. . . to the weblog of
jon p. amos, hollie's
husband & dad of
ethan, levi, finn,
ellie, marley,
& sullivan

My Photo

my complete profile
theology pintnight
hollie's xanga
kids' photos

blog roll
formerly powered by

bible gateway
daily office

Seminary, etc
Why "A minor"?
November 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
October 2008
November 2008
January 2009
July 2009
August 2009
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011

A minor


Saturday, April 1, 2006

What I Mean By "Catholic"
This post was inspired by recent conversations on Jeff Steel's blog and on our theology pintnight discussion group.

I'm a Reformational, evangelical, ecumenical catholic. I can't deny that I'm a Protestant, but I'd like to think that I'm an evangelical, ecumenical catholic, too. What does this mean?

For one, I prayerfully long and work for the unity of the church. I believe that the church was instituted by God for the life of the world - it is the missio Dei. So I believe in an institutional, missional church. However, I agree with Bishop Bledsoe that metropolitan rather than denominational unity is what the early church had and is where the church of the future is headed. And metropolitan unity is a very organic, messy, wonderful thing.

For another, having said this, I have no problem with the bishop of Rome's primacy. I don't think his primacy is written into the law of the world - I don't think it's Gospel or unalterable tradition, but I think it's historically and currently undeniable. The Holy Spirit has chosen to lead the vast majority of Christians worldwide through the pope. Who am I to argue with Him - or him?

But I'm a Protestant, so I do argue with him, or at least protest a few things about the papacy. I think our divisions will be largely healed once the Vatican makes three reforms (and they may well be in the works):

1. The papacy must return to a pastoral model of primacy rather than a juridical or authoritarian one, and he must be primus inter pares, first among equals - not the one man who can speak infallibly ex cathedra.

2. Clerical celibacy must become optional. Enough said.

3. Anything with even the appearance of idolatry must go. That means eucharistic adoration, invocation of saints, veneration of icons, crosses, relics, etc, for the Lord our God is a jealous God. (Cf. Articles 22, 25, 28, 29, and 31.)

I'm not on the road to Rome. I'm on the road to the church of Jesus Christ in Monroe, which includes a number of Roman Catholics. But once the Catholic Church makes certain reforms, I think the church of Jesus Christ in Monroe will be all the better and stronger for it.

jon :: link :: comment ::

This page is powered by Blogger.
Site Meter