Comments on: Internet Monk Radio Podcast #124

By: Willow

Willow — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:34:03 +0000

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

In the essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

By: Christian

Christian — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:39:29 +0000

Man, your intro cracks me up everytime I listen! Particularly that you do your own introduction!

By: thomas

thomas — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:23:38 +0000

Interesting podcast – two thoughts.

First – it has always seemed to me an occupational hazard of being a “confessing church” (rather than an apostolic one). How much conformity and on what issues “count”? So I would agree (pace willoh) that this is a Protestant phenomenon (the crucial difference with Rome being that instead of of _one_ definition of who the church is, you have exactly as many definitions (give or take a few) as you have Protestant Christians.

However – it seems that you maybe take this too far. What are the minimum requirements for being a “professing Christian”? You seem to imply that all that is needed is for someone to say “Yeah, I’m a Christian”. That seems to render the word “Christian” essentially meaningless, as it comprises under the same identification Joseph Smith, John Shelby Spong, Watchman Nee, Arius, and Kate Schori. Surely there is _some_ minimum (however bare), to which one must assent in order for one’s status as a “professing Christian” to be more than an empty form of words? I imagine that virtually no one in your audience shares any communion of belief with Spong at all (at least not as regards anything specifically Christian – we would probably all agree that slavery is bad), yet you would seem to be committed to defending his inclusion as a “professing Christian”. That seems absurd to me, frankly.

Just my $.02

thomas

By: willoh

willoh — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:58:06 +0000

A protestant thing? boy am I glad Rome does not define who is in the church and who isn’t, they might even include observances.

By: Kevin C

Kevin C — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 05:46:03 +0000

I was reading recently that Konrad Adenauer, the West German post-1949 Chancellor, refused to take part in anti-Hitler conspiracies (like the recent Tom Cruise movie) based on those Bible verses about respecting the magistrates
(though his family prayed for a German defeat). But its not clear what this “respect” should consist of- is any attempt to change the government wrong?
Contra David Barton, was the American Revolution blatantly anti-biblical?:)

By: Surfnetter

Surfnetter — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:37:05 +0000

Now that was refreshing. Thank you!