I don’t get it.
I mean, maybe you’ll never get married…
not sure how that works…
no if you are a TRUE believer god brings you a husband.
do you think God would bring me a puppy?
1. What Bible verses do you want to have read at your wedding?
2. Choose between: C.S. Lewis or A.W. Tozer.
3. Pre-destination or Free Will?
4. Cessationist or Non-Cessationist?
5. Do you have a prayer language (tongues)?
6. Do you believe that women should not be head pastors of a church?
7. Do you have a friendship like King David and Jonathan?
8. What’s your favorite Psalm?
9. What’s your favorite Proverb?
10. What’s your favorite book in the Bible for non-theological (but rather personal) reasons?
11. What’s your favorite book in the bible for theological (not personal) reasons?
12. Do you think that Joel Osteen is a false teacher?
13. Who is your favorite modern day pastor?
14. Choose between: Francis Chan, John Piper, or John MacArthur
15. Choose between: Joyce Meyer or Beth Moore
16. Have you ever considered naming one of your children from a person in the Bible? If so, who?
17. What are your requirements for the man/woman of God you want to marry.
18. Do you want to marry? How do you view marriage as a Christian?
19. Would you be single for Christ if that’s what God called you to?
20. What are your preferences for the man/woman of God you want to marry.
21. Who in the modern Christian era inspires you most? Why?
22. Do you consider Mormons to be true Christians?
23. Do you consider Jehovah Witnesses to be true Christians?
24. Do you consider Seventh Day Adventists to be true Christians?
25. Do you consider Oneness Pentecostals to be true Christians?
26. Do you believe that one MUST speak in tongues and be baptized to be saved?
27. What do you believe must be done for one to be saved?
28. What bible verse encourages you most in hard times?
29. Have you ever read the Bible all the way through? If so, how many times?
30. How do you view tithing/giving financially?
31. Do you wear a purity ring?
32. What’s your favorite Christian book that’s not directly in the Bible itself?
34. Who’s your favorite original disciple of Jesus?
35. Give one sentence to describe your testimony.
36. Have you ever been to Israel? Do you want to go there one day?
37. What’s your favorite translation of the Bible?
38. Do you belong to a specific denomination? If so, why do you feel drawn to that one?
39. Were you born and raised as a Christian?
40. Do you relate more to Mary (when she was sitting with Jesus) or Martha (hard at work)?
Half of this made me lol and most of the rest made me facepalm.
Question seven is hilarious in the context and tone of the rest of the questions
I want to use question 7 as the basic of an entirely different kind of Christian question serious. It would be about vestments and Ruth and Naomi.
But I think [Holy Women, Holy Men] has a very good chance of being passed, because the theological problems don’t have traction in a church where giving communion to the unbaptized is being seriously considered. Increasingly it seems that the church is directed by men and women for whom the religious functions of the church are unimportant; what matters is the church as a platform for carrying out a social program.
Of course, this will eventually destroy us. People don’t need to go to church to feel good about their environmentalism (John Muir) or their patronage of the arts (Bach, Durer) or their resistance to racism or sexism or anti-homosexuality (here I stopped keeping track); even the heathen do as much. Maybe it’s too bloody obvious to be said, but the only way we are going to continue to have an Episcopal Church is to convey to potential members a reason to become Episcopalians! Instead, the additions to the calendar and communing the unbaptized send the message that there’s no need to join the church; we give up having any sort of sacramental or communal reason for being. Eventually people catch on, and they don’t join us.
I have so many feelings about this and they are almost all negative.
The trend towards “communing with the unbaptized” * is, first of all, so important in making the church welcoming to new people while distinguishing the Episcopal Church from other Protestant denominations. I don’t think Cradle Episcopalians, (or Catholic Converts) appreciate how new and powerful the Eucharistic Rite seems to people who come from other many Protestant traditions. (It freaks my Dad out every time he comes to church with me.)
And second, “communing with the unbaptized” is a pretty essential Christian act. I feel like it’s implied right there in the rite! ”This is my blood…shed for you and for all for the forgiveness of sin.” I think people have adopted open communion because it makes sense, because it is a perfect ~third way~ between the closed Communion in the Catholic church and no communion at all in many Evangelical churches. And I don’t want to be all strident and 16th century, but I think closed communion is theologically
repugnant ** wrong the same way Eucharistic adoration is wrong and for the same reasons.
I’m as critical of thoughtless liberal wishy washiness as the next person, but it’s not reasonable to accuse people of being pointlessly ~open minded~ when that’s not what’s going on.
*which happens in my church and seems to be pretty common in ~liberal~ Episcopalians.
**that’s a joke, which you probably know, but just making sure.
This is just my thought. Because too much of the obsession about homosexuality and Christianity occurs in the Evangelical “Bible-only” world we become over obsessed with arguing about those dreadful clobber verses. But I think that’s giving too much ground. Demonstrating to me that Scriptural sexual mores exclude gay sex doesn’t prove anything. So what, we’ve rejected most of the household codes and sexual ethics of the New Testament anyways. We’re never gonna move towards a comprehensive sexual ethic if we keep getting bogged down there. The reality is that unless an Evangelical’s biblicism and adherence to inerrancy or infallibility breaks, they’re not going change their mind. This issue runs right to the core of our epistemology; is truth simply rooted in a literal interpretation of Scripture which we are bound to always follow or is it more complicated? Which is why I can recognize that if Im talking to someone that is convinced the Earth is 6,000 years old, that every creature was saved by a flood on a marvellous little boat, and that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, there is no point whatsoever in even trying to discuss homosexuality or anything like that.