The Protestant Culture of Reinvention

[Zenith Darksea]

Towards the end of the Middle Ages, and then through the period that has become known as the 'Renaissance' and the 'Enlightenment', Western Christianity saw a quite amazing phenomenon, a phenomenon which has gone positively wild in the United States of America in recent years. To put a name to it, you could call it the Christian Reformation, or some might use the more simplistic 'Protestantism'. I personally consider this to be a very poor catch-all term, as there is a tremendous difference between, for example, the High Anglicans and Lutherans on the one hand, and the Evangelicals and Southern Baptists on the other. In fact, a recent estimate puts the number of separate Christian groupings at 34,000, the vast majority of which are extremely small 'Protestant' groups in the West.

In this post I would like to attack the fundamental Protestant ethic that has led to this rather bizarre fragmentation effect. If anyone feels that I have gone too far, or that I am just wrong, then I trust that they will inform me of this in a restrained and polite manner.

To introduce the topic, it would be well to briefly sketch out the history of this effect. Early Christians were, broadly speaking, almost entirely united in belief. It could be argued that this is a result of a certain vagueness that existed at the time, but considering the written evidence for a strong consistency in the Gospels read and in the dogma of the various communities, this explanation can only go a short distance. There were a few heretical splinter groups now and then, but they scarcely grew to any significant size whatsoever. The first Churches to fragment from the Orthodox Catholic Church were the Non-Chalcedonians - a rather small fraction in the Levant and Egypt. Until the eleventh century, with the exception of a few heresies that again never grew to any significant size, the Orthodox Catholic Church remained united, being separated in the end into Latin and Orthodox largely through political reasons. Then came the Reformation. One group split away from the Latin Church, followed by another, and then another, and then groups began to split off from them, and then groups split off from them, and so on until the present day. What explanation can be given for this?

This is not the place to go into that question in any serious depth, but an answer might be found in the growing Western culture of entrepreneurial commerce, philosophy and education. People began to consider matters of theology seriously for themselves. While this is undoubtedly a very positive thing, it was influenced by an atmosphere of individualism and cultural separation with the past. Whereas the early Protestants may have wanted to revert the Latin Church to its original Orthodox Catholic form (and it is undoubtable that many did and still do), the past was soon forgotten and a culture of continual reinvention was created. Though it might seem sensible to return to the actual original Christian Church, which still exists today, thanks to their spirit of individualism and the natural Western tendency to legalistic approaches, many Protestants came to the following opinion: The Latin Church is not what Christ must have originally wanted. I know of nothing except the Latin Church, therefore I must reinvent the 'original' Church. I will read scripture and create what seems most like the original one for myself.

Of course that approach has flaws:

1. It is based on ignorance of what the 'original' Church was or is, as the Protestant has only their own personal judgment to rely on.
2. It is commonly acknowledged that there is more than one part of the Bible that can be taken different ways (if this were not the case, then how on Earth could there be so many denominations?), and so various other people will have their own idea about what the 'original' Church was, sparking the culture of constant reinvention.
3. It is totally centred around Western culture. Many Protestants thus have a great deal of trouble with the concept that Christianity is actually an Eastern religion (relative to themselves) and that their Western precepts might not be the best basis for Christian interpretation.
4. Even taking into account the erroneous chant of sola scriptura (an idea that no Christian subscribed to until the late Reformation), the concept of 'recreating' the Church is un-Biblical and unacceptable within Christian doctrine.

The first three of those will have been anticipated, but the latter may seem surprising. Quite simply put however, the Church cannot be 'reinvented', because to do so would imply that at some point the Church had ceased to exist. And yet that is clearly not what Christ had in mind for His Church. 1 Cor. 3.9-11:

“Brethren, we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building on it. Each builder must choose with care how to build on it. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.”

Many Protestants will answer (as has been my experience) that our definition of the 'Church' is too strict - it's really just the community of all the denominations. God grants personal revelations to different groups, and that each group is equal in the eyes of God and all form a sort of 'invisible Church'. This is a view that cannot be upheld, considering, for instance, John 17.20-23:

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

God created the Church at Pentecost, and that Church has never ceased to exist so that it would need to be 'reinvented'. Rather, as Christ said:

“On this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

He also promised:

"Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." (Matthew 28.20)

John 16.13 tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into all truth. Since God is one and God's Truth is one, how can all the Protestants possibly uphold this claim if they believe that the Church is really an 'invisible' union of all Christians?

Protestants try to imitate the Church of the New Testament. But this is not only unnecessary, it is harmful and runs counter to historical Christian belief and the promises of Christ. Their willingness to leave the Latin Church and its authoritarian innovations is commendable, but the Protestant culture of reinvention has no tenable intellectual or historical basis. The Latin Church at least knows the value of its Apostolic Succession.

The Orthodox however do not try to imitate the Church of the New Testament, they are the Church of the New Testament.

[Ardeur]

There is only one way to the Father, and that is through Jesus. But there is more than one way to Jesus than just a church who believes in Apostolic Succession.

Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."

"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

Here is a man, unknown by the apostles, not following the apostles, and yet he performs miracles in Christ's name and with Christ's blessing.

Am I to believe that people who associated with this man, who followed his teachings about Christ, and were converted to Christ through him, were wrong, or "less equal" to the Apostolic church? Following the church that was shepherded by the Apostles is a good thing, done Biblically its a right thing. But I'm not about to say that someone who follows the teachings of the Bible, who knows Jesus and is known by Him, but doesn't prescribe to Orthodox methods is in the wrong. In that passage from Mark, Jesus proved that one can follow Him without being under the teaching of the Apostles, much to their chagrin.

But perhaps I'm putting this on too personal a level.

[boofhead]

I'm no expert, but I am a Protestant, so I'll give my two-cents.

The RC church of the middle-ages was twisted beyond belief. Clergy had a stranglehold over the bible (it being only in Latin) and could quote it to suit themselves. Poor people had to pay money as penance for forgiveness, or go on some Crusade to attain eternal life. With such poverty in Europe because of the feudal system, and with people seeing the almost sickening wealth of the so-called 'spiritual' church, why would people NOT become disenchanted? I won't even mention the inquisitions, witch-hunts, burnings etc. This is all true, as centuries later the RC church has acknowledged this and apologised.

From my protestant perspective the RC church errs in several ways.

The idea of an infallible Pope - well, that is just ridiculous to me. Where is the biblical justification for this?

The idea of only one church - well, the bible says a church is not a building but actually the fellowship of believers, and when there are three or more people praying together they are a fellowship. So if I pray with two of my mates in my garage then I am in a 'church'.

Praying to the dead - this whole thing about saints. The bible doesn't mention Purgatory, and the concept of Hell is a misinterpretation. The SHEOL of the bible referred to the dumping ground for vegetable matter, dead animals and executed criminals outside Jerusalem. They used to throw lime or phosphorous or something on it to and burn the filth away. Hence the concept of being thrown into Sheol to burn. The bible says hell is where God is NOT, i.e., nowhere, void, nothingness. Those who die and are to be saved will sleep until they are raised upon Jesus' return. So who are RC's praying to? I understand taking their lives as moral examples, but to pray to dead humans? Please.

Ritual Overemphasized - Jesus on numerous occasions speaks of the danger of performing ritual acts to be perceived as a 'good' person etc. It doesn't mean you are good if your heart is black. Why pray to a cross? It is a bit of wood. What is the rosary thing all about? I have been to a RC church where it was all chanting in Latin etc with smoking censors and water being thrown over everyone. It was bizarre and what positive Christian message did I walk away with? NONE. It was a waste of time. Never heard a word in English or an uplifting sermon.

I agree with you about the 34,000 Protestant groups - it's a bit ridiculous and they all seem to think they are the only way to heaven. What rubbish. If I believe in Jesus as the son of God and that he died for my sins and that I should follow the wisdom of this wise shepherd to the best of my ability in thought and act then I will be saved. Pretty simple really.

With this guarantee from Christ I do not need a Pope, or Latin, or Mother Mary (another dead chick), or censors with smoke or saints or buildings. The entire RC church is based upon certain interpretations of certain verses - as soon as bibles could be read by the layman these interpretations were legitimately questioned. Catholics and Protestants alike are Christian.

It is all in the heart, brother.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I'm no expert, but I am a Protestant, so I'll give my two-cents.

Well, I'm an atheist, but several people here have made statements about history which are patently incorrect. I'll leave the theology etc to you guys, but a couple of points about the history involved:

The RC church of the middle-ages was twisted beyond belief. Clergy had a stranglehold over the bible (it being only in Latin) and could quote it to suit themselves.

This is incorrect. The clegy did not have some kind of 'stranglehold' on the Bible and definitely could not 'quote it to suit themselves'. They also couldn't interpret it to suit themselves. The reason the Bible was less widely available as a book was that, before printing, any book has highly expensive. Simply owning a copy of a single book of the Bible cost the equivalent of a modern small car and owning a copy of all of the books of the Bible cost the equivalent of a large modern house. Despite this, non-clergy who could read (and the numbers of such people increased markedly as the Middle Ages went on) regularly owned various books of the Bible - Psalms ('the psalter') and the gospels were particularly popular. They were also available in non-Latin translation. The reason they were usually in Latin is that Latin was the language of literacy - when you learned to read you learned to read in Latin.

Even those who were illiterate were still more familiar with the Bible than most modern people. If you went to Mass regularly you would hear a reading of almost the entire Bible over the course of the liturgical season and these would be followed by a sermon (not in Latin) which went through that day's readings, translated them and explained them in relation to each other. This is why modern students of medieval popular literature need to have a Bible by their side as they read works like Dante, Chaucer and Boccaccio to look up the many and various Biblical references that litter these works - a medieval reader of those poems wouldn't need to do this: they already knew the Bible pretty well. The idea that only clergy read the Bible and only they were Biblically literate in the Middle Ages is a myth.

Poor people had to pay money as penance for forgiveness

No, they did not. Forgiveness was free and penances were allocated on the basis of what would be appropriate to the penitent. The only people likely to have to do a penance which required them to spend money were people who could afford to. The idea that medieval people had to pay for forgiveness is also a myth. The abuse of the indulgence system (something quite different) in Luther's time was an abberation and it was not just Luther who objected to it.

or go on some Crusade to attain eternal life.

That was not the only way to (potentially) attain salvation.

With such poverty in Europe because of the feudal system, and with people seeing the almost sickening wealth of the so-called 'spiritual' church, why would people NOT become disenchanted?

The 'feudal system' was not part of the economy of most of Europe at any time in the Middle Ages and it was pretty much dead and gone by the Reformation. Europe had gone through an economic boom in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries and, by the time of the Reformation, had recovered from the economic setbacks of the Fourteenth Century to be richer than it had been at any time.

But yes, abuses and corruption in the Church were a major motivation for the Sixteenth Century Reformation, just as they had been for the Tenth Century Reformation (the one most Protestants have never even heard of).

I won't even mention the inquisitions, witch-hunts, burnings etc.

Persecution of people who held 'unorthodox' religious ideas was not exclusive to the Catholic Church - ask the Puritains of Protestant England or the Anabaptists and other non-conformers of Protestant Europe. And the 'witch-hunts, burnings etc.' were a post-Medieval phenomenon which took place largely in Protestant countries - the Catholic Church quickly came to consider the whole witch craze a stupid superstition, though Protestant countries were still merrily executing 'witches' into the Eighteenth Century.

... when Constantine made "Christianity" the mandatory religion ...

Constantine never did anything of the sort. He made Christiantiy legal and his support of it raised its prestige. But Christianity didn't become the state religion of the Empire until Theodosius' time and even then it was not made 'mandatory'.

[Zenith Darksea]

Ardeur - that Bible verse is hardly enough to support your viewpoint that it is not necessary to be a member of the Church. If you take that quotation within the context of the Apostolic Church, it makes perfect sense. I would take that to mean that the man was not personally known to them, but was still 'Orthodox'.

But anyway, in the historical context, since the Apostolic Church was established at Pentecost (and not before Christ was resurrected), that quotation isn't really relevant. Furthermore, your post doesn't take into consideration any of my arguments.

boofhead - You're right, the Latin Church of the Middle Ages was somewhat misguided - but to recap on the arguments that I set forward, that is a reason to return to Orthodoxy, not to try to lay the foundations afresh (something that culturally isolated Western 'scholars' were hardly in a position to do anyway, even if it wasn't un-Biblical).

You're right, the Church is not a building. The Church is the fellowship of Orthodox Christians, and perhaps some others who are isolated from Orthodoxy and are known only to God. But just because you get together with some friends and do what you personally think is the way to God doesn't mean that you've found God's one True Church (again I'd point you to the arguments set forth above).

As for Purgatory, no, the Latin Church is wrong about that. What the New Testament does talk about is Hades (using that exact term), something that the Orthodox still have but the West has curiously forgotten. It's a big topic, and one for another discussion thread, but this article deals with it rather well: http://www.protomartyr.org/prayer.html

The Orthodox Church is ritualistic like the Latin Church. And while Christ did warn against too much ritual, He didn't ban it. In fact, St Paul in his letters talks about how good order and ritual are positive things in worship (when done in a moderate and correct fashion). Furthermore, these days the Latin Church does use English, and I know that the Orthodox Church in the West preaches its sermons in English.

Actually your note on salvation isn't so simple. In fact what you said is essentially correct, but I've met various Protestants whose views will swing wildly from double predestination (you have absolutely no choice or ability) to absolute freedom. Interpretation of the Bible is not simple at all, but as Christ promised, the Holy Spirit has provided and will provide guidance for the Orthodox Christian Church, which in turn guides Christians.

You don't need a Pope perhaps, and you may not even need the all holy Theotokos (or Mary, as you call her). You may even be able to do without incense and chanting. However, you cannot do without the brotherhood and unity provided by the Christian Church.

[Kscott]

I really dont agree with you at all.

This is the protestant side of things.

-Jesus preached
- The early Christian community grew and people started to write down what Jesus had said
-Eventually Rome got hold of the Church and added things to it. We see an infusion of the Roman State and the Christian Church and the result is somehting that was in many ways opposed to Jesus's original teachings.
-Throughout the Centuries the Catholic Church became the focus of itself and the focus on God was lost.
-Following the Humanist movement people get fed up with the corruption, superstition and unbiblical practices(Luther for example could only find 2, not 7 sacraments)
-The Protestant reformation occurs and people begin to make religion about God, not the Church.
-Through the Protestant Reformation the other Churches(Catholic and Orthodox) have changed their ways signifigantly. The Catholic Church of today is far more "protestant" in nature than its 15th century counterpart.

Honestly whats wrong with a bunch of Churchs? For the most part they all follow the same central doctrines and the way of practicing them differs. I only see it as beneficial.

[Zenith Darksea]

-Eventually Rome got hold of the Church and added things to it. We see an infusion of the Roman State and the Christian Church and the result is somehting that was in many ways opposed to Jesus's original teachings.

A lot of people say this, but it isn't actually true. If you compare Christianity after the death of Constantine the Great to Christianity before the death, there is no change at all. In fact, the only controversy at the time was over Christological issues (about which the vast majority of Christians agreed anyway), and this hardly matters because (most) Protestants take the Orthodox line. I'd point out that the entire organisation of the Church had already existed for a long time before the Roman state 'got hold of it'. If you can provide evidence of the Church radically changing when the Roman Empire adopted it as its state religion, then I'd be interested to hear it. However, I doubt you have any evidence, because all the evidence, archaeological and textual, points towards continuity.

-Throughout the Centuries the Catholic Church became the focus of itself and the focus on God was lost.

In the West it's true to say that the Pope became too authoritarian and tried to gain supremacy over other bishops, but otherwise this statement can't really be supported. As for corruption, all I can say is that that's just the Latin Church for you.

-The Protestant reformation occurs and people begin to make religion about God, not the Church.

This is just the problem - Protestants can't see how God and His Church are inextricably linked. We are not saved as individuals, but as a united community in the Church. Anyway, my arguments for this are above, in my first post.

Through the Protestant Reformation the other Churches(Catholic and Orthodox) have changed their ways signifigantly.

This may be true of the Latin Church, but it is absolutely untrue to make such allegations about the Orthodox. In every encounter between Orthodox and Protestants through the ages, both in letters and personal meetings, the Orthodox always upheld the integrity of the faith and the evidence bears this out. Besides, the Orthodox knew practically nothing about Protestants. In the nineteeth century, one English ambassador was dismayed to find out that the Patriarch of Constantinople had not heard of the Archbishop of Cantebury. Admittedly in the twentieth century the Greek rite Orthodox brought their calendar into line with the West, but that's scarcely a theological compromise.

Honestly whats wrong with a bunch of Churchs?

I hate to repeat myself, but:

1 Cor. 3.9-11:

“Brethren, we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building on it. Each builder must choose with care how to build on it. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.”

John 17.20-23:

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

[Kscott]

A lot of people say this, but it isn't actually true. If you compare Christianity after the death of Constantine the Great to Christianity before the death, there is no change at all. In fact, the only controversy at the time was over Christological issues (about which the vast majority of Christians agreed anyway), and this hardly matters because (most) Protestants take the Orthodox line. I'd point out that the entire organisation of the Church had already existed for a long time before the Roman state 'got hold of it'. If you can provide evidence of the Church radically changing when the Roman Empire adopted it as its state religion, then I'd be interested to hear it. However, I doubt you have any evidence, because all the evidence, archaeological and textual, points towards continuity.

Well just about everyone historian that I have read says the two infused with eachother, but in truth its not the point. The Christianity the Jesus preached as recored in the bible is different than the Christianity pracited by Catholics(as argued by Protestants. This may or may not be true, but if they use the bible as the source there is no flaw in arguing this)

In the West it's true to say that the Pope became too authoritarian and tried to gain supremacy over other bishops, but otherwise this statement can't really be supported. As for corruption, all I can say is that that's just the Latin Church for you.

Indulgencies, buying offices, etc. These are the things Im talking about. A large part of the Protestant Reformation was not dogmatic issues, but issues with how the Catholic Church ran itself. Which intrestingly enough drastically improved as a result of the reformation however irreconciable differences in doctrine meant the schism was still in effect.

This is just the problem - Protestants can't see how God and His Church are inextricably linked. We are not saved as individuals, but as a united community in the Church. Anyway, my arguments for this are above, in my first post.

His Church is the people who follow him, and yes spritually all Christians are inextriciably linked. That does not mean they have to practice their beliefs under the same organization.

This may be true of the Latin Church, but it is absolutely untrue to make such allegations about the Orthodox. In every encounter between Orthodox and Protestants through the ages, both in letters and personal meetings, the Orthodox always upheld the integrity of the faith and the evidence bears this out. Besides, the Orthodox knew practically nothing about Protestants. In the nineteeth century, one English ambassador was dismayed to find out that the Patriarch of Constantinople had not heard of the Archbishop of Cantebury. Admittedly in the twentieth century the Greek rite Orthodox brought their calendar into line with the West, but that's scarcely a theological compromise.

To be honest I know little of the Orthodox Church, and my arguemtns are really centered at the Catholic Church.

1 Cor. 3.9-11:

“Brethren, we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building on it. Each builder must choose with care how to build on it. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.”

And why cant Protestants lay on the same foundation as Catholics and Orthodox. I really dont see any support in this quote for your position...

John 17.20-23:

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

Again unity in belief does not mean one must pratice under the same organization.

[I Have a Clever Name]

The quotations Zenith provided seem pretty explicit in their meaning, it relates specifically to a singular Church community. Idealistic perhaps, but nevertheless its there. The Latin Church was, of course, a politically corrupt, autocratic institution with a monopoly on education - utterly contrary to Christ's teachings. From what I can see (with my limited understanding) the Orthodox Church was not blighted in such a manner, so the establishment of a Protestant church was hardly necessary.

Yet of course the Protestant movement was, political as well as religious. The northern monarchs knew a national church could be manipulated with far more ease than that which was linked the Latin Church - I highly doubt they wished to integrate with the Orthodox ecclastical community, which, although lacking in the autocratic sway of the papacy, still had a cohesive network. The kings wished to dominate their respective churches - they had been held in check by the papacy for centuries, and now wanted to dominate their realms without that previous bastion of foreign power.

It was also a fresh, revolutionary movement - devoid of any tradition. Humanism, subjectivism, theological reform - these were the driving forces behind the movement. Having been subject to corrupt medium of the Catholic Church, they wished to focus on a relationship with God on an individual basis. The Orthodox Church was too traditional, too archaic, for the likings of the radical think-tanks of the religious revolution.

So I can see where Zenith is coming from, and certainly the quotations he provided are convincing from what I can see (I'm hardly a master of Biblical theology, as you might imagine). It just seems unrealistic to condemn the Protestant movement, forged out of a re-energizing philosophical and political desires for having not entered the fold of the conservative, seemingly backward fold of Orthodoxy. It should have done, unless the Orthodox Church wasn't the unblemished institution we are seemingly entertaining (my understanding is limited), but it just wasn't feasible - I can certainly sympathise with the Protestants. Thankfully it didn't, and the subjective, rational perspective that was unleashed gave way to rational philosophical advancement without precedent!

Now that we're several centuries on however, the scriptures remain - I'm interested as to how the Protestants will respond. Seems hard to believe its this black and white. Not a topic that directly concerns me, but I find it fascinating.

[ENSAIS]

Hi guys,
what I think we are missing is just where all these rituals were coming from that were objected to by the Protestant reformation: the occult and pagantry.

Because the Bible was out of reach for the common man, and because the RC priesthood had become in a sense a temporal power, there was quite a bit of ignorance about what the Bible actually teaches. Not a problem when the early church was a very small, persecuted buch... because no one in his right mind would want to say he was a Christian unless he actually was one.

But when Constantine made "Christianity" the mandatory religion, we see a creeping effect of adding existing pagan rituals to so-called Christian celebrations and rituals. From Christmas trees to easter eggs to praying for the dead.

As far as the Church being one body. It is one body. The Bible is very clear that if we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved. But it does not end there. The belief is an active, life changing belief, old things pass away, and one is a new Creature in Christ, who as his sheep can hear his voice [and do his will], a Chirstian justified by faith, exhibiting works by which the world knows we are His disciples.

The problem with having, say, 1 Church for all of New York City, is not that God is not the God of all those who I just mentioned above. The problem is that how low do you have to go to reach a common demoninator just to be united?

Are we to fellowship to "fellowship with darkness"-- those who clearly don't line up with Biblical teaching do what happened in the early church and spead dissention and disbelief everywhere? On the other hand are we to not heed Christ's words to "beware the leaven of the Pharisees'" and fellowship with judgmental hypocrites and persons who would strain at a nat rather than follow the Spirit?

The reality of so many churches and so many orthodoxies can be a bit overwhelming. In my personal experience though, I have found that I can fellowship meaningfully with quite a few of the splinters of Protestantism, and in many ways some denominational differences are more geneology than substance... and you can see proof of that as a Protestant when visiting other Churches on vacation, for example.

That is not to say that all are pretty much the same. There can be quite a different standard --to the point that you would think in one Church Christ is love only, and another He is justice only.... all that is due to the fallability of man.

And because of that fallability I don't think you will find a united Church before Christ comes.

ENSAIS

PS and back to part of the question which inherently infers that a Protestant from one of these 34,000 groups should just be RC instead.

Well, I was impressed by Pope Jean Paul and by the new pope. Frankly, they seem to be Christian to me [not that my opinion means anything at all on judgment day] and I applaud their strict doctrine and the way they have lived their public lives. Having said that, you know Paul specifically states that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife, etc....
Timothy 3:2-7
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

...not some pedophile/ homosexual/ pervert whatever that is rife in the US Bishopric. You really want me and my very salvation to be under the leadership of an organization that so poorly controls its own leadership?
God forbid.

You correctly point out that there should be unity... but obviously the Church is too full of pretenders and willful sinners to effectively be one.

[carl-the-conqueror]

you'll probably find alot of it is the same, but it isnt as organised so they call it there own thats what happened imo

[Zenith Darksea]

But when Constantine made "Christianity" the mandatory religion, we see a creeping effect of adding existing pagan rituals to so-called Christian celebrations and rituals. From Christmas trees to easter eggs to praying for the dead.

As it happens, Easter eggs aren't part of Christianity, and Christmas trees were an aspect of German (Protestant) culture that came to Britain and America in the nineteenth century. While it's true that Christian festivals were placed on the same date as pagan festivals, this was a practical measure and probably started before the time of Constantine anyway. As for prayers of intercession for the dead, you can find a full explanation of this completely Christian and Biblical practice here: http://www.protomartyr.org/prayer.html

As far as the Church being one body. It is one body.

Well that's my point. The question is however how Protestants can possibly fit this in with their beliefs. There is one Church, and that is the Orthodox Church.

The problem with having, say, 1 Church for all of New York City, is not that God is not the God of all those who I just mentioned above. The problem is that how low do you have to go to reach a common demoninator just to be united?

What an odd thing to say. There is only one truth with God, and it's hardly a 'low' denominator. Besides, the Orthodox seem to have managed this problem perfectly well.

And because of that fallability I don't think you will find a united Church before Christ comes.

Yes you can. It's called the Orthodox Church.

PS and back to part of the question which inherently infers that a Protestant from one of these 34,000 groups should just be RC instead.

You didn't read my post correctly. In fact, you've just proven the whole point of my post. I was arguing that the Protestants were correct to find flaws in the Roman Catholic Church, but should have rejoined with the Orthodox Church in which these flaws have not appeared. However, due to their ignorance and isolation, they formed their own wild variety of splinter groups. And just to make this abundantly clear:

I'm not Roman Catholic, I'm Orthodox.

[ENSAIS]

I really don't want to begin criticizing any sincere faith here. So I wont. I wont criticize RC, I wont criticize the OC.

Bottom line for me is that if you are truly a believer transformed by faith in Christ, we together are the body and church of Christ... regardless of if our Chirch has the same sign hanging out front or not.

I would separate your plea for increased unity [which is good] from a dictate that we must all join the same denomination [which is problematic for questions of doctrine, practice, logistics, etc.]

ÉNSAIS

[ENSAIS]

2 points to Kscott-
1st, I gave you rep for the quality of post 12. Not to say that other posts in this thread haven't been of high quality. But yours seems so far to have deftly gotten to the heart of the issue: unity of belief does not entail unity of organizations, and the scriptures quoted would not condemn Protestants for not being Orthodox any more than they condemn Orthodox for not being Cathholic...

2nd, with the amount of rep you already have there o "glorious beacon of light" I am a bit surprised by your current sog... but I definitely see your point. My only neg rep to date is for a post for which I also got pos rep for. As a non citivate, I have no idea who gave me what rep. Might be interesting to know though. hmmm...
ENSAIS

[Sétanta]

Roman Catholics are Orthodox in belief, they are just the "Western Orthodox" Church, if you will. With of course the varying beliefs from the eastern church.

[Dromikaites]

Roman Catholics are Orthodox in belief, they are just the "Western Orthodox" Church, if you will. With of course the varying beliefs from the eastern church.

And actually the diferences in dogma are really minor and sort-of agreed upon since some 6 centuries ago. What really prevents the reunification are the primacy and the infailibility of the Pope.

[Zenith Darksea]

Sorry for being so late to reply in this thread. I've been on holiday. I'd just like to begin with a word to Mudd - the Roman Catholics are sort of Orthodox. They are generally speaking the descendents of the Orthodox in the West, but they hold a number of beliefs (eg. Papal infallibility, the Immaculate Concepion, the filioque etc.) that are decidedly un-Orthodox and they are not a part of the Orthodox communion.

regardless of if our Chirch has the same sign hanging out front or not.

But of course it's not that simple. It's not just a question of 'signs'. It can produce widely varying differences, with different denominations giving wildly varying advice for salvation (can I just sit back and rest on my laurels, or do I have to do something?) and having wildly varying opinions of each other.

Well just about everyone historian that I have read says the two infused with eachother

I'm quite prepared to accept that, but that's hardly the same thing as saying that Christian doctrine was changed by the Roman Emperor. Furthermore, the Church, while it cooperated much more with the Imperial administration in a symbiotic relationship, was not so closely intertwined that it could not be independent. For instance, when the Turks finally conquered the Roman Empire in 1453, the Orthodox Church went on on its own, without an Imperial administration to give it secular support.

Christianity the Jesus preached as recored in the bible is different than the Christianity pracited by Catholics(as argued by Protestants. This may or may not be true, but if they use the bible as the source there is no flaw in arguing this)

I quite agree with this point.

His Church is the people who follow him, and yes spritually all Christians are inextriciably linked. That does not mean they have to practice their beliefs under the same organization.

Why not? Actually I think that it would be a good idea here to determine what we mean by 'organisation'. I am in the Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain, which falls under the See of the Oecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople. I would be in full communion (and thus the same Church) with someone under the Patriarch of Antioch or Moscow, but I'm not in the same organisation. Christians ought to be linked by belief and communion, though a rigid administrative unity is not as necessary as you might think.

To be honest I know little of the Orthodox Church, and my arguemtns are really centered at the Catholic Church.

Well of course this was the mainstay of my argument. In a way we have the Latin Church to 'blame' for this, but I would also point to a scholastic arrogance in Western circles - Christianity may be an Eastern religion, but a lot of people couldn't care less about what Christians in the East believe, and they can't see beyond the ends of their own noses. Western Protestants assume that it's just them and the Latin Church, and as a result they can't gain a real grounding in Christianity. I should point out, in case anyone is unaware, that I am a Westerner myself.

And why cant Protestants lay on the same foundation as Catholics and Orthodox. I really dont see any support in this quote for your position...

Well I did explain this, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The Protestant position is this - the Latin Church has become corrupt, therefore we must re-establish the 'original' Church. This has several implications, chiefly that the Church of Christ at one point ceased to exist as it should be. This is mildly blasphemous, as Christ promised that He would never leave His Church and that 'the gates of Hell' would not 'prevail against it'. The Protestant position implies that for a short while the Holy Spirit deserted the Church and that it's down to Protestants to have a guess at what it ought to be like. The second implication is that guesswork - the vast multiplicity of Protestant denominations reveals how difficult a process it is to guess what the original Church must have been like from a personal interpretation of the Bible (and it can be read many ways, hence the necessity for a single Church to provide guidance to the individual), and most of these Protestant interpretations are pure fantasy.

You ask why the Protestants can't build on the same foundations as the Orthodox. It's quite obvious really. There was a gulf of one and a half thousand years, Western scholastic culture was enormously different to the culture of Eastern Christianity after the Pentecost and by its very nature the process involves throwing away everything that you had before and starting all over again based on some guy's legalistic guesswork. Protestants certainly do not lay on the same foundation as the Orthodox.

[Dromikaites]

For instance, when the Turks finally conquered the Roman Empire in 1453, the Orthodox Church went on on its own, without an Imperial administration to give it secular support.

Actually not really: the official position of Mehmed II and the following sultans was that the Orthodox Church was under their protection, as strange as it might sound to us today.

It was that delicate situation of a Muslim emperor protecting the Christian Orthodox Church that resulted in eventualy having all the Orthodox national churches ruled by clerics with the rank of patriarch (the so-called autocephaly - the head of a national church did not report anymore to the patriarch of Constantinople). Secular support outside the Ottoman empire was provided by the Orthodox princes/kings/emperors while inside the Ottoman empire the Sultan was the one that backed with his secular power the decisions of the Patriarch of Constantinople and of the Orthodox church (on issues like the legal implications of divorce, on the taxes owed to the Church, on Church's property, on the authority of the Church's hierarcy over its own priests, etc).

[Zenith Darksea]

Actually not really: the official position of Mehmed II and the following sultans was that the Orthodox Church was under their protection, as strange as it might sound to us today.

Official, yes, but in reality the only interference from the Sultans was to take bribes and execute people. The relationship was not at all comparable with the earlier relationships between Patriarch and Roman Emperor. But that's getting off-topic.

I'd like to add that I find it surprising that so many people here were unaware that I was arguing from an Orthodox perspective and assumed that it was the old Protestant-Catholic debate. The last line of my original post ought to have made it quite clear that this was not the case. Perhaps it was not read very carefully?

[the Eternal Cocoon]

Protestants try to imitate the Church of the New Testament. But this is not only unnecessary, it is harmful and runs counter to historical Christian belief and the promises of Christ. Their willingness to leave the Latin Church and its authoritarian innovations is commendable, but the Protestant culture of reinvention has no tenable intellectual or historical basis. The Latin Church at least knows the value of its Apostolic Succession.

The Orthodox however do not try to imitate the Church of the New Testament, they are the Church of the New Testament.

Something that struck me as interesting is that you said that the fragmentation fo christian idealogy is a result of western individualism. But how do you know that it is not the other way around. Ofcoruse western individualism was in full flow in the south in italy and in some remoste parts of nortern europe, but for the most part it did not reach the lower parts of society (which back then was the average part of society). At the time of Luther was the average german of french peasent individualistic or creative? Was it thier creativeness and inventiveness that lead to the creation of lutherism and other sects, or was it the nessesity to choose between traditional ideas and new ideas that lead to them being creative and inventive?

Otherwise, what is the diffrence between new christian idealogy being re-invented by the papacy or by the average bloke on the street? The Pope has no more credibility in bible touting than anyone else who has ever read the bible. Ofcourse the acerage person does not have the prestige that a pope does nor will his interpretation have the presitage a papal interpretation will, but they are both the same thing, a re-interpretation of the same thing that has been re-interpeted by the prevous generation. What reason is there to there being only a few people re-inventing christanity and not the general christian community. When you qoute teh bible saying that jesus chirst is the foudnation and that it is to be built on carefully, does not say why the pope should be the one to build on the foundation, and not bob from nantucket or Luther from germany.