Occasionally, I get complaints for using big words on this web site. I’m not very impressed with that complaint, because I’m aware of the existence of dictionaries and I believe that most education consists of learning the meaning of words, putting them into thoughts and thinking differently.
So if terms like complementarian, discernablogger or antinomian make you whine, hit that dictionary in the search window. Learn something new.
In fact, I have two words for you today: soteriology and ecclesiology. I’ll do the hard work for you guys still playing World of Warcraft.
Ecclesiology is the study of the church. It’s what you believe about the church. What it is, what it does, what role in plays in your life as a Christian, and so on.
Soteriology is what you believe about how a person is saved. (Soter=save) This is how you are saved. How salvation works; How God does it and through what means.
Ecclesiology is about the church in its various forms; soteriology is about the specific work of salvation accomplished by Jesus and how it completes all God intends it to do for us.
Protestants tend to separate soteriology and ecclesiology into distinct (sometimes more, sometimes less) roles. Being saved and being part of the church are overlapping experiences, but they are not entirely the same thing. One cannot be saved and not be a member of the church as Jesus sees it, but one may be saved and not be part of the church as we encounter it on earth and in time/place. For Protestants, that means you are saved as God saves “the” church, but you can be saved and not be a member of “that” church.
Protestants believe that a person who is saved belongs to the church as the body of Jesus Christ in its universal sense. We believe this is the action of the Holy Spirit described in I Corinthians 12:13. Evangelical Protestants believe it is normative to be baptized into the local church, participate in the Lord’s Supper with the local church and be under the discipline/leadership of a local church, but Protestants don’t believe these things are entirely identical with saving faith in Jesus or belonging to him. (Federal visionists are rare amongst us.) Soteriology is proclaimed, practiced and witnessed to by the church, but it isn’t controlled by the church. The church ultimately submits to scripture and to the Holy Spirit.
So Protestants put ecclesiology as secondary to soteriology. The Christian life is normally lived in the church, but belonging to a local, visible church and belonging to Jesus Christ are not identical in every way. But Protestants aren’t out to lunch on this distinction. We know that it’s the church that preserves and proclaims the Gospel, that preachers are called and ordained by the church, that the church is commissioned to teach it and given the sacraments (no matter how you view them) to incorporate us into the new creation and sustain us in our faith. But no matter how much we place the process of salvation in the context of the church, we don’t go to the point of saying the church saves. Jesus saves, and no matter how we identify the church with Jesus, the church isn’t Jesus.
A good text for this is Revelation 2 and 3, where Jesus clearly addresses some within those churches as belonging to him, while others do not belong to him. Jesus tells some churches they are his, and tells others he’s on the verge of “removing their lampstand,” which I assume means they would no longer belong to him.
For this reason, the Protestant view of the local, denominational church tends to never view a particular church as being necessary to salvation. In fact, a view that attempts to identify a local church as identical with Christ or his Kingdom generally comes off as heretical.
This does tend to encourage individualism, but individualism is a mixed bag. Christianity is a faith that calls us into community, but it addresses us as individuals in almost all of its demands, commands and admonitions.
For that reason, you only occasionally find Protestants who would seek to persuade another Protestant to join a particular church on soteriological grounds, i.e. you must join that church to be saved. It happens, but you have to hang around hardcore Church of Christ teachers to hear it.
Protestants may seek to persuade one another to join a church for various functional or pragmatic reasons, or on the basis of an appeal to one church’s distinctive doctrines over another. But few Protestants would say that the validity of a person’s relationship to Christ, experience of Jesus Christ or vital fellowship with Christ was dependent on being in a particular church. They might say that the quality of a person’s Christian experience was affected by a particular church, but not on the level of whether that person is experiencing Jesus Christ himself.
Listening to Protestants talk about their churches is somewhat like listening to your father debate automobiles with your uncle. The question of which is better, Ford or Chevy, is certainly on the menu, but not the question of whether this is a car or can you use it for transportation to and from work.
I come from Owensboro, Kentucky, where we take great pride in our Barbeque. We have BBQ restaurants, the International BBQ festival, we are featured in programs on the Food Channel, standard reference works on Barbeque and so on. We refer to our community as the BBQ capital of the world. And rightly so.
Now, I understand a similar product is produced in Texas, Memphis, North Carolina and various other places. The preparation is different. The philosophy of taste is different. The arguments can be epic. And as deeply loyal as I am to the true home of real Barbeque and its many amazing related products, I reluctantly admit that, yes, there is Barbecue in those other places.
This is the Protestant view of ecclesiology and soteriology. Barbecue and western Kentucky are not identical. My hometown is one place where BBQ manifests its amazing presence. I might argue with you over this, but I wouldn’t try to persuade you to give up your food and only eat mine. That would be extreme. Moving from your town to mine to do so would be insane.
Protestants sell church to one another on superior preaching, better music, better children’s programs (or just having children’s programs), better fellowship, better ministries and missions, more serious and intentional discipleship and so on. Yes, it’s crassly consumeristic and leads to some ridiculous uses of advertising. It creates competition and too much awareness of church growth as a measure of success….but we can’t kick entrepreneurialism too hard without pausing to say a couple of good things:
1) All of this is based upon the belief that the church doesn’t simply exist as a place for dispensing salvation, but that the church has an organized, interactive, intentional, strategized, cross-cultural mission in the world that needs to be taken seriously.
2) It’s also based on the belief that churches are frequently wrong, or evolve into places where they’ve become largely uninterested in the mission of God and mostly all about the personal spiritual interests of the resident members.
Protestants, in other words, wouldn’t be surprised if the members of one of the good churches in Revelation 2-3 were trying to persuade the members of one of the bad churches to come over to the early service and hear their pastor. But we’ll let Jesus say “You’re not in a church. Get out.” That’s not our place.
A person in a Protestant context who insists that you must belong to his church to be part of the true church (ecclesiology and soteriology combined) is considered extreme, even cultic (if their insistence causes them to invalidate all other Christians based on the church they belong to.) A Protestant who tells you that his church is preaching the Gospel and doing the mission of God- even in an ad- is acting on what we believe about the church.
When the Church of Christ or hardheaded Baptists start telling Christian Bob that he’s not saved because he’s a Methodist, it just doesn’t work very well. If we are going to buy into an ecclesiology that calmly claims we’re missing out on some level of soteriology, the Catholic Church is really the best game in town. It’s not hard to see that Catholics- most of them- handle this whole matter in a far more generous way (read the Vatican II documents on Ecumenism and the Church) than the Preacher at the local fundamentalist semi-cult.
Protestants do understand the argument that the “fullness” of Christ might not be experienced in a particular church the way it is at another, but that argument starts to have problems the longer it goes on. The person who found himself at the church in Corinth would have been well served to go to the church down the road where there wasn’t a constant Mardi Gras in progress. But interestingly, Paul never says leave the church, and that would be the first thing many would say to the Corinthians today. No, Paul talks about growing up, loving one another, acting with some wisdom, getting their doctrine and moral compasses working and having some bad people sit down and shut up. But he never says leave to where you can find the fullness of Christ. He assumes the fullness of Christ is available in Corinth and that the Corinthians, with all their charismatic fireworks, should know this.
There is one interesting irony here. One that Protestants need to notice and pay attention to:
Our Catholic friends will always tell us that it was Luther’s quest to purify the church- a good desire- that caused him to make a huge ecclesiological error, i.e. breaking off from the one church. Catholics are adamant that even with apostate popes and apostate priests, the sacraments are still valid. Christ, not men, insures the efficacy of his sacraments of saving, sanctifying grace.
It is Protestants, ironically, who sometimes give the impression that the power of salvation depends on the preacher, the music, the personality of the youth minister, the programs of the church, etc. Southern Baptists throw out any preacher that doesn’t suit them as if anyone less than perfect can’t be used by the Holy Spirit.
We believe the church is fallible. We believe its leaders are fallible. We believe scripture is infallibly true. We believe Christ infallibly accomplishes his mission with a fallible church. We believe in one church, and many differing manifestations of the church, some more beneficial to the Kingdom than others. We don’t believe soteriology depends on ecclesiology.
I don’t care how many links to Catholic or Lutheran sites are on your blog, a Barbeque analogy to decribe soteriology could only come from a Baptist!
I LOVE the title of this piece, ““Big Words, Barbeque and the Bus to the Church That’s Got It Right: Protestant Ruminations on Church Salesmanship.†And I enjoy watching those shows on TV where they have barbeque contests. The folks in the different areas of the US are surely committed to their kind of barbeque. Me…I like them all. Some may be a bit too spicy for my tastes. Some may have overdone it with the sauce. (Make whatever you want out of the metaphors.)
Michael,
I was gonna write a long and brilliantly nuanced comment, but I’m suddenly feeling very hungry.
BTW, find an Armenian friend, ANY Armenian, and go over to their house for some barbecue (called khorovadz). The Texas/Memphis/NC debate will fall by the wayside, trust me.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
im — It is such a good analogy it made me hungry.
If I sneak over to the other side I think the Magisterium wouldn’t mind, if I had some of your chicken and ribs, as long as I abstain from the bread and wine.
But seriously — you can’t compare anything now with the Early Church — so powerfully in and with the Spirit and so isolated in and at odds with the world. Every new theological theory was a potential cataclysmic threat to the mission.
The RCC doesn’t tie ultimate salvation or even grace to the Church or even the seven sacraments. God can — and does — save anyone at any time, regardless of the action or inaction of others. I know this is Dogma, but I’m not going to look up the reference right now.
The Seven Sacraments and the Apostolic Authority are within the Church and not outside of it. I have a problem with the emphasis that is placed on these things and who it is that typically and repeatedly do the “marketing” of this. One of my favorite Kierkegaardianisms is his treatise on such preaching by his Lutheran Bishop. Paraphrasing, he said that if a licensed plumber went on and on about the absolute essential priority of having new PVC pipes to replace the old copper, it would merely be interesting. So priests endlessly telling the faithful practitioners (who else is listening) about the all important Seven Sacraments, is not really that compelling.
For me the sacraments are a great benefit that I would not want to be without, particularly the Eucharist. But if they were someday denied me or us, which has happened many times in many places and could happen here sooner than most believe, God would provide.
Heck — some of you “other ecclessials” seem reasonably happy without them …
“Moving from your town to mine to do so would be insane.”
Now you tell me! 9 years ago I moved (near) to Gaithersburg MD for some Sovereign BBQ. After all, they were truly “doing it right”. After 4 years I switched to a local generic. Some of the flavor is more subdued, and it’s less consistent, but I’m not left with that feeling that my cooking isn’t good enough.
btw: http://www.ncbbqsociety.com/index.html
; )
hehehe, I Googled ‘discernablogger’ and got ONE hit – namely, this page.
It seems your analogy was too good, im
Imonk,
Well said and stated with excellence. I’ve rarely read a more concise explanation of exactly how most Protestants view these two things, but I have a strange feeling that before this is over this post might garner the same amount of posting that came with your fasting post a few back.
To say that the church is not Jesus and therefore does not control or do the saving is a very radical idea still to many people, but one to which I say a very hearty amen.
Regards,
Austin
Thank you for this post, Michael. It’s very helpful to this Catholic in trying to understand the American Protestant experience.
That’s one of the things I find so difficult to wrap my head around; denomination A splits and denomination B comes into being over a question of doctrine that is taken so seriously, nothing can be done to reconcile or find a middle ground (e.g. should you baptise children or not? can women be ministers? are we pre-, post-, or amillenial?).
Time passes (anywhere from fifty to two hundred years), and one fine day Joe may consider, when looking around for a church to attend, this particular one because the music’s better than his old church. But Joe – I say to myself – you were raised in a family belonging to denomination A and now you’re considering joining denomination B just for the music?!?! Whatever happened to the very serious point of doctrinal struggle? That takes second place to a kickin’ worship band?
For a Catholic, this is very strange
Hey Martha,
Thanks for that insight Martha I enjoy your comments. I’ve heard that a lot from folks who are not familiar with American Protestantism.
I’m sure it looks strange and very disjointed from the outside. But in reality to me anyway all the fractures bull down to a handful of things.
1. Calvinist/Arminian
2. Church Governance
3. Baptism
4. The work of the Holy Spirit post conversion
Really almost every American Protestant denomination is born out of disagreement on one or more of these four things. There seems to be a lot of disagreements but the differences are blurred in some geographical areas. In the rural part of Alabama where I grew up, my dad, a Missionary Baptist minister, would often preach in Congregational Methodist, United Methodist, United Baptist, Southern Baptist, Holiness, Nazareene,Assemblies of God, and one small denomination I’ve never seen anywhere else but north central Alabama called Holy Churches of Christ.
Folks had their own “convictions” (things they believed but had a hard time proving with scripture) but for the most part folks worked together.
A lot of that was lost when social issues began to divide folks even more.
I bet that does sound strange. And I know very little about Catholic unity, but could a person from say Ireland walk into a Roman Catholic church in say South Dakota and not miss a beat? That’s not a provocative question, I really don’t know the answer. Are things that uniform? Or are there “camps” in Roman Catholicism as well?
Austin
that should be boil
With the closure of so many Roman Catholic Churches in my area, [30 more in the next 2 years] I am being made aware of some differences among Catholic practices. Language is a big one, and while Slovac and Polish and Italian Masses are no longer said, there are still a few locations allowed to use Latin. The Polish Church was born here in Duryea, and they may buy a couple of the buildings. I found they get mad when you call them protestant, even though they too split from the Roman Church. Most of the distinctives turn out to be cultural. Story : http://www.timesleader.com/news/hottopics/ churchclosings
One great benefit of having soteriology independent of ecclesiology is that you can be tossed out of a church, and still go to heaven. I have felt the pain of being “asked” to disfellowship,[more than once], but never feared for my soul, as in excommunication.
Churches are like a flower garden. The beauty is in the diversity. But the entire garden owes it glory to the Sonlight.
Very interesting and as usual all I would have to add is respect for your insight and agreement so normally I wouldn’t comment at all.
BUT, Barbecue outside of Texas!
I’ve had it all over the country though sadly not in Kentucky.
All of it, especially Memphis BBQ which is a city I love, is slop not fit for dogs.
So far I have only found edible BBQ in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma and you have to be careful about that.
If there’s better BBQ than that served at the Missionary Baptist Church in Huntsville, Texas I’ll eat my hat. (It’d taste better than most other BBQ).
Oh boy,
I am in trouble with iMonk. You see, I still play World of Warcraft, even though I will turn 58 late this year.
I have a level 80 Horde Paladin (healing geared and talented) on one server.
I have a level 70 Alliance Paladin (healing geared and talented) on another server.
I have a level 58 Death Knight on one of the servers.
Hmm, but I think I do have a reasonable vocabulary. GRIN. World of Warcraft is a hobby and simply quite good fun.
I like this post, and I’m hungry too.
The BBQ analogy is a good one, but from a Catholic perspective, I think the RCC views itself as the answer to the question, “What BBQ would you sell all your worldly possessions and move across the country to eat not less than once a week for the rest of your life?”
A choice which most of us don’t cherish our ecclesiological ideas (or our BBQ) enough to make without reservation; I wrote a long post for another thread that I didn’t submit comparing a guy who stuck with the church for the sacraments (St. Francis) to a guy who didn’t (Martin Luther), but it looks like you touched on it here. I’d suggest though that Paul and Luther would’ve clashed on what one[s responsibility is to your local church and, ultimately, what legitimates a group remaining a denomination apart from the Big Church. Etc, etc.
I think the RCC thinks our BBQ isn’t so much about Jesus as it is about Us, the Body of Christ, celebrating the Body of Christ, as Jesus instructed of us. “Better” BBQ isn’t the promise the Church offers, but the consecrated xxxxth annual Memorial Day Picnic that the entire town has always gone to every year for God knows how long, and if you don’t go (and don’t come all looking like a thug, wear a tie!) you won’t get to see your grandma and your dad will be really disappointed with you.
Seriously though, I’m dying over here for some pulled pork. I may let this post inspire me to get some tomorrow.
Also, BBQ > Ecclesiology any time. You should do a post on dry rub vs. sauces!
If “discernablogger” and “complementarian” are words, they sure shouldn’t be — what an abomination to the language.
Thank you for this post, Michael. There is one instance where I find Protestants, especially some Evangelical Protestants, being very adamant about church membership: According to them, one can’t possibly be saved and stay in the Roman Catholic Church. To them, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” is anathema, as are magazines like Touchstone and/or First Things.
Good thing for us Catholics this post wasn’t on Friday this week.
At least the BBQ in your area is actually BBQ. The first time we had a fellowship meal at the church, one of our members said she was bringing BBQ and we got all excited only to find out that what she called BBQ was basically homemade manwich/sloppy joes. That’s North Dakota for ya.
>…one can’t possibly be saved and stay in the Roman Catholic Church
I hear American evangelicals say there are great Christians in the RCC all the time. Mark Driscoll, for example, says so in the video series I just reviewed. Fundamentalists would deny that, but fundamentalists tend to have the problem I’mm writing about.
Arrrgh,
I can’t let it pass. There have been several mentions of Luther “leaving” the RCC. He did NOT leave, nor was that his intent. He and those who thought he was right were excommunicated from the church.He had only wanted to reform the church. (using Michael’s analogy, to go back toward a more original version of the recipe, but instead was thrown out of the kitchen and banned from using the grill.) Our theologians maintained for years that the ‘Lutherans’ would come back to the fold if the RCC allowed two things: allowed us to preach the Gospel(which Trent effectively barred) and allowed us to hold that the office of the Papacy was of human origin and created for the good order of the church, rather than divinely instituted. The RCC has thus far “officially”(in its documents and in its decrees) said ‘NO.”
However, I doubt now that many Lutherans would swim the Tiber if the RCC was to agree to those stipulations.
Later reformers actually set out to leave Rome, but Luther was not of that mindset, and continued on out of necessity after being thrown out of the kitchen.
Thanks, Patrick, for that bit about Luther being thrown out of the kitchen. For some of us less educated about church history, that helps.
Michael,
Your last paragraph summary is a fine one. I’ve actually written it down to ponder a bit.
I also appreciated your comments about chasing the next “Mardi Gras”. Our consumeristic tendencies have led many to a point where we are unable to endure with each other and grow together; stick it out and stop looking for that other place of ultimate bliss.
One BBQ comment to Bro. Lofland: I am assuming that you are referring to Mt. Zion MBC??? I agree with your assessment. The joke in Huntsville is that the best time to speed through town is lunch time…all of the state troopers are chowing down on some church BBQ:-)
Patrick — St. Francis of Assisi was a reformer. St. Theresa of Avila was a reformer.
Luther wanted one of two things: To be excommunicated or to be executed (martyred). His genius was displayed in how he worked out his excommunication — by the skin of his teeth.
I am ashamed in that that is how my Church dealt with “heretics” not so long ago. But then Luther became just as bad.
“Our theologians maintained for years that the ‘Lutherans’ would come back to the fold if the RCC allowed two things: allowed us to preach the Gospel(which Trent effectively barred) and allowed us to hold that the office of the Papacy was of human origin and created for the good order of the church, rather than divinely instituted. The RCC has thus far “officiallyâ€(in its documents and in its decrees) said ‘NO.—
If you go posting your demands on the Vatican’s door you’re still not going to get anywhere. Do you think any denomination is going to proclaim that anything about it’s founding or structure is “of human origin.” And just watch EWTN — former Protestant ministers are preaching the Gospel in the RCC all day long, and making good livings doing it — but not the part that negates our teachings. Would your Church let me come and preach on the role of Mary and the Saints and why I believe in the presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist …? I think not.
Tell your people to try a little closed door. negotiations
Thanks for the Lutheran corrective, Patrick! Luther was not on a quest to “purify” the church but to bring the Gospel of justification by grace through faith for Christ’s sake to front and center. The intent was never to start a “new church” but to reform the church as it was. But when you’re excommunicated and the papal bishops refuse to ordain pastors, stuff has to happen. Luther and the Reformers were always realistic about the church in this world as always being a mixed bag of truth, falsehood, and crazy Uncle Eddy’s, but the Word and sacraments remain powerful and effective in the church as God’s work in spite of centuries of gross mismanagement by men.
Like it or not, soteriology and ecclesiology are deeply interconnected. What you believe about salvation will shape what you believe about the church, and vice versa. From our Lutheran not-so-protestant perspective, the sacraments are the bridge between soteriology and ecclesiology, being the means by which God delivers the gifts of salvation through the church.
Sooner or later we all have to deal with Cyril’s maxim: “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”
Great post. I know this wasn’t your main point at all, but I’d just like to point out that the Church of Christ is getting a lot better. I don’t see a lot of difference from a big portion of Baptist churches except that we take the lord’s supper every week and we sing A Capella. I go to a Church of Christ affiliated University and we got a good amount of Baptists and Catholics who are accepted as fellow Christians here.
The real question screaming to be answered in the comments to this post is: Should the one true food be called “barbeque” or “barbecue”? Does that clear sauce in North Carolina even count? And perhaps the term “BBQ” is a tactic of the “barbeque” crowd to discredit those who would protest that not only is “BBC” more faithful to the original text but includes Anglicans in the worldwide mission?
OK, that was a very lame attempt at a joke. I repent in baked beans and cole slaw.
To austin @ 3 March, 10:57 pm – My married daughter has lived in north central Alabama for fifteen years, and I have never heard of the Holy Churches of Christ. But in Flannery O’Connor’s first novel, Wise Blood, Hazel Motes founded the Church Without Christ, which was promptly co-opted by the false prophet, Onnie Jay Holy, who renamed it the Holy Church of Christ Without Christ.
Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
“Protestants put ecclesiology as secondary to soteriology”
While I think this is a necessary step, I worry that we take it too far, because so many of us have a hard time thinking of church as the universal people of God rather than a building/denomination.
In the right context I have no issue affirming the statment that “there is no salvation outside the church” but I would just see it in reverse order. If you are saved then you are by necessity a part of the church, though of course you can be in ‘the church’ and not be saved.
Bob Brague
Funny. I love that novel. Wise Blood is one of my favorites. These churches are in the Cullman area and east and north. Only a handful of them.
Mason I agree, and the question does boil down to just that. What is the church? If it is a visible universal then Protestants are in trouble. If it is something more mystical that is universal invisible and something which Christ is responsible for building then we are on the right track.
The local church is a covenated body of believers faithfully executing the ordinances, spreading the gospel, and caring for the saints. (but that is a very baptist answer)
The kingdom however is what I think we do not stress enough. Christians are busy building the “church”. Christ does that. We are involved in adavancing the Kingdom.
“Christains are not busy building the church”
it should read,
i can’t type today
Isn’t there a mid-level Protestant ecclesiology that says you need to be part of “a” church in order to be saved (Robinson Crusoe scenarios not withstanding)? It’s just that you don’t have to be a member of “my” church to be saved.
Remember, in RCC circles, different bishops and priests have different pratices and interstitial theologies. You find RCCs choosing among their churches because this one has a praise band, that one offers the mass in Latin, or the one over there has a charismatic service.
Within the bounds of a generous orthodoxy, I don’t know that Protestant diversity is a whole lot broader than diversity among RCC parishes and orders.
This was a very good statement, iMonk -
‘The person who found himself at the church in Corinth would have been well served to go to the church down the road where there wasn’t a constant Mardi Gras in progress. But interestingly, Paul never says leave the church, and that would be the first thing many would say to the Corinthians today. No, Paul talks about growing up, loving one another, acting with some wisdom, getting their doctrine and moral compasses working and having some bad people sit down and shut up. But he never says leave to where you can find the fullness of Christ. He assumes the fullness of Christ is available in Corinth and that the Corinthians, with all their charismatic fireworks, should know this.’
You guys are gonna love this one –
“The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.’” CCC 841
I’d say that puts salvation outside the Church, wouldn’t you say …?
Enjoy your food analogies while you can, before Jesus returns and takes away the menu:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYqM9-Fj0Pg
Steve — If you take the literal interpretation of the Holy “Breakfast Song” we will still have ribs (my favorite!)
And there was no seafood mentioned at all, so I guess I’ll still have a job!
I’m not sure if I can even continue reading this blog when you don’t even consider Kansas City barbecue a brother to your Kentucky style. What, do you think we’re the Mormons of barbecue?
Occasionally, I get complaints for using big words on this web site. I’m not very impressed with that complaint, because I’m aware of the existence of dictionaries and I believe that most education consists of learning the meaning of words, putting them into thoughts and thinking differently.
My writing partner (a burned-out country preacher) gets the same complaint from his congregation whenever he tries to teach them. “We don’t want to learn any more big words, Pastor! You’re only here to keep us comfortable!”
In fact, I have two words for you today: soteriology and ecclesiology. I’ll do the hard work for you guys still playing World of Warcraft.
Trust me on this one, IMonk. If they’re still playing WoW, they won’t even be reading your blog. They won’t be able to jack out of Azroth long enough.
What, do you think we’re the Mormons of barbecue? — kcillini77
Better Mormon Barbecue than Mormon Potluck Salad.
(“Utah Salad” = Jello with unidentifiable fruit bits in it.)
Please, no msg, or CCC 841 in my BBQ sauce.
Austin,
I believe that you asked if a Catholic can travel long distances and still be comfortable in a parish church.
While not Martha, I was able to be a part of daily mass in German, even before I had started the formal part of my conversion.
There are variations from parish to parish, and even from one Mass to another at the same place. You just learn to watch what other people are doing at the Lord’s Prayer (holding hands or not); kneeling after communion or not, etc.
Granted, there are some extremes, such as a priest using a super soaker to sprinkle the congregation to Latin Mass (now known as the Extraoridinary Form).
If a person wandered into an Eastern Rite Catholic Service, they might have more problems. Their service is very similar, if not identical, to the Orthodox service.
Jim — “Within the bounds of a generous orthodoxy, I don’t know that Protestant diversity is a whole lot broader than diversity among RCC parishes and orders.”
While it is never publicly encouraged, there is some “sheep stealing” going on among local Catholic parishes. If a household is registered Roman Catholic, it is counted as one of the families under the responsibility of a particular parish by geography. But, for whatever reason, some choose to cross lines. But the basic liturgy is the same all over the world, in fact. Like a 12-Step fellowship, I know I can go to a Mass anywhere and feel at home. I don’t go for personalities or preaching, but for the Sacraments.
The real diversity is in the religious orders. They are at least as diverse in theology and focus as exists between all Protestant denominations.
Surfnetter,
Interesting. I never knew that about the different orders.
Can you recommend some reading on them? Or is it just easier to google them?
Austin
Austin — try this –
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/xrel.html
Ha! Opened this up for my noontime reading while eating pulled barbecue and hush puppies (Wednesday special). Sweet!
“All of it, especially Memphis BBQ which is a city I love, is slop not fit for dogs”
Rob – Those may be fightin’ words around here.
I’m willing to go as quite as far as you do, but you’re right. Although I love Memphis, Texas BBQs the best (I’m an outlander around here). The next best thing is Korean BBQ. NC BBQ is simply a crime, vinegar is wrong: Sola Capsicum.
Nice analogy and explanation Michael.
Sola Capsicum.
Nice! Love those solas.
surfnetter,
thanks,
wow, i had no idea there were so many
The history of the religious orders does offer some parallels to the Protestant sectarian experience. Unlike the universal Church, the Orders do constantly strive for internal purity, spurring the creation of smaller and smaller groups. There is also the realization amongst orders that a particular group can fall from its original purpose and it would be better to start over. Thus, we have Carmelites and Discalced Carmelites, Franciscans and Capuchins and various orders “of the strict observance”.
Conflicts have flared up at times but I think this can be overstated. Most orders are complementary and get along just fine. The most enduring conflict is probably that between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, (Thomism versus Molinism, for example), which I think is more due to their similarities than their differences. Nowadays, the biggest split, no matter which order or nationality, is whether or not you view Vatican II as a break from tradition or in continuity with tradition, as the Pope has said on many occasions. I see this all the time in parish life.
Surfnetter:
Please, Michael, no more pork-based analogies – lead us not into temptation but deliver us from offal.
VERY good thing this post wasn’t on Friday. I’m buying a BBQ chicken for lunch today, for sure.