripture in defining them.
First, it's their path to those terms that is questionable, because they don't reach them through the Gospel - that man sinned, God became man, dwelt among us, and gave Himself as a sacrifice to restore our relationship.
Second, Homosexuality and killing the unborn are pretty expressively forbidden in scripture as sins. Many preachers in the pulpit are starting to have a hard time acknowledging ANY sin.
Third, it's the misconception that the church must "modernize their teachings to accomodate the progress of humanity." That statement is a VAST misunderstanding of Christianity, which teaches that humanity does NOT progress unless it acknowledges God as Creator and Christ as Savior - that the Ultimate Good is what we should ultimately seek, and that Good - and God - by their very nature, don't change and don't need to, because He's already Perfect.
In other words, the Gospel doesn't change. Man is still a sinner in need of a saviour.
Paul D| 2.24.10 @ 9:24AM
Copyleft,
Since you are not keeping up with current events, you might try actually reading the article for edification. As the author notes, it is the Liberal churches that are dying off, very rapidly. The smart conservative ones are surviving.
Copyleft| 2.24.10 @ 9:57AM
Really? How many pro-slavery churches (and there were plenty) survived past Reconstruction?
How many churches kept up the drumbeat of "women should be silent and submissive" after the 19th Amendment passed?
And how many outspoken preachers are condemning interracial marriage these days?
You can keep up with society or you can quietly change your doctrines and pretend everything's fine... but civilization marches on, with or without you.
Ryan| 2.24.10 @ 10:40AM
You're only partially correct - look at attendance numbers.
"Mainline" churches are NOT growing. Why not?
Doctor Right| 2.24.10 @ 2:34PM
Civilization marches on...Goose-stepping all the way...And you and your "Progressive" buddies will be leading the parade.
Big Leo| 2.24.10 @ 3:05PM
I'm retired after thirty years of service as a conservative United Methodist pastor. I've watched the liberal denominations and liberal pastors preside over decline and failure for my entire career while the ones you call 'reactionary' grow and prosper. I think your definitions are wrong. What is old and reactionary is the idea that big government and Socialist programs are good for society. What is new and revolutionary is what always has been so-- the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the Christian and Jewish emphasis on high individual responsibility as part of a corporate whole is a much better social model than that proposed by 'nanny state' liberals.
Your idea of the past is as distorted as your idea of the future. Neither has any roots in reality.
MikeBee| 2.24.10 @ 7:01PM
Big Leo,
I agree. What changed dramatically and caused preachers and priests to lean far to the left was the philosophical unpinnings of what they learned in biblical colleges/seminaries. For the past fifty or sixty years, those who preach in various Christian churches have been concentrating on learning Immanuel Kant's and Karl Marx's philosophies. Prior to this, preachers through the ages learned Plato's and Aristotle's philosophical teachings. In the Catholic Church, theological studies were also infused with the writings of Thomas Aquinas and of Augustine. But today's preachers threw all of this out, and concentrated on learning the philosophies of Kant and Marx. Largely, this was done in the name of being modern and relevant.
It is from this philosophical underpinning that such liberal nonsense is preached in pulpits all throughout the U.S. Also, the liberal elite hailing from ivy league colleges made the same changes, focusing on the writings of Kant and Marx as their primary basis of thought. This is the reason that so many of today's elite believe in the liberal nonsense to which they ascribe. It is long past time to bring reason and real learning back into our seminaries and ivy league colleges. Fortunately, the common folk are far more able to grasp reality, and to know what is right, indicated by their leaning to the right.
jd| 2.24.10 @ 3:31PM
Just look at the conservative Catholic dioceses in the US. They are THRIVING, as is my Catholic church, which is headed by a priest that adheres to the Magisterium. Just take a look at the Diocese of LA and you'll see the state of the Catholic Church in politically correct dioceses. You are an oaf.
MikeBee| 2.24.10 @ 8:14PM
JD,
I agree wholeheartedly! My very traditionally orthodox (yet, fundamentalist-leaning) church has more candidates studying for the priesthood than any parish I can think of in recent memory. Where God is alive in His church, not modern ideas, His churches prosper.......
jpamy| 2.26.10 @ 8:25AM
"Adherence to the Magisterium" is key, JD. Proper worship of God and solid, consistent instruction for the faithful is what the laity hungers for.
Understanding that the Truth is not relative and that we need to conform ourselves to it and not alter the 'truth' to the way we want to live our lives is liberating.
Also, a lot of Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament... And MikeBee, I wonder if we are in the same parish, we have more than a handful in the seminaries right now, too!
blackwatch| 2.24.10 @ 5:23PM
Slavery during Jesus' time? yes.
Male dominance in society during Jesus' time? yes.
prohibition of interracial marriage during Jesus' time? yes.
The times have changed, God has not.
Bill| 2.24.10 @ 9:49AM
Your comment shows that you do not know the message of the Scriptures. Jesus said there would be wars and rumors of wars, that his message would separate not unify, that the poor would always be with us. The central thought of Scriptures from Genisis through Revelation is that one must accept Christ as the only means of salvation. All else is secondary. That being said it is the Christian community who respond to the needs of the world. That response comes from knowing that in doing so they are serving Christ and following his example for living. Love and Truth, they are pesky items that get into the way of others who like to take things out of context.
alarm1201| 2.24.10 @ 9:56AM
Copy,
You are showing your ignorance of church history. Starting with the liberalization of the church in the late 1800 under the guise of Biblical Criticism to today's modern Christian Counsel of Churches - the conservative church has always prevailed and always will.
The mainline denominations such as the Congregationalists, Methodists and Presbyterians who took the liberal positions shriveled up and virtually died while the conservative fundamentalist churches thrived and continue until this day.
People do not go to church to learn about "social justice" or "world peace" they go to learn about God and the two, as taught by modern liberals, are mutually exclusive.
Doctor Right| 2.24.10 @ 2:36PM
You haven't the faintest clue as to what Christianity means...
...But there's still time.
(But here's a clue: Christianity has nothing to do with modern notions of "social justice")
jd| 2.24.10 @ 3:51PM
AMEN!
jpamy| 2.26.10 @ 8:28AM
except if by "social justice" you mean "solidarity" with the suffering and "subsidiary" whenever it is possible ;)
Andy| 2.24.10 @ 3:00PM
http://www.catholic.com/librar.....oversy.asp
George| 2.24.10 @ 8:50AM
To discuss Christianity from a political perspective is a waste.
The point of Christian Faith is to find Salvation in Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross.
Any so called Christian movement, church, organization, etc. that guides its flock in any other direction is devoid of righteousness. "Unto Cesar what is Cesar's and unto God what is God's."
Salvation begs surrender not political activism!
Ryan| 2.24.10 @ 8:56AM
I disagree (unless you see that what I'm saying below doesn't quite fit what you are talking about).
My religion MUST affect my political thinking - because Christianity - and any religion - claims to answer the more ultimate questions of life that go beyond politics and must affect EVERYTHING that we do and say and believe.
If my religion doesn't affect my beliefs on freedom, or abortion, or taxes, or my relationship to the state in any way, how can I say that I truly believe in my religion?
Big Leo| 2.24.10 @ 3:07PM
You are partially correct, and you point out a major problem with the relationship between politics and religion. The danger is not that we allow our faith to inform our politics, but that we will confuse the second with the first. Bringing a religious perspective to our politics or any other area of our lives is always good. Allowing any influence in the other direction is invariably deadly to the life of faith.
George| 2.24.10 @ 9:20AM
Ryan
I do not disagree that Salvation will indeed alter ones "political thinking" as you state. It was the reverse I intended to point to.
Salvation can not be achieved through political or any other worldly endeavors. (Why state-ism fails.)
Christian Salvation begs surrender to faith in Christ!
Therein lies the mystery of the Christian Faith!
Please, I invite all, to meditate on the comparison between "belief in religion" vs Absolute Surrender to that religion's core mystery.
Ryan| 2.24.10 @ 9:41AM
On this, I heartily agree. I think we were driving at two different points, and I was making sure, as it were.
George D| 2.24.10 @ 10:55AM
Not a problem Ryan. Thanks for helping me to clarify.
Richard Baker| 2.24.10 @ 9:21AM
So the worship of God is secondary to a political identity? It will be interesting when God Himself asks those questions. The reason the mainline denominations are in turmoil is because politics have supplanted the worship of the Lord. Simple as that. Liberation theology doesn't have a place for God.
Alarm1201| 2.24.10 @ 9:58AM
Exactly liberal churches have exalted man in the place of God, therefore they will die a slow painful death.
Eric Rasmusen| 2.24.10 @ 9:23AM
The article says that 77% of UCC pastors are Democrat. That seems awfully low. Is it because most of the other 23% didn't answer, or think the Democrats are too right-wing? I'm serious. It's hard to conceive of 23% of UCC pastors voting for McCain or Bush.
An interesting extra angle for the article would be to compare the fractions of atheists who are Democrat vs. Republican. As I recall, atheism is one of the best indicators of being a Democrat, especially if you condition on another huge indicator, black/nonblack.
(3) Your article is good because of all the facts, but the facts and the point don't match. It looks as if the evangelical pastors' politics matches their congregations just as badly as the liberal pastors' (tho you don't give the evangelical congregations' politics). The difference is that evangelical pastors plausibly base their politics on issues related to religion (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, pornography, public prayer) and liberal pastors don't.
Tony in Central PA| 2.24.10 @ 11:27AM
If the people sitting in the pews are consistently being told their church needs to be more like the world, why should they continue attending ? Christianity will always be at odds with the world, if it isn't, then its not authentic.
I recently read a book, " The New Faithful ", that explored this issue decisively. There is a growing hunger for orthodoxy among young believers. Maybe its a backlash against things that got going in the 60's. In any event, it seems to be a recognition of the hollowness of this world's answers to life's biggest questions.
Dan| 2.24.10 @ 11:43AM
Copyleft would likely make a wonderful apparatchik, cramming homosexuality, same-sex marriages, confiscation of wealth, and the rest of the leftist agenda down our throats in the name of Christian charity, tolerance, and love.
But, you shall know them by their fruits, which has been the destruction of the family, community, and Christian culture in this country. Quite possibly Copyleft is a political leftist, too, whose ilk were responsible for murdering of over 100 million innocent souls during the 20th century, all in the name of progress, of course.
Darragh| 2.24.10 @ 12:44PM
"Keeping up with society" is precisely what is destroying these churches.
The Cong/UCC church in my small New England town recently closed after more than 150 years. I am a Catholic, but briefly attending an "Eco Christianity" course at the church showed me why. At the first meeting, the minister noted that: a. Christianity was "just a sect" b. there was no Triune God and c. Christ was a prophet among many and d. some sort of universal life force within the self was the real God. I later read that this minister had signed a letter in support of partial birth abortion.
The reason the more traditional churches are gaining membership is that the world has gone nuts and we need Christ's changeless truths more than ever. If you listened to the media, you'd think no one was at church, but the masses I go to are crowded--and there are plenty of young people, often more conservative than the middle- aged.
Enough is enough-- we need to be courageous, because there is evil in our culture and it has infiltrated the churches through relativism. The way our country and culture are going, our children will need real courage--and it is not to be found in the superficiality, narcissism and nihilism of popular culture.
Pingback| 2.24.10 @ 1:16PM
ADF Alliance Alert » Political gaps strain churches links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Margie| 2.24.10 @ 1:32PM
If it were a perfect world, and us Christians were perfect, I believe there wouldn't be any need for any denominations at all.
But it isn't, and we're not.
My opinion is that denominations divide. Else why would there be any?
The bottom line is whether or not you know Christ. It takes a humbling of the will and a bowing of the knees (both of them), and a face to the ground, and a begging for His mercy and Grace.
Then, all will be well if you serve Him as best you know how, according to His will.
His Holy Spirit is what unites us human beings. Nothing else can do it.
We're too lost.
"But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 15:57.
astonerii| 2.24.10 @ 2:08PM
I think the problem is that people who obtain positions of power have a tendency to become corrupted by the power, thinking that they know better than the simpletons beneath them. That is why the trend progressive.
Doctor Right| 2.24.10 @ 2:30PM
For Christians, the solution to all this nonsense is simple:
Abandon your denominational church, and rely on scriptural authority, not man-made gobbeldy-gook
There is simply NO basis in scripture for the centralized, denominational churches. In fact, scripture explicitly warns against relying on a centralized authority for worship, because if the central authority goes apostate, it can drag the entire congregation with it, and this concern has been validated.
This doesn't mean "Don't go to Church". It means find a Church that relies on the scriptures for issues pertaining to doctrine and guidance, and NOT on creeds, concordances, missives, or catechisms.
Ryan| 2.24.10 @ 3:04PM
You may not understand some creeds and catechisms. I attend (though am a Reformed Baptist) of a Presbyterian - PCA church. They use the Westminster Confession as their guide.
It's well-thought-out, well-reasoned, and Biblically sound, with Biblical references for practically every line. Same with the catechism, which are VERY useful teaching tools in asking basic questions of life.
EVERY church has something similar - guidelines, whether officially written down or not - of what that church basically believes about scripture. They may be pretty basic, but, if you attend any church in the US, you'll find something - even a basic "statement of faith."
Doctor Right| 2.24.10 @ 3:43PM
I respectfully disagree.
If you have scripture, why do you need an extra "Confession"..?? Or a "Catechism"..?
That doesn't make sense.
And every Church DOES NOT have "something similar". The one I attend doesn't. Our "statement of faith" is the Bible. Period.
Ryan| 2.25.10 @ 8:49AM
It's not "extra," it's "supplemental." If you actually read Westminster, or the London Confession, or anything similar, you'll find it useful.
How does your church outline its beliefs on the Trinity, or Baptism, or the End Times, or the authority of scripture? Is there an agreement or church charter? What about hiring new pastors? Do you ask them "do you believe the Bible?" and leave it at that, or do you get more specific?
As I said, there may not be an "official" outline or something like Westminster, but there are likely certain items about scripture within your church that are either required of members or held up as a standard that your church states, "this is what we believe that scripture teaches."
It's NOT a bad thing, because there are so many debatable topics.
JP| 2.24.10 @ 3:11PM
Doctor Right,
I think millions of American Protestants have taken up on you advice. Currently there are over 33,000 different denominations in North America alone. Each church believes it posseses The Truth. If a member of one particular church strongly disagrees with its minister, he/she simply forms thier own Bible based church. They all cannot be right.
Ryan| 2.25.10 @ 8:52AM
An overgeneralization.
There aren't actually all that many "just-us" type churches out there. Most of my evangelical brethren - who are probably Armenian in some way or form - would highly disagree with my Calvinist views, but would NOT deny my salvation.
Denominational lines - particularly now - do not necessarily deny the validity of another denomination - most evangelicals will tell you that if you believe in certain basic truths - sin, Christ's redemptive work on the Cross and resurrection, salvation in Christ alone - then you're in good company, and the rest is details.
Tony in Central PA| 2.24.10 @ 3:41PM
One small problem with this approach : the Biblical canon probably wasn't completed until sometime around the end of the fourth century. Two questions : 1) what did Christians do before this time ? and 2) who produced the canon ?
Doctor Right| 2.24.10 @ 3:47PM
Based on your response, I'm not sure if you'e referring to the collection of the scriptural letters (The Gospels, the Letters of Paul, etc) into one book ("The Bible"), or the drafting of the letters themselves.
If the latter, your assertion is incorrect. The written accounts of the Gospels were drafted within 30-70 years of Christ's crucifixion in 33 A.D.
Additionally, what Christian's "did" before the Bible was collected as a single book was to worship Christ. The letters were available. The accounts in the Gospels were known. It wasn't a secret.
JP| 2.24.10 @ 4:27PM
Doctor Right,
There were literally thousands of documents, letters, so-called Gospels, etc... floating around Europe, Asia Minor, as well as North Africa during this period. The 4 Gospels were not available or even known to most of the small, scattered churches. Fewer than 20% of the Roman Empire had people who could read Latin let alone write fluently in it; even fewer who could translate the orginal Greek and Hebrew texts, and fewer still who could translate what is known as the New Testament into the language of Gaul, Celtic dialects, the different semetic languages, and the North African dialects. Many of the ordained priests had only a rudimentary education. Most all of the rubrics of the early church were set down by either the Apostles or thier disciples, or those disciples disciples.
To make matters worse there was already strong dissension within the ranks of priests and scholars concerning the nature of Christ, and what it meant in the new dispensation. It is not too difficult to imagine isolated churches taking up thier ideas concerning this new religion. On top of that Rome officially persecuted Chirstians for centuries. Much of what went on, occured in secret. When the Bishops finally were able to meet and decide the texts of the new canon, it took years for a consensus to be reached.
It is quite a miracle that the early Church didn't disintergrate into factions. The only thing that kept it together was a faith in a centralized authority that could be traced to the Apostles and therefore to Christ Himself. And without a Canon to guide the Church, the organization leaned heavily upon what was taught and handed down to the Apoostles and the first Evangelists. Some of this teaching can be found in one of the earliest Christian catechisms known as the Didache (written between 60AD and 120 AD). In it lays the teachings about baptism, prayer, the liturgy, and the Eucharist. These very basic forms of instructions sustained the Church through the its turbulent beginnings.
Tony in Central PA| 2.24.10 @ 5:59PM
Dr. Right, JP provided a pretty clear thumbnail of early church history. Like you, I tend to believe that the New Testament was probably written within 30 - 70 years after the Crucifixtion. I know there is evidence that some of Paul's letters might be from the early 50's. The problem, as JP points out, is that the early Christians needed a way to determine which of the many writings were legitimate. For instance, why don't we have a Gospel of Thomas as part of the canon ? By what authority were the decisions made to determine what was canonical, what was apocryphal and what was heretical ?
A worthy historical perspective can be found in Eusebius' " History of the Church " as a starting point.
Ag Schaeffer| 4.15.10 @ 4:47PM
So, I started life a Catholic. Went Lutheran because I didn't believe in praying to Mary, Tom, Dick or Harry. "No one comes to the Father except through me." so now ELCA has adopted the gay agenda and will allow ordination of gay people. So now where do I go for the truth to be with a community of believers in the Holy Word.
jr| 2.24.10 @ 4:15PM
Easy to see this coming. Observed it as far back as 1963 with MLK's March on Washington. Same as today; laity was considerably more restrained in giving their hard earned bucks away. Proved to pan out, we still are giving it away, with thanks from relatively few. But Omama is taking it away.
prehist51| 2.24.10 @ 4:52PM
Is it not ironic that those that so desperately want 'world peace' and 'social justice', fight so furiously against the one thing that can and will bring 'world peace' and 'social justice'. That one thing: belief and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of your life and seeing all worldly things through the prism and filter of God's Word, the Bible.
George| 2.24.10 @ 5:20PM
I respectfully beg to differ regarding "bring 'world peace' and 'social justice'".
Acceptance of Christ as Savior brings peace to my soul. The storm still rages all 'round, 'tis the peace within that leads to eternal joy.
herzog| 2.25.10 @ 12:46AM
I am a Prebyterian. I love the traditional service and the music. I support that we are inclusive. What bothers me is a call from the church to political action or the church counting me as a supporter of certain policies based on my membership. Political action is generally coercive. I'm not going to get to heaven by supporting policies that apply force on others. The objects of government's coercive action aren't saved either. Sure, my political choices are affected by my relationship with God, but I shouldn't feel uncomfortable in Church because of my political affiliation.
Used to be PCUSA| 2.25.10 @ 11:16AM
Herzog, I was in the PCUSA for the first 40 or so years of my life, until I could no longer put up with many of its theological and political positions. To name just two issues, the PCUSA denies that personal faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation, and supports a mother's right to kill her baby through abortion (PCUSA is a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, which aggressively opposes any restrictions on abortion). The PCUSA sides with Israel's enemies (an official at headquarters told a group that Israel "should properly be called 'the Zionist state'"). I finally had enough and moved on.
Jeffrey| 2.25.10 @ 1:46AM
Peace? Social justice? Just so you dead on the left know; "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;
and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.
"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
"And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. "
You lefties cry and demand peace and social justice while you commit murder and robbery and engage in all kinds perversion. You liars! you will not escape the sword.
Pingback| 2.25.10 @ 11:35AM
The American Spectator : Political Gaps Strain Churches Tools links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.25.10 @ 12:00PM
Political Gaps Strain Churches | The Church of Jesus Christ links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.1.10 @ 11:37PM
Politics and Religion « Professing the Faith links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
dxturner | 3.10.10 @ 2:45PM
Speaking of PC(USA) ... their Middle East Study Committee has released their report today. I find it incredibly ironic that they are the example of declining membership in mainline denominations, and yet they can fund 'study committees' that are concerned about:
"the diminishing population of Christians in the Middle East."
Perhaps they should be more concerned about the diminishing population of Presbyterians in the United States.
سوريا | 6.25.11 @ 12:55AM
http://www.soryh.com