
The article was against this idea. I must admit that I am not that much against
it. Not for Catholics mind you, but for
much of the Protestant world I do not think it that far off track. Once one lets go of the catholic ideal in the
small “c” sense (that they may all be one John 17:21), how can one really argue
against it as long as certain precautions are met. The word catholic means universal. For Catholics, it means one Church for all
peoples, all times, everywhere. There a
ton of implications with that, far too many to go into here but which include such
as unity in worship, leadership, belief, and etc.

There was in interesting religious (non-denominational
Protestant) talk show on the radio a few years ago (the particulars escape me
now) concerning the problem of people not showing up for Protestant
services. A man called in who said he
and few other families were no longer satisfied with the Protestant churches in
his area and so, after taking classes in the Bible, they decided to start their
own Church. They gather at each other’s
homes on Sunday morning, sing, read Scriptures, and have a sermon that is
crafted just for them. The radio host
admitted that he could not argue with him.
They were getting back to the roots of Christianity (in their view.) Where did they get their authority to do
this? The same place that John Wesley
did.
The on-line Church is just the next phase of this I would
think. Why not? The biggest question would be why
bother? Perhaps it would be nice not to
have to write your own sermon, study the Bible, or come up with your own
hymns. But instead PayPaling this
minister, why not invite your two neighbors over and start your own
Church? It seems a natural evolution of
the roots of the movement.
Unless your theology is really about universal community and
sacraments and Apostolic succession (as the Catholic Church holds it) and human
touch and voice and unity as a corporate body connected in worship, leadership,
and belief. Then there is a
problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment