Kay Hagan's Liberal Church

A couple of days ago, I posted regarding an article about Kay Hagan that had appeared in the News and Record; and a discussion about liberal churches (and synagogues) ensued.  I discussed the church Hagan attends-- First Presbyterian in Greensboro; and the denomination of which it is part-- the Presbyterian Church USA.

This particular church is located on the edge of downtown; and has a reputation for being fairly influential, with a number of movers and shakers among its congregation over the years.  It is fairly large and wealthy.  Within the last dozen years or so, I remember that it spent oodles and oodles of money on its pipe organ.  I remember visiting to hear a recital after it was installed.

Today, Doug Clark of the News and Record chimed in with the following comment in response to that post and the thread that ensued:

Joe, I invite you to attend the Bible-study Sunday school class I teach at First Presbyterian Church in High Point and worship service there so you can see for yourself the biblical Christianity that is taught and preached. You may find that your characterizations here are inaccurate.

The idea that the N&R should have informed readers of the "distinct brand of faith" practiced at FPC Greensboro strikes me as absurd. Wouldn't the paper have to assign a reporter to attend that church for, say, a couple of years to gain a full understanding of its "brand of faith," or should it simply have run with someone else's view that it's "godless"?

There is much to discuss here.  And I should state that I have enormous respect for Doug Clark, and do not doubt even for a moment the sincerity of his faith.

But here goes:

1. There is a history.  The Presbyterian Church USA-- of which Hagan is part-- is only one of several Presbyterian denominations.  For purposes of our discussion, let's consider it the current manifestation of the "main strand" of historic Presbyterianism in the United States.  (The history is a bit complicated, with numerous forerunner organizations, mergers and splits).  There are at least three other Presbyterian denominations represented among all the churches in the city of Greensboro of which I am aware.  Local blogger Joel Gillespie had been affiliated with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, which had separated from the main strand of American Presbyterianism a couple of decades before the Civil War.  This was, in some respects, a north/south split.  But two other denominations represented here in Greensboro-- the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church-- separated from the main strand because of what they perceived to be its drift into liberalism and modernism.  During the period 1920-1950, there was a struggle between liberalism and conservatism in the northern branch of what is now the Presbyterian Church USA.  And in 1968, it published a Confession-- in some respects, an update of its historic Westminster Confession-- but some perceived the 1968 update was watered down. (Source: Handbook of Denominations in the United States, Mead and Hill).

2. Let's talk about the Presbyterian Church USA some more.  Here is its position on abortion, which I think is fairly relativistic.  In its statement on social issues, it says it wants to "resist the forces that tyrannize".  It also says the following, on the matter of justice and compassion:

We are called to address wrongs in every aspect of life and the whole of creation, intentionally working with and on behalf of poor, oppressed and disadvantaged people as did Jesus Christ, even at risk to our corporate and personal lives.

Hmmm.  Think about that-- "address wrongs in every aspect of life and the whole of creation".  That seems pretty open-ended to me, and suggests no limits on the areas in which such advocacy should take place-- or the extent to which it should take place.  They talk about the "promotion of social righteousness".

The Presbyterian Church USA two years ago moved to ordain openly gay and lesbian ministers.

3. The Presbyterian Church USA is part of the National Council of Churches.  This particular web page lends a sampling of the National Council of Churches' particular brand of advocacy.  The Council is comprised of numerous denominations that tend to shade liberal, which are listed here. 

4. Ed Cone agrees with me that First Presbyterian is "pretty liberal".  I like Ed, but if he thinks it is pretty liberal, it must be really liberal.

5. Local blogger and former News and Record editor Lex Alexander belongs to First Presbyterian.  Here are a couple of his recent posts that touch on church/state issues.  I like Lex, but he also happens to be "pretty liberal", as Ed would say.

Now, let's get back to Doug Clark's comment.

First, it has been my observation that even within Protestant denominations, there can be a certain amount of variation among churches and ministers and even Sunday School teachers.  Some can shade more liberal, and some can shade more conservative.  I think it is entirely possible that Doug's church might be fairly conservative, even though it is part of a liberal denomination.  And I would bet that Doug teaches a biblically solid Sunday School class.  But that does not disprove the overall premise or the general rule I am advancing. 

Second, I still think there was a problem with Kay Hagan using her church as a prop in response to the "Godless" ad; and there was a problem with the News and Record giving her a big-time assist when she did this without questioning what she was doing.

Why was the Godless Americans PAC interested in Kay Hagan?  Because they felt she would be in agreement with their views regarding separation of church and state.  Here is an example of the PAC's political interests:

The PAC does not want government to associate with religion in any way; it opposes Christmas being a federal holiday or any mention of God on currency or in the Pledge of Allegiance.

But there are other issues with church/state implications on which the Godless Americans PAC would likely agree with Kay Hagan.  Why?  Because the point is not that she is "Godless"; but rather it is that she possesses a political worldview with which they were comfortable. 

And it is an eminently reasonable question for anyone to ask whether Hagan's political worldview is shaped by her religious worldview.  If she is truly a faithful, deeply committed member of that congregation, as we are led to believe, it would seem almost unavoidable that her religious faith would inform her political worldview.

And so, when she used her church as a prop to defend herself against the Godless ad, she was waving before the world a church that espouses certain social teachings with which the Godless Americans would be entirely comfortable.  That is the irony.  She was using it as evidence of her faith-- but in fact, the truth about First Presbyterian's political stance helps confirm the message of Elizabeth Dole's much-maligned ad.

There is somewhat of a tension between liberal churches and orthodox churches in the United States on some important matters of belief and practice.  That tension is reflected in a brief article in the currently posted issue of Touchstone.  I recommend that readers interested in this topic check it out.  

Comments

[jaycee]

Can you guys hold off just a sec while I go fix another bag of popcorn and take a leak?? Thanks...:)

[John Burns]

Joe, I am saying that Bubba's much more negative, hurtful and ill thought out comments p[erpetuate an image which is not a fair one, but which he does much to reinforce through his comments.

And nothing I said was unkind to Mr. Gillespie, who took it upon himself to describe a denomination older than this country as too liberal and otherwise unbiblical.

[Joe Guarino]

I disagree, John. I think you were unkind to Joel. The age of a denomination does not make it more legitimate or "biblical" when it is pro-abortion, and when it contemplates ordaining gays and lesbians. But there has been a slippery slope of repeated instances of liberalism dating back nearly a century that drove off a number of splinter denominations, as I outlined in my post.

I happen to agree with Joel for the most part. I think he knows about what he speaks, and have read his blog for a long time. He is extremely credible, has thought a lot about these types of issues, and has written about them in a very cogent fashion. And he has been right in the midst of the tension between the various strands of Presbyterianism. He has impressed a lot of folks in the local blogosphere with his thoughtfulness.

As I noted above, this problem is not unique to Presbyterians. Other faith traditions have it as well.

[Abner Doon]

When discussing Government Paid Abortion, please consider the economic costs relative to paying for a $250 abortion to the costs of prenatal, hospital costs, food stamps, "welfare income payments" and education for many children and their parents supported by taxation.

Maybe those who support the sanctity of life should refrain from the piousness of forcing everyone else to pay for their beliefs.

Maybe those who so vocally beleive in their views should endevour to pick up the tab as well.

How many minority and/or potentially unwanted kids have been adopted by parents at which very nice and well endowed religious venues?

Especially compared to asians adopted from abroad as opposed to our own unwanted lower casts.

The silence of the hypocracy is deafening on the religious right.\

Just an observation.

[Joe Guarino]

I suppose, Abner, that if killing is acceptable to save money, then perhaps we should be entertaining the thought of killing the elderly infirm, the disabled, people with expensive medical conditions, etc. Of course, the mere thought of it is grotesque, but that seems to be the logical conclusion of what you are advocating.

I assure you that we all pick up the tab already, and that is not going to change anytime soon.

You might benefit by inquiring as to the reasons why someone might go through the trouble and expense of adopting from a foreign nation, as opposed to adopting domestically. You might find there is more to it than "lower casts", and that even folks who are not members of the "religious right" choose to take this route.

[Joe Guarino]

I would add that I know some folks locally-- members of the dreaded religious right-- who are adopting multiple kids from foreign nations with devastating medical problems, who require multiple surgeries. It involves giving kids from other countries a better future who would otherwise have no hope for that. It is hardly taking the easy route, and they are much better than I am, because I probably would never make that kind of commitment.

[Abner Doon]

"Dreaded" is a strong word.

And I appoligize for writing "the religious right," for it created a generalization.

I meant some on the religious right, if not many, but not all.

Seems like some of those adopting kids with medical problems from overseas are having everyone else subsidize thier healthcare, raising everyone elses rates for (legal) immigrants.

I know of an 85 year old senior that just had about $500,000 in kidney operations. It's cruel to say, but where is the line when the teachers start getting fired.

When the police start losing jobs to budget cuts, should we keep them on the shift or pay for the terminal 85 year old that has been recieving SS and Medicare for 20 years or safety on the streets or our childrens education?

[Joe Guarino]

Yes, Abner, I agree with you there are issues with respect to adopting overseas kids with medical problems; but I doubt those doing this are motivated by malevolent intentions. Quite the opposite. And I agree with you that there are issues with terminal care.

More realistic markets for health insurance would likely take care of those issues for the most part, and would do so without governmental rationing; but the problem is that there are powerful forces in our nation that oppose the creation of realistic markets for health insurance.

[Jon Firebaugh]

John Burns,
You state "The church is not about resolving political questions in a certain way. It is about being the living word in the world. Those who try to pigeon-hole that call to support a given political agenda are missing the point entirely" and next "Joel, This is pretty unChristian of me, but your ignorance on this issue is astounding."
If you have read my posts I do not take sides as fare as orthodox(conservative) vs reformed(liberal) as far as religion.
My questions to you are: What is the point that some are missing? and: In what way is Joel Gillespie ignorant on the issues he discussed?
Also your call for Bubba to stop posting is out of line. You don't have to agree with him, but short of name calling or profanity he can either distinguish himself or make a fool of himself. Your choice as to which you believe he accomplishes. Your characterization of him as an "ignorant fundamentalist" betrays a lack of tolerance on your part as profound as his quoting biblical passages to support his arguments.

To Joel: What proof do you have to support your statements regarding PCUSA?

To Kim: My criticism of the PCUSA's stance toward Israel is not a criticism of FPC in Greensboro. Issues taken by the national "church" of any faith are often at odds with individual church affiliates, and people that I have known that attend(ed) FPC
were great. Joe, may have issues with FPC as Kay Hagan's church of choice, but it's a non issue with me.

[TL]

Nixon was indeed brought up in a Quaker home. But anyone who thinks that the Society of Friends may be painted, with one broad brushstroke, as a "liberal denomination" knows little about Quakers. Especially in Greensboro and North Carolina.

[Joe Guarino]

Jon, a family of one of my son's closest friends as he wa growing up were part of First Presbyterian, and they were fine people. This is not about the quality of the people who belong. It is about the politics of the church and the denomination, and how that is entirely consistent with Kay Hagan's politics.

TL, the Society of Friends, as a general rule, is a liberal denomination-- but as you suggest, individual members and congregatiions will prove to be exceptions to the rule. I am not sure that Nixon was a devout, practicing Quaker-- but it should be noted that his domestic economic policies and perhaps even his feelings on some of the social issues were liberal.

[Kim]

Joe, I ahve often questioned the motives of some people in leadership positions at FPC, and yes the PSUSA has come out with many liberal positions, much to the dismay of many at FPC.

So what is one to do , quit or fight? To say FPC is "liberal" just ain't right, for every Kay Hagan, I can show you a Bonnie Hunter in the congregation. If someone over at FPC is taking political postions, please point them out to me. It's only a place of worship with a community outreach ministry.

[Joe Guarino]

Lex is one of them, Kim. I recommend you read his blog if you have not already. Kay Hagan is another.

There are differences between liberal and conservative churches from the standpoint of religious belief and practice, and I have tried to avoid those issues, because that would open up another huge area of discussion. But suffice it to say those differences exist. It is not just politics.

What is one to do? One alternative is to stay and fight, but that can be a frustrating existence. Some people choose to do that, and some people simply remain because it is what they are comfortable with, or because it is the church in which they were raised.

Another alternative for those who want to remain within the Presbyterian tradition is to find a church that is not affiliated with the Presbyterian Church USA. In Greensboro, those include Christ Community Church on Air Harbor Road; Friendly Hills Church on Guilford College Road; Adams Farm Community Church on Mackay Road; Covenant Fellowship, which meets in the Bur-Mil clubhouse (this is the church with which Joel Gillespie had been affiliated); and Providence Presbyterian Church, which meets at Caldwell Academy. There are probably a few others of which I am unaware.

There are numerous alternatives locally for Presbyterians who want to remain Presbyterian, but who do not want to be part of a liberal denomination.

[john burns]

The use of the false liberal / conservative dichotomy, which is rarely sufficient to describe any issue, is especially inappropriate in matters of faith, and the broad brush you paint with is both intellectually lazy and borderline offensive.

[Kim]

My family has been involved with FPC for 100+ years. I can not control the political beliefs of others. As I said, there are plenty of conservative members at FPC, and I think it's a little silly to attach political labels to a church. The congregation is the church. I have never had a political thought on my mind when I go to worship. One would hope a place of worship is personal, and political differeces are put aside. I just can't recall a sermon where the word "liberal" pops into my head.

Anyway, I appreciate your opinion on the matter.

[Joe Guarino]

John and Kim, I noted an item in Nancy McLaughlin's column in the paper this morning.

It seems that the Human Rights Campaign, which supports lesbian/gay causes, is holding a "faith and fairness" town hall meeting on Thursday here in Greensboro. The location of the meeting? First Presbyterian Church. Folks are directed to use the Fisher Park/ Greene Street entrance. (Interestingly, one of the sponsors is the Community Foundation of Greensboro). Rabbi Fred Guttman of Temple Emanuel will be on the panel.

I would suggest that this type of occurence does not happen by accident. It tends to be a reflection of a church's politics and its worldview. We cannot pretend the church is not liberal.

[Ken Hill]

Supporting any institution makes one a partaker of their beliefs and deeds. History clearly shows that the move toward support for liberal causes and theology by the PCUSA closely parallels the decline in membership numbers of the PCUSA. With a few individual congregations being exceptions, this is true of every denomination that calls itself Christian.

[Joe Guarino]

I agree, Ken. To a certain extent, we live in a post-Christian world; and the number of practicing/professing Christians is declining. But overall there has been a particularly significant, prolonged slide in membership among the mainline Protestant/ National Council of Churches denominations.

My understanding is that the nation of England-- which had been predominantly within the Anglican religious tradition-- is barely Christian any more.

[Ed Cone]

Criticism of Israel and Israeli government policy is not the same thing as anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism may motivate some such critics, but I have not seen any evidence that anti-Semtism drives PCUSA policy.

The historical ties between First Pres and TE, on an institutional basis and as a matter of personal relationships among congregants are, as Kim points out, deep, wide, and strong.

[Joe Guarino]

I agree, Ed. But it appears that an ambivalent approach to supporting Israel appears to be part of the national stance taken by the Presbyterian Church USA.

[Ed Cone]

If by "supporting Israel" you mean supporting policies of the Israeli government that are questioned by many Israelis and many American Jews, among others, sure.

But that's a topic for another thread -- even "an ambivalent approach to supporting Israel" is quite different from the original charge of anti-Semitism to which Kim and I responded.

[Timur]

Ambivalent.. Joe you are being too nice here. It is unmistakably anti-semetic.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/04/culture-briefs-82709352/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Nation-TheWashingtonTimesAmericasNewspaper+%28Nation%2FPolitics+-+The+Washington+Times%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

[Joe Guarino]

Timur, I think there are clearly problems with the Presbyterian Church USA's approach to the nation of Israel-- if it truly wants the nation to survive in the long run.

I think of Obama's ambivalent approach to Israel, and the Chicago environment of anti-Semitism to which he was exposed-- Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, etc. And I find it interesting that his preacher-- Rev. Wright-- preached liberation theology that is at least somewhat analogous to the social gospel advocated by the Presbyterian Church USA. The intensity of their "progressive" politics is what they share, for the most part-- and ambivalence toward the long-term strategic interests of Israel is all tied up in that right now.

[Ken Hill]

While there are Palestinian Christians and not all of the citizenry agrees with their leadership, present Palestinian leadership has clearly stated that they want the extermination of Israel. From my perspective, a failure to support Israel is in reality a support for their extermination. I see few "gray" areas in this issue nor within the Holy Bible for that matter. Your mileage may differ.

[Joe Guarino]

Ken, when Kim and Ed above speak about the historic collaboration between Temple Emanuel and First Presbyterian Greensboro, it makes sense on a number of levels. They are both liberal, they both were located downtown, and both had their share of "movers and shakers". It makes sense that Kay Hagan would speak at Temple Emanuel about trying to increase the level of socialized medicine; and that Rabbi Guttman would speak at First Presbyterian about the gay issue.

But I wonder how Rabbi Guttman and the entire body of folks at Temple Emanuel might feel about the stand of the Presbyterian Church USA denomination on Israel.

[Roch101]

"If someone over at FPC is taking political postions, please point them out to me." -- Kim

"Lex is one of them, Kim." -- Joe

What about someone from the Lawndale Baptist International House of Jesus. Couldn't we say someone from that church (Joe Guarino) is taking political positions? Log, meet eye.

[Ken Hill]

I see a distinction between an organization taking a political position and an individual taking a political position.

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, there is not much of a political focus at Lawndale. In fact, it is almost absent. The main interest there is evangelism, not politics. But it is a conservative church that adheres to historic orthodox biblical Christianity. I don't think Lawndale tries to obscure what it is.

[Ken Hill]

Sounds as if John 12:32 is read and understood at Lawndale.

[Ed Cone]

I'm one part of the "entire body of folks" of TE, where there is a diversity of opinion on many issues. I don't agree with all of PCUSA's statement on Israel, although I sympathize with at least some of the thought behind it, and I don't find it to be anti-Semitic. From what I can tell, it doesn't have a lot of mindshare at the GSO FP church.

I don't agree with some things that the organization says, nor do I concur with some stances adopted by the SBC, or the Vatican, or with things said by various Jewish leaders, and so on, and I'd expect that members of various denominations disagree with some positions of other groups and often of their their own groups, too.

[Steve]

Roch, Kim asked Joe to point someone out specifically, so he did. What does Joe taking political positions, and being a member of Lawndale, have to do with this discussion? I must have missed where Joe said that no member of any church should take any political positions.

[cheripickr]

Roching the Roch. I love it! Not that he'll ever see his reflection in it though.

[Ed Cone]

I understand that Kim asked for someone from FPC who is taking political positions, but it seems worth pointing out that Lex is a member of the church who happens to post his own opinions, not an official of the church, just as Joe is a member of his church and not a spokesman for it. Seems like the same thing to me, and good for them both.

To enlarge on my previous comment: I'm much more interested in Hagan and Hunter's views on politics than I am in the position of the parent organization of their local church, and I feel that way about other individuals/churches/denominations, too.

[Joe Guarino]

I think the point I made, Ed, is that the positions of Hagan, Lex and the Presbyterian Church USA are all pretty similar. Lex is a former newspaper editor who has made his personal views known through his blog. We can't presume he speaks for the church, but I find his views on a number of things to be pretty close to that of the national denomination. I am speaking particularly about the social issues and "social justice".

[Stephen]

Dr. Guarino, what are you intending to accomplish with this post?

[Joe Guarino]

Stephen, this post grew out of a thread from a previous post earlier this week. Doug Clark from the News and Record made a comment that, I felt, required an entire new post to respond.

Kay Hagan is probably the most high-profile member of that particular church, who chose to use it as a prop for her own political purposes. An exploration of the meaning of her speech at Temple Emanuel justifies an examination of her own faith tradition.

[bubba]

"International House of Jesus" .......

Yeah, that's typical of the disrespect I'd expect from the type of person who wrote that.

It's your turn, Burns.

[jaycee]

Apparently PCUSA has just hitched it's wagon to the Dem's pro-Palestinian terrorist position as espoused by Obama and Hillary.

Reaction to Hillary's latest anti-Israel tirade:
"We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States. One can only wonder how far the U.S. is prepared to go in distancing itself from Israel in order to placate the Palestinians."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_palestinians_israel

[Roch101]

The International House of Jesus comment was a remark on the ostentatious building. I shake my head every time I drive by it and wonder how many good works could have been funded for the cost of building that steeple alone -- twice.

Nonetheless, I would not presume to judge the people of the congregation because of where they go to church, and that's the point: Joe does.

[Bubba]

"Nonetheless, I would not presume to judge the people of the congregation because of where they go to church...."

You already did.

".....and that's the point: Joe does."

With valid reason.

[Steve Harrison]

"Kay Hagan is probably the most high-profile member of that particular church, who chose to use it as a prop for her own political purposes."

Joe, Liddy Dole opened up that particular can of worms by trying to depict Kay as an athiest. It was an attempt by Dole to use religion to prop up her fast disintegrating reputation as an effective representative of our state. And it backfired on her, big time.

As to the subject of reform vs orthodoxy, I give you the preamble to Leo's bull Decet Romanum Pontificem:

"Through the power given him from God, the Roman Pontiff has been appointed to administer spiritual and temporal punishments as each case severally deserves. The purpose of this is the repression of the wicked designs of misguided men, who have been so captivated by the debased impulse of their evil purposes as to forget the fear of the Lord, to set aside with contempt canonical decrees and apostolic commandments, and to dare to formulate new and false dogmas and to introduce the evil of schism into the Church of God—or to support, help and adhere to such schismatics, who make it their business to cleave asunder the seamless robe of our Redeemer and the unity of the orthodox faith. Hence it befits the Pontiff, lest the vessel of Peter appear to sail without pilot or oarsman, to take severe measures against such men and their followers, and by multiplying punitive measures and by other suitable remedies to see to it that these same overbearing men, devoted as they are to purposes of evil, along with their adherents, should not deceive the multitude of the simple by their lies and their deceitful devices, nor drag them along to share their own error and ruination, contaminating them with what amounts to a contagious disease. It also befits the Pontiff, having condemned the schismatics, to ensure their still greater confounding by publicly showing and openly declaring to all faithful Christians how formidable are the censures and punishments to which such guilt can lead; to the end that by such public declaration they themselves may return, in confusion and remorse, to their true selves, making an unqualified withdrawal from the prohibited conversation, fellowship and (above all) obedience to such accursed excommunicates; by this means they may escape divine vengeance and any degree of participation in their damnation."

[Fred Gregory]

Roch,

Do you really have those thoughts when you gaze at Lawndale Baptist?

In my travels here and around the world I have seen many magificent structures such as St. Peter's Basilica ( Rome ), Cathedral of Seville, National Cathedral ( Wash. DC ), Sultan Ahmed Mosque ( Blue Mosque , Istanbul ), St. Stephen's Cathedral( Vienna ), St. Vitus Cathedral ( Prague ) Mesquita Mosque( Cordoda ), The Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi , St. Isaac's Cathedral ( St. Petersburg ), St. Basil's Cathedral (Moscow), The Notre Dame Cathedral ( Paris ), St. Pauls Cathedral( London ), The Salt Lake Temple ( from the outside ), and The Shinto Shrines-Temples (Nikko, Japan)

I must say that nothing about a trade off between good works and these places of worship ever came to my mind while visiting them. Simply awe. They do have one thing in common though . While it is true that a few of have been for the most part seculrized they were first built to the glory of God, Allah or Buddha.

No, Roch, I am afraid that your comment was a judgmental cheap shot at Joe.

[Joe Guarino]

Steve, once Hagan chose to use her church as a prop, and the local media continues to highlight that event, it invites an examination of the religious practices and beliefs of that particular church and denomination.

With respect to Leo's writings, I think he was rightfully concerned regarding deviations from orthodoxy. I suspect he would be very concerned about some of the things happening within the Presbyterian Church USA and First Church in Greensboro.

Fred, thank you.

Roch, I am not judging the people of a congregation. It is not my place to judge fellow Christians. I am expressing concern about-- and opposition to-- some of the political stands taken; and I am calling attention to positions taken by their leaders, and by some of its most publicly identifiable members. I happen to think those positions are inappropriate, and are symptomatic of a certain worldview which is not consistent with orthodox/biblical Christianity.

[Kim]

Well if Hillary and Obama espouse a position, then we're in 100% agreement that we are all in 100% agreement, right? After all, they are our elected/appointed officails, so their positions are supported by all Americans.

[cheripickr]

You read my mind, Fred. But I guess he's making the good Christian point that we should all take a vow of poverty. I'll have to start keeping my eye out for headshakers whenever I pass by a big church in case they don't have their eyes on the road.

[Kim]

I'm sorry Joe fells so threatened by Kay speaking at TE, and for Rabbi Guttman speaking at FPC. Seems a little judgemental to me.

Are we still free to associate with whom we please and discuss issues of the day?

[Joe Guarino]

Kim, I do not feel threatened. However, I think these appearances are suggestive of the liberal politics and the liberal social teachings of these two respective congregations.

Yes, we are free to associate. But Senator Hagan is a highly public figure who used her church to make a political point and to try to disprove the content of a political ad. And we were reminded of that this past week by the local media. So it is all fair game for interpretation and analysis.

[Steve Harrison]

"With respect to Leo's writings, I think he was rightfully concerned regarding deviations from orthodoxy."

Okay, setting aside for the moment the irony that we wouldn't even be having this conversation were it not for Martin Luther's deviation from (the Pope's version of) orthodoxy, and prefacing the following comment by saying that it is not my intent to engage in Catholic-bashing here or anywhere else: Through his sale of indulgences and other dubious financial and political escapades, Leo X not only made a mockery of the Church, he exposed the principle of "orthodoxy" for what it is; a construct of man, created in an effort to allow him access to some of God's power.

I would not have you stray from humility into hubris, Joe, and your exploration into the values of one church over another is evidence that you may have already done so.

[Kim]

Oh lord it's hard to be humble, when you're so perfect in evey way

[Joe Guarino]

Of course, Steve, the existence of Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches is a deviation from whatever any pope would want. But the fact is that many individuals, churches and denominations within the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant traditions remain true to the essentials of the faith and to orthodox/biblical Christianity. I am not sympathetic with a view that any one denomination or faith tradition possesses a monopoly on Christian truth, or rightfully should control all others.

I think any pope would be justified in expressing concern regarding deviations from orthodoxy. The task is then to determine whether the matters about which he expresses concern represents an essential of the faith, or an appropriate moral teaching.

(I happen to believe that Martin Luther was right, and the Catholic Church was wrong, at that particular moment in history; but the Catholic Church has undergone somewhat of a change in its views on certain matters of faith and practice since that time. Much of liberal Protestantism has deviated severely from what Luther would have wanted since then.)