Ahhh, I love that reasoning because really, when that form of "church" began it was new and different from the original... so really the only one who can honesltly make that comment would be Paul since there was no church before that...and for some reason I don't think Paul would make that excuse seeing as really he was part of something new and different.
'If God had meant us to have the new, he wouldn't have given the old,'Reminds me of the debate over which "form" of Scripture to use. "If God wanted us to use other translations, he wouldn't have given us the King James!"Fascinating article. :-)
If God had meant for us to have babies...there would be no old people in the world!
Seriously, I felt a number of emotions when I read the article. I was really pissed at first, but then that passed into amusement, which passed into a sort of passive thoughtfulness, and then back to amusement when I realized that the only people who really care what they have to say are other Christians, and very few of them at that. And since, as a missional Christian, I'm primarily concerned with people who aren't Christians (least of all Anglicans), I figure if they have to rant and rave a little, that's fine.The other thing is that later on, the article got a major hit from the media when they were proven that the article about the nudist Christian missionary group was actually a satire, and the Sydney Anglicans hadn't checked their facts. At all. Which moved me from amusement to sheer laughter.
I read the whole article and kept wondering, "what about Jesus? What about having a personal relationship with Christ?" I get lost in all the theological jargon. I like to stick to the basics...following Christ and His teachings.
Post a Comment